On the confirmed attributes for PE

[Jarmo]

Well yeah, "might" could be changed to "Soul" or "Funk" and the damage would derive from that, or damage could come from charisma. But I can't see them doing a 180 on the no dump stats rule. 

[JFSOCC]

err, pulling a bowstring further back means you store more power in the shot, it does cause a more powerful shot.

[Silent Winter]

err, pulling a bowstring further back means you store more power in the shot, it does cause a more powerful shot.

Only within a certain range:

Pulling the bow right back to ends touching (or as near as the arrow allows) results in the bow flexing back to a normal position but the initial part of that re-flex is not producing (significant) extra power into the arrow - it's the middle ground that has the biggest 'snap'.

 

A bow produced for the individual, with the right draw-length (such that it's drawn back to cheek) and draw-weight (such that you can draw and briefly hold it there) is going to be more effective than one that has less/more draw-weight for the draw-length or the wrong draw-length (more or less) for the weight.

Better materials, of course, make a stronger bow but that's not about whether any given bow can be made to have more power.

I'm starting to think I imagined the physics I'm talking about, so I'm off to try to find the info from an authoritative source.  I'll be back to confirm whether or not I've been talking out of my nether-scroll.

 

Edit: Read this:

http://www.yeoldearcheryshoppe.com/drawlength.php

about draw weight:

Draw Weight is the peak amount of weight an archer will pull while drawing the bow.  With a traditional bow, the draw weight continues to increase as the bow is drawn.  A compound bow will increase to the peak weight, and then drop in weight to the holding weight.  The holding weight is typically 20-30% of the peak weight.  So a 60# compound bow will only hit 60# for period in the draw cycle, and then will drop down to perhaps a 15# holding weight at anchor. This allows the archer to hold on target much longer than a traditional bow, whose archer would be holding the full 60#s.

 

It's the 'peak weight' that I'm getting at.

 

Any resident archers, please correct me if I've misinterpreted.

 

Edit2: Hmm, maybe I'm wrong - just noticed the bit about the traditional bow - the rest is for a modern compound bow....nevermind.

Edit3: It's still limited by the bow-length, arrow-length, and as far as accuracy is concerned, needs to be compatible with the spine of the arrow.

(but that's getting far too technical for a crpg).  Don't know yet how much 'Might' affects things (what range of damage we're talking about) so it may well be that it's fine anyway.  Failing that - soul/qi-power works for me.

 

So long as it's fun to play

Edited January 17, 2014 by Silent Winter

[Adhin]

This is why i liked the Might bonus in DnD, it's simple but does a relatively good job of representing a high pull strength bow. Basically it's the modifier that would allow you to use up to a certain amount of your strength to the damage, and if you don't meet the full bonus (3 might would take up to 16 of your str). So say your bow had 3 might and you had 14 strength, you'd get +2 dmg but at a penalty of -1 accuracy for not meeting the full bonus. Kinda like using a 150lb when your not fully accustomed to it, your probably not pulling it back far enough with that 14 str you got. And due to that pull your accuracy wont be as good as it could be.

 

Doubt PoE will have anything like that, but it was a mechanic I always liked in 3E for its simplistic representation for high poundage bows.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Adhin

[FlintlockJazz]

Sounds good,. though sticking both healing and damage on Might seems to make that stat more favourable to me, but then without actually knowing the whole system I cannot say whether that is true or not.  I do wonder if Stamina and Healing should be switched around so that Might is Damage and Stamina while Con is Health and healing (so the larger your health pool is the better you are at healing up)?  Again, dunno the system.  I personally didn't mind Intelligence being the damager stat like some did, if they were worried that Might might cause such confusion then maybe naming it Body instead might have been better?  Or having more than one stat contribute to a bonus, like both Might and Intelligence boosting damage? 

 

I'm sure they have already thought of this, but if they are having trouble finding a use for all the stats then they should feel free to cut down on the number of attributes there are rather than adding stuff.  I wouldn't mind them combining Sterngth and Constitution into a Body stat for instance, or combining Perception and Dexterity into Hand-Eye coordination for instance, if they feel having them separate would be redundant, and have 'advantages' like 'Big-Boned' or 'Huge' to cover specific forms of it for the player.  But then I ain't a games designer despite how much I like to theory-crafti and make random rants like this one on such things.

