Update #70: New Year Project Update

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

This is true, but I doubt you're going to find a character almost devoid of both AoE ranges AND duration. If you use nothing but single-shot damage, you're probably just forcibly limiting yourself to a tiny subset of your abilities, for no reason other than that you just don't wan to use anything that would be affected by INT. Both ability effects AND damage-over-time are affected by duration. Possibly even "channeled" attacks (such as "cause fiery explosions from the ground in an area for 3 seconds," or "strike rapidly at your target's weak spots for 3 seconds," etc.).

 

I don't see it limiting myself if I have a Wizard that doesn't specialise in aoe spells or doesn't use INT. I could have a second Wizard in my party to do that. Also how does a spell like Magic Missile damage over time? I had three types of 'Wizards' (Drow Conjurer, Human Sorcerer, Aasimar Sorcerer) in a recent play through of IWD2 with each one specialising in a different area of magic, each had completely different stats from each other and they were all quite OP. Creating different builds isn't limiting yourself, it opens up new possibilities that you would have never guessed and perhaps the developers never anticipated.  Some might see it as breaking the game.

[Valorian]

 

Also, I like Valorian's suggestion, but I'm with Junta on maybe using Resolve instead of INT for magic damage (and, I guess, healing "damage"?). It kind of makes sense for PER to determine magic accuracy, too, instead of DEX, 'cause it's not like you're summoning magical throwing daggers, then just physically throwing them.

 

 

 

 

Glad you like it.

I'm not sure why someone assumed that I'd put spell damage, healing, duration and aoe together into one attribute. 

Resolve sounds more fitting for duration and aoe IMO, you're summoning your inner willpower and concentration to keep the spell up and to increase its magnitude. Intellect for direct spell damage and healing. But both options would work.

 

Yes, that's one of the reasons why I'd switch DEX and PER for spells (accuracy - interrupt/penetration). 

[rjshae]

 

 

This is true, but I doubt you're going to find a character almost devoid of both AoE ranges AND duration. If you use nothing but single-shot damage, you're probably just forcibly limiting yourself to a tiny subset of your abilities, for no reason other than that you just don't wan to use anything that would be affected by INT. Both ability effects AND damage-over-time are affected by duration. Possibly even "channeled" attacks (such as "cause fiery explosions from the ground in an area for 3 seconds," or "strike rapidly at your target's weak spots for 3 seconds," etc.).

 

I don't see it limiting myself if I have a Wizard that doesn't specialise in aoe spells or doesn't use INT. I could have a second Wizard in my party to do that. Also how does a spell like Magic Missile damage over time? I had three types of 'Wizards' (Drow Conjurer, Human Sorcerer, Aasimar Sorcerer) in a recent play through of IWD2 with each one specialising in a different area of magic, each had completely different stats from each other and they were all quite OP. Creating different builds isn't limiting yourself, it opens up new possibilities that you would have never guessed and perhaps the developers never anticipated.  Some might see it as breaking the game.

 

That's a good point -- for optimum performance, Battle-Wizards may specialize in different types of spells depending on their personal qualities (attributes). It'd be similar to players in a team sport focusing on particular positions based on their physical and mental capabilities.

Edited January 16, 2014 by rjshae

[Lephys]

I don't see it limiting myself if I have a Wizard that doesn't specialise in aoe spells or doesn't use INT. I could have a second Wizard in my party to do that. Also how does a spell like Magic Missile damage over time? I had three types of 'Wizards' (Drow Conjurer, Human Sorcerer, Aasimar Sorcerer) in a recent play through of IWD2 with each one specialising in a different area of magic, each had completely different stats from each other and they were all quite OP. Creating different builds isn't limiting yourself, it opens up new possibilities that you would have never guessed and perhaps the developers never anticipated.  Some might see it as breaking the game.

Agh... What I'm saying is, I don't think it'll be possible to "not use INT" without specifically limiting yourself beyond just "I didn't specialize in that." I mean, you could build a Fighter and just specialize in standard attacks, I suppose. Never take any other Fighter ability, ever. Just boost your regular attack, and that's it. Never taunt. Never stun. Nothing.

 

Again, I don't know, but I suspect.. If that isn't the case, and it is, indeed, possible to "not use INT," then they'll probably tweak it thusly. They don't have everything figured out yet. The stats are still a work in progress.

 

It's a valid concern, but I'm not doing anything more than suggesting "it might be pretty much impossible to 'not use INT.'"

 

Glad you like it.

