"No Bad Builds" a failure in practice?

[Razsius]

That's just like your opinion man.

 

I like the attribute system fine, except that it needs to be more impactful. It's certainly miles better than D&D's already.

 

Definately agree with Prime in this case. I definately don't think the attributes are the problem here it's their lack of focus.  They have a bare bones setup of what they're supposed to do and can easily be expanded to be REALLY impactful without outright breaking things while giving players ACTUAL choice for their characters.

 

As an example, I was thinking somewhere along the lines of giving each stat defination.

 

- Might would be "Power" it should remain exactly how it is as a straight damage and healing increase.

- Dexterity should give "Speed" and provide a bonus to your recovery time in that you cast spells quicker/shoot faster etc.

- Constitution should give "Longevity" in health/stam gain (would've been perfect if there was a mana bar but...) and ability durations

- Perception should give "Accuracy" which should increase just that... all of your accuracy (mind you spells can hit, graze, etc. as well).

- Intelligence should give "Control" increasing both AoE as well as RANGE of spells/abilities so that an int specced Paladin could Lay on Hands the backline without having to move.

- Resolve should give "Disruption" and affect both Concentration and Interruption %. Interruption should work on multi-hit or "ticking" spells if it doesn't already (hard to tell).

 

I figure this system really wouldn't have a dump stat (yes you might think it's Resolve but you haven't been paying much attention to combat if you believe so) and would give focus to each stat which is what I think it really needs.  Oh and each point should be much more significant.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Razsius

[Infinitron]

 

 

 

There's a difference between playing poorly, which a player can mitigate in various ways (trying different things, reloading) and being stuck with a terrible build (which might not even become apparent until several hours into the game) because you didn't know what you were doing at character creation and the system was filled with traps for you to fall in to.

 

 

 

The "terrible build" is a result of playing poorly. Not knowing what you are doing at character creation = not even bothering to understand the rules = playing poorly.

 

And frankly speaking, it's pretty difficult to get "stuck with a terrible build" in BG, unless you not only have no idea of what you're doing, but are also actively going out of your way to "experiment" with dual-classing etc.

 

Most of the time it's pretty straightforward to just take a base class and level it all the way to the cap. Straight fighters, priests and mages were perfectly valid in BG and BG 2, often outperforming the badly built dual/multi-classed NPCs. Multiclasses were just as easy. 

 

The few ways you could actually "end up with a terrible build" involve either A) Not understanding what attributes do (and giving your Fighter 3 STR and 18 INT), or B) Not understanding what dual-classing does. Both times the fault clearly lies with the player.

 

I remember when I played BG 2 for the first time. It was my first ever AD&D game (or maybe Torment, IDK). I remember not quite grasping the concept of "negative armor class", or the Vancian spell system. Nevertheless, I managed to take that Fighter all the way to ToB's end. It was the first AD&D character I ever made, and it was probably the best character in my entire party (after Edwin). All it took was sticking to what I understood and not taking any risks with things I didn't comprehend too well (like dual-classing).

 

So yeah, IMO the BG series was pretty forgiving with the "stuck with a terrible build" thing. Torment even more so, with the adjustable attributes and on-the-fly class changes. Really it didn't need more simplification/dumbing down. 

 

 

Lord Vicious: To put things briefly, the developers of this game subscribe to the philosophy that character creation is not gameplay, and therefore should not be difficult.

 

This isn't going to change, so there's no point in discussing it.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Infinitron

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I like the attribute system fine, except that it needs to be more impactful. It's certainly miles better than D&D's already.

Fixed.

[Matt516]

That's just like your opinion man.

 

I like the attribute system fine, except that it needs to be more impactful. It's certainly miles better than D&D's already.

