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

[Lephys]

Which, aside from a few rabid simulationists, I'm quite sure didn't bother anyone. (But even if I'm wrong, you could have talents giving bonus melee damage which are available sooner to those with high strength.)

Yeah, 'cause you can't be minorly bothered by something without being a rabid extremist. Like in a game where you can't go down a certain path, even though the only thing blocking your path is a 3-foot-tall shrub. Only crazy people would think "You know, it'd just be nice if there were a dense thicket of foliage there or something, or something at least blocking my view of treasure and/or some other reason to want to go that way, instead of a 3-foot shrub that I could easily step over/walk past."

 

You could give people talents early, but then, that still doesn't explain why no one starts out as relatively very strong from the get-go, instead of distinguishing their strength soon after the adventure starts. "I know I'm like a 30-year-old ex-soldier, but NOW that we've gained a level in our current adventure, I'm finally stronger than that Wizard over there!"

 

Simply put, Strength/muscleyness/what-have-you is a perfectly feasible thing to measure in the way that stats do. I get why they're going with consolidated Might, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend it makes sense in all ways. I'm perfectly comfortable with accepting the decision, while simultaneously being bothered by it.

 

The sound of a screaming child bothers me. It's unpleasant. But that doesn't mean I don't care about my 1-year-old niece, or that I'm hostile towards the existence of children.

 

If simply taking the time to think about things that you deem pointless to spend brainpower on makes me a rabid simulationist, then I'll take that title, anyday. Sitting around pretending everything makes perfect sense and nothing has flaws certainly isn't doing anyone any good.

 

I've been at the "Can't you just RP it if it bothers you that much?" phase for a while now.

You really can't. Either the game allows the results of a distinction to occur in some scenario, or you're just RPing that anything is actually happening at all. If combat wasn't in the game, you could PRETEND that that NPC who just gave you an item did so because you whooped his arse in combat, but that doesn't really change the fact that the game isn't representing combat at all.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Lephys

[Jarrakul]

It seems to me that the main problem here is with non-combat actions. The fact that a mage with high Might hits harder with his staff is incidental, as that's an edge case and will almost never come up. But the fact that he can bash down the door for the same reason his spells are strong seems... weird. Or at least, it does if you assume the mage is bashing down the door the same way a fighter would. I don't think that's a safe assumption. Similar to the different means of intimidating mentioned earlier, the mage and the fighter would bash down a door in very different ways. The fighter hurls himself at the door, knocking it down by weight and physical force. The mage instead rips the door off its hinges with a burst of telekinetic force. Both are very Might-based, but they aren't both the same kind of might. In a class-based system, I don't see the problem with that. Different stats mean different things for different classes, even if they lead to similar results. In fact, the ability to achieve similar results is *literally* what it means for the stat to be the same. The rest (muscle mass vs. magical power) is just flavor text.

[khalil]

It seems to me that the main problem here is with non-combat actions. The fact that a mage with high Might hits harder with his staff is incidental, as that's an edge case and will almost never come up. But the fact that he can bash down the door for the same reason his spells are strong seems... weird. Or at least, it does if you assume the mage is bashing down the door the same way a fighter would. I don't think that's a safe assumption. Similar to the different means of intimidating mentioned earlier, the mage and the fighter would bash down a door in very different ways. The fighter hurls himself at the door, knocking it down by weight and physical force. The mage instead rips the door off its hinges with a burst of telekinetic force. Both are very Might-based, but they aren't both the same kind of might. In a class-based system, I don't see the problem with that. Different stats mean different things for different classes, even if they lead to similar results. In fact, the ability to achieve similar results is *literally* what it means for the stat to be the same. The rest (muscle mass vs. magical power) is just flavor text.

Okay, so now the wizard with high might does everything via telekinesis.

What happens when I want to built a muscle wizard who shouts RARGH and headbutts his way through a door?

[Ffordesoon]

 

It seems to me that the main problem here is with non-combat actions. The fact that a mage with high Might hits harder with his staff is incidental, as that's an edge case and will almost never come up. But the fact that he can bash down the door for the same reason his spells are strong seems... weird. Or at least, it does if you assume the mage is bashing down the door the same way a fighter would. I don't think that's a safe assumption. Similar to the different means of intimidating mentioned earlier, the mage and the fighter would bash down a door in very different ways. The fighter hurls himself at the door, knocking it down by weight and physical force. The mage instead rips the door off its hinges with a burst of telekinetic force. Both are very Might-based, but they aren't both the same kind of might. In a class-based system, I don't see the problem with that. Different stats mean different things for different classes, even if they lead to similar results. In fact, the ability to achieve similar results is *literally* what it means for the stat to be the same. The rest (muscle mass vs. magical power) is just flavor text.

