"No Bad Builds" a failure in practice?

[FunGrinder]

 

 

 

I am not a beta participant, but from what I can read there's not too much incentive for certain classes to get stats that are beneficial to them. For example, mage spells benefit from strength, which I find really awkward, unintuitive and superfluous. Str should only matter to mages that engage in physical combat.

 

Not having a go but it's not strength. Its might. As in magical Might, mental might, physical might, strength of your healing....basically being mighty.... which doesn't always mean how well you swing a sword.  The others are then based around ...

I also like how raising your character's might attribute makes bullets and arrows more mighty by defying the laws of physics.

 

They should call it super mysterious magical damage multiplier.

 

 

 

It is strange. Didn't crossbows(I don't think there were any other self-propelled weapons in those games) in the IE games NOT use strength as a damage modifier, in exchange for a higher base damage range? Seems like that's something that's likely to change before the game ships.

 

 

Honestly I think this is the problem with adding in guns in general. A gun hits as hard as it hits. At best you could add a modifier from accuracy. At least with bows the stronger(mightier ) you are means you can use a higher poundage bow and draw the string back further thus increasing its power. 

Edited August 21, 2014 by FunGrinder

[Panteleimon]

Absolutely. They have a few options with how they could balance them:  by giving them very long reload times, accuracy penalties or possibilities for misfires, make powder/ammunition expensive(I paid so little attention to it so far in the demo, do bows even need ammo? I don't think they do). But at the end of the day there are reasons why crossbows and firearms were viewed(negatively) as equalizers on the battlefield.

 

The fact that ingame firearms are valued for their ability to pierce wizards' protections is a parallel of crossbows in reality being able to pierce lords' and knights' plate armor with relative ease.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Panteleimon

[termokanden]

People seem to have too much of a D&D mindset on some of the stats.  I have noticed in multiple threads people equating might to strength when that is not at all the equivalent.  Might is simply in reference to the power of your attack (no matter the type) not a reflection of literal muscle strength.  Not sure if people realize the system is set up so you can roll (for example) a wizard with max con and res giving you a hard to interrupt front liner wizard if you want.  Its hard to get out of that D&D comparison in our heads but if you do you'll see the potential.

No, I fully understand that. The problem with might is that it's abstract while the other attributes are concrete.

[Panteleimon]

 

People seem to have too much of a D&D mindset on some of the stats.  I have noticed in multiple threads people equating might to strength when that is not at all the equivalent.  Might is simply in reference to the power of your attack (no matter the type) not a reflection of literal muscle strength.  Not sure if people realize the system is set up so you can roll (for example) a wizard with max con and res giving you a hard to interrupt front liner wizard if you want.  Its hard to get out of that D&D comparison in our heads but if you do you'll see the potential.

No, I fully understand that. The problem with might is that it's abstract while the other attributes are concrete.

 

 

 

The thing is souls aren't abstract in this world, nor are the ways they tie in to your overall physical condition/abilities.

[Ondb]

 

 

People seem to have too much of a D&D mindset on some of the stats.  I have noticed in multiple threads people equating might to strength when that is not at all the equivalent.  Might is simply in reference to the power of your attack (no matter the type) not a reflection of literal muscle strength.  Not sure if people realize the system is set up so you can roll (for example) a wizard with max con and res giving you a hard to interrupt front liner wizard if you want.  Its hard to get out of that D&D comparison in our heads but if you do you'll see the potential.

No, I fully understand that. The problem with might is that it's abstract while the other attributes are concrete.

 

 

 

The thing is souls aren't abstract in this world, nor are the ways they tie in to your overall physical condition/abilities.

 

 

Then you would be fine if Might was split to Strength and Soul-power (as additional attribute?)

[Mrakvampire]

 

 

People seem to have too much of a D&D mindset on some of the stats.  I have noticed in multiple threads people equating might to strength when that is not at all the equivalent.  Might is simply in reference to the power of your attack (no matter the type) not a reflection of literal muscle strength.  Not sure if people realize the system is set up so you can roll (for example) a wizard with max con and res giving you a hard to interrupt front liner wizard if you want.  Its hard to get out of that D&D comparison in our heads but if you do you'll see the potential.

No, I fully understand that. The problem with might is that it's abstract while the other attributes are concrete.

 

 

 

The thing is souls aren't abstract in this world, nor are the ways they tie in to your overall physical condition/abilities.

 

 

Oh, in this world souls have muscles, I guess. And there will be 2 portraits in the game - one for my character, another for my soul?

