Attributes: The case for turning Might into Strength, and improving the whole system in the process.

[Mute_City]

I think it's really a bad decision to try and mask Str into Might and call it a spellpower attribute as well.. when you think about someone MIGHTY, do you think about Stephen Hawking? Because he's certainly mighty mentally but I wouldn't classify him with that attribute, ever.

 

So instead of trying to sugar-coat strenght just make it a physical attribute like it's supposed to be and, like OP suggested, give mages some other stat to pump in order to maximize spell damage, it's only natural. I think it's stupid to max physical attributes and get spell power in return.

 

Yes, you shouldn't be able to screw up characters like you could in D&D. No, you shouldn't backtrack all the way and make the system retard-proof. You're supposed to plan ahead and make a character into something that can utilize their attributes to achieve specific goals (i.e. battle mage shoud definitely put points into might.. pure mage - NEVER), instead of being able to put a blindfold on, pump random stats and end up with a perfect character anyway.

 

Stats are there to make a difference. If you want everything to work no matter what you pump, just f***ing remove them then.

 

 

quoting for prosperity

[IndiraLightfoot]

I don't like this. It'd just get us right back to where we started: cookie-cutter stat distributions for each class, or damn close anyway. This would also add more IMO unnecessary complexity.

 

I say keep the current system but make it more impactful by doubling the mechanical effects and setting the baseline at 10 (penalties below, bonuses above), and make a few minor tweaks. I've made a few proposals; here's another one.

 

MIG: Damage, Healing.

CON: Health/Endurance.

DEX: Accuracy.

PER: Crit chance, Interrupt.

INT:  AoE, Healing, Duration, Recovery time.

RES: Concentration, Duration.

 

I bound two things to attributes that currently aren't, crit chance and recovery time. Both are there to make the relevant attributes more valuable, as they're currently somewhat dumpable. Moved Healing from MIG to INT because it makes no sense on MIG but at least some sense on INT, and moved Duration to RES to make that more attractive. (RES is pretty important already, it's just hard to tell because of the lack of feedback.)

 

MIG: Damage, Healing.

CON: Health/Endurance. I'd like to add carrying capacity here (Already in the Roman armies, there was no correlation between brawn and the capacity to carry heavy loads long distances. It took constitution/endurance.

DEX: Accuracy. Movement speed somehow?

PER: Crit chance, Interrupt.

INT:  AoE, Healing, Duration, Recovery time. How about increased number of talents and/or skills here?

RES: Concentration, Duration. I'd like to move Healing here, since I envision it needs that will-power-like magical determination seen in many fantasy sagas, once again, The Last Airbender, springs to mind.

[PrimeJunta]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand items don't have attribute requirements. Does that mean any character can swing around a heavy twohanded weapon?

Yep, just like in all the IE games.

[PrimeJunta]

MIG: Damage, Healing.

CON: Health/Endurance. I'd like to add carrying capacity here (Already in the Roman armies, there was no correlation between brawn and the capacity to carry heavy loads long distances. It took constitution/endurance.

 

Would require a whole new inventory system. Probably won't happen. Also encumbrance mechanics are a drag.

 

DEX: Accuracy. Movement speed somehow?

That would work. Then again, DEX is already extremely attractive b/c of the accuracy bonus. Don't see a need to make it even more so.

 

INT:  AoE, Healing, Duration, Recovery time. How about increased number of talents and/or skills here?

Negatory. Currently wizards get one new spell per day, and you get 1 talent per three levels. Those numbers can only be changed in full integers, they'd have a huge impact on how powerful a class is, and you couldn't let them to fall to zero without making the build completely unviable. That means that you'd have to space the benefit out very, very widely -- like allow one extra talent for INT 18, or something like that; even so, it would tend to make it the pump stat for many classes.

 

Same if you tied it to uses per rest/per encounter. Getting one more spell/level/rest, or one more talent use/encounter is enormously significant, so much so that "extra knockdown" is a fighter talent in and of itself. Again, you could not let the numbers fall to zero, and having more uses is so immensely attractive that it would again become the obvious pump stat for most if not all classes.

 

RES: Concentration, Duration. I'd like to move Healing here, since I envision it needs that will-power-like magical determination seen in many fantasy sagas, once again, The Last Airbender, springs to mind.

 

Yep, it would fit there too. I put it on INT because RES is already very attractive because Concentration is so important for frontliners, and moving Duration there from INT makes it even more so.

