"No Bad Builds" a failure in practice?

[Namutree]

Why even bother and try and build a character by selecting attributes to put points in? You might as well just spend all of your 57 attribute points evenly on every attribute. This works for every class too.

 

 

 Sawyer

It won't be as effective for certain builds. I for example; don't like drawn out battles. As a result I tend to favor offensive attributes with most of my team. If I were to spread my attributes out evenly; my team wouldn't quite play the way I want it to.

[Helm]

I bathe in your tears, Helm. 

I already noticed that you don't care, because you know nothing about RPGs.

 

You're just a little butthurt troll who likes to annoy me with ridiculous posts whenever we discover something ridiculous about the games mechanics.

[Longknife]

The balance needs to be that everything needs to hold purpose while not invalidating any potential builds. For example from a purely stat perspective there's complaints that backround and race mean very little. As a super simplistic example, these need more purpose, so perhaps giving a certain race +6 Might instead of +1 while removing 6 attributes from the allocated pool we all get would serve to give race bonuses more purpose. (and again, that was a super simplistic example)

Are there going to be any stat-related skills/talents/traits/whatever? That helps to add some variety. Other than that they can merely tweak attribute values or the amount of attribute points.

 

 

 

Also I'm amazed you all find this topic more important than the proper implementation of Muscle Wizard.

[Silent Winter]

Slightly on-topic question about rangers and their animal companions:

Do the ranger's attributes affect their animal companion? (stamina/attack-power/etc?)  Or are the animals a fixed entity?

Stamina pools are shared, yes? (Health pool too?)  So wouldn't the ranger need CON too, even in the back-row if their companion is going melee?

[Helm]

 

Why even bother and try and build a character by selecting attributes to put points in? You might as well just spend all of your 57 attribute points evenly on every attribute. This works for every class too.

 

 

 Sawyer

It won't be as effective for certain builds. I for example; don't like drawn out battles. As a result I tend to favor offensive attributes with most of my team. If I were to spread my attributes out evenly; my team wouldn't quite play the way I want it to.

 

Just saying that the effect is so minimal, that it hardly makes a difference anyway.

[Namutree]

I am just saying that the attribute system is completely superfluous in PoE, unlike in other games.

 

 

 

 

Not completely as they help certain builds. If I'm making a mage-tank I'll be a lot better off with lots of CON for hp, RES so I don't get stunned, and INT to prolong my defense spells. How I distribute my attributes affects how effective my build is. If I went with MIG instead of RES I wouldn't be as good a tank for example

[Helm]

Whatever you say. I still think the attribute system needs a major overhaul.

[Namutree]

 

Stamina pools are shared, yes? (Health pool too?)  So wouldn't the ranger need CON too, even in the back-row if their companion is going melee?

Yes. That's why if you choose a Ranger that neglects CON then you should get a companion with an ability instead of good stats.

[Namutree]

Whatever you say. I still think the attribute system needs a major overhaul.

It all depends on what you want from the game. Right now attributes matter about half as much as they did in the IE games; while Obsidian added talents to pick up the strategic slack. Some people like this, and some people don't.

[Fearabbit]

I'm just curious... Ok, defenders of genious new Obsidian rpg system say we all are D&D fanboys. When I made an example of Fallout system I was told that Fallout has advantage of being tied to... badum-tsss... realistic world. Ok, not problem.

 

Introducing... ARCANUM. Why, oh, why Arcanum developers hasn't got this genious idea to apply Strength to Mage's spells in that old wonderful game. It would be so innovative!

 

Lol. I actually criticised Obsidian's system in the very same post where I said that Fallout's attribute system was perfect because of *badumm-tss* realism. Stop being so defensive and actually read what people are writing.

 

And Arcanum is the PERFECT example of why adding magic to a good realistic system doesn't work. I think Fallout's system was great. It was a bit unbalanced BUT it was balanceable. There wasn't an inherent flaw in the way attributes affected other stuff - just the values of how much they affected them needed to be tweaked. INT and AGI were too powerful, but that was a question of decreasing their effect by a couple %. No problem. The system itself was good because it was intuitive and gave you a feeling for the character you were playing.

 

Then came Arcanum and added magic on top of it. And everything got screwed up. I loooove Arcanum don't get me wrong. But that attribute system is broken and not balanceable. In Fallout it made sense for a fighter to add points to INT (even going over the top and making it the most useful stat) - in Arcanum this freedom during character generation was lost completely.

 

And such is the way in a fantasy universe where you add magic to an otherwise normal person and tie it only to his mental attributes. Because no matter how you spin it, you either end up with a system that's unbalanced for everyone, or balanced for everyone but highly overpowered for mages. (Imagine if you took Fallout's system and added Spell Damage to INT and added "Magic" as a skill. You can't make that not overpowered.)

 

Your system must be balanced if you have no magic. And it must be balanced when you have magic. In order to do that magic needs to be governed by all attributes in some way. There's pretty much no other way. Personally, I'm open to suggestions. I'd prefer it if Might was actually Strength, but still affected magic in some way that was more intuitive and acceptable to the RPG crowd.

