"No Bad Builds" a failure in practice?

[AdaMusic]

 

"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.

 

Hahaha. :D True dat.

 

 

 

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.

 

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

 

 

And it is not only about understand-ability either. Immersion is also important, meaning that the stats, modifiers and "percentages" should have a meaning lore wise. Questions like "why is the stat named might?" should be answered by the lore, not only by the description of the stat itself.

Edited August 25, 2014 by AdaMusic

[Answermancer]

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.

 

 

I also refuse to believe in any kind of magic except the kind that strictly follows the real-world scientific discoveries of Dr. G. Gygax.

[Hormalakh]

And it is not only about understand-ability either. Immersion is also important, meaning that the stats, modifiers and "percentages" should have a meaning lore wise. Questions like "why is the stat named might?" should be answered by the lore, not only by the description of the stat itself.

 

I honestly don't care much about the naming of stats as long as players have an intuitive feel or a nearly intuitive one. The point is to make something that is fun and enjoyable, not a chore or math homework (though the math isn't too tough to calculate out, not everyone is good at grinding numbers and spitting out hollow dreams).

 

Imnmersion is a fickle thing that usually doesn't pose a problem if you're having fun playing the game.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Hormalakh

[Malekith]

 

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.

 

While the description of a wizard as a sad nerd that somehow his nerdines made him master of the World is more believable...

Yeah,right

[PrimeJunta]

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.

 

Tell me, Giubba, do you actually believe that there is such a thing as magic, and you can learn to use it by reading lots of books? 'Cuz what you're saying only makes sense if you do.

 

I don't. I believe that magic is make-believe in make-believe worlds, with make-believe rules, and the rules can be whatever whoever makes the make-believe wants them to be. P:E's rules are different from DnD's.

[PrimeJunta]

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!

 

Have you even looked at the grimoire? It's a picture book, fer cryin' out loud!

[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.

 

 

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.

 

 

This is just a presentation issue. For me % changes mean much more then things like +1, +2, +3 etc.

 

Also I'm not so sure if +22% is les clear then x1.22.

[Longknife]

 

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.

 

Tell me, Giubba, do you actually believe that there is such a thing as magic, and you can learn to use it by reading lots of books? 'Cuz what you're saying only makes sense if you do.

 

I don't. I believe that magic is make-believe in make-believe worlds, with make-believe rules, and the rules can be whatever whoever makes the make-believe wants them to be. P:E's rules are different from DnD's.

 

 

 

Can we just do a reality-check and realize we're discussing what magic can and cannot do, as if it were a thing?

 

This is on par to if we had a debate about the mating rituals of Smurfs:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sz9Z_tjz8s

[AdaMusic]

 

And it is not only about understand-ability either. Immersion is also important, meaning that the stats, modifiers and "percentages" should have a meaning lore wise. Questions like "why is the stat named might?" should be answered by the lore, not only by the description of the stat itself.

 

I honestly don't care much about the naming of stats as long as players have an intuitive feel or a nearly intuitive one. The point is to make something that is fun and enjoyable, not a chore or math homework (though the math isn't too tough to calculate out, not everyone is good at grinding numbers and spitting out hollow dreams).

 

Imnmersion is a fickle thing that usually doesn't pose a problem if you're having fun playing the game.

 

 

I wont be having fun playing the game if I don't feel immersed into it. In my case, and many others, immersion = fun.

[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

 

 

 

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!

 

 

Never played Fallout 3,i'm not on post-apocalyptic stuff.

 

But anyway do you realize that Gandalf is a Maia aka the lesser rank of divinity of Ea? Just saying .

 

Why i would? Crap if i can make a character that makes the same amount of melee dmg of my fighter added with the magic dmg of a wizard who need cc ability i will be able to blow the sorry bastard ass out of his next 3 incarnation at very least.

[Elerond]

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!

 

Wizards don't read their grimoires, but use soul energy absorbed to them to cast spells and spell pages on those grimoires do most of the work in the casting.

 

And might also represent character's mental strength addition to physical strength and intellect represent character's logic and reasoning capabilities, it is not such general all including as D&D's intelligence attribute (and for some reason D&D's wizards never actually read books as their wisdom is generally only about average ).

[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.

 

While the description of a wizard as a sad nerd that somehow his nerdines made him master of the World is more believable...

Yeah,right

 

 

Translate with a studious of a science that require hundreds of hour of study and specific training that do not leave much time for physical practice than that yes is correct.

 

And what about the sad nerd stuff?

 

Guys even in books author try to avoid mary sue character like the plague, do you think there is a reason or not?

Edited August 25, 2014 by Giubba

[Malekith]

 

 

 

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.

 

While the description of a wizard as a sad nerd that somehow his nerdines made him master of the World is more believable...

Yeah,right

 

 

Translate with a studious of a science that require hundreds of hour of study and specific training that do not leave much time for physical practice than that yes is correct.

 

And what about the sad nerd stuff?

 

Guys even in books author try to avoid mary sue character like the plague, do you think there is a reason or not?

 

I read many fantasy books, and in most of them magic power has nothing to do with inteligence. It all depends on the lore, and PoE lore makes sense internaly just fine.

[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!

 

 

Never played Fallout 3,i'm not on post-apocalyptic stuff.

 

But anyway do you realize that Gandalf is a Maia aka the lesser rank of divinity of Ea? Just saying .