 

Basically, when tweaking those I wanted to get as close as possible to having something that's really attractive for both front-line and second-row characters on each ability. Everybody wants to do more damage and hit more accurately. Everybody wants more health (okay, second-liners perhaps less than front-liners). Everybody wants to do things faster (therefore the addition of Recovery Time). Frontliners want to not be interrupted, and everybody wants their duration-limited abilities to last longer.

 

I think Healing is kind of the odd one out still. You could really put it on whichever ability you think fits best, or perhaps drop it altogether and just not make it possible to pump healing. (I can appreciate why Josh put it on Might though, from a system design point of view -- it's aesthetically pleasing to have the same stat govern the taking and the giving.)

[Fearabbit]

I'd really like to discuss various ideas about making the system more intuitive, about the implications of turning Might back into Strength, what needs to be considered and so on.

 

But I'd like you all to respect the premise of this thread, which is that having a Might attribute is unintuitive. You can either ignore this thread if you disagree, or propose your own solutions that deal with this in some way - if you can find a way to make Might intuitive, go ahead. Making suggestions where the main point of this thread isn't addressed is not the idea here. (To be sure, your suggestions aren't bad, they just avoid the main point of this thread.)

 

I also just don't want to have the same discussion as everywhere else here, where one side says why the current system is better and the other why the old one was better. We have the highly popular "no bad builds, a failure in practice" thread for that and lots of other threads too.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Fearabbit

[IndiraLightfoot]

Fearabbit: I see what you mean. Lazily, I just used this thread since it started with "Attributes:...". I should have considered the entire thread title more, obviously.

 

Still I'll add one more reply to PJ, and then we will need to move to another thread:

INT: You are right. I was stuck in D&D thinking there.

As for Healing, the fact that it can be moved around is at least good news when you need to balance the six attributes.

DEX: Accuracy just seemed so alone there, heh.

Carrying capacity limits - it doesn't really bother me that much - it can be good for certain gameplay reasons, even.

Edited August 24, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Captain Shrek]

To make a attribute list intuitive the designer should really try and relate to the gut feeling associated with the words. If an attribute called might associates with both physical strength and mental "might", that is automatically confusing. Normal people do not view the word that way.

 

On a tangent, this makes me feel that the designer of this game generally wanted to create an attribute called "damage modifier" but the art/writing team did not let him. Which in turn makes me suspicious that the class system is simply a facade for a simplistic "action RPG" character creator where the most important gameplay mechanic is dealing damage. The classes simply change the visual profile of how that is being done: A wizard is an archer who has colored sparkly arrows. 

[PrimeJunta]

On a tangent, this makes me feel that the designer of this game generally wanted to create an attribute called "damage modifier" but the art/writing team did not let him. Which in turn makes me suspicious that the class system is simply a facade for a simplistic "action RPG" character creator where the most important gameplay mechanic is dealing damage. The classes simply change the visual profile of how that is being done: A wizard is an archer who has colored sparkly arrows. 

 

That's not how the game plays at even this early stage. For one thing, most wizard attack spells are AoE damage of various types (burning hands clone, fireball, wall of fire, cone of cold effect that also slows, and so on). There's only one point-damage spell sequence that I've come across (Magic Missile-ish). Archers OTOH exclusively deal point damage/debuff.

 

Seriously, there are plenty of criticisms you can legitimately level at P:E, but "all classes play the same minus the special effects" isn't one of them. They really do feel diverse.

[Captain Shrek]

 

On a tangent, this makes me feel that the designer of this game generally wanted to create an attribute called "damage modifier" but the art/writing team did not let him. Which in turn makes me suspicious that the class system is simply a facade for a simplistic "action RPG" character creator where the most important gameplay mechanic is dealing damage. The classes simply change the visual profile of how that is being done: A wizard is an archer who has colored sparkly arrows. 

 

That's not how the game plays at even this early stage. For one thing, most wizard attack spells are AoE damage of various types (burning hands clone, fireball, wall of fire, cone of cold effect that also slows, and so on). There's only one point-damage spell sequence that I've come across (Magic Missile-ish). Archers OTOH exclusively deal point damage/debuff.

 

Seriously, there are plenty of criticisms you can legitimately level at P:E, but "all classes play the same minus the special effects" isn't one of them. They really do feel diverse.

 

May be I should have been clearer.

 

What I mean was that the Wizard simply is damage/buff engine in this game. It would be a pity to waste the amazing potential of wizardry on that. 

[PrimeJunta]

What I mean was that the Wizard simply is damage/buff engine in this game. It would be a pity to waste the amazing potential of wizardry on that. 

 

Uh... so what's a wizard in the IE games?

[Captain Shrek]

 

What I mean was that the Wizard simply is damage/buff engine in this game. It would be a pity to waste the amazing potential of wizardry on that. 

