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

[Silent Winter]

 

It doesn't increase damage, it just does damage to more things.

 

I think that's his point - if you do 5 damage to 4 enemies - that's 20 damage.

10 damage to one enemy is only half that.

If the 5 damage is repeated over 3 'turns' (I know PoE doesn't have 'turns' per se but you get the idea) then that's a lot more damage from one spell.  Of course, the might-wizard casts more spells in that time too (but then so can the intellect wizard) so it's balanced rather than one being so much better at their job.

Until we know the exact figures, we can't really speculate as to whether pumping might and ignoring intellect or vice-versa will be beneficial or not.

Might would be better for single target insta-damage spells, intellect might be better for AOE spells to get more enemies in one hit for a battle-opener, whatever-stat may be better for keeping an enemy suffering from acid-attack/constant drain attack/etc, depening on your strategy.

(I've probably mixed up which stat is which here but that's the general idea)

[curryinahurry]

 

 

I don't think I'm nitpicking at all.  Intellect makes effects last longer and increases AoE size.  That, to me, would seem to increase damage.

 

It doesn't increase damage, it just does damage to more things.

 

 

 

If you take Melf's Acid Arrow from IWD and implement a roughly equivalent version for POE (2-8 + 2-8 for 1turn every 3 levels) for 2  you would get the following average damage:

 

Wizard Level 5; Might 18, Intellect 10 (+36% Damage + 50% AOE/Duration):  5 x 1.36 = 6.8 + (6.8 x 2 rounds (eq lvl 7.5)) = 20.4 Total Damage

 

Wizard Level 5; Might 10, Intellect 18 (+20% Damage, + 90% AOE/Duration): 5 x 1.2  = 6 + (6 x 3 rounds (eq lvl 9.5)) = 24 Total Damage

 

I think this is what Josh Sawyer was talking about many different viable builds.

Edited February 24, 2014 by curryinahurry

[Gfted1]

Isnt AoE only doing damage while the mooks are standing in the AoE radius? Whats the use of long duration AoE if the mooks just run through the radius? You may say to bottle them up with your front liners and then drop an AoE spell but that would just catch your own party in the AoE effect. Direct damage seems a lot more "viable" to me. Maybe AoE duration will be more useful if they have AoE sleep / charm / roots spells.

[tajerio]

Isnt AoE only doing damage while the mooks are standing in the AoE radius? Whats the use of long duration AoE if the mooks just run through the radius? You may say to bottle them up with your front liners and then drop an AoE spell but that would just catch your own party in the AoE effect. Direct damage seems a lot more "viable" to me. Maybe AoE duration will be more useful if they have AoE sleep / charm / roots spells.

 

Duration is for all effects, not just AoE.

[Gfted1]

Duration is for all effects, not just AoE.

How would "duration" be applied to non-AoE spells? For example; fireball, lightning bolt, magic missile, etc... these spells do their damage instantly. Pumping Might will boost their damage by percent but how would they benefit from pumping Intellect?

[Labadal]

 

How would "duration" be applied to non-AoE spells? For example; fireball, lightning bolt, magic missile, etc... these spells do their damage instantly. Pumping Might will boost their damage by <X> percent but how would they benefit from pumping Intellect?

 

Speculation, but maybe intellect makes the fireball larger or maybe there are a few more missiles, etc.

[tajerio]

 

Duration is for all effects, not just AoE.

How would "duration" be applied to non-AoE spells? For example; fireball, lightning bolt, magic missile, etc... these spells do their damage instantly. Pumping Might will boost their damage by <X> percent but how would they benefit from pumping Intellect?

 

 

I don't know that they would (though it should be noted that fireball's always an AoE spell).  Might will always benefit damage, and that's not the point I'm arguing.  I'm simply saying that other attributes provide benefit to damage as well.

 

But any spell that gives damage over time will benefit from intellect as the system's presently constituted.  We just don't know what those spells are.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Duration is for all effects, not just AoE.

