"No Bad Builds" a failure in practice?

[Fluffle]

I think I saw an effect of dumping RES in my previous attempt. I made a back-row druid rocking an arquebus, and when an enemy engaged him the attacks interrupted his reload pretty effectively.

 

If interrupts do interrupt melee attacks as well, and RES is needed to stop that from happening, then hell yes, PER and RES are both vital. Pump PER = stunlock most enemies; dump RES = get stunlocked in most combats.

 

That said, I'm not sure how much fun getting stunlocked is.

 

According to what the PoE wiki says I would actually expect that you can interrupt just regular normal attacks.

 

"If a character is hit while preforming an action such as casting a spell, attacking an enemy or reloading a weapon his action is interrupted, if he can't maintain his Concentration. If an action is interrupted, it stops."

"If it's a repeated action like reloading/firing or performing standard attacks, it will restart from the beginning as soon as the interrupt animation finishes."

 

I have made a char with high perception but I have not yet encountered this "interrupt animation".

To me the PoE wiki sounds like you should be able to reduce the enemy's attacking rate by interrupting them more often.

 

Has anyone succeeded on doing that on normal attacks?

Edited August 21, 2014 by Fluffle

[Darian Wolf]

I have to agree with the whole stat system, as it currently is, being a total failure in execution.

Right now it just leads to every class putting their points almost exactly the same, unless it is a support or ranged fighter.

There can't be any noticiable differencent laystyles between two characters of the same class because the system doesn't allow it, even different classes have a hard time being distingushed now stat wise.

 

As of now the stat system could simpy not exist and the experience wouldn't noticeably change and that is a huge issue, which needs to be adressed and talked about at the very least, saying that people simply hate the game for wanting it to improve either have incredibly low standards or absolutely miss the point, either way it results in a worse game at the end.

 

D&D and, well most pen & paper games, had issues with having optimal character builds and neglecting weird builds like INT Fighter, which could have and to a point were tackled by giving these classes feats and abilities that scaled and worked with these unusual builds.

Hell, entire classes and archetypes were born from players breaking games doing that and that is a great thing, but the only reason they're not common is because out of time constraints and different goals they simply didn't expand on that in most system, not because the stat system in D&D is fundamentally flawed.

 

Its important to give a player the freedom to succeed and fail, otherwise everyone ends up the same and you don't satisfy anybody at all and would have wasted less time simply not implementing stats at all.

[Cthulchulain]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Leaving aside might vs strength, D&D had no stat give damage modifiers to bows or crossbows (probably did for thown weapons and slings, though), unless you had a bow specifically built to require more STR to use (higher draw strength --> more force imparted to arrow). Whether that was implemented in the IE games, is a different question...

[GreyFox]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Leaving aside might vs strength, D&D had no stat give damage modifiers to bows or crossbows (probably did for thown weapons and slings, though), unless you had a bow specifically built to require more STR to use (higher draw strength --> more force imparted to arrow). Whether that was implemented in the IE games, is a different question...

 

 

Composite bows in BG had a flat bonus to damage.

 

Also Composite bows allow you to add your Str modifier to damage in 3E/Pathfinder. I am pretty sure this was the case in 2E as well.

[hairyscotsman2]

 

 

 

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?

 

Unless you're a godlike...

[Shdy314]

You've never played D&D, right? You talk like you have absolutely NO IDEA of how that system work, right? You've never seen moderate STR, but high DEX fighters. Never seen Fighters that have decent INT, cause there were a lot of abilities tied to Combat Expertise feat chain? Why I'm talking to you at all, if you like to talk about things, that you even don't have remote understanding? 

 

No there could be no balance between stats. Never. Some stats are more usefull for certain class, some stats are less usefull, but there is never a situation that every 10 fighters in order to be optimized will have same stats. Absolutely not, cause beyond main role (fighter) there are 10s of subroles that require different stats. Two-handed damage dealer fighter is one type, dual-wealding fighter is another type, archer-fighter is third type, spellcater-bane fighter is 4th type, tank fighter is 5th type, battlefield controller is 6th type...