[Mayama]

 

 

Why even bother and try and build a character by selecting attributes to put points in? You might as well just spend all of your 57 attribute points evenly on every attribute. This works for every class too.

 

 

 Sawyer

It won't be as effective for certain builds. I for example; don't like drawn out battles. As a result I tend to favor offensive attributes with most of my team. If I were to spread my attributes out evenly; my team wouldn't quite play the way I want it to.

 

Just saying that the effect is so minimal, that it hardly makes a difference anyway.

 

Ok seriously your posts that the attribute system is meaningless are all over the forum. Here is a tip, play the game, try out different builds. You might find out that the way you spread out your stat points does really matter. You sound like someone that looked at the system, decided that it sucks and than never even bothered to actually try it. Like your comment that INT is useless, go in the game make a int heavy priest or mage with dots and look how meaningless that attribute is.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Mayama

[Longknife]

 

 

 

Why even bother and try and build a character by selecting attributes to put points in? You might as well just spend all of your 57 attribute points evenly on every attribute. This works for every class too.

 

 

 Sawyer

It won't be as effective for certain builds. I for example; don't like drawn out battles. As a result I tend to favor offensive attributes with most of my team. If I were to spread my attributes out evenly; my team wouldn't quite play the way I want it to.

 

Just saying that the effect is so minimal, that it hardly makes a difference anyway.

 

Ok seriously your posts that the attribute system is meaningless are all over the forum. Here is a tip, play the game, try out different builds. You might find out that the way you spread out your stat points does really matter. You sound like someone that looked at the system, decided that it sucks and than never even bothered to actually try it. Like your comment that INT is useless, go in the game make a int heavy priest or mage with dots and look how meaningless that attribute is.

 

 

 

To be fair, he cited why he thinks INT is useless.

 

It's merely a matter of universal viability vs. stats carrying weight. We want every class to be viable with every build for the sake of replay value, but we don't want to accomplish that by diminishing variance values entirely.

 

It's merely something for Obsidian to think on and possibly find a nice middle ground with. It's easily adjusted by increasing/reducing the influence of a stat point or how many we get, so it's not something that's inheritly flawed with the stats themselves or the system, it's just stat values might need tweaking. How much tweaking is the question.

[Mayama]

 

 

 

 

Why even bother and try and build a character by selecting attributes to put points in? You might as well just spend all of your 57 attribute points evenly on every attribute. This works for every class too.

 

 

 Sawyer

It won't be as effective for certain builds. I for example; don't like drawn out battles. As a result I tend to favor offensive attributes with most of my team. If I were to spread my attributes out evenly; my team wouldn't quite play the way I want it to.

 

Just saying that the effect is so minimal, that it hardly makes a difference anyway.

 

 

 

 

To be fair, he cited why he thinks INT is useless.

Yes he showed why he thinks INT is useless, he also showed that he hasnt really read what INT actually does. He basicaly complains without a clue so its just whining without substance.

[Helm]

 

 

 

Why even bother and try and build a character by selecting attributes to put points in? You might as well just spend all of your 57 attribute points evenly on every attribute. This works for every class too.

 

 

 Sawyer

It won't be as effective for certain builds. I for example; don't like drawn out battles. As a result I tend to favor offensive attributes with most of my team. If I were to spread my attributes out evenly; my team wouldn't quite play the way I want it to.

 

Just saying that the effect is so minimal, that it hardly makes a difference anyway.

 

Ok seriously your posts that the attribute system is meaningless are all over the forum. Here is a tip, play the game, try out different builds. You might find out that the way you spread out your stat points does really matter. You sound like someone that looked at the system, decided that it sucks and than never even bothered to actually try it. Like your comment that INT is useless, go in the game make a int heavy priest or mage with dots and look how meaningless that attribute is.

 

I'd recommend that you make a build right now and the spend all of your 57 attribute points evenly. You'll see that I am right.

 

The attribute system gives the player the illusion of choice, although there actually is none.

 

 

^This is broken and it needs to be fixed.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Helm

[Namutree]

 

The attribute system gives the player the illusion of choice, although there actually is none.

 

There is choice.

 

There is no way to make an effective mage-tank without putting points into CON, INT, and RES. 

 

There is no way to make an effective glass-canon without putting points into MIG, DEX, and either INT or PER. (For hyper glass cannon put points into both PER and INT by dumping CON and RES.)

 

Spreading the attributes doesn't prove that attributes are meaningless.

[Namutree]

 

^This is broken and it needs to be fixed.

 

Nothing is broken. Even if the attributes didn't matter (Which they do) it wouldn't be broken; just silly and superficial.

[Helm]

 

 

^This is broken and it needs to be fixed.

 

Nothing is broken. Even if the attributes didn't matter (Which they do) it wouldn't be broken; just silly and superficial.

 

I guess I have to post examples, but I can't be bothered right now.

 

Oh well, just forget it. Maybe some other time.

[PrimeJunta]

Cause it's difficult to undestand why in order to hurl powerfull fireballs my wizards should be like Arnold Schwarzenegger - both good at melee and spells.