[termokanden]

The thing is souls aren't abstract in this world, nor are the ways they tie in to your overall physical condition/abilities.

 

I guess that's a valid point, although then it feels odd to define all kinds of other things, but you can't decide if your character lifts weights or pizza slices.

[Gromnir]

am having too much difficulty figuring out what abilities do, and to what degree they do it, to be able to genuine balance abilities.

 

for folks who try and maximize aoe attacks, dex would appear to be far less necessary than the genesis poster suggests. conversely, intellect would be very important. alternatively, our ranger build were clear wrong as we were thinking con would be less important for a ranged character. unfortunately, our companion meat shield were transmitting lethal amounts o' damage to our ranger, so apparently con is far more important than we expected. 

 

perception appears to be useful in dialogues, but am admitting we don't see its use in combat. as we hasn't faced many enemy spell casters, resolve would be having relative limited use as well... although much like perception, given the lack o' useful feedback, we cannot guess how important a resolve-based defense against interrupts is. perhaps interrupts and interrupt resistance is the single mostest important factors in combat, but we can't tell from feedback we get in the game. 

 

am not knowing how folks can be claiming that abilities and builds is poorly balanced when we is personally having so much difficulty figuring out exactly what abilities do.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Panteleimon]

 

 

 

People seem to have too much of a D&D mindset on some of the stats.  I have noticed in multiple threads people equating might to strength when that is not at all the equivalent.  Might is simply in reference to the power of your attack (no matter the type) not a reflection of literal muscle strength.  Not sure if people realize the system is set up so you can roll (for example) a wizard with max con and res giving you a hard to interrupt front liner wizard if you want.  Its hard to get out of that D&D comparison in our heads but if you do you'll see the potential.

No, I fully understand that. The problem with might is that it's abstract while the other attributes are concrete.

 

 

 

The thing is souls aren't abstract in this world, nor are the ways they tie in to your overall physical condition/abilities.

 

 

Oh, in this world souls have muscles, I guess. And there will be 2 portraits in the game - one for my character, another for my soul?

 

 

Man, you need to sit down and get over your preconception of the word "might" as it relates to this game.

 

The idea that the condition of one's soul(your essence, everything meaningful that makes you who you are) actively effects your physical condition and abilities is not an alien concept for me because I already believe that in reality. Apparently this is not the case for many of the people on here.

I understand you want an attribute that directly measures physical strength, but I think you're going to have to make do with a broader definition of "might" and constitution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thing is souls aren't abstract in this world, nor are the ways they tie in to your overall physical condition/abilities.

 

I guess that's a valid point, although then it feels odd to define all kinds of other things, but you can't decide if your character lifts weights or pizza slices.

 

 

 

I absolutely agree. I wish I could just read the game manual entry for "Might" so I could rationalize it better.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Panteleimon

[FunGrinder]

It does seem that might was a little bit of a controversial choice. I would guess they have tried to simplify the overall stats for the "new guys" mayhap? But in doing so it doesn't quite lend itself to the complexity we all like to associate with a attribute based stat system. 

 

Panteleimon: Yeah I like the idea of guns as a wizard equalizers. I think in reference to my comment above it would require a more complex view of the attributes system to really make sense. Just like Helm said, it really doesn't make sense that my might physical or otherwise would increase my rifle dmg. Maybe a mix of dex for the accuracy, perception to judge wind speed/direction and Intelligence to calculate for inbuilt inaccuracy of the rifle barrel ( a major issue with the kind of firearms within PoE)? this is way too convoluted but I think something in that direction would make sense, particulars aside. 

[Mrakvampire]

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!

Edited August 21, 2014 by Mrakvampire

[Amentep]

 

 

People seem to have too much of a D&D mindset on some of the stats.  I have noticed in multiple threads people equating might to strength when that is not at all the equivalent.  Might is simply in reference to the power of your attack (no matter the type) not a reflection of literal muscle strength.  Not sure if people realize the system is set up so you can roll (for example) a wizard with max con and res giving you a hard to interrupt front liner wizard if you want.  Its hard to get out of that D&D comparison in our heads but if you do you'll see the potential.

No, I fully understand that. The problem with might is that it's abstract while the other attributes are concrete.

 

 

The thing is souls aren't abstract in this world, nor are the ways they tie in to your overall physical condition/abilities.

 

And in that case, I think part of the problem is the intellectual disconnect between physical attributes and soul / mental attributes.