I'm not sure why someone assumed that I'd put spell damage, healing, duration and aoe together into one attribute.

FWIW, I was actually going to point out that moving spell damage to INT wouldn't mean leaving INT the way it was, necessarily -- that you weren't necessarily proposing that. But then, I figured that was kind of moot after Resolve felt like a better fit anyway.

 

But, yeah, I really don't think having the same stats with the same effects, but having physical and magical stuff separated would be super complex. Then again, I'm not the one coding all that and how it ties into the rest of the game, so... *shrug*.

 

In D&D (which many of us are used to), the problem wasn't that Wizards needed INT for stuff and Fighters needed STR, etc. As has been pointed out, STR gave bonus damage for physical attacks, but nothing even did the same for magical ones (spells and the like). So, adding in a mirrored effect for casters, alone, is a good work at balancing things, stat-wise. From there, I think "make STR do SOMETHING useful for Wizards" is a more important goal than "make sure this stat does the same thing for everyone, ever."

 

I dunno... I'm not saying no one's considering this at all or anything, but, if I were making a stat system from the ground up, my focus would be "what would this contribute to all major character decisions -- class, ability focus, ranged-or-melee choice, etc.?", first and foremost. If it became beneficial to kind of globalize some stats, then sure. I mean, DEX isn't really that bad. But then, no one DOESN'T need DEX, for exactly the same reasons. Again, when you get something like that, it seems like maybe it dilutes the non-combat diversity of characters.

 

I hardly think D&D is a perfect system (in any of its forms), but, say what you will about it... you could have a Wizard who was quite capable with spells, but didn't also automatically have master-assassin-level shuriken-aiming skills.

 

Seems like maybe it'd be best for each stat to have like... a primary, secondary, and maybe even tertiary effect. But, I dunno, 'cause it seems like you'll always run into a "why does this stat do this AND this?" to some degree. Like Resolve for magic damage. It's a bit minor, but, if you're a powerful mage, people are also just really, really compelled to believe/trust/listen to you (the non-combat function of resolve being sort of like Charisma, only not just magically covering all persuasive and speech skills and reactions, etc.).

 

I guess what it boils down to is: You can balance all the combat-related effects of stats really nicely, but that still leaves all the other spectrums of ability that don't relate to combat. It was the same in D&D. You were a fully-capable Wizard? (able to get up to 9th level spells) Then you've got 18 INT, and are therefore SUPER smart, and are always very useful whenever that's needed, and get oodles of skill points for things like knowledge skills. Of course, that was spell availability, and not just bonus damage. If Resolve offered bonus damage, you wouldn't NEED max resolve unless you just wanted maximum damage. You're not going to hit a plateau in your Wizardry at level 8, just 'cause you can't keep progressing with spells or anything.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Lephys

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Agh... What I'm saying is, I don't think it'll be possible to "not use INT" without specifically limiting yourself beyond just "I didn't specialize in that." I mean, you could build a Fighter and just specialize in standard attacks, I suppose. Never take any other Fighter ability, ever. Just boost your regular attack, and that's it. Never taunt. Never stun. Nothing.

 

Again, I don't know, but I suspect.. If that isn't the case, and it is, indeed, possible to "not use INT," then they'll probably tweak it thusly. They don't have everything figured out yet. The stats are still a work in progress.

 

It's a valid concern, but I'm not doing anything more than suggesting "it might be pretty much impossible to 'not use INT.'"

 

 

I disagree. Until someone from Obs says INT affects all spells and how they're affected (including protection disabling spells like Breach, Pierce Magic, and spells that don't have duration or aoe like Magic Missile), then I'll still believe you can create viable builds with and without INT.

 

EDIT: Apparently I was right. Josh has said in this very thread that you can build a Muscle Wizard. I didn't even know Josh posted it.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64964-update-70-new-year-project-update/page-6?do=findComment&comment=1407834

Edited January 17, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[lychee26]

My personal feeling is that attributes should go something like;

 

MIG: Physical Damage, penetration?

CON: Stamina, Health

DEX: Accuracy, 

PER: Healing, Interrupt

INT: Magical Damage, AOE

RES: Duration, Concentration

 

Kinda makes Perception rather weak in comparison though.And it might make INT too overpowered, but it also makes it harder to use AOE spell in party situations too, which is sort of like a tradeoff.

[Metabot]

Should stamina and health be tied to the same attribute?

