"No Bad Builds" a failure in practice?

[Mayama]

People who still defends the core mechanics should really try this little experiment...

 

When a PC build with all attributes kept to the minimum (not using the fifty something points awarded at the creation phase) is equally viable than a character with the points well distributed, then there is something fundamentally flawed in the core system, something no amount of re-balancing can easily fix.

Double the bonus of the attribute points, balance the enemies accordingly and all of a sudden you wont survive with spending zero points. So a simple number tweak fixed the fundamentally flawed core system... do you even math bro?

Edited August 25, 2014 by Mayama

[Osvir]

Msxyz, it just means that the differences between a weaker, low attribute character, and a high attribute character, makes a much more significant difference in-game. It might not look like much on your character "Wtf this Character has 3 Perception and gets +3 Accuracy, which is no different from +11 Accuracy from 11! I'll dumpstat this Perception thing". But against enemies that +8 Accuracy might help one of your builds significantly.

The system might be built perfectly in fact, but the thing that's not built properly (in this Beta Build) is Enemy AI, Stats, Health/Stamina, Damage etc. COMBINED with technical issues we experience, and that's why you can't benefit from percieving the Attribute system or Build system properly.

You don't bend the characters abilities after everything in the world, you bend the world after the characters abilities. In my opinion.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Osvir

[Helm]

Thanks, I get it now! I was really confused before, I guess I shouldn't have doubted Sawyer after all.

 

Here is my kick-ass low-intelligence and low-strength grandmaster wizard with his familiar, kittyona wizcat!

 

The dumbass has problems holding his wand correctly, but he can still cast some bad ass fireballs I tell you.

 

 

He can dodge magic missles real well because of his high perception and dexterity. He is very determined because of his high resolve, which always gets him into to trouble because he is so fukking stupid.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Helm

[Osvir]

Helm! That's cool! You can build your character as you wish! +1

[Wintersong]

People who still defends the core mechanics should really try this little experiment...

 

When a PC build with all attributes kept to the minimum (not using the fifty something points awarded at the creation phase) is equally viable than a character with the points well distributed, then there is something fundamentally flawed in the core system, something no amount of re-balancing can easily fix.

If playing a character without any of the 57 points is as easy (or difficult) to play as one with the 57 points, I can agree about it being flawed. Being viable wouldn't be a bad thing though (it'd be a challenge). That it could make no difference compared to spending points, that would be a problem.

 

Not going to try that experiment with the current build though.

[sparklecat]

People who still defends the core mechanics should really try this little experiment...

 

When a PC build with all attributes kept to the minimum (not using the fifty something points awarded at the creation phase) is equally viable than a character with the points well distributed, then there is something fundamentally flawed in the core system, something no amount of re-balancing can easily fix.

Have you tried it?

[J.E. Sawyer]

People who still defends the core mechanics should really try this little experiment...

 

When a PC build with all attributes kept to the minimum (not using the fifty something points awarded at the creation phase) is equally viable than a character with the points well distributed, then there is something fundamentally flawed in the core system, something no amount of re-balancing can easily fix.

 

If you adjusted the bonus scale for D&D's attribute system to go from -1 at 3 and +1 at 20, you would get the same outcome you're talking about, though -- and that would be a balance issue, not a fundamental mechanical issue.  It may be that Might grants too little of a bonus from point to point, it may be that wizards' spells simply do so much damage that a low bonus doesn't have a large impact on their viability, or it could be something else.

[Sammael]

Spell damage in D&D up to 3.x is not tied to attributes.

 

Spell accuracy in D&D up to 2e is not tied at all to attributes, and is partially tied to attributes in 3.x.

[Giubba]

 

People who still defends the core mechanics should really try this little experiment...

 

When a PC build with all attributes kept to the minimum (not using the fifty something points awarded at the creation phase) is equally viable than a character with the points well distributed, then there is something fundamentally flawed in the core system, something no amount of re-balancing can easily fix.

 

If you adjusted the bonus scale for D&D's attribute system to go from -1 at 3 and +1 at 20, you would get the same outcome you're talking about, though -- and that would be a balance issue, not a fundamental mechanical issue.  It may be that Might grants too little of a bonus from point to point, it may be that wizards' spells simply do so much damage that a low bonus doesn't have a large impact on their viability, or it could be something else.