 

People think of might more in regard to the physical world. So a person just looking at the attributes would probably say

 

PHYSICAL

Might

Dex

Con

 

Mental/Soul

Perception

Intellect

Resolve

 

 

I haven't given the stats much thought (its not an area I tend to focus on, to be honest) but it seems like the problem isn't really pure definition (ie who cares if might is strength is damage is whatever) but the fact that contextually some of the stats like Might seem to have situational meaning. In practice it seems to me from the descriptions that Dex and Con are the only truly physical traits. Intellect and Resolve the only purely soul/mental related.

 

Perception and Might straddle the two and it isn't necessarily obvious (might can be physical might or it can be soul might, perception can be visual acuity and ability to sense motive with intellect/soul) based on concept what the intent is.

 

This leads to questions over whether a high-might mage is musclebound or soulstrong; there's now an inability to visualize the character due to ambiguous relationships between the stats and the character being built.

[Gromnir]

intellect may expand the aoe and duration o' purely physical attacks...s'posedley.

 

likewise, am thinking that dexterity affects likelihood o' various soul powers/magic abilities successfully striking opponents. 

 

am beginning to suspect there are no pure physical v mental attributes, but the feedback is so poor that we can't say for certain.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Panteleimon]

It does seem that might was a little bit of a controversial choice. I would guess they have tried to simplify the overall stats for the "new guys" mayhap? But in doing so it doesn't quite lend itself to the complexity we all like to associate with a attribute based stat system. 

 

Panteleimon: Yeah I like the idea of guns as a wizard equalizers. I think in reference to my comment above it would require a more complex view of the attributes system to really make sense. Just like Helm said, it really doesn't make sense that my might physical or otherwise would increase my rifle dmg. Maybe a mix of dex for the accuracy, perception to judge wind speed/direction and Intelligence to calculate for inbuilt inaccuracy of the rifle barrel ( a major issue with the kind of firearms within PoE)? this is way too convoluted but I think something in that direction would make sense, particulars aside. 

 

Using might as a damage multiplier for high-damage weapons like crossbows and firearms not only doesn't make logical sense but seems doomed to lead to gross combat imbalances, yes. I don't know how they'll balance and rationalize them, but they'll come up with something.

[mrmonocle]

In the world of PoE Conan the barbarian would barbarize you... with a fireball... as a wizard.

Edited August 21, 2014 by mrmonocle

[termokanden]

I guess I still don't quite understand why a damage boost should be better for slow, hard-hitting weapons.

 

I don't know so much about the game's mechanics, but surely if a weapon does X DPS and you multiply the damage by 1.2, it doesn't really matter if the weapon is fast or slow, the DPS is going to be 20% higher. Is it because of weapon balancing issues then? Or is it because of a damage threshold?

Edited August 21, 2014 by termokanden

[yrm_dm]

I do agree that it's much more fun to work with non-equal builds, like Pathfinder, than supposedly equal builds, like D&D 4.0.   Gamers will work to find a way to abuse builds anyway, and in 4.0 it was NOVA builds, which weren't much fun and definitely broke solo encounters.

 

When a GM does level design, it's important to vary the challenges...   drowning, flying, foes at range or behind cover, balancing on dangerous surfaces, spells that attack various attributes from reflex to mind to physical.

 

If that happens, classes which previously appeared to be too weak may start to shine.  Pathfinder Monks, for example, start to stand out on a game day where there's balancing, swimming, combat, attacks against will, poisons, abilities to buff up, etc.

 

Allowing people to explore very different builds that are optimized differently is a huge part of the fun.   Allowing gamers to "get ahead" by earning combat EXP is a huge part of the fun.

 

Restricting the gamer's ability to advance beyond where the game designer hopes they'll be at any given time prevents the kind of memorable god-like rampages through supposedly tough foes that fulfill the power fantasy of a game like this.

 

I'm very excited about this game and I hope for the best.

[fruiteater]

 

 

 

People seem to have too much of a D&D mindset on some of the stats.  I have noticed in multiple threads people equating might to strength when that is not at all the equivalent.  Might is simply in reference to the power of your attack (no matter the type) not a reflection of literal muscle strength.  Not sure if people realize the system is set up so you can roll (for example) a wizard with max con and res giving you a hard to interrupt front liner wizard if you want.  Its hard to get out of that D&D comparison in our heads but if you do you'll see the potential.

No, I fully understand that. The problem with might is that it's abstract while the other attributes are concrete.