How would "duration" be applied to non-AoE spells? For example; fireball, lightning bolt, magic missile, etc... these spells do their damage instantly. Pumping Might will boost their damage by <X> percent but how would they benefit from pumping Intellect?

 

 

They won't (aside from the larger radius). Those X other spells which do DoT, however...

[Ganrich]

AoE (high intellect build) mage won't be focusing on magic missile. I would expect a focus on AoE spells like fireball and poison type spells for increased DoT. Duration increase can also apply to buffs as well as de-buffs.

 

Dexterity is a damage increase across all attacks though. It will decrease the number of grazes in combat, and increase the number of critical hits. This applies to all spells, abilities, and attacks.

 

Can we say, for certain, that a character with might pumped and Dexterity fairly low will do more damage than a character that has Dexterity pumped and has mostly ignored Might? What if you mix a high might and dexterity vs high intellect and dexterity? The former would do more damage, but graze more often and crit less often. The latter may do less damage, but grazes very little and crits much more frequently. How much less damage does a graze do vs a full hit? With the change to perception we now have a change on how critical damage is dealt. So, will a might based build that grazes all the time and crits very little do more damage than a dex build that grazes much less and crits much more frequently?

 

As tajerio said though, we don't know the spells included so we cannot ascertain whether Might or Dexterity would be more beneficial to a class because they have many more instant single target abilities. If there is a balance in the type of spells/abilities then intellect/might/ dexterity will be more equal. If the game favors instant type damage then might and dexterity will trump intellect. We really don't know enough to say at the moment.

[Lephys]

 

I don't really understand why any mention of a Wizard being able to perform physical feats as well as magic ones, to varying degrees of capacity, keeps being treated as some kind of ludicrous or irrelevant potentiality.

Because making a wizard good at one makes him automatically good at the other. It's not that a muscle wizard is stupid, it's the fact that if I want a wizard who kills things with magic he has to be a muscle wizard. I'm not saying that I don't want to be all FACE THE POWER OF MY MAGIC MISSILE HOAK HOGAN! SKRONK!, just that I find it stupid that if I want to do damage via magic that's my only option.

 

I believe I misunderstood you. My apologies. I didn't realize you were making the same point I was (that you shouldn't have to be awesome at both, or awesome at neither). Sorry about that.

 

For what it's worth, though, that part from me you quoted was mainly directed at the sentiment that has been pretty prevalent in any discussion of this matter (the current functioning of Might), in general. Not specifically at you.

 

That's not really entirely true, though.  If you want to make a wizard who has the highest raw damage when he hits normally, then you pump might.  But pumping intellect will increase AoE size and make your DOTs last longer, while increasing dexterity will make you hit more often and shift you towards more critical hits.  Those are both viable directions to go to increase damage without increasing "the damage stat."

The whole Might issue is completely separate from the fact that other things affect your resulting damage numbers. The problem isn't that Might somehow single-handedly maximizes your damage. The point is simply that its role is played out in both magical AND physical attacks, even though the game presents a sort of dichotomy between those (hence the question over whether or not we'd be able to make a Wizard who's also pretty good with melee weapons and wears armor, etc.). It's KIND of two different things. Weaving a fireball does damage through absolutely no means of physical power. The same with a magic missile. And yet, one stat boosts the raw damage of both.

 

So, however your damage is boosted by Might in regard to its maximum potential with the aid of other stats, it's going to be the SAME for all your Wizards' and Priests' physical attacks as it is for your magical ones. The only difference being that you won't really get physical class attack abilities as a Wizard, but you will as a Fighter. Which, don't get me wrong, makes plenty of sense (it's kind of the point of their class roles), but, that's the only thing distinguishing between physical and magical potency -- class. For the most part.

 

It's just kind of weird. If you're Mighty, you can either throw a rock at pinata so hard the pinata explodes into a shower of candy, OR you can blast the crap out of that pinata with a magic bolt, without so much as flexing a muscle.