[Lephys]

I disagree. Until someone from Obs says INT affects all spells and how they're affected (including protection disabling spells like Breach, Pierce Magic, and spells that don't have duration or aoe like Magic Missile), then I'll still believe you can create viable builds with and without INT.

 

EDIT: Apparently I was right. Josh has said in this very thread that you can build a Muscle Wizard. I didn't even know Josh posted it.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64964-update-70-new-year-project-update/page-6?do=findComment&comment=1407834

You're more than welcome to disagree, but I still don't think you quite get exactly what I'm saying. Josh saying "you can build a muscle Wizard and pump MIGHT" doesn't really mean anything in relation to the issue (which is whether or not you actually have to limit yourself beyond just build-choice to somehow avoid any and all AoE/effects-with-durations-based abilities whatsoever). You can also build a NON-muscle Wizard, and pump NOT-Might. That doesn't mean damage is somehow no longer an issue because you just picked a Wizard build that doesn't even use damage anymore.

 

Simply put, obviously you can use a greater or lesser number of AoE/duration-based abilities, depending on your build/spec choice, but... can you use zero of them? In other words, if, at Level 5, you have 15 abilities at your disposal, is it even possible to pick only 15 abilities that have nothing to do with AoE or durations, whatsoever? Or would you have to either pick 10 (for example) unaffected-by-INT abilities, and 5 that WERE affected, and just never use those 5? OR, just only pick 10 abilities, and never even pick the last 5 (forcibly limit yourself)?

 

That's what I'm getting at. And, again, I don't know whether or not you can. But... it seems unlikely. At least for certain classes. The further you progress, the more unlikely it seems. At some point, you're going to have like 40 abilities. NONE of which apply any effects or strike more than a single target? That seems odd. Not impossible, but odd.

 

That being said, I shall also re-iterate that what you'regetting at is valid, as well. Perhaps INT needs more than what it has, or the effects need to be tweaked a bit to have a greater effect on a larger variety of builds.

 

I'm not arguing with you. I'm simply positing something that I think should be considered alongside what you're suggesting.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Lephys

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

You're more than welcome to disagree, but I still don't think you quite get exactly what I'm saying. Josh saying "you can build a muscle Wizard and pump MIGHT" doesn't really mean anything in relation to the issue (which is whether or not you actually have to limit yourself beyond just build-choice to somehow avoid any and all AoE/effects-with-durations-based abilities whatsoever). You can also build a NON-muscle Wizard, and pump NOT-Might. That doesn't mean damage is somehow no longer an issue because you just picked a Wizard build that doesn't even use damage anymore.

 

That's what I'm getting at. And, again, I don't know whether or not you can. But... it seems unlikely. At least for certain classes. The further you progress, the more unlikely it seems. At some point, you're going to have like 40 abilities. NONE of which apply any effects or strike more than a single target? That seems odd. Not impossible, but odd.

 

 

Why would it seem unlikely if you don't even know? Especially as you level up? It seems odd to be arguing from a position with no information released on spells, especially since Josh mentioned you could do a muscle wizard. There may be some drawbacks to a muscle wizard like not being able to do aoe spells, but that's the whole point of this type of muscle wizard because that's what a traditional wizard would be for.

 

If we use the IE games as a basis with its spells, not only does it seem likely that a muscle wizard with low INT is a viable option, it's even more viable as you do level up. Because most of the spells are not aoe. It would probably be a great alternative to a traditional wizard. And having both a muscle wizard and an aoe wizard in the same party would likely complement each other.

 

 

I'm not arguing with you.

 

It sure seems that way.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

Why would it seem unlikely if you don't even know? Especially as you level up? It seems odd to be arguing from a position with no information released on spells, especially since Josh mentioned you could do a muscle wizard. There may be some drawbacks to a muscle wizard like not being able to do aoe spells, but that's the whole point of this type of muscle wizard because that's what a traditional wizard would be for.

I dunno... How can it SEEM like INT is going to be useless for a given build if you don't know?

 

I'm just going to say this: A "muscle Wizard" is just a Wizard who focuses on damage. Guess what does damage? AoE-and-duration-based spells, as well. Correct. Being able to focus on Might, as a Wizard, in no way means that you can feasibly use no AoE or duration-based abilities. The key word there being "feasibly."

 

You do with that fact what you please.

 

 

 

If we use the IE games as a basis with its spells, not only does it seem likely that a muscle wizard with low INT is a viable option, it's even more viable as you do level up. Because most of the spells are not aoe. It would probably be a great alternative to a traditional wizard. And having both a muscle wizard and an aoe wizard in the same party would likely complement each other.