 

I agree - I really like what they've done with the attributes. As I've mentioned once before somewhere else (I've forgotten where), the PoE attribute system seems to lend itself better to creating more "story-like" and diverse characters. What do I mean? Well, the PoE attribute system does one thing that really really sets it ahead of the D&D attributes IMO:

 

It divorces attributes from classes (for the most part). A fighter is no longer a high STR character by definition, a mage is no longer high INT by definition, and a rogue is no longer high DEX by definition. This can't be anything but a good thing. It gives the player more options and allows for more varied builds. I'll now explain what I meant by "story-like" character.... I love fantasy fiction. I think it's great. But there are some character archetypes that just don't really exist in D&D based games, at least not well. In PoE, you can make an old, wizened fighter who isn't as strong as he used to be but whose years of experience have allowed him to outmanuever his enemies and disrupt their attacks. If you tried to do this in BG, you'd just.. not. A fighter without 18 STR, but who still intends to do damage, is bad. In PoE, you can make a wizard whose sheer magical talent allows him to cast incredibly powerful spells (and maybe even fights with a sword), but who lacks finesse and control. Harry Dresden, anyone?

 

Anyway - the point I'm trying to make is that the attribute system in PoE seems to have been built from the ground up to not make any one attribute vital to the proper functioning of any one character class. And this is a good thing. At least IMO.

 

EDIT: Before people start talking about D&D 3e and 4e to prove me wrong, read this. I know there are abilities in the later editions that allow a high DEX fighter to use that instead of STR for the to-hit bonus, and to benefit from INT if they want to play control. But please remember 2 things:

 

1) The BG games (which people generally hold up as the ideal for PoE to emulate) were not based on the later editions - they were based on 2e. So if you want the attributes to be more like BG, you want classes to be defined by one or more vital attributes - because that's exactly how it was in BG.

 

2) Even taking the later editions of D&D into account, the PoE system is still miles better in terms of allowing varied builds. "No bad builds" doesn't mean that there aren't any good builds. At least, that's not how you should take it. "No bad builds" means that if you have some kind of crazy weird idea for a character and playstyle, you can try it out and it probably won't suck. There will always be optimal builds, even with this system. The limited amount of math I've done so far on how the various stats affect damage has told me that much. And that's fine - the min/maxers can go and have a grand old time figuring out the optimal build. But your fun in min/maxing a build isn't taken away by someone else's ability to try something crazy and not have it completely suck. If anything, the increased variety of viable builds means that it's even harder to min/max and figure out the optimal build - which should be a good thing if you're the kind of person who enjoys min/maxing haha. Instead of just pumping your character's class stats and getting the best gear, you actually have to put some thought into what you want your playstyle to be.

 

And that... is a good thing for the game. It makes it deeper and at the same time more accessible. PoE's stat system is great. It just needs a lot of tweaking on the numbers (and maybe RES and PER).

Edited August 25, 2014 by Matt516

[Helm]

 

Just a quick reminder to anyone who feels betrayed by Obsidian, accuses them of false advertising and says that they basically promised Baldur's Gate 3 and now they do all these changes and *gasp* have ideas of their own.

 

This was the pitch:

 

"Project Eternity (working title) pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of years past: Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment."

 

"Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment."

 

That's it. That's all they wrote about the influence of IE games on the game design. There was no mention of the attribute system they were going to use or anything like that.

 

So they repeat every 3 word titles of game based on D&D and how they will make a new game that take everything that was good with those titles made with D&D and incredible people are pissed when said game doesn't share basicaly nothing with those games made with D&D , ****ING A INCREDIBLE.

 

I was making a post if someone could ask to that **** of Sawyer why they put baldur's gate,icewind dale and torment on the ks page if they thought the core mechanic that moved those game sucked but we all know the answer, they wanted money they got it.

 

 

They should have been honest and added that they think that the core mechanics of the IE games suck:

 

"Project Eternity (working title) pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of years past: Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment."

 

"Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment. We will remove the ****ty core mechanics that everyone hates and replace it with something better."

 

Nobody would have backed the game then, but then they could have made what they wanted and nobody would have cared.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Helm

[Silent Winter]

 

 

Wrong analogy. A bad build would be more like forgetting to put your queen on the chessboard.

 

 

The pieces are the classes themselves. The game gives you every "piece" for the "chessboard", you can't "forget" a class that's right there in the character creator. What you can do is play badly with the pieces you are given, just like in chess when that queen is all but useless in the hands of a rookie.