 

That's... just... strange. Sure, other stats apply to both: Dexterity, for example. But, whether I'm "telekinetically"/intangibly propelling a fireball or magic bolt, or aiming a bow or throwing knife doesn't really matter. I have to see my target, and properly aim the propulsion of that entity so that it doesn't miss (didn't really understand this about a lot of D&D spells -- they pretty much always hit, and it was just down to resistances and saves to stop their effects).

 

I don't really foresee anyone being upset about not being able to make a Wizard who wins at magic-darts all the time with 5 bullseyes in a row, but can't hit the broad side of a barn with physical darts. Sure, there'd be an understandable discrepancy between the two (unless the gesture for hurling magical darts was identical to throwing a physical dart -- your muscle memory/technical skill would be lacking with the physical darts). But, that's more of a skill thing. You can have 8,000,000 Dexterity, and still be far worse with a sword than some veteran soldier (with less Dexterity) if you've just picked up a sword for the first time in your life.

 

Again, I understand the abstraction from a sheer gameplay/mechanical design/balancing standpoint. But, it's not as if there's no reason to have a distinction. I'm also okay with their decision. I just still see a lot of people who don't seem to comprehend why anyone's suggesting there's even an issue in the first place. I don't think some people comprehend why some of us would want a distinction.

[tajerio]

Again, I understand the abstraction from a sheer gameplay/mechanical design/balancing standpoint. But, it's not as if there's no reason to have a distinction. I'm also okay with their decision. I just still see a lot of people who don't seem to comprehend why anyone's suggesting there's even an issue in the first place. I don't think some people comprehend why some of us would want a distinction.

 

From my vantage point, the problem is the legacy of the IE games, where a clear distinction is drawn between people who use magic and people who don't--a distinction that isn't nearly so clear in PoE, given the power of the soul.  Josh is trying to build a different set of attributes that do different things, but still allow backers to have that IE feel.  It's no wonder the conceptualization is muddied.  I personally like to think of Might as the sum of physical and soul strength, whenever I'm worried about the simulationist aspect.  

[Lephys]

Yeah. The whole soul-basis thing is one of the main reasons it's not exactly a huge issue. If you just took D&D and smashed them together, it'd be more of an issue, because there'd be pretty much no reason for it.

 

Like I said, the thoughts that bother me most about it have to do with non-combat situations. Or, better yet, to use a combat example, your Wizard can effectively "run out of juice" (be out of per-day and per-encounter spells), but can still freely attack with brute force. And the Wizard isn't really imbuing his physical attacks with soul energy (but IS still imbuing his wand/Blast attacks with soul magic, as well as his simpler at-will spells). Whereas, the Fighter apparently is performing seeming-physical feats as a direct product of his soul energies. So, again, the distinction is there, but it's mainly a class distinction.

 

That, plus the apparent fact that not everyone in the world of PoE bears soul powers (or they do, and they aren't significant enough to warrant being called "powers" or grant any actual abilities, etc.). Thus, if you have a World's Strongest Man non-soul-powered guy who's simply very, very muscly, in a circus or something, then the game has no way of distinguishing his capability from that of a Wizard with 20 Might.

 

Basically, the distinction remains in the game/lore, but is lacking in the stat system and player character creation.

 

Yes, it's abstract, and there are souls to consider, etc., but we haven't exactly nullified the need/utility of a distinction, is all.

[DCParry]

 

That, plus the apparent fact that not everyone in the world of PoE bears soul powers (or they do, and they aren't significant enough to warrant being called "powers" or grant any actual abilities, etc.). Thus, if you have a World's Strongest Man non-soul-powered guy who's simply very, very muscly, in a circus or something, then the game has no way of distinguishing his capability from that of a Wizard with 20 Might.

 

 

 

That farmer who is able to curdle milk using his soul power is going to make a killing with yoghurt. I wonder if Might would then determine how thick the yoghurt was, while intelligence would increase the amount of yoghurt he could make at a time. 

