Josh Sawyer's video on the "strength increases magical damage" debate

[Infinitron]

http://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/76165227151/do-you-think-it-is-important-for-attributes-to-allow

 

silkvalley asked: Do you think it is important for attributes to allow certain archetypes? For example, a clumsy and physically weak wizard, yet she deals tons of damage with her spells. The priest who's outstandingly accurate with his spells, but is not a master in sleight of hand and pickpocketing (Dexterity). Similarly, should increasing the damage he deals with spells (via attribute) also increase the number of items he can carry?

 

[Kjaamor]

At first I thought it was a draught, but in hindsight it was probably Sesame.

[milczyciel]

Wow, how the hell did I miss all that (tumblr, yt channel)?

Thanks Infinitron!

[Ganrich]

I was trying to articulate similar points when this debate was raging on the Attribute Theory thread, but I did so much more poorly. I agree with his outlook here.

[JFSOCC]

Is that a production beard? also, it seems he released a bunch of videos. let's go through them.

[rjshae]

Is that a production beard? also, it seems he released a bunch of videos. let's go through them.

 

Listening to all of us go on about PoE is steadily turning his hair grey...

[IndiraLightfoot]

I'm absolutely fine with Josh's attribute division for PE. I've said it before: To me, this gives me a definite Aang: The Last Airbender-vibe in so far as how magic is affected by strength, dexterity and wisdom in that TV-series. And I actually adore that setting and how magic takes on a slightly different gestalt than in typical western RPGs. This is going to be so much fun. PE couldn't come soon enough!

[Sir Chaox]

I like the system in place now; it sounds like it will be interesting and have good balance. But just a thought.

 

Couldn't we utilize starter traits like Fallout, Arcanum, Avernum, etc. where you can gain some special positive/negative passive stat effect that works for/against another particular stat effect provided by the default attribute system? So you could get that fighter that has high strength but crummy immune system (low Fort. saves, I'm guessing). Now, I don't mind gimping a character to make the game interesting, but for those who want balance, there would have to be some tradeoff there.

 

Maybe the reason why they didn't do this was to keep focus entirely on balancing all of the attributes and having the player wholly focus on utilizing this system to produce interesting characters. But just throwing it out there.

[Greensleeve]

I like the system in place now; it sounds like it will be interesting and have good balance. But just a thought.

 

Couldn't we utilize starter traits like Fallout, Arcanum, Avernum, etc. where you can gain some special positive/negative passive stat effect that works for/against another particular stat effect provided by the default attribute system? So you could get that fighter that has high strength but crummy immune system (low Fort. saves, I'm guessing). Now, I don't mind gimping a character to make the game interesting, but for those who want balance, there would have to be some tradeoff there.

 

Maybe the reason why they didn't do this was to keep focus entirely on balancing all of the attributes and having the player wholly focus on utilizing this system to produce interesting characters. But just throwing it out there.

 

I would love to see starter traits like those in Fallout or Arcanum. Highly approve of that idea!

[Nonek]

I can understand where the gentleman is coming from, it's reasonable and I look forward to trying out the system. Personally I was looking forward to playing a physically deficient Wizard who was powerful in the arcane arts, but if that's not available then i'll have to redesign my character. I wouldn't be averse to doing as Sir Chaox suggests and using a starting trait to mitigate the effect that Strength has on spells, as this archetype would already be punished with poor combat skills and frailty, it seems a little excessive to also lessen his spell strength.

[milczyciel]

Listening to all of us go on about PoE is steadily turning his hair grey...

Sir, are you suggesting we should complain more, so it would get even better?

Because that's an awesome shade... of... <ok, I don't like where I'm going here>

...

G-damn, all I wanted to say is that it looks great and I envy him. Look what you've done!

[Tamerlane]

I can understand where the gentleman is coming from, it's reasonable and I look forward to trying out the system. Personally I was looking forward to playing a physically deficient Wizard who was powerful in the arcane arts, but if that's not available then i'll have to redesign my character. I wouldn't be averse to doing as Sir Chaox suggests and using a starting trait to mitigate the effect that Strength has on spells, as this archetype would already be punished with poor combat skills and frailty, it seems a little excessive to also lessen his spell strength.

Well, you can still play a physically deficient wizard who is powerful in the arcane arts. Its just that the physically deficient wizard will be biased towards long-lasting spells with big AOEs that interrupt enemy attacks instead of straight damage. As opposed to in Baldur's Gate where spell damage was affected by

[Kjaamor]

The other option, in terms of compensating for low stats, might be the equivilant of the "weapon finesse" feat from 3.5. Obviously it would require some balancing issues rather than being transplanted like-for-like, but it was a reasonable solution then and I can't immediately see why it shouldn't be now.

[Lephys]

I've said it before: To me, this gives me a definite Aang: The Last Airbender-vibe in so far as how magic is affected by strength, dexterity and wisdom in that TV-series.

