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

[Infiltrator_SF]

 

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.

 

I think very few are opposing muscle wizards - and they were a thing in BG2 too with multi/dual class.

 

The problem is, might wizards should by all means give up something to achieve their goal, which is to fight in melee. You'd think investing in might will give you an edge in hand-to-hand combat but deter you from casting powerful spells.. think again, max might and you not only get strong melee combatants, you also get strong spells. It's unbelievably odd (to put it lightly) that they didn't take a step back when they put this all together and said - "wait, something isn't right here".

 

Unifying melee and spell potency in a single stat is ridiculous. Spells potency should definitely be governed by a cerebral stat, and yes, I know the duration is affected by some of them, but that's beside the point - max might caster will both hit hard and cast the strongest fireball.. who the hell thought that was a good idea?

[RedSocialKnight]

I'm certain it's too late to change something so fundamental, but I also agree with OP.

 

For one big reason: the Might stat as it stands limits one of the main stated goals of the PoE attribute system: diversity of character builds.

 

The rolling into one of magic and physical damage makes it impossible to choose between playing a traditional weakling wizard with devastating spells or a wizard with pretty decent lightning bolts who is also pretty decent with a sword when his spells run out or he's backed into a corner.

 

And there is no need to have Might determine magic damage to keep the stat relevant to non-melee classes. Armor is very relevant to every character -- if high-Strength wizards are able to wear heavier armor (and wield heavier weapons), there's a valuable tradeoff between a specialist high-Will wizard and a more defensive, generalist wizard with both decent Will and decent Strength.

 

Josh Sawyer has made a number of jokes in promo videos along the lines of "If you want to play a muscled-up wizard -- now you can!" but he doesn't seem to realize that, if you want high spell damage under the system he's designed, you can only play a muscled-up wizard.

[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.

 

 

 

The problem is, might wizards should by all means give up something to achieve their goal, which is to fight in melee.

Excuse me, perhaps I am just stupid or something, but..WHY? Why "to fight in melee"? Might has nothing to do with melee combat.

[Fearabbit]

I just realized that I'm an idiot regarding the Healing thing.

I thought the description meant that it's about the Healing received, not about the Healing delivered, as Osvir put it. 

 

Gotta admit in that case it doesn't make sense to leave it in Strength, and that also means that my current system has a flaw there because Healing should be in Resolve then, leaving Strength very useless for pure casters.

 

@Osvir, I laughed out loud at "just wanting to participate in the conversation".   As for putting Healing in CON... well CON is already pretty useful, so that would make it kind of overpowered. And of course actually it's better if Healing is governed by an attribute of the caster, not one by the one who gets the healing. And if Healing is based on percentages of total health, having high health would actually already mean that high CON chars benefit more from it, but I don't know how it works.

[RedSocialKnight]

I want muscle wizards.

 

Then you should have them.

 

I like hybrid builds myself. That's not the point.

 

The point is that under the current system, all high-damage wizards are muscle wizards. Which is very odd.

[Valeris]

No, they are not. Because "Might", again, has nothing to do with being a bodybuilder.

[Fearabbit]

No, they are not. Because "Might", again, has nothing to do with being a bodybuilder.

 

It has something to do with being better at melee than another caster who put his points into Intellect instead, though.

And this is kind of strange and can be a problem because even wizards are sometimes forced into melee. They've run out of spells or whatever the case may be. So there are two wizards, one does high damage, the other has high AoE. The one that does high damage will also handle himself quite well in melee.

 

There's kind of an explanation for this in that Might is not actually your strength, but a more abstract concept that involves the power of your soul. But this explanation isn't sitting too well with lots of players, and many would prefer a system where physical and mental stats are more clearly divided while also being useful to all classes (which is the design goal of PoE and I have no intention to change that).

 

As for a muscle wizard - I don't have anything against the concept as long as it means that you're actually something like a battle mage, who throws spells from a distance or buffs himself and then switches to sword and shield when the enemy gets closer, for example. Right now the system kind of implies that you're doing magic with your muscles however, similar to (my favorite example) a Kamehameha from Dragonball.

Not saying the latter is completely ridiculous and bad or anything. I'm just saying it's not well-liked by many people and it's the idea they get from this attribute system at the moment.