Okay, so now the wizard with high might does everything via telekinesis.

What happens when I want to built a muscle wizard who shouts RARGH and headbutts his way through a door?

Play as a barbarian?

[khalil]

 

 

cut for space

Okay, so now the wizard with high might does everything via telekinesis.

What happens when I want to built a muscle wizard who shouts RARGH and headbutts his way through a door?

 

Play as a barbarian?

 

I like you.

However, I'm fairly certain barbarians can't cast magic missile.

I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to go for a musclebound melee wizard. Didn't the devs say that there's no such thing as a bad build? I thought that was part of the reason behind attaching magic damage and strength damage to the same stat.

[Jarrakul]

Sure, but you're still a mage. In a class-based system, even a flexible one like Eternity's, your mage-ness fundamentally alters the nature of your character. You might be a mage with a sword who likes to smash things, but probably at least a large portion of your physical strength comes from magical augmentation. Think telekinesis without the "tele" part (i.e. point-blank range only) or many interpretations of the Jedi. But honestly, if it's all muscle, who cares? At this point the distinction is academic. It has no impact on what you can actually do. So at this point it's finally and for-real entered the sphere of "just rp it the way you want."

[Lephys]

Okay, so now the wizard with high might does everything via telekinesis.

What happens when I want to built a muscle wizard who shouts RARGH and headbutts his way through a door?

The better question is this:

 

Why can the Wizard only rip DOORS off their hinges, and not rip enemies limb from limb? If he can just run around casually forming magical energy into physical force, why doesn't he just step out onto the battlefield, then hurl all the enemies into walls and boulders, or simple crush all their armor in on themselves, winning every fight in seconds?

 

Either a Wizard uses raw magical energy in the same way that a Fighter uses the kinetic energy from his muscles, or a Wizard does things differently.

 

That being said, if a Wizard can open a door with a spell, then so be it. That's not addressing the point. The point isn't that magic and physical force should never ever be able to accomplish the same task. It's that they shouldn't always be able to accomplish the same task.

 

Thus, the simple fact remains: Either we won't have any situations that check magic power/capability or physical strength, exclusively, OR we will, but it'll just be a class check. There's nothing else to distinguish how you're breaking down a door, and how you aren't.

 

If we don't have any of those situations/scenarios, then so be it. I'd just like to know whether or not we will, or how that's being handled, etc.

 

You are right, though. The main concern is a non-combat one, not a combat one. I couldn't really care less if my Wizard with 20 Might always punches people harder than another Wizard, since it's not really that big of an issue (what with skills and class talents/abilities and such making a MUCH larger impact on effective damage). There are perfectly feasible times when strength checks can accomplish things that magic checks cannot, and vice versa.

[Jarrakul]

Obviously, the explanation isn't perfect. Combat spells can do the very things you describe, at least approximately, but they're use-limited. Then again, the fighter should really take some damage from throwing himself against that door, so maybe we can call it even.

 

That said, I agree with your simple fact. The primary concern, to my eyes, is with the lack of differentiation between what a fighter can do and what a mage can do. I suppose there could be things where the requirement was "martial class, Might 20" or "spellcasting class, Might 20", but that leaves the rare muscle-bound mage out of the cool strength-based stuff. Which might be fine in terms of class balance, but doesn't necessarily make a lot of actual sense. This is a definite weakness of the current system.

 

But here's the thing. Like it or not, the current system isn't being compared to a perfect system. We haven't come up with a perfect system. Sad but true. Using strength and magic (or intelligence, or whatever else would govern magic damage) as separate attributes allows for more nuance in terms of dialog triggers and such, but also creates balance issues in the form of dump stats. If the goal is to make every (reasonable) concept viable, then a high-strength mage has to be decent, if not necessarily optimal. But if strength is a dump stat for mages, then increasing it to any substantial margin is likely to seriously weaken the mage in combat situations. This, like the class differentiation problem, is bad for roleplaying, because it punishes certain character concepts for no particularly good reason. The team has made the judgment that dump stats are a more substantial threat to roleplaying than the loss of certain specific sorts of triggers. I'm inclined to agree with them, but I understand how you might not. In single-player games especially, not everyone is terribly concerned with balance. I happen to think it's really, really important to rping, but then that might be because I'm a recovered powergamer and it still really bugs me if the character I want to play is weaker than I feel they should be.

