"No Bad Builds" a failure in practice?

[Tartantyco]

This is why nobody cares what you say, Ondb.

[Fearabbit]

The point he is making:

1/ there should not be viable intelligent Fighter build (who is weak in STR, CON, DEX).

2/ There should be viable melee INT build, but in different class (BattleMage or Paladin who has spells (powered by INT) which benefit his melee focus).

 

The very idea that class does not have bad builds is the problem. The goal that Josh is trying to achieve so badly.

 

The point he was making was that it would not work to have a viable intelligent Fighter. When it clearly does.

 

Why do you need a class "Normal Fighter" that invariably needs STR, CON and DEX and one class "Clever Fighter" who benefits from DEX, INT and PER, when you only need one class? What would be the difference? That Clever Fighter has abilities that are unlocked by INT?

The current system takes a Fighter ability and changes its nature dependent on your attributes. That is like having Normal Fighter and Clever Fighter as classes, only that they are handled by the same class and that the transition from "Normal Fighter" to "Clever Fighter" is more fluent.

 

And it works, it just needs tweaking.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Fearabbit

[Panteleimon]

 

 

[...]

 

Have you actually looked at the current attribute system? PoE allows for fighters who are intelligent instead of strong. And it works quite well, except for one small problem: The values have to be tweaked a bit.

 

Also nobody's saying that the intelligent fighter should be as good as the strong one in every circumstance. It might be that, all in all, he's not as good a build. Nobody (who you should care about) wants perfect balance. But if I can actually roleplay as an intelligent leader instead of a dumb brute while still being quite good in combat situations, then that's enough reason to play this build.

 

 

The point he is making:

1/ there should not be viable intelligent Fighter build (who is weak in STR, CON, DEX).

2/ There should be viable melee INT build, but in different class (BattleMage or Paladin who has spells (powered by INT) which benefit his melee focus).

 

The very idea that class does not have bad builds is the problem. The goal that Josh is trying to achieve so badly.

 

 

I really shouldn't let you get my goat like this. Why don't you go ahead and take a few minutes and watch this: 

 

You win some, you lose some. The IDEA is that all stats do SOMETHING for all classes. It's about the attributes in relation to the classes. If I want to take advantage of the benefits a higher intellect(not intelligence, but that's another story) offers my Paladin, I have to accept that will inevitably cause me shortfalls in other attributes( like Might, Constitution or Dexterity) . In BG I had absolutely zero reason NOT to dump Intelligence and Wisdom(or Charisma for a non-PC character) for my Paladin so I could, by the definitions of the stats in BG, turn my Paladin into Hercules. A mentally retarded Hercules with the judgement and thoughtfulness of a potato, but for some reason nobody cared.

 

It really seems you're being willfully obtuse. I'm not going to waste my time in future.

 

EDIT: If anybody replies that some of the attributes are worth less than others across all classes or some other garbage, as though they were final, I'm going to start bleeding out my eyes.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Panteleimon

[Danathion]

Let me paste a quote from another user here, which shows how useless the attribute system is in its current state:

 

I took a closer look at the attributes system. For example:

 

Might 3 (minimum):

 

Might 18 (maximum):

 

The damage ouput (and healing too) increases by about 30%, that is all that min-maxing might does.

 

****ing around with the numbers changes the build so minimally, that it doesn't matter what you do. You might as well just put 13 points in every attribute:

 

Might 13:

 

That is just 10% less damage than maxing out might, and this works analogously for every attribute. After you dump intellect (which you should for classes that have no use of AoE) then the advantage is even more generous. I wonder why the game even has attributes, the only reason they seem to exist in PoE is to give the illusion that the game is more complex than it actually is, simply to deceive the player into thinking that his choices actually matter. It is a placebo effect and nothing more.

So why would you care about your attributes again. It seems that currently you can assign points in whatever way you want, because it will only have a minor effect on your character build. This needs to be fixed.

