Jump to content

Recommended Posts

the issue with this system is that someone who doesn't care about intelligence but does care for strength can easily take an int hit for a str bonus. (min-maxing) Anything irrelevant to the character build could be given up for points that boost the build.

 

I like a traits system like this, but anything that gives you more points to spend should give you less points than an equal bonus would cost.


Remember: Argue the point, not the person. Remain polite and constructive. Friendly forums have friendly debate. There's no shame in being wrong. If you don't have something to add, don't post for the sake of it. And don't be afraid to post thoughts you are uncertain about, that's what discussion is for.
---
Pet threads, everyone has them. I love imagining Gods, Monsters, Factions and Weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the issue with this system is that someone who doesn't care about intelligence but does care for strength can easily take an int hit for a str bonus. (min-maxing) Anything irrelevant to the character build could be given up for points that boost the build.

 

I like a traits system like this, but anything that gives you more points to spend should give you less points than an equal bonus would cost.

The thing is, you can't ever avoid that fact without completely foregoing player choices at character creation altogether. If someone doesn't care that they get 20 HP instead of 100 when they dump Endurance/Constitution and boost the crap out of INT (with just their stat-point allocation, even), then you can't make them care. All you can do is make having more than 20 HP an objective benefit.

 

Now, I DO understand that this upsets a strengths/flaws system in which you pick them separately, because you could always just say "well, I've only got 20 HP, so what do I need HP regen for?" and take a regen detriment to get an extra X points to spend on another bonus that actually affects something you care about. Which is why I'm more and more convinced that the best policy there is to organize the strengths and flaws there by affiliation. I do think pairings that basically just mimic stat allocations are not very good, like "You're really good at damaging things, but you suck at being charming." So, basically, this trait gives you a further Strength bonus, but lessens your Charisma. Of course, if you make super-low Charisma actually affect battling (maybe certain equipment merchants won't even sell to you, or you get hardly any money for the loot you sell because people just-plain hate you), then that might work out. Either way, the penalty you choose (or that's inherently paired with your strength/benefit) should actually affect the same aspect of your character as the benefit, methinks.

 

This is, I think, the core benefit of the whole "no dump stats" policy. Look at Dexterity. Being able to hit things is never not useful in an entire playthrough. PoE isn't designed to allow pacifist runs, so you're going to have a significant amount of foes you need to dispatch. And you can only dispatch them if you can hit them.

 

In D&D, your Wizard doesn't give a crap about DEX, 'cause he can just use spells (which usually always hit, but, more importantly, are not affected by DEX). But, in PoE, whatever you're attacking with is essentially subject to Accuracy, which is derived from DEX. Therefore, If you willingly make a character with horrid Dexterity, you're willingly accepting that inability to hit anything worth a crap.

 

So, it really all depends on how the system's set up. If all the stats end up really being that significant to a lot of things, then it may work perfectly fine for traits to further boost a stat at the cost to another. Is a value of 1 Charisma (just an example -- I realize PoE will not have Charisma) going to be insignificant because everyone'll just be fine with talking to your friends all the time while you never say anything, ever? Or will there be important dialogues in the game in which someone goes all "No, I'm not asking you, I want to hear it from HIM!" and points at you? That kind of thing.

 

Again, if the values are always significant (high OR low), then the tradeoff exists, whether the player cares about it or not.

 

For what it's worth, JFSOCC, I do agree with that 2nd bit, about detriments being worth fewer points than "equivalent" bonuses cost. I think that's pretty much always a good idea, as long as you're using the "pick-'em-separately" approach.

  • Like 2

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...