 

Oh, hell. I'll leave forums for a while and just wait for PoE release. If devs have some brains, they will make changes. If not - ok, I've already paid for that game, and I will probably play it, but I will definitely not support 'addon' or 'expansion' kickstarter. Bottom line, right now, this confusing, non-intuitive system will not add more buyers to this game, thats for sure.

 

I am sad to say I have played DnD many times and no I was never stupid enough to try and make a dex fighter and I was never completely retarded enough to bother with int and combat expertise. Those were trap options for poor newbies and people that could not do math. Of course you'd use the fighter to try and refute the stupidity of DnD stats. Why don't you tell me how to make a good wizard without enough int for your highest level spells? Wizards literally require a high int to do the one thing their class does. That's stupid. The wizard class might as well have had it as a pre-requisite like prestige classes.

Later on in DnD 3-3.5 with the right cheese from splatbooks you could make a fighter like that work but with the power creep you could make most things work. You were still never walking around with 18 charisma on your fighter. Never played 4th so I have no idea how it would work in that.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Shdy314

[Cthulchulain]

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!

 

Genuine question: what kind of feedback do you think would tell you whether changes were making a difference, and did the IE games give you that? The only way I ever found out empirically what made a difference was to build a different character or pick up an item with a big stat boost. E.g. equipping the gauntlets of ogre power on a feeble fighter/mage in BG made a dramatic difference, but it was an item with a pretty dramatic effect. Everything else was just numbers.

 

There's a neat comparison screenshot of INT's effect on AoE (I can never seem to find things I want to cite), but given the scaling of most stat effects, again you need quite big shifts to show up anything.

[Hormalakh]

 

There are multiple problems with the current system:

 

1- The stats are not impactful enough and some are more impactful than others. Might comes to mind. Everyone will take might. And likely max it.

2- There are way too many points to be distributed: there really is no question as to how to distribute your point system and I've seen pretty much everyone do the same thing over and over. Add to this the class, race, andd culture boni and you've got 3 or 4 18's 19's in a row. That was a very rare-roll in old DnD games. People would be rolling all day for that. Limit your points to make the questions more interesting.

Not really, the problem is people don't understand the system.  This was actually discussed in another thread, but sometimes might is not a "great" choice for the character you want to play.  Remember it is only 2% damage and healing per point.  What if you want to play a ranged character who fires a really quick shooting bow?  You will do less damage per shot, so that 30% may not actually be a huge damage increase over 20%.    Your character would have been better off focusing on dex so they never miss, int so their abilities last as long as possible, and perception to help score interrupts.  Barbarians have tons of aoe moves, but they only work if they hit, so a barb who only goes 10-12 in might but gets high dex and int is very viable because they miss less and hit more enemies due to larger aoe.

 

People need to stop thinking about Eternity's stats like it is D&D.  This is not D&D.

 

 

what you say would be true if i didn't have enough points to up my stats high enough to 18 for three stats. That means I can take your dex and your perception and then take might too. the issue is several things put together. two of which i mentioned.

[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!

 

Genuine question: what kind of feedback do you think would tell you whether changes were making a difference, and did the IE games give you that? The only way I ever found out empirically what made a difference was to build a different character or pick up an item with a big stat boost. E.g. equipping the gauntlets of ogre power on a feeble fighter/mage in BG made a dramatic difference, but it was an item with a pretty dramatic effect. Everything else was just numbers.

 

There's a neat comparison screenshot of INT's effect on AoE (I can never seem to find things I want to cite), but given the scaling of most stat effects, again you need quite big shifts to show up anything.

 

actually, in games such as iwd2, the combat log gave extreme detailed feedback. we could see to hit rolls and how they were individual modified and we would see enemy ac plain as day. mage spells would obvious not need to-hit, but we could see ref/fort/will saves and various modifications, and we could see how damage was calculated including such stuff as feat or ability modifiers.  the combat log would be retaining many pages worth o' info. similarly, as we has stated elsewhere, a simple and obvious dynamic character record sheet would help.  in ie games, switch between dual-wield o' stilettos as opposed to a bastard sword would immediately reveal a bab change or thac0 change on iwd2 or bg2 character record sheet. change armour would similarly reveal a change in ac on character record sheet.  