 

it seems obvious that, as has been said elsewhere, Josh didn't really want attributes but included them under the pressure of expectation - a successor of the IE games must have attributes and there must be six of them - As a result all they're actually accomplishing is causing a lot of confusion, which in turn is throwing a spanner in the 'balance' works. All 6 attributes are never going to be equally valuable to every class, (at least in the minds of the players the attributes have been added to please). Trying to make them so is futile and has resulted in the effect that they have little impact.   

 

I'll repeat my suggestion: 3 attributes instead of 6.

 

Currently 2 attributes govern a Defence Type, I suggest merging the attributes and calling them by their respective Defence Type titles:

 

Might + Constitution = Fortitude

Dexterity + Perception = Reflex

Intellect + Resolve = Will

 

Fortitude, Reflex and Will should be recognisable and understandable. Then we never need to hear about Might again...ever again.

 

I suggest removing the superfluous effects the attributes have - given to make them seem appealing/balanced - particularly the passive effects and add them as skills: Diplomacy/Intimidation etc.

 

I suggest splitting physical and magical damage - Magical damage to be governed by Will.

 

That way you have your Warrior, Wizard, Rogue attribute that everyone is familiar with. Should you desire a frontline Wizard you take a bit more fortitude at the expense of Reflex and Will. If you want a barbarian who is a cunning fighter you choose Will and sacrifice Fortitude or Reflex.

 

Class customisation/experimentation is achieved through Skill/Talent/Ability choices. That's how to achieve diversity, not with attributes for the sake of having them.

[Ondb]

This is why nobody cares what you say, Ondb.

 

So we disagree, big deal... I don't understand why you are taking it personally.

If you don't care care what i am saying then stop reading my posts. Simple.

[sophismata]

How are people complaining that you cannot make a viable INT/PER/etc fighter while at the same time complaining that attributes don't actually do anything (and a character with 3 everything is viable). Those are contradictory statements.

 

And the IE AD&D games didn't have any attribute choices - if you were a melee fighter you took Str/Con, ranged you took Dex/Con, and if you were a wizard you wanted Int so that you could copy spells. D&D 3.X is worse except for a few MAD builds (which are generally considered weak). Casters go 18 in their primary stat, and the rest in Con; Fighters need Str/Con and then Dex/Wis, Monk is royally screwed in tabletop play but works out in CRPG due to heavy combat focus and lots of helpful custom items.

 

 

Furthermore, if you are cribbing from D&D, point buy allows a distribution of 8 - 18, not 3 - 18. The +5 difference is pretty large on a d20, but if you were to go 14's across the board the character would still be fairly effective, just not optimal. Excepting spell-casters, of course.

 

Ultimately the impact of attributes in PoE are diluted, and there should probably be a bell curve for the effects of the stats. So that high and low attributes feel more meaningful. In no way is this "fundamentally broken".

 

I think Obsidian should take damage out of the equation altogether, though - too troublesome to deal with unless it's very gently curved. Find another use for Might. In general all builds are working towards dealing damage as this is, at its heart, a tactical combat game. Damage can be sourced more subtly from accuracy, interruption and duration attributes.

[Sarex]

So we disagree, big deal... I don't understand why you are taking it personally.

If you don't care care what i am saying then stop reading my posts. Simple.

 

Nobody cares what he is saying so don't worry too much about it.

[Rostere]

Coupling Might to damage in all classes on so on is an interesting approach which might work well.

 

Balancing character stats by just making them all virtually meaningless is something I don't like. A character with max in any stat should be fearsome in that aspect. A character which has dumped some stat should be atrocious in the same aspect. Look to Fallout and Arcanum for inspiration on this. There, and especially in Fallout, stats really do matter. More of that please. There is a reason we backed PE, and it has nothing to do with that PE character creation should be a hand-holding experience.