 

Uh... so what's a wizard in the IE games?

 

 

Pretty good damage dealer with  actual non combat spells. Just check the NWN2/BG2 spell list how huge it is and contains a LOT of non-combat-only situation spells. That is telling: NWN/IE games had a different problem. They did not have the content to justify the spell list. Which would imply the fix should have been to include the content, not remove the spells. 

[PrimeJunta]

Pretty good damage dealer with  actual non combat spells. Just check the NWN2/BG2 spell list how huge it is and contains a LOT of non-combat-only situation spells. That is telling: NWN/IE games had a different problem. They did not have the content to justify the spell list. Which would imply the fix should have been to include the content, not remove the spells. 

 

:thinks:

 

I honestly can't think of too many non-combat spells I regularly used. There was Knock I suppose. Light, of course, which was extremely rarely necessary.  I think I used Wizard Eye at times, which was genuinely cool. And scads of pre-buffs, of course, which I'm delighted they've removed since they got really tedious, especially at the higher levels. What specifically do you have in mind?*

 

*PnP DnD is different of course, but I don't think any of the computer games had spells like Contact Outer Plane, Augury, (Limited) Wish, and so on.

[Azrael Ultima]

I think it's really a bad decision to try and mask Str into Might and call it a spellpower attribute as well.. when you think about someone MIGHTY, do you think about Stephen Hawking? Because he's certainly mighty mentally but I wouldn't classify him with that attribute, ever.

Mighty wizard doesn't sound particularly odd to me, but it doesn't make me imagine a body builder in a robe.

Might doesn't refer to physical prowess, but to power in general. A mighty warrior can axe things good. A mighty wizard can lightly toast entire armies at once. A mighty healer heals mighty quickly. (and this is starting to sound a mightte ridiculous)

 

Or a mighty politician for that matter. I wouldn't expect him to pound people with a waraxe, though he might have henchmen to do so for him.

[Captain Shrek]

Oh I don't know:

 

I guess most summon spells that deal with outer planes could easily have had non combat content which was absent. Then there are all the spells like Friends, Wish, True Sight, Infravision, Spook, Horror, Emotion, Know alignment, Farsight in BGs which could have easily had a story based role. NWN2 has way more spells than that which are non combat utility. The real problem is that they are useless as MOST if not all the "spell using"encounters are combat based. 

Edited August 24, 2014 by Captain Shrek

[Fearabbit]

Again, this is way off-topic guys.

 

By the way, I like the narrative reason to have a "soul power" attribute. I don't think the game needs to be boring and old-fashioned about its attributes - if a new attribute fits the world perfectly, then definitely put it in! That said, I have a problem with Might being that attribute and boiling down to both physical and mental damage.

 

It would've been cool if the "soul power attribute" had a very specific purpose for each class, to show how souls influence every part of life, but in different ways. Fighters use it to guide their strikes, resulting in higher crits; ciphers basically have a "soul duel" with their enemy, so that the time needed to gather Focus is shorter the higher the soul's power is; chanters can invite more souls to their "reenactments", and so on. These are just examples, but having it do something very specific instead of being a generic damage modifier would have been more interesting, I believe, and would have driven home the point that this extra power does not come from mental or physical capabilities, but from somewhere else.

 

(In that case I still would have implemented a Strength attribute though. 7 attributes - 3 mental, 3 physical, one for the soul's power. That would have been nice.)

Edited August 24, 2014 by Fearabbit

[PrimeJunta]

I guess most summon spells that deal with outer planes could easily have had non combat content which was absent. Then there are all the spells like Friends, Wish, True Sight, Infravision, Spook, Horror, Emotion, Know alignment, Farsight in BGs which could have easily had a story based role. NWN2 has way more spells than that which are non combat utility. The real problem is that they are useless as MOST if not all the "spell using"encounters are combat based. 

 

Friends was of extremely limited use in the IE games. Wish was never properly implemented (couldn't be, since there's no way to implement such a thing in a computer game). True Sight was primarily a combat buff. Infravision was there and I think I even cast it, once, before acquiring an object that had it on it when I needed it. Spook, Horror, Emotion were all combat spells (and good ones at that). I'll give you Know alignment but... when was that actually useful? Farsight... no recollection of using that.

 

PnP is a whole 'nuther ball game--dig or passwall, anyone?--but I honestly don't recall having much use for magic out of combat in any of the IE games or their successors. Crafting, of course, but that mostly used combat spells.