 

combat feedback need not be as arcane and obscured as it currently is.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Answermancer]

 

You've never played D&D, right? You talk like you have absolutely NO IDEA of how that system work, right? You've never seen moderate STR, but high DEX fighters. Never seen Fighters that have decent INT, cause there were a lot of abilities tied to Combat Expertise feat chain? Why I'm talking to you at all, if you like to talk about things, that you even don't have remote understanding? 

 

No there could be no balance between stats. Never. Some stats are more usefull for certain class, some stats are less usefull, but there is never a situation that every 10 fighters in order to be optimized will have same stats. Absolutely not, cause beyond main role (fighter) there are 10s of subroles that require different stats. Two-handed damage dealer fighter is one type, dual-wealding fighter is another type, archer-fighter is third type, spellcater-bane fighter is 4th type, tank fighter is 5th type, battlefield controller is 6th type...

 

Oh, hell. I'll leave forums for a while and just wait for PoE release. If devs have some brains, they will make changes. If not - ok, I've already paid for that game, and I will probably play it, but I will definitely not support 'addon' or 'expansion' kickstarter. Bottom line, right now, this confusing, non-intuitive system will not add more buyers to this game, thats for sure.

 

 

I am sad to say I have played DnD many times and no I was never stupid enough to try and make a dex fighter and I was never completely retarded enough to bother with int and combat expertise. Those were trap options for poor newbies and people that could not do math. Of course you'd use the fighter to try and refute the stupidity of DnD stats. Why don't you tell me how to make a good wizard without enough int for your highest level spells? Wizards literally require a high int to do the one thing their class does. That's stupid. The wizard class might as well have had it as a pre-requisite like prestige classes.

Later on in DnD 3-3.5 with the right cheese from splatbooks you could make a fighter like that work but with the power creep you could make most things work. You were still never walking around with 18 charisma on your fighter. Never played 4th so I have no idea how it would work in that.

 

Yeah that guy just won't listen no matter how many times we say this.

 

He thinks the only kind of character that could possibly work is a Wizard with high Might and that offends him so much that he can't get over it.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

There is no way to make an 8 Int Wizard work in D&D, but an 8 Might Wizard in PoE should still be really useful even if his spells do less damage.

 

That is the point of the system, if all the stats are useful then any character you make will play differently but still be more or less viable. This is more interesting than having every Wizard have 18 Int and then some smattering of points in other stats that frankly barely matters at all (in combat).

[Namutree]

I've looked into this issue and I believe I have a simple solution to poe's attribute woes:

 

A) Might should not affect healing rate. Damage and fortitude defense is enough. Right now might is op. This will fix it.

 

B) Resolve should affect healing instead of might. Resolve is both under-powered and not useful enough for every class. This will fix it.

 

C) Perception needs to be given a very minor chance to increase your crit rate. I'd say about +0.25%. This will fix perception.

 

Give us 2 less attribute points

 

Done. Poe will now have pretty balanced attributes.

 

[Grand_Commander13]

I thought Might only influence healing you applied to other characters, not healing applied to that character from any source.

[Namutree]

I thought Might only influence healing you applied to other characters, not healing applied to that character from any source.

I'm not saying if you have low resolve a healer won't heal you as much, but those who do heal themselves and others have a major need for might, and little need for resolve. This will remedy that. If you are say, a priest:

 

Priests have spells that hurt/impare foes, and spells that heal allies. As of now; both spells are influenced by might. Thus priest basically NEED might. If however, resolve handled healing instead of might; a priest would be torn between might and resolve. Which attribute to pick would be chosen based on the desired build.

 

As for other classes; the concentration issue affects front-liners since they are always being attacked, and if I recall correctly; they will/do have some abilities that heal at least themselves. Those abilities should be influenced by resolve.