 

 

The fault with the analogy lies in you being unable to differentiate that queen (or any other piece) from any other of its kind - there are no stats.  You are given ALL of the pieces to play with.  Then gameplay begins, then you can play poorly.  In an rpg like PoE, you choose a piece and then differentiate it based on stats and starting gear/whatever.  Additional changes come at level-up too.

Lets just stick to comparing it with other rpgs.

Most of the time it's pretty straightforward to just take a base class and level it all the way to the cap. Straight fighters, priests and mages were perfectly valid in BG and BG 2, often outperforming the badly built dual/multi-classed NPCs. Multiclasses were just as easy. 

 

The few ways you could actually "end up with a terrible build" involve either A) Not understanding what attributes do (and giving your Fighter 3 STR and 18 INT), or B) Not understanding what dual-classing does. Both times the fault clearly lies with the player.

This is kind of the point - in BG, you could start a new game, play for hours and then be unable to continue with your low-con/dex fighter because you figured "why would they let me choose intelligence+wisdom if it were useless?' and 'why should intelligence be useless for a fighter?' (strength could be compensated with items I suppose).

Straight classes aren't bad (and neither are those in PoE) - it's the attribute choices that were bad (and that's what we're discussing)

 

Sure: RTFM - and personally I enjoy reading it - but saying "This is a good build, do it.  That is a bad build, don't do it." is more limiting than saying "That build isn't bad, but you'll have to learn to play it differently from this other build"

So your low-con fighter isn't going to hold the line much in PoE - from the sounds of things so far, that is a bad build, so perhaps they need to add a fighter talent for ranged weapons to compensate the accuracy somewhat.

 

The attributes need adjusting but the system sounds fine to me.

 

Edit: Or they could just accept that there are some bad builds if you really try - like the low con, low dex fighter - but keep the general philosophy of starting stats just equals different playstyle emphasis.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Silent Winter

[Tartantyco]

"Hurr durr, I'm Helm and I don't know how licenses work."

[Uomoz]

 

They should have been honest and added that they think that the core mechanics of the IE games suck:

 

"Project Eternity (working title) pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of years past: Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment."

 

"Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment. We will remove the ****ty core mechanics that everyone hates and replace it with something better."

 

Nobody would have backed the game then, but then they could have made what they wanted and nobody would have cared.

 

 

Now now, not all of us are people that live in the past. I pretty much got what I wanted from Obsidian (bar bugs and unfinished stuff), and I applaud them to the change they made on those outdated/turn-based rules. The feels are right where they should be (BG style of setting) but its definitely new and fresh on many aspects.

[Helm]

"Hurr durr, I'm Helm and I don't know how licenses work."

God, you're dumb.

 

D&D has nothing to do with the core mechanics. The IE game used AD&D, but you could replace it with something else and still have a very familiar game.

 

 

 

They should have been honest and added that they think that the core mechanics of the IE games suck:

 

"Project Eternity (working title) pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of years past: Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment."

 

"Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment. We will remove the ****ty core mechanics that everyone hates and replace it with something better."

 

Nobody would have backed the game then, but then they could have made what they wanted and nobody would have cared.

 

 

Now now, not all of us are people that live in the past. I pretty much got what I wanted from Obsidian (bar bugs and unfinished stuff), and I applaud them to the change they made on those outdated/turn-based rules. The feels are right where they should be (BG style of setting) but its definitely new and fresh on many aspects.

 

Something different is fine, no rounds and stuff is great, but they promised us something better and gave us horse**** instead.

[Tartantyco]

D&D has nothing to do with the core mechanics. The IE game used AD&D, but you could replace it with something else and still have a very familiar game.

 

 

Like the PoE system, you mean?

[Helm]

 

D&D has nothing to do with the core mechanics. The IE game used AD&D, but you could replace it with something else and still have a very familiar game.

 

Like the PoE system, you mean?

 

No, I meant with something that isn't complete crap.

[Tartantyco]

No, I meant with something that isn't complete crap. 

 

 

So the PoE system. then?

[Racker]

Perhaps magic, like fireballs and such, exert a physical force on the caster.  So they need a high physical strength to keep from being thrown around by their magic, and the stronger they are the more powerful magic they can control.  A good wizard would need both the 'spiritual' essence to summon magic and the physical ability to control it. 