[BrainMuncher]

 

Okay, so now the wizard with high might does everything via telekinesis.

What happens when I want to built a muscle wizard who shouts RARGH and headbutts his way through a door?

The better question is this:

 

Why can the Wizard only rip DOORS off their hinges, and not rip enemies limb from limb? If he can just run around casually forming magical energy into physical force, why doesn't he just step out onto the battlefield, then hurl all the enemies into walls and boulders, or simple crush all their armor in on themselves, winning every fight in seconds?

 

Either a Wizard uses raw magical energy in the same way that a Fighter uses the kinetic energy from his muscles, or a Wizard does things differently.

 

 

I may have a rationalisation that appeals to you:

 

The wizard simply is not trained in the ways of physical combat and fighting. The reason this guy is able to shrug off powerful blows to the groin is not because of a high constitution stat, but because of many years of training.

I could probably get pretty buff if I went to the gym every day for a couple of years, but it wouldn't mean I'd be of any use in a fight. I'd need fight training for that. I might be at an advantage against other weaker opponents who also have no fight training. But a low strength, highly trained fighter could probably just take me out/down with a single move, while avoiding/deflecting any cumbersome attacks I might offer.

 

I'm guessing might allows the wizard to direct and manipulate larger bursts of energy without losing control and potentially skewing his aim or doing himself an injury. In order for a fireball or a ray of frost to actually damage something it has to at some point exist in a physical form, so it doesn't bother me that there might be a physical aspect to to directing and controlling the energy.

[Giantevilhead]

People use or develop fighting styles/moves that take advantage of their physical abilities. A big strong person will use different styles/moves than someone who's smaller and more dextrous.

 

So just apply that logic to spell casters. A wizard who's physically strong will develop spells that take can advantage of their strength. A wizard who's fast and agile will develop spells that take can advantage of their speed and agility.

 

Rather than dealing with magic as a whole, deal with individual spells or disciplines of magic. Have generalist spells that aren't affected by physical attributes and some specialized spells that are.

[Lephys]

I'm inclined to agree with them, but I understand how you might not.

It's not that I'm in disagreement with the devs. I know they have reasons for doing it this way. I merely tried to state my case for the significance of their distinction (physical and magical capability/potency), especially in regard to non-combat scenarios and interactions, and was wondering how those might be dealt with in the current system, if not through some form of distinction (class check, etc.).

 

Person after person jumped in on this topic, suggesting that any significance of the distinction between strength and magical potency was just some figment of people's imagination, so I found myself trying to correct that. I think others saw this and thought me to be adamantly insisting that the devs change their decision or something, like I was just arguing against it to be arguing against it. My only goal was to emphasize the things that suffer from the lack of distinction, for people who just chalked things up to "Oh, people just don't like change, I suppose," and such. So, I'm sorry if my motive was confusing. I appreciate your extremely reasonable post on the matter, and agree with it very much.

 

I may have a rationalisation that appeals to you:

 

-explanation-

Nah. I do appreciate that aspect of things, but it still doesn't quite cover the facet of distinction I'm getting at. The factors that form a character's strength stat value are definitely a bit abstracted (a 3-foot-tall Gnome with 18 Strength beside a 7-foot Orc with 18 Strength?), but they're still supposed to be a measure of your character's physical capability/potency. Which is why in PnP D&D (and other such rulesets that measure such things), breaking down a door is a Strength check, and not a Bashing-Things Skill check.

 

There are plenty of people who never train in any sort of physical combat or weapons skill and are still quite strong, and capable of performing many a non-combat feat in a given situation.

 

And the fact remains that there are feasible situations which can arise that have specific factors to render the generic "If a Fighter can bash a door in, a Wizard can just blast it open with a fireball" example. What if the room on the other side of the door is filled with precious scrolls/tomes? Do you really want to go blasting that door open with fire? Or, what if you're escaping a burning building, and some beams and portions of ceiling have collapsed across a doorway/passageway? I'm not so sure fireballs are going to be a good idea there, whereas having your merely physically-capable character (of whatever class) shoulder the debris and lift it long enough for everyone to get under it could be useful. By the same token, if you come upon a large, sturdy metal door, no amount of shoulder-slamming is going to get you through it, but maybe some precision hinge-melting might. Or maybe even some acid.