 

 

And that's the reason why they didn't.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Giubba

[Frusciante]

 

 

People who still defends the core mechanics should really try this little experiment...

 

When a PC build with all attributes kept to the minimum (not using the fifty something points awarded at the creation phase) is equally viable than a character with the points well distributed, then there is something fundamentally flawed in the core system, something no amount of re-balancing can easily fix.

 

If you adjusted the bonus scale for D&D's attribute system to go from -1 at 3 and +1 at 20, you would get the same outcome you're talking about, though -- and that would be a balance issue, not a fundamental mechanical issue.  It may be that Might grants too little of a bonus from point to point, it may be that wizards' spells simply do so much damage that a low bonus doesn't have a large impact on their viability, or it could be something else.

 

 

And that's the reason why they didn't.

 

 

The point is that this is a balance problem and not an inherent flaw in the core mechanics. I think what he is saying that they will tweak the impact of the attributes until they do have the desired impact.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Frusciante

[Answermancer]

 

 

People who still defends the core mechanics should really try this little experiment...

 

When a PC build with all attributes kept to the minimum (not using the fifty something points awarded at the creation phase) is equally viable than a character with the points well distributed, then there is something fundamentally flawed in the core system, something no amount of re-balancing can easily fix.

 

If you adjusted the bonus scale for D&D's attribute system to go from -1 at 3 and +1 at 20, you would get the same outcome you're talking about, though -- and that would be a balance issue, not a fundamental mechanical issue.  It may be that Might grants too little of a bonus from point to point, it may be that wizards' spells simply do so much damage that a low bonus doesn't have a large impact on their viability, or it could be something else.

 

 

And that's the reason why they didn't.

 

 

Are some of you people just completely incapable of responding to the point being made instead of some arbitrary point you made up in your head?

 

Yes, they didn't do that in D&D, and if Obsidian did do that here he is saying that's a tuning mistake and balancing issue as opposed to some fundamental unfixable "holy **** the sky is falling the game is ****ed" situation. They have several months to get those numbers right, and a big part of the beta is to get our feedback which so far has pretty universally been "make the numbers more meaningful (or get rid of stats altogether)".

Edited August 25, 2014 by Answermancer

[Tartantyco]

Giubba is a troll. Just ignore him.

[Longknife]

 

and that would be a balance issue, not a fundamental mechanical issue.

 

 

HOLY **** guys is it just me or is Josh Sawyer practically echoing me from when I tried explaining things to Helm?

 

Be right back, my ego needs congratulating on leveling up. My analytical thinking skills = pro.

[Giubba]

 

 

 

People who still defends the core mechanics should really try this little experiment...

 

When a PC build with all attributes kept to the minimum (not using the fifty something points awarded at the creation phase) is equally viable than a character with the points well distributed, then there is something fundamentally flawed in the core system, something no amount of re-balancing can easily fix.

 

If you adjusted the bonus scale for D&D's attribute system to go from -1 at 3 and +1 at 20, you would get the same outcome you're talking about, though -- and that would be a balance issue, not a fundamental mechanical issue.  It may be that Might grants too little of a bonus from point to point, it may be that wizards' spells simply do so much damage that a low bonus doesn't have a large impact on their viability, or it could be something else.

 

 

And that's the reason why they didn't.

 

 

The point is that this is a balance problem and not an inherent flaw in the core mechanics. I think what he is saying that they will tweak the impact of the attributes until they do have the desired impact.

 

 

Well no the system is inherent flawed for the sole reason that it want to make playable and viable build that do not have any logic (muscle wizard) and in doing so it opens the door to even bigger flawed build like the one Msxyz described in his post.

[Longknife]

 

Well no the system is inherent flawed for the sole reason that it want to make playable and viable build that do not have any logic (muscle wizard) and in doing so it opens the door to even bigger flawed build like the one Msxyz described in his post.

 

 

"Muscular wizards do not line up with my stereotype of wizards, therefore the core mathematical mechanics and design of the entire system is flawed.