[Mayama]

Imo the biggest problem with heals right now is that intellect influences the size and duration of heals. It makes area heals that stay on the ground for a specific duration way to strong. AoE damage spells are restricted by friendly fire, most of the time a bigger radius is actually counter productive. That doesnt apply to healing spells so with high intellect you can basicaly create a healing circle that covers the whole fighting ground and outlasts the fight.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Mayama

[BrokenMask]

<_< *has high intelligence, perception and resolve on almost every character I create*

 

Why the heck I always pick the stats everyone else declares dumb stats?

Edited August 22, 2014 by BrokenMask

[Fluffle]

<_< *has high intelligence, perception and resolve on almost every character I create*

 

Why the heck I always pick the stats everyone else declares dumb stats?

 

I dunno. Roleplaying purpose maybe?

That's at least my reason for taking high perception.

 

Of course if they tweaked it and made it more useful I would not complain.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Fluffle

[BrokenMask]

 

<_< *has high intelligence, perception and resolve on almost every character I create*

 

Why the heck I always pick the stats everyone else declares dumb stats?

 

I dunno. Roleplaying purpose maybe?

That's at least my reason for taking high perception.

 

Of course if they tweak it and make it more useful I would not complain.

 

 

It keeps happening to me!

 

Fallout: Chooses high luck, int and charisma

 

Arcanum: Trying to balance beauty, charisma, int, perception, will

 

...I think I have bit of a thing where I favor non physical stats unlike anyone else who wants to be beast in combat <_<

 

But yeah, seriously though, I always prefer speech option choices to combat choices and then get annoyed when people make me feel I'm playing wrong xD

[Mayama]

 

 

<_< *has high intelligence, perception and resolve on almost every character I create*

 

Why the heck I always pick the stats everyone else declares dumb stats?

 

I dunno. Roleplaying purpose maybe?

That's at least my reason for taking high perception.

 

Of course if they tweak it and make it more useful I would not complain.

 

 

It keeps happening to me!

 

Fallout: Chooses high luck, int and charisma

 

Arcanum: Trying to balance beauty, charisma, int, perception, will

 

...I think I have bit of a thing where I favor non physical stats unlike anyone else who wants to be beast in combat <_<

 

But yeah, seriously though, I always prefer speech option choices to combat choices and then get annoyed when people make me feel I'm playing wrong xD

 

 

Well right now those three stats give you the best dialoge options for doing things peacefully.

[PrimeJunta]

That's why i think this game would be better with the D&D stats used only for dialogue/scripted interactions and without mechanical benefits.

Sawyer's solution doesn't work so far, while alienating the very same people that he included stats for( D&D fans), and even if he manage to somehow make it all work, it was time that could been better used in giving us a ton of abilities and talents as tools to diversify the characters.

Though this far into the project i don't excpect it to help much even if he would go for it, it was a desision that should have been done way back.

I kinda agree in theory. In practice I don't think it'd be the same if, say, Strength or Dexterity had no mechanical effects at all. Twiddling attributes for combat effectiveness is very near the core of the D&D character building experience; moreso for AD&D because class + attributes were pretty much it for most of 'em.

 

So I think stats ought to have mechanical effects, if only for the feelz. The hard part is making all or most of the compelling for all or most classes. Perhaps "no dump stats" is too ambitious; relaxing it to "at most one dump stat per class, and different dump stats for different classes" might make it possible to get more role-play-ey stats without forcing everybody into cookie-cutter builds.

 

(I'm still taken by the muscle wizard idea though. I'd really like to see that work!)

[GreyFox]

 

That's why i think this game would be better with the D&D stats used only for dialogue/scripted interactions and without mechanical benefits.

Sawyer's solution doesn't work so far, while alienating the very same people that he included stats for( D&D fans), and even if he manage to somehow make it all work, it was time that could been better used in giving us a ton of abilities and talents as tools to diversify the characters.

Though this far into the project i don't excpect it to help much even if he would go for it, it was a desision that should have been done way back.