[RedSocialKnight]

"Might" ... has nothing to do with being a bodybuilder.

 

Might determines magic damage.

 

Might also determines melee damage

 

Might "is used for outright physical bullying and intimidation. E.g. picking people up, smashing things"

 

If Might is supposed to be the might of your soul, then why in character interactions is it used only for tasks of physical strength, while Resolve is used in dialogue to express the force of personality?

Edited August 24, 2014 by RedSocialKnight

[Valeris]

 

 

If Might is supposed to be the might of your soul, then why in character interactions is it used only for tasks of physical strength, while Resolve is used in dialogue to express the force of personality?

 

Because it was obviously names "Strength" in the first place by Obisidian? I am talking semantically here, and semantically speaking: The Expectation that "Might" strictly refers to physical strength only is false. Its simple as that.

I won`t deny that the attribute system needs polishment, yeah, even improvement. But I hardly see a reason why so many people are upset with "might = weapon damage, spell power and healing power", even when there is no connection to maximum carry weight or so.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Valeris

[RedSocialKnight]

 I hardly see a reason why so many people are upset with "might = weapon damage, spell power and healing power"

 

Because it limits character diversity, which was one of the main stated goals of this attribute system.

[Valeris]

No, it doesn`t. Because having a pure Wizard that can chose between Melee and Range-combat is already more character diversity than you could have ever hoped to achieve within the framework of BG2s pure class system (not talking about Multiclassing here, obviously).

A pure Mage from BG2 would never turn into a melee fighter. That was not possible (besides Tenser´s and such).

Yet you can do that in PoE, and there IS a difference between a Might/Int-Wizard and a Might/Con-Wizard.

 

And btw. We still don´t know anything about the feats which are yet to be announced. Not only will those fear enable more diversitiy, they may even come with some restrictions like "requires 18 int and 18 resolve" or something.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Valeris

[bigsun123]

Initially I was on the side of separating the two, because as many have stated, it is a bit unintuitive, but after reading through all of J.E. Sawyers responses here (yes, I did not have a lot to do today, I admit)  I found one were he mentioned how Might can be scaled to allow it to reduce the variation in damage.
 

 

 

 

Wizard with high Might (Strength) and Dexterity: His fireballs will disintegrate enemies as they deal exceptional damage and are very accurate.
He will also be good at walking on suspended ropes and moving large rocks.
 
Wizard with high Intellect and Perception: "Hey look, I have huuge fireballs (sadly I need a few of them to kill a rat), but I *am* able to interrupt the rat's attack pretty often!"

 

 
Please look at the character sheet in this update.  The listed character has a 13 Might, granting +26% to Damage.  Let's assume you're Pro Mighty and have an 18 Might.  That's +36%.  Or you're an Ordinary Joe with a 10 Might, which is +20%.  Let's say a normal Fireball does 5-30 damage.  Pro Mighty does 6.8-40.8.  Ordinary Joe does 6-36.  Ordinary Joe does not need multiple fireballs to kill a rat because his average damage is 21 vs. 23.8.
 
Of course, these aren't the final values for the attribute modifiers, but proportion of advantage is important.

 

This seems to be what most of us are concerned with, that damage will be scaled significantly based on the might stat.  However, in his example, the difference can be minimized.  After all, in BG1 and 2, wizards don't have any modifiers to their spell damage.  If the affect is minimal, I don't think it will be overpowering.

 

Because of this I think I'll be okay with the general concepts of the stats.  I think balance will be key, but the system is tweakable.  

 

I think one of the main focuses of the developers (also in the 20 pages of posts) was that in this setup, by and large all the stats are useful for all classes, which I do like. He mentions how the inherent class bonuses will, when properly balanced, still make Sheldon the intelligent, but small barbarian hit harder with a melee weapon than Swoledemort the hulking wizard, which I also like.  

 

I still like Fearrabbits improvements to the other stats (particularly improving perception with ranged accuracy, and crits, seems intuitive and solves the issue of usefulness) because it seems both the players and developers agree that they need more carrots.  Intellect can be balanced as it is, by making durations and areas significantly longer/larger as needed.  