[Trodat]

^Well, Sawyer has been pretty open with this stuff in the end if you read through the updates and his replies to questions. But you will never really know how it works out until you can try it out yourself. He has said numerous times "You will not be able to make a bad character" and so on. I guess everyone had this child-like believe that it would turn out to be better than it is right now.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Trodat

[Gromnir]

"balance" used in same sentence as fallout and/or arcanum is meant as a joke, yes?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[CatatonicMan]

 

The point he is making:

1/ there should not be viable intelligent Fighter build (who is weak in STR, CON, DEX).

2/ There should be viable melee INT build, but in different class (BattleMage or Paladin who has spells (powered by INT) which benefit his melee focus).

 

The very idea that class does not have bad builds is the problem. The goal that Josh is trying to achieve so badly.

 

 

Not wanting bad builds isn't the problem. No, the real issue is whether no builds are bad because attributes are well balanced, or because attributes don't make much of a difference.

 

If it's viable to run a character who doesn't spend any attribute points, then the system has a problem. If it's not, then the system works.

[DigitalCrack]

 

 

 

 

[...]

Have you actually looked at the current attribute system? PoE allows for fighters who are intelligent instead of strong. And it works quite well, except for one small problem: The values have to be tweaked a bit.

 

Also nobody's saying that the intelligent fighter should be as good as the strong one in every circumstance. It might be that, all in all, he's not as good a build. Nobody (who you should care about) wants perfect balance. But if I can actually roleplay as an intelligent leader instead of a dumb brute while still being quite good in combat situations, then that's enough reason to play this build.

The point he is making:

1/ there should not be viable intelligent Fighter build (who is weak in STR, CON, DEX).

2/ There should be viable melee INT build, but in different class (BattleMage or Paladin who has spells (powered by INT) which benefit his melee focus).

 

The very idea that class does not have bad builds is the problem. The goal that Josh is trying to achieve so badly.

Might is power not physical strength in PoE. So a fighter will still do well in melee compared to non melee classes even without high might because his base class stats set him up to be so. Basically your working under the assumption that your already physically capable since you are a fighter.

[DigitalCrack]

People need to look at the attributes as modifiers not stat points. When you pick your class it essentially determines your physical attributes and then you modify that by spending points on six modifiers. Where as D&D you pick your physical attributes.

Edited August 23, 2014 by DigitalCrack

[PrimeJunta]

That said, I don't think a wizard should be able to dump intelligence at all, simply because one would assume wizards are kind of scholars that can read and spell. 

 

Why would one assume that?

[Rostere]

"balance" used in same sentence as fallout and/or arcanum is meant as a joke, yes?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

The point was not that these games were better "balanced" in the sense that most point distributions were equally hard to play the game with. The point was that these games provided a genuine character creation system where you the strengths and weaknesses of your character was very pronounced. This made for a lot of replayability and role playing opportunities.

 

In PE the focus seems to be which classes you have in your party. I like the differences between the classes, but I think it is sad that stats make such little difference. Obsidian should really just take the stats pretty much as they are, then have them make double as much impact. Make low stats worse and good stats better. Start the balancing from that point instead. There is a lot of talk about how "all builds are viable" but really, that's hardly surprising if there is no practical difference between them.

 

Yes, I know that would be harder to balance. But really, if the current approach to balancing is to make all bonuses/maluses so small they are practically irrelevant... Yeah, that's not the road interesting games take. There is a need for a slight refocus of priorities.

[nipsen]

How are people complaining that you cannot make a viable INT/PER/etc fighter while at the same time complaining that attributes don't actually do anything (and a character with 3 everything is viable). Those are contradictory statements.

 

And the IE AD&D games didn't have any attribute choices - if[...]

..sort of depends on how the game plays, how often you're getting into fights, what sort of spells and abilities you're countering..

 

D&D really tends to eventually ignore stats completely from a meta-game perspective, because there is just one approach, period, like you say. And as classes level up, they become more specialized, so the encounters have to be tuned towards that. You always balance encounters expecting that, and there's never really any room to floor a party that already has a balanced make-up, without "bad luck" - unless you're being unfair as a game-master and calculating that the spell-makeup doesn't have a chance to counter what you're throwing at them.