Edited January 17, 2014 by FlintlockJazz

[Adhin]

I think the healing one is a bit of a misnomer for us. I mean 'healing' is really more of a second wind, its a quick-magical or otherwise stamina boost. If you where to split them up I agree you'd want health and heal together since they're not directly linked at all (since only way to gain 'health' back is resting). Personally I could see them bringing back inv-slots (or add in a weight system) and tag that to strength and throw stamina on resolve. Though having 2 defensive stats on one attribute that both ultimately do close to the same overall thing in tankyness seems a bit silly.

 

Then again in normal RPG terms having damage and healing on the same stat seems kinda silly so... who knows, depends how they handle all the stamina related stuff. It kind of makes sense when you think about it, Might is basically an intensity modifier at this point, damage or otherwise. Makes the paladin revive-like ability probably more effective, increases the amount of stamina it'll restore on waking someone from being knocked out. Help out priest stamina restorative spells, may even help fighters natural passive stamina regeneration (which is the only class that gets that).

 

Heck in that regard I could see might being more beneficial to a Fighter then Constitution if 'heal' effects the regen. Well, least in the immediate, having crappy health totals would be a big disadvantage for a fighter over the long term so I could still see wanting the constitution to bolster that. And I think I've officially started to ramble here so...yup. I think it's weird but it may work out since 'healing' isn't the standard healing we're used to and all that.

[Jarmo]

I think the healing one is a bit of a misnomer for us. I mean 'healing' is really more of a second wind, its a quick-magical or otherwise stamina boost.

 

Or does it also govern actual healing?

As in, a real strong guy can wrap the bandages real tight!

[Jobby]

I'm all for all stats being useful for all characters but is there not a way to make traditional strength useful for mages and traditional intelligence useful for fighters? That is without merging them into some bizarre abstract attribute that might as well be called damage?  

 

I'm more than happy to see a departure from D&D systems but again this just feels like a bit too far for me, not a deal breaker but quite disappointing.

To be honest I'd advocate no attribute directly governing damage over this system, with critical hits, speed and weapons ultimately defining your dps, just drop the might and I'd be happy enough.

 

I don't suppose enough people feel strongly about this to justify a vote thread? I just don't really wanna be the guy who opens up the 5th attribute thread lol.

[Jobby]

In regards to guns I really don't think they are going to be main weapons btw, I could be wrong but I'm sure an update ages ago defined them as utility weps for "piercing the arcane veil" due to their horrendously low rate of fire so i wouldn't worry massively about what stat affects them, this could have all changed though for all i know lol.

[PrimeJunta]

Design by majority vote is a horrible idea. Let's discuss all we want and provide input where requested, but not forget that it's ultimately Josh's job to decide what to do with it. We can hate on him all we like once the game is out if we don't like his decisions.

[Jobby]

I don't dispute who is making the final call here and regardless of the attribute system I am sure we will get a fantastic game.

I just feel simplified damage mechanics for the sake of easier combat balancing isn't a worthwhile trade-off. 

Of course I'm just a rabid fan, not a developer with a tight budget and a host of expectations to live up to so I do understand, I just really don't like Might lol.

On a side note the other attributes they've described seem like interesting novel ways of creating a character outwith traditional D&D systems.

[Adhin]

@Jarmo: Heh, yeah, that wouldn't make much sense hp or stamina. but on a serious note you really do only heal stamina, not health why I kinda feel like 'heal' stat is semi-misleading but whatever doesn't really matter.

 

As for 'just drop might' that's a no-go. I think they're really set on the 6 attributes thing. Why? Well, each non-deflection defense is based off 2 attributes. Fort, Will, Reflex gain bonuses from 2 of the attributes (that's 6 cause math). Forts = Might/Con, Reflex = Reflex/Perc and Wills (or whatever its called) = Int/Resolve. If you drop Might then you got Fort being governed by 1 attribute all together. And if we add a 7th attribute it.... well it probably wouldn't be apart of that which would mean it would have to do some amazing **** to make it comparable.