 

Also, I am incapable of opening up a dictionary and checking possible definitions of 'might.' Send help."

[PrimeJunta]

It's magic, Giubba. They made up the magic system. They get to make up the rules through which it works. If in their system bulging muscles help channel magical energy in a way that makes spells do more damage, then that is perfectly logical and okay. As others have pointed out, it would even be nicely aligned with a whole bunch of mythologies from Conan the Barbarian to Persian folktales which associate magical ability with exceptional physical capability.

 

Also my muscle wizard is named Bulbous, and he definitely casts with muscles. Deal with it.

[Gfted1]

 

 

and that would be a balance issue, not a fundamental mechanical issue.

 

 

HOLY **** guys is it just me or is Josh Sawyer practically echoing me from when I tried explaining things to Helm?

 

Be right back, my ego needs congratulating on leveling up. My analytical thinking skills = pro.

 

 

Unfortunately, you wont receive any XP until you return to the farmer.

[Giubba]

 

 

Well no the system is inherent flawed for the sole reason that it want to make playable and viable build that do not have any logic (muscle wizard) and in doing so it opens the door to even bigger flawed build like the one Msxyz described in his post.

 

 

"Muscular wizards do not line up with my stereotype of wizards, therefore the core mathematical mechanics and design of the entire system is flawed.

 

Also, I am incapable of opening up a dictionary and checking possible definitions of 'might.' Send help."

 

 

Putting aside that yes it doesn't align with my vision of a wizard, the primary reason i'm opposed to the concept is that is ridiculous pretending that a system that allow the existence of a character that can hurt like a fighter class and cast ,at the same time, the same amount of spell with the same effect of a vanilla wizard is nothing but inherently flawed

[Longknife]

It's magic, Giubba. They made up the magic system. They get to make up the rules through which it works. If in their system bulging muscles help channel magical energy in a way that makes spells do more damage, then that is perfectly logical and okay. As others have pointed out, it would even be nicely aligned with a whole bunch of mythologies from Conan the Barbarian to Persian folktales which associate magical ability with exceptional physical capability.

 

Also my muscle wizard is named Bulbous, and he definitely casts with muscles. Deal with it.

 

 

More than that, I think people are missing the point entirely.

 

Might = power. Power comes in many forms. Wealth is power, influence is power, physical strength is power, intelligence is power, etc etc etc.

So in that sense it's totally ambiguous. The only thing "might" implies is a sort of soul energy where some souls are more powerful and influential than others, but that doesn't neccesarily mean a wizard is rockin' sweet abs and biceps.

 

 

Personally, I like the amiguity of the word "Might" for that exact reason. You're free to either play a might-maxed wizard who's a physical weakling or a might-min'ed wizard who's Arnold Schwarzeneggar. Doesn't make you feel obligated to dump points into a stat that's more or less useful for a wizard (like STR) just to stay in line with a roleplay concept of a physically capable caster.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I named my Beta Wizard Bruce Banner.

 

You won't like him when he's angry.

[Seari]

But how can my 18 Might 3 Int muscle wizard cast spells out of his spellbook, when his low intellect impairs his reading skills. Maybe his spellbook has step by step drawings of how to cast spells!

Edited August 25, 2014 by Seari

[Giubba]

It's magic, Giubba. They made up the magic system. They get to make up the rules through which it works. If in their system bulging muscles help channel magical energy in a way that makes spells do more damage, then that is perfectly logical and okay. As others have pointed out, it would even be nicely aligned with a whole bunch of mythologies from Conan the Barbarian to Persian folktales which associate magical ability with exceptional physical capability.

 

Also my muscle wizard is named Bulbous, and he definitely casts with muscles. Deal with it.

 

Prime sorry but i will never ever buy this animeish explanation.

 

And Conan the barbarian as example of believability is not exatly the best one.

[Hormalakh]

 

People who still defends the core mechanics should really try this little experiment...

 

When a PC build with all attributes kept to the minimum (not using the fifty something points awarded at the creation phase) is equally viable than a character with the points well distributed, then there is something fundamentally flawed in the core system, something no amount of re-balancing can easily fix.