Again, I haven't played the game for myself but after reading through Josh's rationale I can understand how it will be fun and allow for variety when properly balanced, albeit different.

Edited August 25, 2014 by bigsun123

[Azrael Ultima]

 

"Might" ... has nothing to do with being a bodybuilder.

 

Might determines magic damage.

 

Might also determines melee damage

 

Might "is used for outright physical bullying and intimidation. E.g. picking people up, smashing things"

 

If Might is supposed to be the might of your soul, then why in character interactions is it used only for tasks of physical strength, while Resolve is used in dialogue to express the force of personality?

What, you don't find the prospect of getting a fireball shoved in your face intimidating? I read the "physical" in physical bullying as being opposed to psychological bullying, not as opposed to magical bullying.

 

Might doesn't govern how good or bad you are at magical vs. physical combat. It just makes all your attacks more powerful. If you don't have any useful melee abilities, you still won't have any with lots of Might. The difference between a melee fighting wizard and a pure caster one will be in their choice of abilities.

 

BTW, a bodybuilder would be rather poor at combat anyway. Their "muscles" are for show, not for strength.

[Fearabbit]

This is not the freaking topic here, stop derailing the thread.

 

Seriously, is it not enough that I had to say it three times already?! If you want to fight over this then go into one of the many other threads where you can bash your heads in. And I'll join you because I'm definitely not above that. But this thread is for constructive solutions based on the premise that there's a problem. Not for arguing whether or not there's a problem.

[Chilloutman]

Atributes were always way to describe character (mentaly or physicaly). If you say that someone is mighty I dont know **** if he is strong, fast, extremly clever or have own army?

 

just go back to classics. They were not broken, they were badly implemented.

[Azrael Ultima]

This is not the freaking topic here, stop derailing the thread.

 

Seriously, is it not enough that I had to say it three times already?! If you want to fight over this then go into one of the many other threads where you can bash your heads in. And I'll join you because I'm definitely not above that. But this thread is for constructive solutions based on the premise that there's a problem. Not for arguing whether or not there's a problem.

In that case, the title is misleading. Because the first part is explicitly about whether there is a problem.

 

Besides, arguing whether the problem actually exists comes naturally from discussing possible solutions for it. You might as well ask for water to not be wet.

[constantine]

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.)

 

 

My thought exactly ! Although I would still have Might govern the 'Healing Bonus'.

[Fearabbit]

 

This is not the freaking topic here, stop derailing the thread.

 

Seriously, is it not enough that I had to say it three times already?! If you want to fight over this then go into one of the many other threads where you can bash your heads in. And I'll join you because I'm definitely not above that. But this thread is for constructive solutions based on the premise that there's a problem. Not for arguing whether or not there's a problem.

In that case, the title is misleading. Because the first part is explicitly about whether there is a problem.

 

Besides, arguing whether the problem actually exists comes naturally from discussing possible solutions for it. You might as well ask for water to not be wet.

 

 

No. The title says that I will make the case for changing the attributes. That's all it says, I don't know where you get the "whether there is a problem" thing from.

 

And also, no, you don't need to find out whether the problem actually exists. For me, it exists, no doubt about it. And I'm offering a constructive solution for it. Why do you need to have a discussion about how I and many other backers feel? I already know that there are two different views here, and that one side likes the current system. You do not need to tell me that again and again! There's nothing to be gained from it.

 

If you want to be a useful addition to this discussion, then you can think about constructive solutions to the problem that some people are currently unhappy with the system. ("I don't care, they're stupid and wrong" is not a constructive solution.)

If you just want to keep repeating "no everything is fine as it is", which adds nothing to the discussion, then just please don't. I can't really do anything to stop you otherwise, but like I said, it's not helpful in this thread and there are other threads where the main "discussion" is all about whether the current system is good or bad.

 

 

@constantine. Still off-topic. This is not the "let's all make attribute systems" thread. There is actually a topic here that has less to do with the system itself.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Fearabbit

[Azrael Ultima]

No. The title says that I will make the case for changing the attributes. That's all it says, I don't know where you get the "whether there is a problem" thing from.

What do you think a discussion over the validity of your case is? That you make a case doesn't exclude it from the argument.