 

Come to think of it, the whole Fort/Reflex/will has been kinda ignored (not entirely but mostly) in these discussions. Con gives Health, Stamina 'and' some Fort defense. Which means resolve gives 2 defenses at the moment, concentration and will defense. Anyway that's why I think their pretty stuck on this 6 attribute, can't see them dropping to 5 or 4, they'd have to go to 3 to make it balanced at that point. I could see a 7th stat that does some crazy good stuff to be comparable but I doubt that too.

 

@Jobby: Yeah I'm not a fan of 'Might', not what it does but I just I dunno... might seems like an odd attribute, it's mostly just a rename of Strength because people felt like Strength should govern damage not INT. So they renamed it and then... made it govern damage. Which is kinda already odd in its self, I'd rather it be called Strength and it also effect mage spell dmg then being called might. Not sure why though. I mean I could say I don't think 'might' is an 'attribute' but I don't think perception is either. Perception is a measurement of multiple skill sets which... isn't what attributes are. But I like the name perception so i kinda like it as an attribute.

 

...guess that makes me racist against Might really. It's Might's fault though, I'm sure of it.

[Jobby]

Na it's not the name for me, they could call it cabbages for all I care as long it's a bit more in depth than a percentage modifier to All damage types, (dead horse receives another kick)

[Ffordesoon]

Popping in to say I think the attributes are terrific.

 

In re the Might controversy: I understand the idea that separating physical and magical damage gives you more roleplaying options in highly specific situations where that could matter, but I frankly can't bring myself to care. It sounds like there are ample opportunities for roleplaying in every other area of the game, and if the choice is between more dev focus on that and the hard work of balancing another attribute for the sake of a few people who cannot accept what is ultimately a small abstraction, I'll gladly take the former.

 

Also, couldn't they tie the content of the Might checks to specific classes? Like, if you're a Wizard (Harry HA HA BECAUSE MEMES), you get Wizard-specific text on your Might check, but if you're a Barbarian, you get Barbarian-specific text? To wit:

 

A wild group of bandits appears! What do you do?

 

1. [Wizard][Might] Show them you can juggle fireballs

2. Attack

3. Run away

Versus:

 

A wild group of bandits appears! What do you do?

 

1. [barbarian][Might] Tear a nearby bear's head off with your bare hands and shake it at them while whooping, "WHO WISHES TO TASTE DEATH AT THE HANDS OF [PLAYERCHARACTERNAME] THE BEARKILLER!?"

2. Attack

3. Run away

Granted, scripted interactions are always going to be more prescriptive than systemic ones, but that sort of thing seems an adequate substitute to me.

 

Oh, and since my examples are inevitably interpreted as being at the level I'd want to see in the game if I don't tack this disclaimer onto them, the examples above are deliberately simplistic, because they are examples. Although I would rather like to see that "bearkiller" thing in there, I must say.

 

Anyway. Just my two cents.

[Jobby]

Also, couldn't they tie the content of the Might checks to specific classes? Like, if you're a Wizard (Harry HA HA BECAUSE MEMES), you get Wizard-specific text on your Might check, but if you're a Barbarian, you get Barbarian-specific text? 

 

 

I could almost live with that, but for me it really isn't a case of abstraction (which all stats are ultimately) but of simplification, that upsets me. I'm sure there will be plenty of deep mechanics but I was really thinking BG2 level which took me several playthroughs to fully understand.

 

I mean a percentage modifier to anything feels a bit MMORPGish but I'd take anything over single stat damage, and yet another trample on the decaying horse, c'mon Lephys breath some life into him for me?

[Lephys]

I just think that's simplifying something that doesn't need simplifying. Not in a game like this. There are other games in which I don't mind it. Stuff like Torchlight or something, where the stats are less about a robust Role-playing system, and more just about balancing/representing gamey aspects, to put it simply. I'm not gonna play that, or Diablo, and go "OMG, INT SHOULDN'T DO THE SAME THING FOR DIFFERENT CLASSES!"