 

 

The thing is souls aren't abstract in this world, nor are the ways they tie in to your overall physical condition/abilities.

 

And in that case, I think part of the problem is the intellectual disconnect between physical attributes and soul / mental attributes.

 

People think of might more in regard to the physical world. So a person just looking at the attributes would probably say

 

PHYSICAL

Might

Dex

Con

 

Mental/Soul

Perception

Intellect

Resolve

 

 

I haven't given the stats much thought (its not an area I tend to focus on, to be honest) but it seems like the problem isn't really pure definition (ie who cares if might is strength is damage is whatever) but the fact that contextually some of the stats like Might seem to have situational meaning. In practice it seems to me from the der characterscriptions that Dex and Con are the only truly physical traits. Intellect and Resolve the only purely soul/mental related.

 

Perception and Might straddle the two and it isn't necessarily obvious (might can be physical might or it can be soul might, perception can be visual acuity and ability to sense motive with intellect/soul) based on concept what the intent is.

 

This leads to questions over whether a high-might mage is musclebound or soulstrong; there's now an inability to visualize the character due to ambiguous relationships between the stats and the character being built.

 

 

I would say its up to you how you imagine your character,its not like the models changes depending on stats. Personally my view on might is the strenght your soul and in this world it has literal effect on your body making you stronger physically and magically, HOWEVER. just because you are physcially strong dosnt mean you are ripped like arnold "terminator" negger. So if you imagine your wizard thin and lanky he is that, however his soul makes him strong.

[Nixl]

Overall, it seems that there is not as much room for builds as I expected, because we can get so much right off the bat.  We start off with a lot of points and several classes (priest and mage) have a really broad toolset that covers for any inadequacies.  Moreover, with regards to stats, might seems so central.

 

Also, I am not sure this is the right topic to bring this up, but I am starting to wonder if Obsidian could better balance the stats/builds by making stamina more substantial.   For instance, let's say that some class abilities costed stamina.  Constiution could give more stamina, whereas intellect or resolve could lower the stamina cost of such abilities. 

Edited August 21, 2014 by Nixl

[PrimeJunta]

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!

 

The attribute systems of both Fallout and Arcanum were terribad.

[Mrakvampire]

The attribute systems of both Fallout and Arcanum were terribad.

 

LOL

[PrimeJunta]

They were.

 

Fallout: pump INT and AGI, the rest are cosmetic. OK, STR if you want to use heavy weapons (although there's no reason really because you'll be able to shoot a gnat in the left eyeball soon enough otherwise).

 

Arcanum: decide whether you want shoot, melee, throw, magic, or have your buddies do the dirty work for you, and pump the associated attribute. The skill trees even handily tell you when to pump it. If you're a technomancer, never mind INT, just buy those potions from the helpful lady near the city gates; it's useless for anything other than crafting anyway.

 

The main takeaway from those games is that yes, Virginia, it is possible to design an attribute system that's worse than STR-CON-DEX-INT-WIS-CHA.

 

(Great games anyway, though. Especially Fallout.)

[Gromnir]

 

The attribute systems of both Fallout and Arcanum were terribad.

 

LOL

 

arcanum and fallout had numerous strengths, but balance was not a strength of either game. as PoE is aiming for more balance, we would not expect fallout or arcanum to represent useful guidelines or benchmarks for comparison.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Waywocket]

They were.

 

Fallout: pump INT and AGI, the rest are cosmetic. OK, STR if you want to use heavy weapons (although there's no reason really because you'll be able to shoot a gnat in the left eyeball soon enough otherwise).

I thought luck was generally considered a tier one stat? Not that it really invalidates your point, I guess: it didn't have the greatest stat balance.

[termokanden]

I think the D&D attribute system is being misrepresented as this terrible cheesy system. It was meant for pen and paper roleplaying and as a part of the definition of your character. Your character didn't have 12 charisma because it was mechanically the best thing but simply because that's what your character was actually like.

 

Maybe the problem is actually that the system didn't translate all that well to cRPG mechanics, but the system was not actually all that bad.

 

PS: Yes Arcanum and Fallout are great.

 

PPS: When I was still a teenager and had nothing but time, me and a couple of friends designed our own roleplaying system with the aim of making something far more realistic than the silly AD&D (and other games). In the end we did have a system, but we reached the conclusion that sometimes simple is better. Sure our system was "more realistic", but it was a heck of a lot harder to understand. It's not really the essential part when playing an RPG anyway.

Edited August 21, 2014 by termokanden