"No Bad Builds" a failure in practice?

[CatatonicMan]

Yes. Someone needs to mass email this to Obsidian. And then sticky it at the top of the page for everyone else.

Stat design is a big deal. It's current state in PoE is not right and we all know it. Fixing it the way you describe will distinguish this game from every streamlined, casual-friendly RPG to come out in the last decade.

 

I'd wager that OE is already aware of the various opinions on this issue, this being their beta testing forums and all.

[Stun]

 

We were talking about AD&D, anyway. Clerics with 9 wisdom in AD&D can learn Cleric spells of every level. They just don't receive bonus spells.

 

Right: sorry, my bad. I missed that part. I will concede then that yes, a low-WIS cleric is viable in AD&D.

 

No, It was my fault, I literally typed "D&D" when I was making my Cleric example, instead of AD&D. I meant the latter. we were discussing the latter.

[PrimeJunta]

Huh, so what is its' thing? Like 4th, but trying to appeal to 3rd fans?

 

Haven't played it but skimmed through the rulebook. It looks pretty good actually, mechanically cleaner than 3e without the rigidity and MMO-ness of 4e, and very much the D&D feel. Also has much of its baggage, but that's to be expected I suppose.

[Shadenuat]

 

And 5th edition is out, actually, at least the PHB.

Huh, so what is its' thing? Like 4th, but trying to appeal to 3rd fans?

 

It's a "Pathfinder won" edition, at least from reading basic rules. A cleaned and groomed 3d edition. It would have worked well for PoE I think actually, since they fixed many things that people dislike on first glance - there are no "empty" levels (every level you either get a stat, or skill, or a spell), Fighters got pumped a lot (like, +half a dozen of new standard abilities), Rogues became ultimate skill-bots and also got pumped a lot, and so on.

[Answermancer]

 

And 5th edition is out, actually, at least the PHB.

Huh, so what is its' thing? Like 4th, but trying to appeal to 3rd fans?

 

 

As someone who liked 4th edition a lot, and DMed it many times, no, not at all.

 

It's basically 3rd edition but much cleaner and more, well, balanced. So far I like it, although I miss 4th.

[BrokenMask]

 

 

And 5th edition is out, actually, at least the PHB.

Huh, so what is its' thing? Like 4th, but trying to appeal to 3rd fans?

 

It's a "Pathfinder won" edition, at least from reading basic rules. A cleaned and groomed 3d edition. It would have worked well for PoE I think actually, since they fixed many things that people dislike on first glance - there are no "empty" levels (every level you either get a stat, or skill, or a spell), Fighters got pumped a lot (like, +half a dozen of new standard abilities), Rogues became ultimate skill-bots and also got pumped a lot, and so on.

 

Huh. I suppose Pathfinder is still better though?

[PrimeJunta]

Huh. I suppose Pathfinder is still better though?

 

My initial impression is that 5e is better. It pretty much has to be if they want their players back.

[sb5]

So many people bark their opinions on the internet and call them facts...  

 

So the core issue that's being repeated over and over is that a bonus and malus system is wanted, that equals out at some numer, say 10 = 0%, points above and below give a big bonus or malus respectively, which basically makes individual stat points having a larger effect and allows for gimped builds because who'd dump might if he recieved a malus to something that is beneficial to most if not all classes. Kinda like DND then isn't it and not in line with no bad builds.

 

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. Taking Fallout as example, your character at INT < 3 could hardly talk at all. Choices were "Nuh-uh!" and "Ohhh..." and "Hmmn...?" and NPCs reflected that very well, by taking advantage of your low intellect. What's a low int character in PoE?

 

On the other hand minimum stats in a bonus oriented system are counter intuitive too IMO, someone may want to keep the AOE% down for single target damage without affecting an entire screen (of allies and foes).

 

 

 

[BrokenMask]

 

Huh. I suppose Pathfinder is still better though?

 

My initial impression is that 5e is better. It pretty much has to be if they want their players back.

 

Huh, okay, that would suck for my wallet though

[Mayama]

Nope. The complainers (both here and in the Codex) want the attributes to have a big effect with the way of distribution changing the character in a big way.

 

 

For an example, 3 might would incure severe penalties on damage, not just a smaller bonus. And 18 might would double your damage, not 30% increace. 3 int would mean that your fireball would be an almost  single target spell. It's not about good or bad builds, it's about diferent builds. The "min-maxed" builds would be terrific in some departments, but completely attrocious in others, so you would need to adjust your playstyle. The safer all around good option would be to distribute all your points evenly.

 If you wanted to tweak your character to a spesific built, you would be forced to play on that builds strenghts, or you would be obliterated. 