 

Why i would? Crap if i can make a character that makes the same amount of melee dmg of my fighter added with the magic dmg of a wizard who need cc ability i will be able to blow the sorry bastard ass out of his next 3 incarnation at very least.

 

 

 

BUT WHY WOULD YOU MELEE?

 

That's the point, you wouldn't. The magic you can dish out as a wizard is far superior and you get a magic auto-attack with the staff. Why on earth would you even make a swordplay-focused wizard? You wouldn't, that's the point. So you're complaining a concept is POSSIBLE even though it's completely counter-intuitive....you know, just like statting a wizard full with STR in a D&D game.

 

 

 

But anyway do you realize that Gandalf is a Maia aka the lesser rank of divinity of Ea? Just saying .

 

 

I have no idea what any of this even means and I hope you realize how hard you're missing the point if you're citing some LoTR lore as a reason why Gandalf wouldn't be good with a sword.

 

 

Never played Fallout 3

 

 

[Seari]

I'll up you one. I dislike Fallout 3.

[Longknife]

I'll up you one. I dislike Fallout 3.

 

[Cabamacadaf]

Gandalf is actually a pretty good swordsman.

[Gulliver]

He's right, though. Fallout 3 isn't a very interesting game. New Vegas is pretty good, but the original game is pretty much like Oblivion.
 

I have no idea what any of this even means and I hope you realize how hard you're missing the point if you're citing some LoTR lore as a reason why Gandalf wouldn't be good with a sword.

 

Gandalf is good with a sword. What he's saying is that Gandalf is basically a half-god. Gods in general can be simultaneously great at everything.

[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

 

 

 

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!

 

 

Never played Fallout 3,i'm not on post-apocalyptic stuff.

 

But anyway do you realize that Gandalf is a Maia aka the lesser rank of divinity of Ea? Just saying .

 

Why i would? Crap if i can make a character that makes the same amount of melee dmg of my fighter added with the magic dmg of a wizard who need cc ability i will be able to blow the sorry bastard ass out of his next 3 incarnation at very least.

 

 

 

BUT WHY WOULD YOU MELEE?

 

That's the point, you wouldn't. The magic you can dish out as a wizard is far superior and you get a magic auto-attack with the staff. Why on earth would you even make a swordplay-focused wizard? You wouldn't, that's the point. So you're complaining a concept is POSSIBLE even though it's completely counter-intuitive....you know, just like statting a wizard full with STR in a D&D game.

 

 

But anyway do you realize that Gandalf is a Maia aka the lesser rank of divinity of Ea? Just saying .

 

 

I have no idea what any of this even means and I hope you realize how hard you're missing the point if you're citing some LoTR lore as a reason why Gandalf wouldn't be good with a sword.

 

Never played Fallout 3

 

 

 

 

Holy crap yes i totally would, i could deal both physical and magical damage at the same time in theory i could be able to bypass any kind of damage resistence in the game.

 

About the lotro sutff: i wasn't really clear but anyway my point was you involuntarily mentioned a character that has literaly no possible restrain because it's bloody god (a lesser one but a god nevertheless), so you saying why Gandalf cannot use a sword? Well duh he's a freaking god of course he can do anything he want.

 

And yes i never played fallout 3 i'm not a particular fan of elder scrollish game and as i said post-apocalyptic stuff is not my forte.

[Giubba]

He's right, though. Fallout 3 isn't a very interesting game. New Vegas is pretty good, but the original game is pretty much like Oblivion.

 

I have no idea what any of this even means and I hope you realize how hard you're missing the point if you're citing some LoTR lore as a reason why Gandalf wouldn't be good with a sword.

 

Gandalf is good with a sword. What he's saying is that Gandalf is basically a half-god. Gods in general can be simultaneously great at everything.

 

Not half, lesser god and you got the point mate.

[Malekith]

Fallout 3 was shiit, and New Vegas was an exquisite sculpture using turd as it's raw material.

It's only so much you can do with a TES style game

[Osvir]

"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.

But the Attributes play a vital role narratively. RPG's have never been about a Level 1 Combat Strong character. You get a Level 12 Aumaua Barbarian with that item and those talents and those skills.

 

Is Level 1 "da Build"? 

[Helm]

 

I'll up you one. I dislike Fallout 3.

 

 

You like Fallout 3?

 

Well, that explains quite a bit actually.

[Helm]

Fallout 3 was shiit, and New Vegas was an exquisite sculpture using turd as it's raw material.

It's only so much you can do with a TES style game

Yep.

 

Fallout: New Vegas is a gem with a turd at its core.

 

Fallout 3 is just a turd.

[PrimeJunta]

BUT WHY WOULD YOU MELEE?

 

That's the point, you wouldn't. The magic you can dish out as a wizard is far superior and you get a magic auto-attack with the staff. Why on earth would you even make a swordplay-focused wizard? You wouldn't, that's the point. So you're complaining a concept is POSSIBLE even though it's completely counter-intuitive....you know, just like statting a wizard full with STR in a D&D game.

 

As an aside, there's a pretty badass level 1 wizard spell which gives you a MASSIVE accuracy boost for a short time. 

 

You ought to be able make a pretty cool spellsword with intelligent use of that + Arcane Veil. Pump INT for the duration boost, use light armor so you act fast, cast spell, put Arcane Veil up, charge into melee, proceed to slice 'n dice. When it runs out, use one of those short-distance teleport spells to get to safety. Serious burst damage, with flair.

 

Gotta try that, maybe with the next build.