 

A high-Might wizard sucks at melee. Look at the base melee accuracy. He just sucks a little less than a low-Might wizard.

[Ondb]

 

Cause it's difficult to undestand why in order to hurl powerfull fireballs my wizards should be like Arnold Schwarzenegger - both good at melee and spells.

 

A high-Might wizard sucks at melee. Look at the base melee accuracy. He just sucks a little less than a low-Might wizard.

 

 

So you agree that it makes no sense for wizard class, but because Wizard are so bad in melee that this illogical thing could be just ignored?

[PrimeJunta]

And Arcanum is the PERFECT example of why adding magic to a good realistic system doesn't work. I think Fallout's system was great. It was a bit unbalanced BUT it was balanceable. There wasn't an inherent flaw in the way attributes affected other stuff - just the values of how much they affected them needed to be tweaked. INT and AGI were too powerful, but that was a question of decreasing their effect by a couple %. No problem. The system itself was good because it was intuitive and gave you a feeling for the character you were playing.

 

Ne, it was inherently unbalanced mechanically. There are really only two absolutely beneficial things in Fallout's mechanics: action points and skill points. Anything you can do to get more of each will let you pretty quickly compensate for anything you gave up, gimmicky special rules like weapon STR requirements aside. (Okay, there's Luck too, but I'd still rather play with an average-Luck character with maxed-out INT and AGI than a maxed-out Luck character with average INT or AGI.)

 

Roleplaying-wise it was fine, but then so is STR-DEX-CON-INT-WIS-CHA, or MIG-DEX-CON-INT-PER-RES for that matter. The only problems with the P:E stats is that the mechanical effects of the stats are sometimes counterintuitive.

 

That's the whole problem with attributes actually—if you want to balance them mechanically, it's very hard not to end up assigning some combat stat to some attribute in a counterintuitive way, just so it's more useful, and that defeats the purpose you put them in in the first place: to support role-playing.

[PrimeJunta]

So you agree that it makes no sense for wizard class, but because Wizard are so bad in melee that this illogical thing could be just ignored?

 

Hu? It's not illogical. To be good at melee, you need to be skilled at melee. Just being really strong won't cut it. Put a heavyweight weight lifter in the ring with a flyweight wrestler, you'll see.

[BrokenMask]

 

 

Like, only way to have all stats to be 100% equally useful is to have all stats to be exactly the same. As far as I can think of, best system is where stats lead to varied playstyles and any playstyle and stat combination is viable so anyone can pick what their personal taste is. But some people would still say that some stats are dump because their playstyle requires them to pick stats like that

I'm really confused now what people want from this system <_<

 

People want different attributes to be useful for different builds. Making a mage-tank? Better put lots of points into CON and RES. Making a super tank fighter? Better put points into CON, RES, and INT. Making a super offensive ranger? Better put points into MIG, DEX, and PER. What about a tank ranger? Put points into CON and RES. It's all about variety and using different builds to their strength.

 

But isn't that possible with current system? <_<

[Longknife]

 

Cause it's difficult to undestand why in order to hurl powerfull fireballs my wizards should be like Arnold Schwarzenegger - both good at melee and spells.

 

A high-Might wizard sucks at melee. Look at the base melee accuracy. He just sucks a little less than a low-Might wizard.

 

 

 

Omfg this is why a Muscle Wizard easter egg legit needs to be a thing.

 

 

 

might²

 

[mahyt]

noun

1.

physical strength:

He swung with all his might.

2.

superior power or strength; force:

the theory that might makes right.

3.

power or ability to do or accomplish; capacity:

the might of the ballot box.

 

 

This one, people. This one!!!

 

Yes, there is infact a reason words have more than one meaning. I'm sure if you complain REALLY hard they'll change it's name to "Power Level" and we can all make lame "may-may" jokes about being over 9000.

[Fearabbit]

Ne, it was inherently unbalanced mechanically. There are really only two absolutely beneficial things in Fallout's mechanics: action points and skill points. Anything you can do to get more of each will let you pretty quickly compensate for anything you gave up, gimmicky special rules like weapon STR requirements aside. (Okay, there's Luck too, but I'd still rather play with an average-Luck character with maxed-out INT and AGI than a maxed-out Luck character with average INT or AGI.)

 

Yeah but you could take this system and make both action points and skill points less important. By decreasing the bonus that AGI and INT give you and by increasing the base value. And saying that the additional INT skill points are actually "mental skill points" and that you need to spend two of these to increase a combat skill.

I'm pretty sure that it'd be easy to balance the system this way. There's a point where you changed so much that AGI and INT are useless; and there's the current system where they are overpowered. There has to be a sweet spot in the middle.

 

 

By the way, I've written down my thoughts on improving the current attribute system. Take a look if you're interested.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Fearabbit

[PrimeJunta]

@Fearabbit Nerfing the attribute system to oblivion isn't "rebalancing." It's just nerfing it. It's not a matter that some ability gives too much of something and another too little; it's that some abilities give something that's inherently more valuable than what the other abilities give.

 

You could certainly "rebalance" Fallout while retaining the skill names, but by the time you finished it wouldn't have much resemblance to the mechanics that actually were there.