 

Such things lend significance to your character distinctions. We don't NEED those for magic-vs-strength, but that's fewer significant character distinctions without them, is all. There are reasons for it, and I understand them. But, it's not as if separating them serves no purpose, is all. Obsidian has never said as much, either, so I'm not arguing against the dev team. Just, for what it's worth, it's a useful distinction.

[Jarrakul]

Lephys, I must apologize for misconstruing your position. You clearly have a nuanced view of the issue at hand, and you're trying to make other people understand why it's not cut and dry. That makes perfect sense to me, and the pursuit is worthy. While I am glad I got the chance to make the my point here, I now realize that there was no need to make that point in opposition to you. So for that, I apologize, and thank you for your gracious response.

[Lephys]

No worries, Jarrakul. I took no offense by it. Also, my words tend to jump the fence sometimes, heh. I try to specifically word things as clearly as possible, but, precedent tends to lend a lot of inferred specifics to my posts, despite my best efforts.

 

Also, your posts are quality, so, no worries squared.

[Kjaamor]

The wizard simply is not trained in the ways of physical combat and fighting. The reason this guy is able to shrug off powerful blows to the groin is not 

 

/thread

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I'm surprised people are getting lost in the definitions and distinctions. To me their choice in naming the statistic "Might" says it all. Might (Adj.), being the potency or force of something is different from Strength. Strength is a specific form of might--it is not might itself. Given that character abilities of all types are fueled by the magic of their souls in one way or another, the statistic might being applied wherever damage is calculated is logically consistent.
 
I have a link to share with you guys, and I think you'll like it. It speaks about exactly what I think is confounding people's sensibilities within this thread. This link contains a superb musing on the concepts of magic within RPG systems and how the pervasiveness of scientific thought have changed cultural notions of "what magic is". Enjoy.
 

Breaking Out of Scientific Magic Systems

However, the concept of magic really comes from a pre-scientific age. From a pre-scientific viewpoint, magic is not a thing apart from Nature. Indeed, many things in Nature are inherently magical. Magic is integral to explaining why it rains, the beating of your heart, and many other things.

 

[khalil]

I'm surprised people are getting lost in the definitions and distinctions. To me their choice in naming the statistic "Might" says it all. Might (Adj.), being the potency or force of something is different from Strength. Strength is a specific form of might--it is not might itself. Given that character abilities of all types are fueled by the magic of their souls in one way or another, the statistic might being applied wherever damage is calculated is logically consistent.

 

I have a link to share with you guys, and I think you'll like it. It speaks about exactly what I think is confounding people's sensibilities within this thread. This link contains a superb musing on the concepts of magic within RPG systems and how the pervasiveness of scientific thought have changed cultural notions of "what magic is". Enjoy.

 

Breaking Out of Scientific Magic Systems

However, the concept of magic really comes from a pre-scientific age. From a pre-scientific viewpoint, magic is not a thing apart from Nature. Indeed, many things in Nature are inherently magical. Magic is integral to explaining why it rains, the beating of your heart, and many other things.

 

Bull. Magic comes from Magus, a slur term used by the greeks to describe Zoroastrians. "Magic", as the greeks called it, was simply the various rites the Zoroastrians performed. If we're going to start talking about how magic should be true to it's roots, than wizards should just be clerics with pointy hats.

[Ffordesoon]

I'm surprised people are getting lost in the definitions and distinctions. To me their choice in naming the statistic "Might" says it all. Might (Adj.), being the potency or force of something is different from Strength. Strength is a specific form of might--it is not might itself. Given that character abilities of all types are fueled by the magic of their souls in one way or another, the statistic might being applied wherever damage is calculated is logically consistent.

 

I have a link to share with you guys, and I think you'll like it. It speaks about exactly what I think is confounding people's sensibilities within this thread. This link contains a superb musing on the concepts of magic within RPG systems and how the pervasiveness of scientific thought have changed cultural notions of "what magic is". Enjoy.

 

 

Breaking Out of Scientific Magic Systems

However, the concept of magic really comes from a pre-scientific age. From a pre-scientific viewpoint, magic is not a thing apart from Nature. Indeed, many things in Nature are inherently magical. Magic is integral to explaining why it rains, the beating of your heart, and many other things.

 

But magic in PoE's world would seem to be exactly the sort of magic that article inveighs against, no?