 

And isn't that really the problem people are running into with PoE? That the ruleset allows you to make extremely specialized characters based only on dealing damage -- and the ones making these builds expect to have a reasonable chance -- but then get floored by mob makeups that assumed you didn't focus exclusively on one specific approach?

 

Ultimately the impact of attributes in PoE are diluted, and there should probably be a bell curve for the effects of the stats. So that high and low attributes feel more meaningful. In no way is this "fundamentally broken".

 

I think Obsidian should take damage out of the equation altogether, though - too troublesome to deal with unless it's very gently curved. Find another use for Might. In general all builds are working towards dealing damage as this is, at its heart, a tactical combat game. Damage can be sourced more subtly from accuracy, interruption and duration attributes.

How did that turn out in the game, by the way? Anyone made an int-based "min-maxed" fighter towards criticals and defense? Mage focusing on long lasting aoe and embiggened area clouds, and so on..?

[Zack Fair]

 

That said, I don't think a wizard should be able to dump intelligence at all, simply because one would assume wizards are kind of scholars that can read and spell. 

 

Why would one assume that?

 

Because if someone has this raw soul power in him/herself, the guy needs to learn how to use if effectively, instead of having random magic bursts, that destroy a whole village. And you can learn from reading books that have this knowledge. I assume using soul power as magic is pretty difficult, otherwise every farmer on the land would his his soul power. So you HAVE to learn a lot, to be a good mage, and it should be like this in PoE, if we want the setting to make sense. 

 

Seriously, a low INT wizard is just as stupid, as a low STR fighter, even if Josh wants to prove otherwise. At least as far as common sense goes.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Zack Fair

[PrimeJunta]

No, I have to disagree. If you want freedom of choice, go with classes. Classes have been made to cater to everyone's needs by providing archetypes that fit all kinds of roles players wanted to play.

 

This, indeed, is how (A)D&D is designed. It is in my opinion a bad design that locks in your character development from level 1. I'm happy P:E isn't designed with this principle in mind.

 

This is, in fact, the reason behind the huge proliferation of supplements with class kits (for AD&D) and prestige classes (for D&D3). The base classes are too rigid, even with multi-classing, to allow many players to play the character concepts they like. It was a great cash cow for the publisher, of course.

 

It is much better to have a system that sets some basic parameters and lets you define your character concept from there on out. Gives more freedom to the player, more room for creative strategies, and keeps the system simpler, easier to understand, and easier to manage -- and if it's well made, it won't lose any of the richness and variety.

[Gromnir]

 

"balance" used in same sentence as fallout and/or arcanum is meant as a joke, yes?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

The point was not that these games were better "balanced" in the sense that most point distributions were equally hard to play the game with. The point was that these games provided a genuine character creation system where you the strengths and weaknesses of your character was very pronounced. This made for a lot of replayability and role playing opportunities.

 

In PE the focus seems to be which classes you have in your party. I like the differences between the classes, but I think it is sad that stats make such little difference. Obsidian should really just take the stats pretty much as they are, then have them make double as much impact. Make low stats worse and good stats better. Start the balancing from that point instead. There is a lot of talk about how "all builds are viable" but really, that's hardly surprising if there is no practical difference between them.

 

Yes, I know that would be harder to balance. But really, if the current approach to balancing is to make all bonuses/maluses so small they are practically irrelevant... Yeah, that's not the road interesting games take. There is a need for a slight refocus of priorities.

 

and fallout and arcanum character generation is exact what obsidian were trying to avoid 'cause as much as you could build characters any way you wished, functionally there were a very small handful o' viable builds... at least according to the developers. you has chosen the worst examples o' balance and has illustrated exact what obsidian is fighting against with PoE. grats.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[DigitalCrack]

 

 

That said, I don't think a wizard should be able to dump intelligence at all, simply because one would assume wizards are kind of scholars that can read and spell.