Yeah, but, to be fair, it was more "endurance" than raw strength. I mean, Toph was a complete BAMF, even though she was what... 10? And she fought fully-adult Conan The Barbarian dudes who were about 18-times her size and had obviously trained their muscles to a much greater magnitude.

 

Yeah, old Fire-Nation General, Uncle What's-His-Face was super-out-of-shape, and his Firebending capabilities suffered for it. But, he wasn't a wuss. Plus, their bending basically had a rigorous somatic component to it. Thus, being out of shape, or even just really tired, would affect it much like losing your voice would affect a spell that requires a verbal incantation. You have to be capable of performing that incantation to get the spell to work properly. That doesn't mean that the louder your voice is, the more powerful the spell is. Same with Strength versus Bending.

 

That being said, I understand the abstraction of something like Might applying to magic/representing non-physical potency. I just think that, ideally, both things would be distinctly represented. I also realize that other factors are closer to ideal with both of them (physical and non-physical power) represented by a single stat, as opposed to being separated. So, it's not just a matter of "well obviously, separate them."

[Silent Winter]

Yeah, but, to be fair, it was more "endurance" than raw strength. I mean, Toph was a complete BAMF, even though she was what... 10? And she fought fully-adult Conan The Barbarian dudes who were about 18-times her size and had obviously trained their muscles to a much greater magnitude.

 

I got the impression it was more like 'internal-strength' that you get from something like Tai-Chi (NB: it refers to the use of the stabilizing muscles for movement (as opposed to vice-versa - I mean you still use the motivational muscles but just for quick burst of movement)- these muscles are smaller but stronger (pound for pound) than the motivational muscles - so you can look slighter of build but hit like a brick).  Combined with the need for precision and coordination of movement.  So yeah, somatic components, dexterity+strength as mentioned.

(not sure I was adding anything there - I just like Airbender too - if only they'd done a better job with the movie)

(side note: why do I keep trying to spell 'somatic' as 'somantic'? )

Edited February 11, 2014 by Silent Winter

[Ffordesoon]

Well, you can still play a physically deficient wizard who is powerful in the arcane arts. Its just that the physically deficient wizard will be biased towards long-lasting spells with big AOEs that interrupt enemy attacks instead of straight damage. As opposed to in Baldur's Gate where spell damage was affected by

BY WHAT

 

I MUST KNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW

[Sir Chaox]

 

Well, you can still play a physically deficient wizard who is powerful in the arcane arts. Its just that the physically deficient wizard will be biased towards long-lasting spells with big AOEs that interrupt enemy attacks instead of straight damage. As opposed to in Baldur's Gate where spell damage was affected by

BY WHAT

 

I MUST KNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW

 

 

OMG, cliffhanger posts are the WORST!   

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I got the impression that Tamerlane was suggesting nothing. eg. Baldur's Gate spell damage was affected by... nothing. Which is correct when referring to your attributes. However, some spells like Magic Missile did increase in damage as you level up but it had nothing to do with any attributes. So you could have a Mage with a Might (Str) & Int of 18 and a second Mage with Might (Str) / Int of 9 and both would put out the same damage.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Ffordesoon]

Ah. Well. This is why I can never solve those word puzzles in the newspaper where it says, like, "score" with a line drawn below it. Some people go, "Underscore, obviously!" and roll their eyes. I'm the type of person who stares at it for an hour and then looks at the answer.

 

Which is also at least twenty percent of the reason why I think puzzles in adventure games are usually aggravating distractions that only serve to artificially lengthen the playtime, and that the genre could get along fine without them.

[FlintlockJazz]

Does anyone know what exactly Might refers to?  I know it increases damage and healing, but is it just meant to refer to the character's muscle mass, strength of soul or more abstract "the mightiness of your character" thing?  Are we gonna get eye scanner things that can read the Might level of a character and lead to "It's over NINE THOUSAND!!!!" quotes?  Enquiring mind must know!!!

[Kjaamor]

Abstract.

[FlintlockJazz]

Abstract.

That's cool with me as it still means I could make a high damage dealing mage type without making them musclebound, but I do hope they still define your character in some way especially in dialog.

[Kjaamor]

Presumably, when your high strength mage tries to intimidate someone, sparks fly from his armpits rather than his muscles flexing. Or something.

[FlintlockJazz]

Presumably, when your high strength mage tries to intimidate someone, sparks fly from his armpits rather than his muscles flexing. Or something.

That can actually work.  Not necessarily with the armpits bit, but kinda like Gandalf's "Do not mistake me for a conjurer of cheap tricks!" bit.

[Kjaamor]

"BILBO BAGGINS! DO NOT TAKE ME FOR SOME CONJURER OF CHEAP TRICKS!"

 

*Sparks fly from armpits*