Dumping any attribute would have severe penalties, and maxing any attribute would have massive benefits. And if all attributes are useful, the number of viable builds (that play completely differently) will be huge, as will be the replayability

 

The way it is now, the diference is so minimal that Helm's trolling has a core of truth

 

 

So basicaly:

 

They rage like hatefull angsty teenagers

 

Insult the developers in really nasty ways

 

call PoE broken beyond repair and a complete failure

 

...because the game needs number tweaking? What a pathetic and awfull community.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Mayama

[Fluffle]

 

Nope. The complainers (both here and in the Codex) want the attributes to have a big effect with the way of distribution changing the character in a big way.

 

 

For an example, 3 might would incure severe penalties on damage, not just a smaller bonus. And 18 might would double your damage, not 30% increace. 3 int would mean that your fireball would be an almost  single target spell. It's not about good or bad builds, it's about diferent builds. The "min-maxed" builds would be terrific in some departments, but completely attrocious in others, so you would need to adjust your playstyle. The safer all around good option would be to distribute all your points evenly.

 If you wanted to tweak your character to a spesific built, you would be forced to play on that builds strenghts, or you would be obliterated. 

Dumping any attribute would have severe penalties, and maxing any attribute would have massive benefits. And if all attributes are useful, the number of viable builds (that play completely differently) will be huge, as will be the replayability

 

The way it is now, the diference is so minimal that Helm's trolling has a core of truth

 

 

So basicaly:

 

They rage like hatefull angsty teenagers

 

Insult the developers in really nasty ways

 

call PoE broken beyond repair and a complete failure

 

...because the game needs number tweaking? What a pathetic and awfull community.

 

 

But... but... as you know this is all well justified

 

Because the developers insulted us first in such a horrible and gruesome way that

we might never recover from it (calling us grognards)

 

But that is not the worst of their crimes against us innocent and sweet loving people.

No! They used and abused our fond memory of the IE Games to steal our money!

 

That gives us legitimation to insult them back and demand that they change

the game as we wish!

Edited August 23, 2014 by Fluffle

[Trodat]

^ Well many people have strong feelings towards the IE era.  Now after all these years we have a highly touted game coming based on those games - that apparently feels like a very casual "every choice must be equal" RPG. Something that the IE games definitely didnt do. "Improvements" shown so far are not improvements.

[Malekith]

and allows for gimped builds because who'd dump might if he recieved a malus to something that is beneficial to most if not all classes. Kinda like DND then isn't it and not in line with no bad builds.

 

No, i could have a mage with 18 int, 3 might, and only use crowd control (Web, charm) abilities that would last for so much time that the rest of the party could kill them. It would be the most usefull party member, without doing a single point of damage.

Or a fighter/rogue whatever who stunlocks, delivers crippling effects left and right, disrupts, all of it without doing much damage.Still an extremely usefull character

[PrimeJunta]

Junta, are you really continuing to try and compare a system where stats have an impact on a build, to PoE's system where they actually friggin don't??

It's disingenuous. If you want to compare the inherent diversity of the classes in PoE with the classes in D&D, then do that. It'll be an easier debate for you, and you won't have to instinctively go into denial mode. Obviously the classes in PoE are more diverse by nature. D&D classes are not designed to be jack-of-all-trades do alls, like the ones in PoE. D&D takes a far more specialized approach to the individual classes. Of course, D&D also lets you multi-class, and that's something you're probably not going to be able to overcome...even with your muscle wizard.

 

But lets not play stupid and pretend that the Attributes in PoE have a more meaningful impact on class builds than the attributes in D&D. because they Do not. And it's not even close.

 

It'd be nicer to talk with you if you left out the "instictive denial mode" stuff.

 

I already agreed that with the current numbers, attributes aren't as impactful as they ought to be. If that's the point you're making, then we're not disagreeing at all.

 

I was making a secondary point about D&D, though, which you still appear to be missing, but I've lost the energy to pursue it with you so imma let it drop for now.

[Danathion]

 

One of the reasons why attributes are a bit disappointing is because the Lead Designer actually does not like attributes in general. He has in the past taken snipes at other designers who design the attribute system before the rest of the game systems and in the case of Pillars of Eternity has done the opposite.

 

All of the game systems were in place before he decided to design attributes.

 

While not necessarily a bad thing per se, these facts alone are part of the reason why attributes feel inconsequential in general.

 

I believe he is also not interested in attributes having much of an impact. An example: A Level 1 PE Fighter gets +25 Accuracy, but the maximum accuracy you can get from Dex is +20. In D&D, at first level your attribute basically determines how good you are at stuff. Fighters get a +1 to BAB (or Thaco in 2E) but they get up to +5 attack bonus from Strength in D&D (and I think -3 to THACO from a 18/00 STR in 2E) - much more than a +1 at 1st level.

Then he should remove attributes completely from the system. Six attributes are a nightmere to balance, and a wasted effort since they don't have any impact and the system works just fine without them. I know Josh felt that he had to put six attributes in there because D&D, but he designed them in such a way that the people who would complain because "no attributes", don't like them and complain anyway.

He should have removed attributes, and have abilities and talents as the sole methods to tweak the classes. And then he should have the six intuitive attributes (str/dex/con/int/wis/cha), only with zero mechanical impact and used only in dialogue and scripted interactions. All problems solved, it would be a better game closer to Josh's vision,

and the gnognards who would complain are propably complaining anyway.