I kinda agree in theory. In practice I don't think it'd be the same if, say, Strength or Dexterity had no mechanical effects at all. Twiddling attributes for combat effectiveness is very near the core of the D&D character building experience; moreso for AD&D because class + attributes were pretty much it for most of 'em.

 

So I think stats ought to have mechanical effects, if only for the feelz. The hard part is making all or most of the compelling for all or most classes. Perhaps "no dump stats" is too ambitious; relaxing it to "at most one dump stat per class, and different dump stats for different classes" might make it possible to get more role-play-ey stats without forcing everybody into cookie-cutter builds.

 

(I'm still taken by the muscle wizard idea though. I'd really like to see that work!)

 

 

Yea as much as designers always try to make stats always matter for any build it never pans out that way.

 

Hell I wouldn't mind having only 4 stats (clearly for combat) and then choose which skills you want for dialogue/interactions.

 

Or have 5 stats and combine Perception/Resolve somehow and give the resist stun to Con. (or just make the interrupts target Fortitude instead of some sort of who knows what Resolve modifier)(and that's if they insist on keeping interrupts)

[Sykid]

I tried making a rogue with high Intellect but was disappointed to find that they only had one ability with a duration (Crippling Strike) and none with an AoE, and having a long duration Hobble didn't seem very useful as monsters didn't move around much.  Did anybody have any differnt experiences with Int?  Are there Int dialogue options?  I only found Perception and Lore ones.

[BrokenMask]

I tried making a rogue with high Intellect but was disappointed to find that they only had one ability with a duration (Crippling Strike) and none with an AoE, and having a long duration Hobble didn't seem very useful as monsters didn't move around much.  Did anybody have any differnt experiences with Int?  Are there Int dialogue options?  I only found Perception and Lore ones.

There are int options, for example, with lord guy there is skill check that requires lore of 4 and high enough int

[PrimeJunta]

You've never played D&D, right?

Only since 1984 or so.

 

You talk like you have absolutely NO IDEA of how that system work, right? You've never seen moderate STR, but high DEX fighters. Never seen Fighters that have decent INT, cause there were a lot of abilities tied to Combat Expertise feat chain? Why I'm talking to you at all, if you like to talk about things, that you even don't have remote understanding?

Seen 'em. Tried 'em. Observed 'em being less effective than high-STR fighters just piling on the armor.

 

AD&D didn't have Combat Expertise. That was added to D&D3 specifically in an attempt to mitigate the "just pump STR" problem.

 

It (also the Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack/Whirlwhind Attack chain) are useful, and if you have a DM that's liberal enough with stat points that you can get DEX 15 and INT 13 as well as STR 18 (which isn't too hard sometimes since you can safely dump WIS and CHA) it's worth taking. But that's about the amount of wiggle room for a fighter.

 

(Of course they later piled on the prestige classes so after slogging gimped through a few levels you could have another pre-crafted mold that would suddenly make you Deathlord to fit the concept you're playing. Which is a really clunky solution to a problem that could have been avoided with better systems in the first place.)

 

As to why you're talking to me... that, Mrak, only you can answer.

 

Fighters aren't even the worst offenders though. You cannot make a low-INT wizard, or a low-WIS cleric. They won't be able to wiz or cler. (Which is one reason they added yet another class, the sorcerer, which had the additional "benefit" of breaking the lore -- D&D had lore reasons for the absolute necessity to prepare spells, to which the sorc says "Oh, never mind.") Yet low-INT wizards and low-WIS clerics are perfectly interesting character concepts: the wizard could be a savant, say -- someone with a hyper-narrow talent for magic but nearly unable to function in normal life; the cleric could be a charismatic, weak-willed fool blessed or cursed with great powers by an evil god using him for its own purposes.

 

D&D just doesn't allow these kinds of characters. Nuh-uh. As a DM, if a player came to me with one of these concepts, I would find ways to make them work, but it would require pretty serious breaking of the rules.