 

But, in this game, it's about more than that. And I know there's all this comparison to IE games (they're the inspiration, after-all, for this project), and they used D&D, and we're all used to it, and it wasn't perfect, and we're trying to improve upon that without throwing out what was good and useful from it, but...

 

I just don't think "One stat didn't boost all classes'/attack-types' damage aspect" is not the way to go.

 

Like I said, you've already got plenty of things that affect damage, in the long run:

 

DEX boosts Accuracy, which increases the probability of critical hits and the chance of scoring them, so, ANY class that takes max DEX is already going to do more damage, in general, than another character of the same class who dumps DEX. (I realize a different build could end up doing the same damage, in the long run, but I'm ONLY pointing out that adjusting DEX, on its own, already affects your damage output).

 

Then you've got Perception, which gives additional armor penetration, correct? That affects damage. Then, even Intellect. A bigger AoE area means more enemies hit by damaging effects, means more damage than someone with smaller radii. And duration... things that hurt you, hurt you for longer. Things that stun you allow you to be easily stricken more, rather than dodged/avoided/maneuvered around, defended against as much.

 

Just... after breaking down damage into so many different significant aspects, all spread out across stats (and even things that aren't stats -- talents/proficiencies, weapon type vs armor type, action speed, etc.), it feels REALLY strange to just decide that one stat's balanced effect on the system needs to be simply "+ damage." I mean, Dexterity boosts Accuracy, but then, there are STILL different attack/defense types.

It would probably be easier to just have a rating called "Defense," and call it a day. But, we're not doing that, now are we? Nope. You're using some kind of mental attack? It's going against Willpower, then. Physical attack? It's going against Deflection.

 

How is the concept of separating out the defenses into FOUR distinct defense types, each with their own factors and ratings, any different from separating out the type of power/force/energy you're using? I bet damage types are separated, too. Weapon types (piercing, blunt, etc.) versus armor types, element/energy types, etc. But then, separating something as simple as muscle strength and magical/non-physical "strength" is crossing a line? I'm not trying to be rude or hostile with that question. I'm just honestly asking.

 

I really, truly believe that the important thing is to make all the stats potentially useful to a variety of particular builds. If that means making them do the same thing, then so be it. But I don't think them all doing the same thing is really the goal. If you're a Wizard, you just need a reason to care about Strength, even if you still decide against it.

 

It's like in D&D. DEX didn't help you cast spells, but it helped your base AC, so you could avoid more attacks. If you just dumped DEX, as a Wizard, then good luck not getting hit.

 

 

In re the Might controversy: I understand the idea that separating physical and magical damage gives you more roleplaying options in highly specific situations where that could matter, but I frankly can't bring myself to care. It sounds like there are ample opportunities for roleplaying in every other area of the game...

That's kind of my point. "All other areas of the game are supportive of specific distinction," to me, begs the question "then why not damage/power?" rather than "so why shouldn't damage/power be the one super-weird odd-man-out?"

Edited January 18, 2014 by Lephys

[Ffordesoon]

@Jobby:

 

I've... never actually played BG2. I started BG1 recently, and I've seen the opening of BG2, but my hope is to carry my BG1 character into BG2.

 

Could you describe what you mean?

 

@Lephys:

 

Those are fair points, clearly. Although I would recommend looking at it from the opposite angle: if I'm a designer, and I've spent months designing and balancing all those complex systems around a single value, why would I want to spend the same amount of time - and, therefore, money - doing the same thing for a second value that's distinct from the first? It's not just "one more thing"; it's the foundation upon which all that other stuff rests. I'm adding twice the complexity to the system for little return and a lot more headaches, when I could be working on other things that would make every player's experience better, like encounter design or adding reactivity or whatever else.

 

I understand your complaint, and I certainly understand the irritation of watching developers cut features you like out of a system for efficiency's sake. But sometimes you need to turn off a few people to do what's best for the work as a whole.

[Jobby]

It's like in D&D. DEX didn't help you cast spells, but it helped your base AC, so you could avoid more attacks. If you just dumped DEX, as a Wizard, then good luck not getting hit.