 

 

Do most of the spells also lack any form of duration? Riddle me that.

 

Here's the disconnect: You're arguing about what we'll be able to focus on in our builds. All I'm pointing out is that it's less likely you'll be able to build a character that gets NO benefit from INT than it is you'll only be able to build, at best, a character who gets a lot less benefit from INT.

 

If you disagree, then awesome. If you think it's a stupid point and don't really care, and just want to hear something official on it, then still awesome. I'm simply making a postulation. I'm not saying "we probably can't focus on things other than AoE and duration-based abilities." But, there's a difference between focusing on something, and not even looking/seeing anything else.

 

It sure seems that way.

Well, that's splendid. But it's not that way. Believe it or don't. I'm just putting it out there.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Lephys

[The Old Farmer]

Nice look for the character sheet UI, and the art work looks great.  Keep Up the good work.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

I dunno... How can it SEEM like INT is going to be useless for a given build if you don't know?

 

I'm just going to say this: A "muscle Wizard" is just a Wizard who focuses on damage. Guess what does damage? AoE-and-duration-based spells, as well. Correct. Being able to focus on Might, as a Wizard, in no way means that you can feasibly use no AoE or duration-based abilities. The key word there being "feasibly."

 

You do with that fact what you please.

 

Because there are spells that don't use duration or aoe. eg. Magic Missile. There are more spells that are not aoe compared to aoe spells when looking at the IE games. And as I said before: taking the basis of the IE games, there are more non-aoe spells than aoe spells as you level up. And I wouldn't be too concerned about duration in short encounters when I'm dealing high damage. And it's possible that high damage will make those encounters shorter.

 

Duration is good for long battles and this is one of the drawbacks of a muscle wizard with low INT, but without knowing the length of encounters in the game the muscle wizard still seems like a good option for me. But then how many long battles compared to short battles were there in the IE games? I would say the majority of battles weren't that long.

 

Also, a lot of aoe spells are not party friendly. Some encounters may be too small to use aoe spells like fireball when you're in a small room or dungeon. A muscle wizard seems like a good complement to a party as it doesn't hurt your party members with aoe spells and can dish out a lot of damage in a short period of time. Sounds like a good build for boss fights where your melee characters are in the thick of it.

 

 

 

Do most of the spells also lack any form of duration? Riddle me that.

 

Here's the disconnect: You're arguing about what we'll be able to focus on in our builds. All I'm pointing out is that it's less likely you'll be able to build a character that gets NO benefit from INT than it is you'll only be able to build, at best, a character who gets a lot less benefit from INT.

 

If you disagree, then awesome. If you think it's a stupid point and don't really care, and just want to hear something official on it, then still awesome. I'm simply making a postulation. I'm not saying "we probably can't focus on things other than AoE and duration-based abilities." But, there's a difference between focusing on something, and not even looking/seeing anything else. 

 

How would I know if 'most of the spells' in the game lack any form of duration? What a silly question. They haven't been released yet. Nobody knows. And even if some spells have duration, look at my answer above re: short encounters. Are there going to be spells that don't have duration or aoe? Yes, because the PoE trailer shows us.

 

The disconnect is not what I'm arguing about in our builds. I'm not even telling anyone how they should do their builds or how to create their characters. The disconnect is what you're arguing about on information that hasn't been released, about hypotheticals that don't make sense, and about levelling up characters and saying things like "The further you progress, the more unlikely it seems". This doesn't even make any sense when you have no information at hand to back you up.

 

 

 

Well, that's splendid. But it's not that way. Believe it or don't. I'm just putting it out there.          

 

No, it seems you can't accept the concept that given the information at hand, it may be possible to create a Wizard with low INT, pump up Might and still be an effective and viable option to a traditional aoe wizard. Not once have you considered a low INT wizard could be viable. Instead you want to believe that you need INT for wizards, especially when you level up.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Sabotin]

I'll echo a couple of previous posters that the the character sheet (or part of it) could be on the inventory screen. Then you could just color code the changes as a preview when you're hovering or holding an item with your mouse. Not sure if the inventory window would always be open for all party members at the same time, but you could display the character sheet on the side depending on the inventory of which character you're mousing over or something. IE games were very impractical on this and I think it would be cleaner than having long strings of mechanics info in the item descriptions or whatnot.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Sabotin

[PrimeJunta]

@Hiro of course it'll be possible to create an effective low-INT wizard. I thought that was clear from the start. Who's arguing the contrary?