 

Yes they can becuase by choosing wizard in PoE works under the assumption that your already smart enough to be one and your attributes simply modify that assumption.

Edited August 23, 2014 by DigitalCrack

[PrimeJunta]

Because if someone has this raw soul power in him/herself, the guy needs to learn how to use if effectively, instead of having random magic bursts, that destroy a whole village. And you can learn from reading books that have this knowledge.

 

Why does it have to come from books, rather than, say, meditation, martial arts, a pact with the infernal powers, physical discipline, or something similar to learning to play a musical instrument?

 

Seriously, a low INT wizard is just as stupid, as a low STR fighter, even if Josh wants to prove otherwise. At least as far as common sense goes.

IME every time someone says "it's just common sense" he's run out of arguments.

[anameforobsidian]

I think they just need to rename Might and Con and people will stop complaining about the whole "muscle wizard" intuitiveness.

 

Just do this:

Might = "Soul Power"

Con = "Beefiness"

 

Problem solved. Then nobody can argue that a "muscle wizard" makes no sense since clearly to make a muscle wizard you would pump Beefiness, whereas to make a glass cannon you would pump Soul Power.

 

Bam!

 

We can rename others too if they are too confusing, for instance Resolve could be "Don't-Give-A-****ness" (DGAFness for short).

 

Personally I thought Might and Intellect should have switched names anyways, because nothing says unfettered power like increased AoE's, but small precise shots that really hurt require intelligence.

 

But yes, Might != Strength.  A mighty king is not the same as a strong king.

[Zack Fair]

 

Because if someone has this raw soul power in him/herself, the guy needs to learn how to use if effectively, instead of having random magic bursts, that destroy a whole village. And you can learn from reading books that have this knowledge.

 

Why does it have to come from books, rather than, say, meditation, martial arts, a pact with the infernal powers, physical discipline, or something similar to learning to play a musical instrument?

 

Meditation, martial arts and playing a musical instrument still needs a decent level of intelligence. 

 

 

Seriously, a low INT wizard is just as stupid, as a low STR fighter, even if Josh wants to prove otherwise. At least as far as common sense goes.

IME every time someone says "it's just common sense" he's run out of arguments.

 

I made my argument above, can't you read. You, on the other hand don't want to accept logic.

[Caerdon]

Ultimately the impact of attributes in PoE are diluted, and there should probably be a bell curve for the effects of the stats. So that high and low attributes feel more meaningful. In no way is this "fundamentally broken".

 

The high end offering more benefit per point than the mid-range only leads to universal min-maxing. The high end should offer less benefit, so that when you make the choice to go all-out on one attribute, you're actually sacrificing your ability in other areas. There should always be diminishing benefits so that players will at least sometimes think that 14 or 15 is good enough in order to be good at other things too.

 

The low end, however, should be somewhat punishing.

[Ondb]

 

Because if someone has this raw soul power in him/herself, the guy needs to learn how to use if effectively, instead of having random magic bursts, that destroy a whole village. And you can learn from reading books that have this knowledge.

 

Why does it have to come from books, rather than, say, meditation, martial arts, a pact with the infernal powers, physical discipline, or something similar to learning to play a musical instrument?

 

Seriously, a low INT wizard is just as stupid, as a low STR fighter, even if Josh wants to prove otherwise. At least as far as common sense goes.

IME every time someone says "it's just common sense" he's run out of arguments.

 

 

Quoting wizard desc: Wizard is one of the playable classes in Pillars of Eternity. Widely respected in most societies, wizards of Pillars of Eternity are men and women of high education and extreme mental discipline, if not always outright intelligence. Wizards are sometimes called navigators of the mortal soul, charting out and practicing the precise ways in which "ordinary" people can unlock the power inside of themselves. Using their knowledge to truly spectacular ends, wizards rely not only on ancient practices but also their own research to propel them forward.

 

According the lore wizard soul power comes from books. Wizard soul powers comes from grimoires. Remembering now?