 

^^ This is where it is for me, every attribute equally useful for every class? No. Every attribute having a viable use for every class? Yes.

 

One of D&Ds biggest flaws' is dump stats, it has been stated many a time by many people. Whilst I can live with dump stats personally, they doesn't agree with Sawyers proposed tenets of character design (which i see great merit in) and by replacing superfluous things like "Wisdom = Holy caster stat" , "Intelligence = Arcane caster stat" etc. they are definitely doing us a favor and creating a more diverse range of builds.

 

But making a "one attribute fits all system (stat)" is definitely not a throwback to the cRPGs I fell in love with, instead it reduces the significance of player input into character design and ultimately results in a game that isn't diverse and wonderful but instead bland and uniform.

 

This is of course my opinion and as I have stated previously I do have faith in Obsidian I just hope this is something they will consider revising because as petty as it may seem, it really worries me.

[Jobby]

@Jobby:

 

I've... never actually played BG2. I started BG1 recently, and I've seen the opening of BG2, but my hope is to carry my BG1 character into BG2.

 

Could you describe what you mean?

 

I would struggle to do so in a succinct manner so instead I'll post a link full of lovely tables  http://baldursgate.wikia.com/wiki/Character_Ability_Scores

 

The "hit adj" column refers to your likelihood to hit with melee weapons for strength and the "Missile att adj" refers to your likelihood to hit with ranged weapons for dexterity.

The "HP adj" column for Constitution refers to your additional HP gained per level, this is in addition to class related HP per level.

 

The system gets quite convoluted when you take into account inherent class abilites/adjustments and then even more so if you contemplate muli/dual class characters so I don't intend to go there.

 

I truly envy you playing through those games for the first time though, I have played many a game on many consoles and BG1/2 stand atop the pedestal for me so i hope you enjoy

Edited January 18, 2014 by Jobby

[Lephys]

@Lephys:

 

Those are fair points, clearly. Although I would recommend looking at it from the opposite angle: if I'm a designer, and I've spent months designing and balancing all those complex systems around a single value, why would I want to spend the same amount of time - and, therefore, money - doing the same thing for a second value that's distinct from the first? It's not just "one more thing"; it's the foundation upon which all that other stuff rests. I'm adding twice the complexity to the system for little return and a lot more headaches, when I could be working on other things that would make every player's experience better, like encounter design or adding reactivity or whatever else.

I'm not trying to act like there's not that angle to it. I can't say with certainty on what all this affects, because, even if I knew how all this was coded, specifically, and was a master programmer, I still don't know the entire game's system of mechanics. As much as we know, it's still just snippets.

 

I assure you I'm looking at it from that angle, too. But, when I look at it from that angle, it's really not even one more thing. It's just a distinction. The things are already there. Damage is still there. I'm not talking about dividing everything into two completely different damages. That's not necessary. You just split the modifier.

 

There's bound to be talents (basically feats) that affect certain attacks, right? Like proficiencies and weapon talents in D&D? (the key word there being "like," not copying.). And/or combat skills. Right? So, if you have 50 Swordsmanship, you get some bonus to attacks made with a sword. Damage... accuracy, what-have-you. Only OTHER things will affect each OTHER type of attack, I'm sure. It's already been said that we can build our Wizards and such more battlemagey, just that they won't ever be AS effective as a Fighter or other such classes. But, surely, I can choose options that grant my Wizard bonuses to Sword attacks, or Mace attacks, or the effects of a certain type of armor, etc., right? If not, there wouldn't be much point in allowing all classes to use all equipment to their heart's content. "Well, you CAN use whatever you want, but you're definitely going to suck with it, really, really badly, LOLZ!" That would be silly.

 

So, again, the distinction is already there for the different types of attacks. And there will most likely be SOME form of damage types, right? Are Fire Elementals not going to have any type of resistance or lessening effect to Fire spells and attacks? Are there not going to be any element-based creatures? *shrug*. Maybe not, I suppose. I can't say definitely... But, again, if so, then there are already distinctions. Just the proficiencies/weapon-skills alone already singles out a physical attack from a magic one. Did you cast a spell? Then you don't get +5 damage and accuracy from your awesome Sword skills. Did you swing your sword? Then that attack gets augmented.