 

FWIW that's not so different from a low-INT D&D3 Sorcerer, which is a perfectly viable character concept. Except that the spells will actually reflect the character's attributes in a visible way. Which is cool IMO.

[TarponCrest]

 

Also I think it would be good if the magic on items was to “fade” over time/use, and one has to do quests/rituals/crafting/tatoos, etc, to recharge them. And maybe even an item ware and tear option in the game option section (check or no to enable/disable).

 

Allow me to explain further. I think it could be beneficial to do an item replenishing system, outside of purchasing them or crafting alone. I think it adds more depth and strategy to the game when one has to consider how and when to use those favorite magical items or rare quest obtained goods rather than forgetting about them once acquiring them. It also brings more meaning to crafting, side questing, and the overall value of the items. So I would propose considering the idea of implementing item magic “degradation”, fast in combat, normal in use(adventuring), and slow in inventory. And such calculations, time left predictions, etc, displayed on the character sheet in detail as well as on the overall effects (positive and negative). For example an item that increases constitution +4 ring, degrades to +3,+2,+1,0,-1,-2,-3,-4. The negative is for someone who keeps an item on to long without “renovating it’s  essence” , doing a quest, enchanting, taking it to “x” location for recharge, etc. We could further allow for faster degradation when stacking magical items, or the converse extra bonuses to benefits if specific criteria is met. For example: If one has an armor provides a % of improved freedom of movement bonus/saves, one could “overcharge” the magic item for X time and get full immunity to movement impeding conditions, but at the conclusion of this effect/time the item is destroyed. The destroyed item now in the inventory (must have enough space and carrying capacity) could be restored by those skilled with crafting, but only into a non magical representation of its former self.

I'm not sure if you saw it but a long time ago on these very boards the developers unveiled their crafting mechanics (http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64048-update-58-crafting-with-tim-cain/). One of these mechanics was a durability system which involved weapons and armor degrading over time. The response was not favorable, a truly epic thread resulted and the final outcome was the developers opted to remove said mechanic due to the overwhelmingly negative reaction. Long story short: there's no way that PoE is going to have any kind of durability system.

 

Thank you for the link I had not seen this (so much to read through... I had missed it.) Well this is why a enable and disable game option for something like this would be in order... However, I still have to finish reading the "epic thread" and get up to speed with members sentiments on this idea. I am sad to see this idea get voted down, but maybe it can be moded in through custom content/script when we get to make our own adventures. Thank you for your reply.

[J.E. Sawyer]

With regards to the attribute system, I've posted previously that players must play to the strengths of their builds.  Character's won't automagically be great at everything.  If you build a wizard with a low-Int, you're de-emphasizing AoE size and durations, which is fine.  A lot of wizard spells have AoEs and durations, but a good number are also single-target/instantaneous.  The power of the wizard is not in brute force, but overall flexibility.  You can choose to stick to a subset of the wizard's spells, but you aren't taking full advantage of their greatest class strength (lots and lots of spells).  Again, totally fine and should be viable.

 

I haven't seen the post but someone said that there was discussion about the arches in the screenshot.  I'm not sure if you can see the details of the arches, but the stones are actually held together with adra.  Adra is a grown, shell-like substance that the Engwithans used both as structural elements and for binding purposes in their architecture.  Often they would build things like traditional stone arches and grow adra in-between, using it like slow-growing mortar.  As their buildings fall apart, it results in impossible-looking/gravity-defying ruins.

[PrimeJunta]

So they're that way on purpose. Well that is rather awesome.

[AndreaColombo]

Josh, not sure you saw my post a couple pages ago—I look forward to your feedback on the matter, so here's some shameless self-quoting for the sake of convenience

 

 

Int increases the durations of all spells with a duration and the size of AoE spells (such as Fireball).For a Fighter it increases the duration of their abilities (such as the one that regenerates stamina), AoE-wise I am not sure, it might work with their defensive mode or something (and I'm pretty sure they have an AoE stun).

I thought I'd chime in on this to ask something to Josh: Is the increase in AoE deriving from INT permanent, or more like a range within which the character may choose a value each time they cast an AoE spell or use an AoE ability?

To clarify: If it is permanent, it is a lot less flexible and might become suboptimal past certain levels and/or in certain circumstances. E.g. I may cast a fireball that hurts my party because of its huge AoE derived from my high INT score. Maybe in certain circumstances I need a smaller fireball to take out fewer enemies that are concentrated in a limited area.