 

 

I would propose something of a compromise: 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.

 

If possible, 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. Class customisation/experimentation is achieved through Skill choice, perhaps more skills are needed.

[plenilune]

I beg Mr. Sawyer to rethink the whole attributes system.

 

It's not so much about MIG affecting spell damage as it is about a buff wizard passing all those MIG checks that involve physical feats.

If the goal is to avoid dump stats why not give spells distinct bonuses based on a variety of attributes in a way that makes more sense? i.e. require DEX to cast lightning spells effectively, RES to cast spells like charm, or MIG for more physical spells. That way you can make a generic or specialized wizard and still be effective without being locked into one stat.

Edited August 23, 2014 by plenilune

[Vold]

I wonder if there are plans to create talents that modify the traits given per attribute.

 

For example, in NWN we had a feat called Zen Archery, which modified the AB given to ranged weapons from DEX to WIS.

[Wintersong]

 

 

Huh. I suppose Pathfinder is still better though?

 

My initial impression is that 5e is better. It pretty much has to be if they want their players back.

 

Huh, okay, that would suck for my wallet though

 

Basic edition of D&D 5 is free (pdf from Wizards) and will have more free stuff added as they release modules. Developers said that it should be enough to run campaigns without spending any money. You would miss extra races, classes and such but hey, it's free!

 

And yeah, off topic powah.

[wickermoon]

An argument I've heard quite a lot here is that you guys want to play your characters as you like. While I can understand your desire for freedom of choice, you seem to confuse that with class archetypes.

 

A fighter is always a fighter and, unless you multi-class or specialze, will always be a fighter. He will need Constitution and Strength (in PoE Might is the equivalent of Strength for a fighter) and might need a bit of Dexterity (in other systems not so much). Now you went on and said you wanted to play a "dumb" muscle mage and while this is possible and apparently (at the moment) a legitimate build, it is not possible to play a weak, but sophisticated, fighter. Such a character will be useless. It seems to me that you want to have an all-in-one-character-suitable-for-every-purpose, as long as he's a caster. This is just an observation and is not meant to be insulting, but your arguments are very one-sided, arguing for the almighty mage without considering that casters are the only classes benefitting from it.

 

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. For example, you want a melee mage, there's a battle-mage, a well-rounded class, in Divinity: Original Sin who plays very different from the typical mage, without losing all of the things which define a mage.

 

Attributes do not give you this level of diversity, it is the class. Attributes are there to determine stats for your rolls, tweak your personal character and randomize him/her. But telling me that I just don't get it, only because I think it is counter-intuitive and illogical that a mage does not rely on intelligence in any way other than duration and area-of-effect, neither a spell's strength, nor the number of spells he can learn, nor the power level of spells he can reach, is a fallacy argument. I get it, I get what Obsidian is trying to do here and I'm telling you that this is not the way to do it, because this is not the actual cause.

 

As to avoiding cookie-cutter builds: Nothing in the whole wide world will let a game avoid a cookie-cutter build. There will always be a cookie-cutter build as there has been for every rpg-game ever, because there's always an optimal route. Trying to avoid such a thing is a fruitless endeavour, destined to be doomed. Therefore I would propose to drop that argument.

 

 

P.S.: In German we have a name for a mage in full plate, +500HP and resistances up, while throwing fireballs (out of his arse): Eierlegende Wollmilchsau. In English it translate rather unimpressively into jack-of-all-trades(and master-of-all). My 2cents: Exactly the kind of character that would make this game boring and easy-mode.

[Mayama]

 

As to avoiding cookie-cutter builds: Nothing in the whole wide world will let a game avoid a cookie-cutter build. There will always be a cookie-cutter build as there has been for every rpg-game ever, because there's always an optimal route. Trying to avoid such a thing is a fruitless endeavour, destined to be doomed. Therefore I would propose to drop that argument.

 

 

Guild Wars 1 had no cookie cutter builds for their classes because it was impossible to build someting that works against everything, to many skills, combinations and other variables made it impossible.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Mayama

[Tsuga C]

OP...

Gee, who've thought that this would prove to be the case?

 

This goes back to that line from The Incredibles...

[Fluffle]

 

P.S.: In German we have a name for a mage in full plate, +500HP and resistances up, while throwing fireballs (out of his arse): Eierlegende Wollmilchsau. In English it translate rather unimpressively into jack-of-all-trades(and master-of-all). My 2cents: Exactly the kind of character that would make this game boring and easy-mode.

 

Just to illustrate what a "Eierlegende Wollmilchsau" (literally "egg-laying wooly milk-pig") may look like.

 

[Fearabbit]

[...]

 

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.

[Vold]

 

[...]

 

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.

 

Current attribute system allows everything, because it has no a real impact on builds; that's the problem.

[Ondb]

 

[...]

 

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.