 

So, Might is the only thing in the system that's claiming it's too complex to distinguish between attack types. Defenses do it (Deflection, Fortitude, Willpower, Reflexes), talents/skills/proficiencies will most likely do it, damage types will probably do it, etc. But then, for some reason with stats, we can't do it. Even the stats that are there... INT affects AoE size. Not "all ability range, ever." Just one aspect. One type of ability.

 

And, speaking of that, someone asked before, but, I don't think it's been answered yet: Will a Fighter who has a Whirlwind Strike attack (or something) get a boost to his AoE range from spinning with his weapon? I mean, I get that he's using soul powers to fight, but he's typically augmenting his body and weapon -- what's physically there already, rather than launching waves of energy out like a Wizard or traditional "caster," right? So, if his AoE attack was the length of his physical sword, does INT suddenly convert that ability to "magically extends the length of your blade with a blade tip made from soul energy"? And, if not, then, I guess only spells get AoE boosts?

 

Anywho... The short of it is, nothing else in the mechanics is saying "we can't distinguish between what kind of attack this is." But then, the stat that affects damage is. I realize that stats have their own balancing issues, but it doesn't even take a new stat. Just a split effect between two existing ones.

 

The whole soul-magic thing even helps you balance it more. Fighters will probably still be able to do a handful of "magical" things, even though their forte is mainly "physical" combat, so the magic-damage-affecting stat CAN still be useful to a Fighter who voluntarily specializes in as much magical stuff as he can. Just like a Wizard can still focus on physical weaponry and Strength, and get a bonus from Strength where applicable. Obviously it's more complex than just one stat affecting all damage, but, again, 4 defenses is more complex than 1 defense, and yet they're taking the time to represent all of that.

 

That's really about the best comparison I can come up with. My feelings on "Might affects all damage" are the same as my feelings on "everyone just has 1 defense type" would be. Might affecting physical AND magical damage is as weird to me as Deflection affecting physical defense, defense against poison, defense against mind spells, AND quick-reaction-type defense. All just called "DEFLECTION!" That person tried to make you hallucinate, BUT YOU DEFLECTED IT, BECAUSE YOU HAVE SUCH GOOD DEFENSE!

[IndiraLightfoot]

Ffordesoon: Your first example with a wizard displaying might by juggling fireballs is pretty cool, and it also came me a shove in the right direction, I reckon, as how we may perceive might being used for spell powers and even healing power. I began envisioning Avatar: The Last Airbender, and how elemental magic works there, and then it all makes sense. Didn't someone in this thread refer to similar system in JRPGs or something. I can't recall it, but I'm pretty sure I read it somewhere here.

[Adhin]

One of his examples was actually Barbarian's class ability of effecting more then 1 enemy (think its cleave?) would get larger, and I'd imagine a whirlwind would get bigger as well. More recent post he mentioned having spell AoE effects actually have an FF vs non-FF radius based off int. Think his example was 12 radius vs a 16.5 radius fireball. 12 is base, 16.5 is with the wizards INT score. 12 would be a full FF zone, anything in that 12 yards gets hit, anything outside it, up to the 16.5 (so 4.5 radius further out then the 12) would only harm enemies.

 

As much as I think its stupid they renamed it to Might, I think ultimately that's why they did it. Even though 'might' is still going to govern your physical prowess when it comes to the RP side of things. They would definitely have to shuffle things around a bit more if they made Might (or renamed it back to Strength) to effect just physical based stuff and not magic. I mean as I posted before, DnD does not have a single attribute that effects magic dmg. Closest you get is a higher DC check on spells based off said class/attribute but dexterity is already 'doing' that for spells. It's a universal chance to hit boost that effects all defense types.

 

Which I guess kinda brings me to... Might isn't the only stat that's like this. Accuracy is as well. Accuracy is what goes up against the defenses. Dexterity is a universal accuracy bonus for all 4 types of 'accuracy'. If you have a high Dexterity your better at swinging a sword against a deflection bonus 'and' better at getting past someones dodge defense when you fling a fireball at there face.