 

Now I am thinking of all the weird ass power from Misfits as soul powers. Lactokinesis for the win. 

[Giantevilhead]

If you punch the universe hard enough, it will have reality bending powers greater than any magic.

 

Edited February 25, 2014 by Giantevilhead

[aluminiumtrioxid]

It's just kind of weird. If you're Mighty, you can either throw a rock at pinata so hard the pinata explodes into a shower of candy, OR you can blast the crap out of that pinata with a magic bolt, without so much as flexing a muscle.

That's... just... strange. 

 

Weren't you guys making a lot of noise before about how bad it is for Intellect to increase overall damage? Well, this is the result of that complaining. *shrugs* Couldn't care less, personally, but I think it was way less idiotic for Intellect to give bonus damage than being forced to be ripped in order to cast a sufficiently mighty magic missile.

 

(Actually, I kinda think that the way things are right now, Intellect and Dex are way better investments than Might. +10 Intellect means +50% duration (which, unless elemental resistances work as DT, will translate to +50% damage in the case of DoT spells) AND AoE. +10 Dex generally means (assuming equivalent base attack and def, 0% miss, 1-30% graze, 31-75% hit, 25% crit = 0,3*0,5 + 0,45 + 0,25*1,5=0,975 [dam] vs. 0,05*0 + 0,45*0,5 + 0,45 + 0,05*1,5=0,75 [dam]) +22,5% damage even without any funky bonus to criticals. Compared to the rather flimsy flat +20% damage I'd get from using all those points to pump Might, these seem far more potent.)

Edited February 25, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[rjshae]

Yep. Might will be useful for instantaneous/point target damage effects (Flaming Arrow); Intellect for cumulative/area damage effects (Acid Mist). Fireball will benefit from both.

[Lephys]

Weren't you guys making a lot of noise before about how bad it is for Intellect to increase overall damage? Well, this is the result of that complaining. *shrugs* Couldn't care less, personally, but I think it was way less idiotic for Intellect to give bonus damage than being forced to be ripped in order to cast a sufficiently mighty magic missile.

The problem literally remains the same. One stat = both physical and non-physical potency. "+X% damage" just moved from INT to Might. So, I'm extremely curious to know why you think it's more reasonable for mental potency to dictate raw physical strength than for physical strength to dictate raw mental/intangible potency.

 

(Actually, I kinda think that the way things are right now, Intellect and Dex are way better investments than Might. +10 Intellect means +50% duration (which, unless elemental resistances work as DT, will translate to +50% damage in the case of DoT spells) AND AoE. +10 Dex generally means (assuming equivalent base attack and def, 0% miss, 1-30% graze, 31-75% hit, 25% crit = 0,3*0,5 + 0,45 + 0,25*1,5=0,975 [dam] vs. 0,05*0 + 0,45*0,5 + 0,45 + 0,05*1,5=0,75 [dam]) +22,5% damage even without any funky bonus to criticals. Compared to the rather flimsy flat +20% damage I'd get from using all those points to pump Might, these seem far more potent.)

Maybe so. That's, of course, completely irrelevant to the function of Might versus the representation of characters' properties/aspects.

[Silent Winter]

 So, I'm extremely curious to know why you think it's more reasonable for mental potency to dictate raw physical strength than for physical strength to dictate raw mental/intangible potency.

Well, magic power doesn't equal mental potency - that's a D&D thing - the nearest way I can figure the current system is that magic power actually does require physical exertion. (not the first fantasy world I've encountered where powerful wizards need to be physically strong).

Intellect now governs control rather than power.

Edit: so this allows for more of a 'brute' wizard versus a 'finesse' wizard or something.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Silent Winter

[Lephys]

Well, magic power doesn't equal mental potency - that's a D&D thing - the nearest way I can figure the current system is that magic power actually does require physical exertion. (not the first fantasy world I've encountered where powerful wizards need to be physically strong).

Intellect now governs control rather than power.

Edit: so this allows for more of a 'brute' wizard versus a 'finesse' wizard or something.