 

If you adjusted the bonus scale for D&D's attribute system to go from -1 at 3 and +1 at 20, you would get the same outcome you're talking about, though -- and that would be a balance issue, not a fundamental mechanical issue.  It may be that Might grants too little of a bonus from point to point, it may be that wizards' spells simply do so much damage that a low bonus doesn't have a large impact on their viability, or it could be something else.

 

 

Josh, one of the things that I think you aren't taking into account when dealing with PoE numbers in general (i.e. not shifting the numbers to negatives and positives and only making things positive, or large numbers, or decimals) is that these "complex" numbers are easy for the computer to crunch but become hard for the players to comprehend in terms of magnitude and implication. 1000% bonus damage? What does that mean for a player? 10x damage makes more sense. Same with other numbers.

 

I really think you should look back at how you're implementing numbers and while considering that the computer can crunch those numbers for you, people have to actually make informed considerations with those numbers and keeping the numbers manageable will go a long way in usability. If people can't make calculations in a first-order model quickly, it's tough to truly understand that system.

 

Ultimately, present the information in a way that most people could understand it.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Hormalakh

[Longknife]

 

 

 

Well no the system is inherent flawed for the sole reason that it want to make playable and viable build that do not have any logic (muscle wizard) and in doing so it opens the door to even bigger flawed build like the one Msxyz described in his post.

 

 

"Muscular wizards do not line up with my stereotype of wizards, therefore the core mathematical mechanics and design of the entire system is flawed.

 

Also, I am incapable of opening up a dictionary and checking possible definitions of 'might.' Send help."

 

 

Putting aside that yes it doesn't align with my vision of a wizard, the primary reason i'm opposed to the concept is that is ridiculous pretending that a system that allow the existence of a character that can hurt like a fighter class and cast ,at the same time, the same amount of spell with the same effect of a vanilla wizard is nothing but inherently flawed

 

 

 

But he's still inferior.

 

 

Lemme do another comparison and guess which game I'm citing: Fallout New Vegas, cause I'd have sex with that game and take a bullet for it. <3

 

Anyways, you know what ultimately is gonna set apart two characters in New Vegas with 100 Melee Weapons skill? Perks. The game was admittedly poorly balanced skillpoint-wise for level 50, for obvious reasons (initially capped at 30), so capping skills was pretty easy.

  So doesn't that destroy roleplaying? Won't my Legionaire skilled in Melee weapons and unarmed tactics be just as good with energy weapons as my Brotherhood of Steel paladin and vice-versa? No, because perks. Perks made all the difference between "competence" and "mastery." 100 Melee weapons without a perk just means you deal considerable damage with melee weapons. A character with all the perks though...? They can't be knocked down, they knockdown on hit, they do massive damage to blocking opponents and they attack faster. You put two characters with 100 melee weapons against each other while only one has perks, the unperked one doesn't have a prayer.

 

 

 

 

Same concept here. Yes you CAN go melee with a sword as a wizard....but why would you? A Wizard can't knockdown with a sword, a Fighter can. Likewise a wizard can already cast from range and auto-attack with a staff, so why would you diminish his ability by making him melee? You wouldn't.

  And to top that off, what law of the land ever claimed a character like Gandalf cannot possibly be competent in swordplay? That's nonsense. Just because you're smart doesn't mean you can't be physically capable aswell. That little trope came into play to reinforce RPG mechanics, as replay value and varied character playstyle are a cornerstone of RPG gameplay.....But we HAVE the varied gameplay here! The Fighter and Wizard are both capable of things the other is not! Just because they have a common ground in that both can wield a sword competently does not mean they're the same; you'd NEVER create a wizard with the sole intent of him meleeing with a sword because that's madness. Likewise, forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think wizards are capable of taking the weapon talents that award increased skill with that weapon type, so they'd fall behind in that regard aswell.

 

So wtf is the issue? Dear god, your wizard can use a sword without accidently cutting his **** off! Surely this is a crime against humanity!

[Helm]

"This stat isn't strength, it's POWER"
"That stat isn't intelligence, it's POWER"
"That stat isn't dexterity, it's POWER"
 


Just make one attribute called POWER and give it an awesome button that the player can click on to make their "build" more POWERful. Wouldn't be much different from what we already have anyway.