 

Thus, the most powerful wizards look like Arnold Schwarzenegger.  It would be a rare individual, indeed.  But there aren't that many powerful sorcerers running around either.  This would also explain the need to physically rest between sets of spellcasting. 

[Matt516]

Perhaps magic, like fireballs and such, exert a physical force on the caster.  So they need a high physical strength to keep from being thrown around by their magic, and the stronger they are the more powerful magic they can control.  A good wizard would need both the 'spiritual' essence to summon magic and the physical ability to control it. 

 

Thus, the most powerful wizards look like Arnold Schwarzenegger.  It would be a rare individual, indeed.  But there aren't that many powerful sorcerers running around either.  This would also explain the need to physically rest between sets of spellcasting. 

 

You need to check out the "Muscle Wizard" thread. You might find it entertaining.

[wickermoon]

 

Perhaps magic, like fireballs and such, exert a physical force on the caster.  So they need a high physical strength to keep from being thrown around by their magic, and the stronger they are the more powerful magic they can control.  A good wizard would need both the 'spiritual' essence to summon magic and the physical ability to control it. 

 

Thus, the most powerful wizards look like Arnold Schwarzenegger.  It would be a rare individual, indeed.  But there aren't that many powerful sorcerers running around either.  This would also explain the need to physically rest between sets of spellcasting. 

 

You need to check out the "Muscle Wizard" thread. You might find it entertaining.

 

 

That thread is also shows the major flaw of this system, but people keep denying it out of fear of losing their easymode character build.

[Lord Vicious]

 

 

Lord Vicious: To put things briefly, the developers of this game subscribe to the philosophy that character creation is not gameplay, and therefore should not be difficult.

 

Where exactly did the developers say that?

 

And how is character creation not gameplay? It is definitely the initial stage of gameplay. It involves building up your character, both background-wise and mechanic-wise, which is a clear and direct element of playing the game.

 

This isn't going to change, so there's no point in discussing it.

 

What are you, a developer? Last time I checked this forum was called "Discussions", probably for a reason. And the developers seem to be ready to take suggestions.

[Lord Vicious]

 

The fault with the analogy lies in you being unable to differentiate that queen (or any other piece) from any other of its kind - there are no stats.  You are given ALL of the pieces to play with.  Then gameplay begins, then you can play poorly.  In an rpg like PoE, you choose a piece and then differentiate it based on stats and starting gear/whatever.  Additional changes come at level-up too.

 

The analogy is as follows.

 

In chess, you are given a full set of pieces, and it's up to you how to use them. Chess players construct various debuts, gambits, endspiels from the given options.

 

In an RPG, you are given a full set of classes (items, abilities etc.) and it's up to you how to use them. RPG players construct various builds and other gameplay strategies from the chosen options.

 

In chess you might favour a Queen gambit. In RPGs, you might like the Wizard class.

 

"Forgetting" how your class works is like "forgetting" that you have a Queen in chess. It's incompatible with playing the game.

 

This is kind of the point - in BG, you could start a new game, play for hours and then be unable to continue with your low-con/dex fighter because you figured "why would they let me choose intelligence+wisdom if it were useless?' and 'why should intelligence be useless for a fighter?' (strength could be compensated with items I suppose).

 

 

I am sorry, but if in BG you pumped INT at the expense of STR and CON for a fighter - that means you have no idea how the fighter class and the game in general work. I.e. you don't know the rules of the game you are playing.

 

I am sorry, but how can someone seriously expect to win a game without knowing the rules?

 

Straight classes aren't bad (and neither are those in PoE) - it's the attribute choices that were bad (and that's what we're discussing)

 

"Bad builds" can be bad for a variety of reasons, not just attribute choices.

 

Straight classes were mainly cited as an example that in the BG games, it was quite difficult to actually make a "terrible build" even if you didn't fully grasp all of the mechanics (like dual and multi-classing). Basically the only way you could end up with a "terrible" build was if you didn't know even the most basic rules of the game (e.g. what attributes do and how classes work).