I get that. I was specifically referring to aluminiumtrioxid's comment about Intelligence/Intellect governing both things (physical AND magical potency), which is where the "mental" stuff came in. Plus, yeah, D&D did it that way, so a lot of people might refer to it, defaultly, as mental power, so I was just trying to cover that reference. I'm not saying the capacity of your mental processing power has to govern your magical potency. Honestly, if I were going to split magic damage off from Might in terms of PoE stats, I'd put it under Resolve. Of course, I realize it wouldn't work to just take the current system and put Magic Damage on Resolve, all else unchanged.

 

So, yeah, point taken that Strength isn't exactly governing mental capability. I didn't really mean to suggest that.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Weren't you guys making a lot of noise before about how bad it is for Intellect to increase overall damage? Well, this is the result of that complaining. *shrugs* Couldn't care less, personally, but I think it was way less idiotic for Intellect to give bonus damage than being forced to be ripped in order to cast a sufficiently mighty magic missile.

The problem literally remains the same. One stat = both physical and non-physical potency. "+X% damage" just moved from INT to Might. So, I'm extremely curious to know why you think it's more reasonable for mental potency to dictate raw physical strength than for physical strength to dictate raw mental/intangible potency.

 

It wouldn't dictate raw physical strength. That would be the purview of the Strength stat.   It would either mean that the character can utilize their natural abilities better, or have an advanced knowledge of where to hit for maximum effect, or be better at absorbing their class' specific skillset. But these were all points I (and many others) made ages ago in another topic. Read back, I have better things to do with my time than repeat the same points in different debates.

[curryinahurry]

Yep. Might will be useful for instantaneous/point target damage effects (Flaming Arrow); Intellect for cumulative/area damage effects (Acid Mist). Fireball will benefit from both.

 

This is a key point.  What might vis a vis spell damage points to is a character that can deliver instantaneous damage.  Looking at how you might build a character concept around this; it seems that this type of character would work perfectly as a damage oriented Gish.  

 

In other words, there is no discontinuity between the mechanics and role-playing aspects of a high might wizard within this  system, as no other mage arch-type is going to exploit high strength particularly well ( I think glass cannons are almost impossible).

Edited February 26, 2014 by curryinahurry

[Lephys]

It wouldn't dictate raw physical strength. That would be the purview of the Strength stat.   It would either mean that the character can utilize their natural abilities better, or have an advanced knowledge of where to hit for maximum effect, or be better at absorbing their class' specific skillset. But these were all points I (and many others) made ages ago in another topic. Read back, I have better things to do with my time than repeat the same points in different debates.

*sigh*... I understand that. What I meant was, for the purposes of Strength's impact on the physics of weapon/force damage. Either Intellect was dictating that facet of strength, or that facet of strength simply didn't exist.

 

A 20-foot giant versus a 3-foot human child? Oh, they both have 15 Intellect? Then their damage is the same. And if their damage ISN'T the same, that difference is not being measured at all by a stat, even though a stat is measuring Strength, and the Strength of the giant is blatantly far greater than the strength of the child. Apparently, that's just a coincidence though.

 

All that's been said before, too. This was a clarification of my reference.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

It wouldn't dictate raw physical strength. That would be the purview of the Strength stat.   It would either mean that the character can utilize their natural abilities better, or have an advanced knowledge of where to hit for maximum effect, or be better at absorbing their class' specific skillset. But these were all points I (and many others) made ages ago in another topic. Read back, I have better things to do with my time than repeat the same points in different debates.

*sigh*... I understand that. What I meant was, for the purposes of Strength's impact on the physics of weapon/force damage. Either Intellect was dictating that facet of strength, or that facet of strength simply didn't exist.

 

 

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.)

[Silent Winter]

Deja-Boo (when the hamster comes round the wheel again).

 

These were all gone over and suggested in the other thread - they changed it to 'might' instead - I'm now at the 'rationalising what's there' phase.

[Ffordesoon]

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