 

No there could be no balance between stats. Never. Some stats are more usefull for certain class, some stats are less usefull, but there is never a situation that every 10 fighters in order to be optimized will have same stats. Absolutely not, cause beyond main role (fighter) there are 10s of subroles that require different stats.

Oh?

 

Two-handed damage dealer fighter is one type,

STR 18 CON 18 DEX 14 INT 3 WIS 3 CHA 3. Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Weapon Focus: Greatsword, Weapon Specialization: Greatsword, Improved Critical: Greatsword.

 

dual-wealding fighter is another type,

STR 18 CON 18 DEX 14 INT 3 WIS 3 CHA 3. Ambidextrity, Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus: Scimitar, Weapon Specialization: Scimitar, Improved Critical: Scimitar.

 

archer-fighter is third type,

Yes, he is! In fact I would like P:E to support the archer-fighter, with no animal companion. Note to self: write a note in the Classes thread.

 

STR 18 CON 14 DEX 18 INT 3 WIS 3 CHA 3. Point-blank shot, Rapid shot, Multi-shot. Weapon Focus: Longbow. Weapon Specialization: Longbow. Improved Critical: Longbow.

 

Spellcater-bane fighter is 4th type,

STR 18 CON 16 DEX 16 INT 3 WIS 3 CHA 3. Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Weapon Focus: Greatsword, Weapon Specialization: Greatsword, Improved Critical: Greatsword.

 

tank fighter is 5th type,

Yeah, this one's fun.

 

STR 7 CON 18 DEX 15 INT 13 WIS 3 CHA 3. Combat Expertise, Improved Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Weapon Finesse.

 

He'll never do much damage, but boy is he hard to hit.

 

(Of course this fighter will be fun if your DM is generous enough with stat points or magic items to bring STR to where it belongs, i.e. 18. And you can maybe compromise on the CON a little.)

 

battlefield controller is 6th type...

Can't think of how this would be different from mage-killer or maybe tank.

 

(This was all from memory BTW so it's possible I got the feat thresholds wrong, but they're not far wrong. If you want to embarrass me you can go "The INT threshold for Combat Expertise was 15 not 13 you fool, haven't you ever played D&D?")

 

Let's see: all but one of those builds had INT, WIS, CHA 3 with everything else in STR, CON, DEX, with STR always maxed, and that one had pumped INT to a moderate value to get Combat Expertise. Am I seeing a pattern here?

 

Yes, I am. Which is the point I'm making: if all your fighter builds (except one) have you pump STR, CON, DEX with trivial differences, and dump INT, WIS, CHA, then why even bother having attributes? Why not just roll those bonuses right into the fighter's class description, giving him attack, damage, AC, and hit point bonuses from the get-go?

 

Attributes are only meaningful if they permit variety. It would be interesting to role-play, say, a wise, charismatic old warrior who's lost someof the raw speed and strength he had as a youth... and still be mechanically effective. D&D won't let you which makes the whole attribute system borderline pointless.

Oh, hell. I'll leave forums for a while and just wait for PoE release. If devs have some brains, they will make changes. If not - ok, I've already paid for that game, and I will probably play it, but I will definitely not support 'addon' or 'expansion' kickstarter. Bottom line, right now, this confusing, non-intuitive system will not add more buyers to this game, thats for sure.

Haha, we do agree about something then. The attribute system is confusing and non-intuitive, and does need to be overhauled.

[Sykid]

 

I tried making a rogue with high Intellect but was disappointed to find that they only had one ability with a duration (Crippling Strike) and none with an AoE, and having a long duration Hobble didn't seem very useful as monsters didn't move around much.  Did anybody have any differnt experiences with Int?  Are there Int dialogue options?  I only found Perception and Lore ones.

There are int options, for example, with lord guy there is skill check that requires lore of 4 and high enough int

 

 

Ah that might have been why I missed it, my lore was not very high.

[Matt516]

PrimeJunta, I think you've got it completely right. The only point of customizable stats is to allow variety, and if any given character archetype must have certain stats to be effective, there's no point in even having stats.