If, on the other hand, INT makes it possible to increase the AoE arbitrarily within a given range, it would gain a lot of flexibility and go a long way toward marking high-INT casters as true masters of their discipline. E.g. Vanilla fireball has an AoE of, say, 30. My high INT score enables me to choose whether to cast it like that, or at 35, or at 40. (again, just an example to clarify what I mean).

 

Edited January 17, 2014 by AndreaColombo

[J.E. Sawyer]

We are looking into either allowing you to scale the effect size or have the "bonus" area be a foe-only AoE.  E.g., if you cast fireball and it normally has a radius of 4m, but it's grown to 6.5m because of your Int, the area added between 4m and 6.5m only affects enemies.  We probably won't get to it for a while, but we've been thinking about it.

[Lephys]

We are looking into either allowing you to scale the effect size or have the "bonus" area be a foe-only AoE.  E.g., if you cast fireball and it normally has a radius of 4m, but it's grown to 6.5m because of your Int, the area added between 4m and 6.5m only affects enemies.  We probably won't get to it for a while, but we've been thinking about it.

This is splendid! It's little stuff like that that many games just sort of deem inconsequential. Every time I see something like this get addressed, it makes me happy.

 

@Hiro:

 

There's no need to worry about it. Really. I made an odd point, and clearly it's one of those things my brain thinks of, but other normal, non-defective brains are not going to grasp because the only obvious points to be made seem to be the ones all around mine. I'm not trying to argue as to the viability of low-INT builds, etc., and I'm not about to start doing so.

 

Seriously, no worries, it's my fault for being incapable of clearly conveying my thoughts, and I'll just let it go.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Lephys

[Pipyui]

Adra is a grown, shell-like substance that the Engwithans used both as structural elements and for binding purposes in their architecture.  Often they would build things like traditional stone arches and grow adra in-between, using it like slow-growing mortar.  As their buildings fall apart, it results in impossible-looking/gravity-defying ruins.

 

Not that I care either way, and I like it, but honesty time: did you come up with that solely to address this issue?

(I like the attention to detail though)

[Valorian]

 

But, yeah, I really don't think having the same stats with the same effects, but having physical and magical stuff separated would be super complex. 

 

From there, I think "make STR do SOMETHING useful for Wizards" is a more important goal than "make sure this stat does the same thing for everyone, ever."

 

 

 

I hardly think D&D is a perfect system (in any of its forms), but, say what you will about it... you could have a Wizard who was quite capable with spells, but didn't also automatically have master-assassin-level shuriken-aiming skills.

 

 

 

I guess what it boils down to is: You can balance all the combat-related effects of stats really nicely, but that still leaves all the other spectrums of ability that don't relate to combat. 

 

 

I also don't think it would be super complex to balance a more nuanced attribute system. They're introducing an interesting concentration/interruption element to combat, which is certainly harder to properly balance than assigning magical and physical damage (and accuracy) to a different attribute.

 

I understand what they're trying to do with attributes, but I believe it's not needed or worth it to sacrifice the RP aspect of an attribute, because the same goal can be accomplished without pushing RP out of the way. What do we really get out of an attribute that increases damage with melee weapons, spells and magic, pistols, helps you bash doors.. It could be as well called POW!, SLAM! or KABOOM!

 

For this reason I'd really like Might (or Strength) to affect magic resistance for spellcasters, but not spell damage. I think it would also make room for some neat mage/fighter builds.

[J.E. Sawyer]

 

Not that I care either way, and I like it, but honesty time: did you come up with that solely to address this issue?

(I like the attention to detail though)

 

 

The concept of adra was developed early on as a not-quite magical material that had some interesting properties.  I like being able to have "impossible" structures, but I don't like hand-waving their impossibility away.

[Jasede]

Seriously, your avatar = my face at this reply.

[Cubiq]

We are looking into either allowing you to scale the effect size or have the "bonus" area be a foe-only AoE.  E.g., if you cast fireball and it normally has a radius of 4m, but it's grown to 6.5m because of your Int, the area added between 4m and 6.5m only affects enemies.  We probably won't get to it for a while, but we've been thinking about it.

If you can't create a scale system i would prefer if it just hit everything. I think it would get pretty confusing on finding where the boundary of the safe zone will be, especially if you have wider blast animations with every new point to Int.

Also not fan of the idea that the reason you don't get hurt outside of 4m zone is "just because".