 

That said, in relation to that screen shot they lack anything to bolster crit damage or crit chance. Crit chance I understand, that's something that can get wildly out of hand, more so when accuracy 'already 'kind of does that with how hit chance functions. I mean +20% chance to hit ultimately will result in a 20% higher crit chance 'if' you already had a chance to crit already against said defenses so... yeah. Crit damage then, no attribute governs that. Wouldn't want it on Dexterity, kinda think it makes more sense on INT but I dunno, anyway that's something else.

 

Anyway, point was - might isn't the only attribute effecting 'all the things' in a catagory, dexterity is as well. Actually, all the stats are, AoE will effect 'all' AoE like stuff, martial or magic, same with duration and whatnot.

[Valorian]

 

In re the Might controversy: I understand the idea that separating physical and magical damage gives you more roleplaying options in highly specific situations where that could matter, 

 

Also, couldn't they tie the content of the Might checks to specific classes? Like, if you're a Wizard (Harry HA HA BECAUSE MEMES), you get Wizard-specific text on your Might check, but if you're a Barbarian, you get Barbarian-specific text? To wit:

 

 

Or a scripted interaction where you have to arm-wrestle someone... or every time you want to bash a door down..

Magic wouldn't work in all cases. 

Also, wizard specific text assumes your wizard would do it that way, just 'coz wizard. He could be a really strong wizard who would not use magic (assuming he has the appropriate spell at all) to execute demanding physical actions.

[Adhin]

@IndiraLightFoot: Japan physical strength is often linked to spiritual (and by extention magical-like abilities) strength. There is a MASSIVE list of anime out there where a person with a lot of physical strength ultimately results in a strong soul or spirit that allows them to fling bigger and more amazing energy-stuffs that result in massive explosions.

 

Was actually just been watching magi recently, its on its 2nd season currently I think. Anyway, the magi is at a school to learn to not suck at spell casting and one of the first things he has to do is go to what amounts to a training camp (it's like going to basic training in the military, and since you physically can't handle it they throw you into a sub program to strengthen you). Basically he was to weak physically to handle proper basic spell casting, cause he ultimately was to lazy. That changed and all of a sudden he was able to 'handle' the magical energies better.

 

It's actually a common theme in A LOT of fantasy related material. Magic takes a great strain on the body, some worlds have mages physically aging faster due to using magic. It's probably the only reason I don't have an actual problem with a strength-like attribute effecting spell damage in a small way. I kind of like the split between Might and Int where INT is literally more of the thinking mans Wizard. Every spell you have just 'does more'. last longer, has a larger effect (may have a split FF vs non-FF zone for damage effects, allowing for some interesting placement tactically). Where as just a high might results in a bit more dmg, or better restorative effects.

 

...still think Mights a dumb name though but that's something I can live with.

 

-edit-

Oh forgot to mention, the Magi in Magi isn't extremely strong and still isn't after all this. He's still only like 4 feet and super skinny and isn't about to pick up any boulders anytime soon. But he has a lot more stamina, I'd actually say its more of a constitution thing in that animes case then raw physical strength. But I don't think anyone wants to see damage tied to constitution heh.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Adhin

[Jobby]

 

That said, in relation to that screen shot they lack anything to bolster crit damage or crit chance. Crit chance I understand, that's something that can get wildly out of hand, more so when accuracy 'already 'kind of does that with how hit chance functions. I mean +20% chance to hit ultimately will result in a 20% higher crit chance 'if' you already had a chance to crit already against said defenses so... yeah. Crit damage then, no attribute governs that. Wouldn't want it on Dexterity, kinda think it makes more sense on INT but I dunno, anyway that's something else.

 

Your probability skills are weak my young padawan,

 

Assuming you have an 80% chance to hit, and a 20% chance to critical, your net critical hit rate will actually be 16%.

Now if we increase 80% to 100% your net critical hit rate will be 20%.

 

So in fact in this example you are only raising the net critical hit chance by 4% (20% OF 20%).