[Captain Shrek]

 

I guess most summon spells that deal with outer planes could easily have had non combat content which was absent. Then there are all the spells like Friends, Wish, True Sight, Infravision, Spook, Horror, Emotion, Know alignment, Farsight in BGs which could have easily had a story based role. NWN2 has way more spells than that which are non combat utility. The real problem is that they are useless as MOST if not all the "spell using"encounters are combat based. 

 

Friends was of extremely limited use in the IE games. Wish was never properly implemented (couldn't be, since there's no way to implement such a thing in a computer game). True Sight was primarily a combat buff. Infravision was there and I think I even cast it, once, before acquiring an object that had it on it when I needed it. Spook, Horror, Emotion were all combat spells (and good ones at that). I'll give you Know alignment but... when was that actually useful? Farsight... no recollection of using that.

 

PnP is a whole 'nuther ball game--dig or passwall, anyone?--but I honestly don't recall having much use for magic out of combat in any of the IE games or their successors. Crafting, of course, but that mostly used combat spells.

 

 

 

Are you purposefully misreading my posts?

 

I clearly said that in IE games or in NWN2 these spells never had any non combat use despite having non combat utility. 

[PrimeJunta]

No, I'm not. I am a little confused though. You were criticizing P:E's wizards as "simple damage/buff engines." I asked how they're different from IE wizards. You brought up noncombat spells. Now you're pointing out that the noncombat spells never had any noncombat use. 

 

So I guess I'll get back to that: if P:E wizards are "simple damage/buff engines," how are they different from IE wizards again?

[Captain Shrek]

Pretty good damage dealer with  actual non combat spells. Just check the NWN2/BG2 spell list how huge it is and contains a LOT of non-combat-only situation spells. That is telling: NWN/IE games had a different problem. They did not have the content to justify the spell list. Which would imply the fix should have been to include the content, not remove the spells. 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2014 by Captain Shrek

[PrimeJunta]

I wasn't asking you how you think the IE/NWN games should have been. I was--still am--taking you to task about what you said about the P:E classes compared to the IE classes, as they actually were. Earlier on, didn't you say that P:E wizards are just like P:E archers except with sparkly arrows? Also something about MMO-esque?* 

 

Basically, I'm trying to get a handle on your criticism, but not much luck here. So exactly what do you think is worse about P:E's classes than IE classes?

 

*Yes, you did. I checked.

[Fearabbit]

Again, this is way off-topic guys.

 

By the way, I like the narrative reason to have a "soul power" attribute. I don't think the game needs to be boring and old-fashioned about its attributes - if a new attribute fits the world perfectly, then definitely put it in! That said, I have a problem with Might being that attribute and boiling down to both physical and mental damage.

 

It would've been cool if the "soul power attribute" had a very specific purpose for each class, to show how souls influence every part of life, but in different ways. Fighters use it to guide their strikes, resulting in higher crits; ciphers basically have a "soul duel" with their enemy, so that the time needed to gather Focus is shorter the higher the soul's power is; chanters can invite more souls to their "reenactments", and so on. These are just examples, but having it do something very specific instead of being a generic damage modifier would have been more interesting, I believe, and would have driven home the point that this extra power does not come from mental or physical capabilities, but from somewhere else.

 

(In that case I still would have implemented a Strength attribute though. 7 attributes - 3 mental, 3 physical, one for the soul's power. That would have been nice.)

 

Quoting myself because this is still off-topic, you guys.

 

Also:

Captain Shrek was talking about how IE games (or NWN) had a spell list that technically would have allowed some interesting use of magic outside of magic, but they didn't implement it properly. So there was potential there, and his argument was basically "the solution to this is to add the necessary content, not to simply take away that untapped potential".

PrimaJunta meanwhile doesn't see the problem because to him the potential didn't exist - his point being that if it was left unused, then it wasn't really there in the first place.

 

Of course PoE doesn't owe it to the IE games to use this untapped potential in any way. It doesn't become an action RPG if it uses its abilities in the same way as every cRPG ever does, i.e. for combat. It just becomes a normal RPG. (Well, Arcanum and the Elder Scrolls games have some non-combat spells I can think of that were actually useful, but those are open-world games and follow a different design philosophy anyway.)

 

So with all positions regarding this discussion cleared, let's move on.

[Wintersong]

Healing is not a mental thing. Either the body heals, or your "soul power" is responsible for that, in which case it would have to be Might. Technically I think it should be Constitution, but Strength kind of makes sense as well since it's your muscle tissue that is affected by healing.

I don't really get this. If magical damage cannot use Might, neither magical healing. Nothing agaisnt proposing variations to the system that may improve them/the_game. But that point doesn't make much sense, that's all.