 

The article itself also seems to miss the point of what it calls "scientific magic" - that is, to make magic (which is basically a cheat code unless there are strict rules governing it, see also "A Wizard Did It") work within the framework of a balanced game. It's not a matter of science versus nature so much as a matter of impracticality versus practicality. The suggestions are interesting, but they also seem to take a lot more work to set up on the part of the designer and the GM than your standard "you fire a magic missile, now roll for damage" system.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Bull. Magic comes from Magus, a slur term used by the greeks to describe Zoroastrians. "Magic", as the greeks called it, was simply the various rites the Zoroastrians performed. If we're going to start talking about how magic should be true to it's roots, than wizards should just be clerics with pointy hats.

 

 

The piece makes no effort or claim to identify the historical origins of the term, "Magic" or define magic itself. It speaks about how scientific thought and the intrusion of empiricism and rational explanations of natural phenomena have changed cultural conceptions of what magic is--particularly as it pertains to RPGs and their corresponding mechanics. I'm not sure how this piece led you to your tangent.

 

But magic in PoE's world would seem to be exactly the sort of magic that article inveighs against, no?

The article itself also seems to miss the point of what it calls "scientific magic" - that is, to make magic (which is basically a cheat code unless there are strict rules governing it, see also "A Wizard Did It") work within the framework of a balanced game. It's not a matter of science versus nature so much as a matter of impracticality versus practicality. The suggestions are interesting, but they also seem to take a lot more work to set up on the part of the designer and the GM than your standard "you fire a magic missile, now roll for damage" system.

 

Agreed. From what has been shared, magic within PoE appears to be transitioning from a superstitious phenomena and into an empirical science. In terms of game play, a cRPG will inherently require predictable rules with quantifiable inputs and outputs. While the article is great food-for-thought, I linked it mostly to introduce to this thread the concept of magic not being separate from natural orders, like biology. A person's muscle make them strong, but magic is what makes muscles work! Therefore, within PoE, a characters Might is an approximation of the inherent potency within them--strong muscles and/or powerful magic are merely reflections of that magic which pervades their body.

[Jarrakul]

I agree that in PoE, it seems as though magic is not particularly separate from the physical world. It pervades everything, and saying that muscle is inherently different from magical power is not necessarily sensical. That's not to say that the power to lift a rock and the power to hurl a fireball are same the same, but saying that they come from a similar source seems reasonable. This does still leave Lephys's complaint that it's harder to have non-combat checks care whether you're muscle-strong or fireball-strong, which might be an important distinction to make because even if the source is the same, the end result is not.

 

That said, I disagree with the premise of the article that magic being fundamentally part of everything means that scientific approaches to magic don't have sense. Physics is a part of everything and scientific approaches to physics make sense. If magic is, in fact, conceptualized the way it historically has been, it makes more sense, not less, to treat mages like scientists. Because if magic is real and fundamental to the world, what else could a mage be but a scientist (or perhaps an engineer)? Ancient views of things like alchemy and astrology seem to support the notion that if magic is part of everything, then the study of magic must be a science.

[khalil]

The piece makes no effort or claim to identify the historical origins of the term, "Magic" or define magic itself. It speaks about how scientific thought and the intrusion of empiricism and rational explanations of natural phenomena have changed cultural conceptions of what magic is--particularly as it pertains to RPGs and their corresponding mechanics. I'm not sure how this piece led you to your tangent.

It's related in that the article talks about how magic should be more like it's folklore roots, and what I brought up is the roots of magic.

 

Here's some responses to the article's specific points.

1.Magic was generally an ordered thing, because most religions had various rituals. Complaining that magic isn't mysterious is like complaining that saying amen before a meal isn't mysterious enough.

2.Magic was considered to be separate or unnatural because it was the ways of disliked religions. Look at what has been said by various fundimentalists throughout history about religions they didn't like. It's allways unnatural this and satan worship that.

3.Of course rituals are used with magic. Magic was just a word for people praying to a god you didn't like. People pray via rituals, be it holding a crucifix or sacrificing a goat.

4.This is just game balance stuff. If magic is just like fighting, it becomes boring. If it is better than fighting but not limited, it is overpowered.

5.This is done so you can have evil wizards in the tradition of what magic was once thought of, but you can also have good guys use magic. Also, if you read Norse myths, you will notice that magic is a thing used by both good and evil people. Given that our idea of a pointy hatted wizard comes from Odin's guise as the wanderer, you'd think that'd be fairly relevant. Failing that, look at Arthurian legends. Both Morgane of the faries and Merlin use magic, and they are on opposite ends of the alignment spectrum.