 

Sure: RTFM - and personally I enjoy reading it - but saying "This is a good build, do it.  That is a bad build, don't do it." is more limiting than saying "That build isn't bad, but you'll have to learn to play it differently from this other build"

 

 

The IE games gave plenty of freedom in making various viable builds for most classes. Not even taking into account class kits and subclasses, even the most basic, straight Fighter could be played either as a Melee powerhouse (focus on STR) or as a Ranged sniper (focus on DEX) - something which is in fact absent from PoE (given the melee bonuses and ranged relative penalties PoE Fighter gets).

 

So in reality it is PoE that forces you to play a "cookie-cutter build" - simply because there are no alternative builds, basically.

 

Or they could just accept that there are some bad builds if you really try - like the low con, low dex fighter - but keep the general philosophy of starting stats just equals different playstyle emphasis.

 

 

In general I am not against the idea of "different stats = different playstyles". As I said before, that same idea existed in BG as well - e.g. the STR melee fighter vs. the DEX ranged fighter. However, there will always be some choices that will be clearly inferior - e.g. the low STR/low CON/low DEX/high WIS/high CHA/high INT Fighter. But that is only logical - if you want to play a mentally focused character, rather than physically focused, why choose the Fighter class which is clearly oriented towards physical combat?

 

Trying to completely eliminate the possibility of "bad choices" - rather than just giving a variety of "good choices" - leads to elimination of choice per se. Because if whatever the player does will lead to him winning the game, what's the fun in playing?

[sb5]

 

 

D&D has nothing to do with the core mechanics. The IE game used AD&D, but you could replace it with something else and still have a very familiar game.

Like the PoE system, you mean?

No, I meant with something that isn't complete crap.

But that is just your opinion on how things are for you in this state and not a fact. Why are you so butthurt over this?! Ask for a refund if you feel deceived.

[Infinitron]

[aeonsim]

 

"Project Eternity (working title) pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of years past: Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment."

 

"Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment. We will remove the ****ty core mechanics that everyone hates and replace it with something better."

 

Nobody would have backed the game then, but then they could have made what they wanted and nobody would have cared.

 

 

Plenty of people would have still backed the game, and seriously it was obvious they were never going to do an exact replica of the BG games and systems. After all they don't have a D&D licensee and as such it would probably be risky to imitate the the BG games to closely. Thus they needed to create there own system which they have and it works the story style, the game play, the graphics and the feel of the game are similar to BG but the exact mechanics vary in what appears to be an improved way.

 

If you are a D&D/AD&D fanatic who was expecting a reimplementation of those rule sets with a new story you should know the D&D/Wotc well enough to know that a licensee is needed for an exact copy of those rules and that Obsidian does not have that licensee. Note it's only in the last couple of months they have finally gotten a Pathfinder licensee...

[Silent Winter]

The analogy is as follows.

 

In chess, you are given a full set of pieces, and it's up to you how to use them. Chess players construct various debuts, gambits, endspiels from the given options.

 

In an RPG, you are given a full set of classes (items, abilities etc.) and it's up to you how to use them. RPG players construct various builds and other gameplay strategies from the chosen options.

 

In chess you might favour a Queen gambit. In RPGs, you might like the Wizard class.

 

"Forgetting" how your class works is like "forgetting" that you have a Queen in chess. It's incompatible with playing the game.

Ok, the analogy makes a little more sense when put like that (opening gambits) but at the same time - the endspiel isn't your opening gambit - it requires responding to your opponent in-game and adjusting your tactics (I'm not a great chess-player so maybe that's why I'm seeing a clearer distinction).

In PoE, if the choices you made at CharGen don't work the way you thought they would, you should be able to find the strengths of the character you do have and play to them.

(In theory - haven't played it myself)

 

It's never going to be as complex as Chess for learning master strategies.  So maybe some advice in CharGen stat allocation would remove the problem of bad builds anyway (unless someone wants to take a gimped build challenge like in BG)

 

Also 'how your class works' might be in different ways according to the build - Favouring a queen gambit doesn't mean playing the queen in exactly the same moves (no?)

A fighter needn't be a tank / damage-dealer.  They could also be a dancer.