 

My proposal to end all the proposals:

• Midichlorian Count
• Physical Resistance
• Scope
• Radar
• IQ
• Determination

[Fearabbit]

 

Healing is not a mental thing. Either the body heals, or your "soul power" is responsible for that, in which case it would have to be Might. Technically I think it should be Constitution, but Strength kind of makes sense as well since it's your muscle tissue that is affected by healing.

I don't really get this. If magical damage cannot use Might, neither magical healing. Nothing agaisnt proposing variations to the system that may improve them/the_game. But that point doesn't make much sense, that's all.

 

First of all, your proposal is awesome. :D And yeah in a Star Wars universe this would actually make a lot of sense, but then I'd be annoyed that Chewie and other non-Jedi melee fighters don't do any damage. They'd need a Strength attribute. (Also Midichlorian Count would be a dump stat for them.)

This comes back to the thing that I believe a "Soul Power" attribute is useful and cool in a setting like this, but should still be separate from physical damage.

 

As for Healing: It depends whether the Healing is supposed to be soul-based or physical. Physical healing belongs in a physical attribute, soul-based healing in a soul-based attribute - but if it's a soul-based attribute, then that attribute shouldn't include physical damage, like Might currently does. Simple as that.

My assumption was that Healing can also be physical healing and in this case, it would be alright to leave it in Strength.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Fearabbit

[Osvir]

• Turn Might into Strength. Take out the Magic/Ability Damage. This instantly makes the attribute less interesting for many classes.
• Add Magic/Ability Damage to Resolve. As said, Resolve is basically Willpower. It's a perfect fit for Magic/Ability Damage and instantly makes this attribute important to a lot of classes - mostly to spellcasters however, for whom this will be the main attribute along with Intellect.
• Keep Intellect as AoE and Duration modifier. Resolve is a character's intensity, but intellect is his cleverness and allows them to shape their powers to their will. Makes perfect sense and is intuitive.
• Split Accuracy into Melee Accuracy and Ranged Accuracy. Leave Melee Accuracy in DEX, put Ranged Accuracy into PER. Perception is the attribute for keen sight and aiming. Ranged combat should benefit hugely from it, and this way it does. DEX was never a good fit for ranged accuracy.
• Add Ranged Reload Speed to DEX and Melee Crits to PER. DEX is however a perfect fit for reload speed, and we can use that to keep it interesting for ranged combatants. PER on the other hand allows melee combatants to see openings and use them. This makes it interesting for them without overpowering it for ranged combat.

 

Soooo...

 

Just to list them better EDIT: With some additions /EDIT

 

Strength/Might = +Melee Damage +Negative Status Effect Duration

Constitution = +Health/Stamina +Magic Healing Recieved

Dexterity = +Melee Accuracy +Ranged Reload Speed (Would this affect casting too?)

Perception = +Melee Crit +Ranged/Magic Accuracy +Interrupt

Intelligence = +AoE +Positive Status Effect Duration

Resolve = +Magic Damage +Concentration

 

So I added an idea myself. Why could Constitution govern healing? Well... I think it'd be more interesting with a mechanic that heals more based on how good shape the characters soul/body is. He'll recieve better healing the better shape he is in.

 

Doesn't Constitution govern how well you defend against poisons and stuff in D&D? That should mean a "Healthier character", and the more Healthy you are, the easier and better it should be to treat you? Right?

 

My suggestion is to replace "Healing Delivered" with "Healing Recieved".

 

As it is now:

- Priest Heals more depending on the Priests MIG.

 

My idea:

- Priest Heals more depending on the Targets CON.

 

EDIT: I kind of like "Might" as a title though, so I don't see why it should be replaced with "Strength" (as a title). Strength/Might just becomes... very lacking and very bland with only "+Melee Damage". So I added in "Duration of Status Effects" as a suggestion, because that's where I see it make more sense.

 

A character overpowering poison by sheer physical strength, or breaking free from a "Hold Person" spell etc. or running through an area that is "Entangled". How long your character is knocked down before raising themselves physically, or how long a character is stunned~

 

EDIT EDIT: Though, I'm just throwing stuff out here to participate in this conversation I'm kind of fine with the Attribute system thus far. I'm waiting for more stability before saying anything about the system (this post is me saying stuff about Fearrabbits ideas/system added with some brainstorming) and get a better feel for the system, and to be able to level up a couple of times without bugs.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Osvir

[Valeris]

We don't want "muscle wizards", no matter how wacky and fun that sounds.

I want muscle wizards.

I am pretty sure many others want that , too.

Not everything has to be as restricted as as DND rulebook from the BG2 Era.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Valeris