 

I am sorry, but if in BG you pumped INT at the expense of STR and CON for a fighter - that means you have no idea how the fighter class and the game in general work. I.e. you don't know the rules of the game you are playing.

 

I am sorry, but how can someone seriously expect to win a game without knowing the rules?

Sure - but some people learn best by playing the game, coming up against a challenge and needing several attempts.  Needing to replay a few hours of Fed-ex quests because of that shouldn't be a design goal (though see later where I agree)

Others are more analytical from the outset and read the manual, plan a character and take stock of each encounter before committing to a strategy.

 

In general I am not against the idea of "different stats = different playstyles". As I said before, that same idea existed in BG as well - e.g. the STR melee fighter vs. the DEX ranged fighter. However, there will always be some choices that will be clearly inferior - e.g. the low STR/low CON/low DEX/high WIS/high CHA/high INT Fighter. But that is only logical - if you want to play a mentally focused character, rather than physically focused, why choose the Fighter class which is clearly oriented towards physical combat?

 

Because in their experience, it takes more brain than brawn to be a good fighter?  I've seen little guys throw big guys across a room (both skilled martial artists - not master vs. couch-potato) and both styles should be viable.  Though 'dumping' Might/Con on a figher wouldn't really enter into that so I agree with you there.   It's physical but with the kind of mental focus that comes from training, rather than application of muscle.

Having said that - it depends on the game and how the classes are designed.  I don't know if PoE has designed fighters to be more tactical or simply 'Me crush you to goo'  Perhaps Monk class is the intelligent fighter here? (Or Barbarians, amusingly enough)

 

Trying to completely eliminate the possibility of "bad choices" - rather than just giving a variety of "good choices" - leads to elimination of choice per se. Because if whatever the player does will lead to him winning the game, what's the fun in playing?

I think it's more 'whatever character you play with, you can find a way to make it work to beat the game' - not 'pick any stats then wade into melee'

 

I'm not against some builds being (much) more difficult than others - but saying you can't have a low-might, high-int fighter that works by tying up the enemy while your druid knocks them on the head from behind in bear form, isn't what I'd agree with either.

[DigitalCrack]

People seem to think that PoE's world is somehow governed by all the same principles that governed BG's world.  They created this world from scratch, as far as I'm concerned you can't argue that "because said system functions differently than BG's universe it must be illogical."  It's crazy how insistent some people are about how PoE's attributes (or any element for that matter) must follow the logic set down by a completely different unrelated fantasy universe.

[Helm]

 

 

"Project Eternity (working title) pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of years past: Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment."

 

"Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment. We will remove the ****ty core mechanics that everyone hates and replace it with something better."

 

Nobody would have backed the game then, but then they could have made what they wanted and nobody would have cared.

 

 

Plenty of people would have still backed the game, and seriously it was obvious they were never going to do an exact replica of the BG games and systems. After all they don't have a D&D licensee and as such it would probably be risky to imitate the the BG games to closely. Thus they needed to create there own system which they have and it works the story style, the game play, the graphics and the feel of the game are similar to BG but the exact mechanics vary in what appears to be an improved way.

 

If you are a D&D/AD&D fanatic who was expecting a reimplementation of those rule sets with a new story you should know the D&D/Wotc well enough to know that a licensee is needed for an exact copy of those rules and that Obsidian does not have that licensee. Note it's only in the last couple of months they have finally gotten a Pathfinder licensee...

 

I am talking about the core mechanics, not about AD&D. We knew from day one that this game would not use AD&D.

[Seari]

Perhaps magic, like fireballs and such, exert a physical force on the caster.  So they need a high physical strength to keep from being thrown around by their magic, and the stronger they are the more powerful magic they can control.  A good wizard would need both the 'spiritual' essence to summon magic and the physical ability to control it. 

 

Thus, the most powerful wizards look like Arnold Schwarzenegger.  It would be a rare individual, indeed.  But there aren't that many powerful sorcerers running around either.  This would also explain the need to physically rest between sets of spellcasting.

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

This is my 18 Might 3 Int Wizard. He doesn't actually know how to read, so he just throws his spellbook at enemies.

[Msxyz]

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.