"Making a case" means making an argument for why, in your opinion, a certain course of action should be taken. If you make a case, you have to endure people disputing it.

If there is no problem, your case is invalid, so it is a valid(in fact, i'd say necessary) path of investigation.

 

Also, no claim was made that you need to determine whether the problem exists to come up with potential solutions, but that examining their merit will naturally lead to the question of their necessity.

[Fearabbit]

You cannot dispute that some people do not like the current system. It is literally impossible to argue about this, because it is a simple fact. There is no question of validity.

The only part where an argument can be brought up is the point where I imply that Might is unpopular enough to warrant a change of the system. Again, not something that you have any say on, and neither do I. We know that the forum is split, there really is no point in having a discussion about it. (By the way I'm beginning to repeat myself here, you should really read my posts better and try to understand their content.)

 

The part that really annoys me however, is that I clearly state multiple times that the point of this thread is not whether or not Might actually is a flawed attribute. No matter what you think the title means (which it doesn't), the rest of all my posts is clear enough, and yet you think you're on-topic if you discuss it anyway.

The idea behind this thread is: "Let's say that Might is not a good idea, because it sure as hell looks like many people don't like it. Here's what I would do to make everybody happy." And you answer to that, "No Might is good". Don't you see how off-topic that is?! If you want to say "No Might is good", go to the other huuuuge thread where people say nothing else but "Might is horrible" and "No Might is good", you'll be at exactly the right spot there.

[Azrael Ultima]

The only part where an argument can be brought up is the point where I imply that Might is unpopular enough to warrant a change of the system. Again, not something that you have any say on, and neither do I. We know that the forum is split, there really is no point in having a discussion about it. (By the way I'm beginning to repeat myself here, you should really read my posts better and try to understand their content.)

People are having a discussion about it. You should have realised it will spill into this thread before you even made it, since it is such a strongly discussed topic. You can demand they stop talking about it till you're blue in the face, it won't change anything. That's just a reality of forums.

 

That aside, your topic is specificially not "Let's say that A, here's what i would do", but "I claim that A, here's what i would do", and then you start off with an argument ad populum, which gives you a shaky start at best.

[Hamenaglar]

I think we need an explanation of what Might is. Is it the power of your soul? Is the physical strength? Is it the size of your toe? It's too abstract right now.  The second issue is the effects of most attributes don't make sense. Why does an intelligence increases the AoE for barbarian's attacks? Perception increase the chance of critical chance? Why is there no attribute governing deflection? I would like that stuff to be explained in terms of in-world consistency.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Hamenaglar

[Fearabbit]

You can demand they stop talking about it till you're blue in the face, it won't change anything. That's just a reality of forums.

 

Yeah but I'd rather not give up hope that some people might be willing to stick to the topic at hand. And together, if we try really hard, we can keep the people who go off-topic at bay! Who's with me???

 

That aside, your topic is specificially not "Let's say that A, here's what i would do", but "I claim that A, here's what i would do", and then you start off with an argument ad populum, which gives you a shaky start at best.

 

That is certainly not true. No seriously that's not true, and it's kind of strange that you think it is. I never say that the majority of people wants to see this changed. I say it's pretty unpopular with a considerable number of people and Obsidian might want to think about changing it, and I offered some ideas, and then I left the rest to Obsidian.

I know this because I remember wording it very carefully specifically because I wanted to avoid yet another big discussion. Oh and also because it's still there. "Many players don't like it", "it can be changed so that everyone's happy"... argumentum ad populum, haha. Nope.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Fearabbit

[Azrael Ultima]

"Many people" is ad populum. You claim that change needs to happen because some nebulous "many people" are unhappy with the system you'd like to see changed. That's about as pure as ad populum gets. You'd fare better if you'd just skipped the justification part and went straight to your suggestion.(Though that still wouldn't have avoided the discussion over whether the change is necessary)

 

And nothing can ever be changed in a way that makes everybody happy. You probably couldn't even change Nothing without somebody complaining.

 

Besides, it's impossible to word this topic in a way that doesn't get you that big discussion. It's inherent to the topic.(Well, okay, you could make it totally incomprehensible, but i doubt i need to explain why that wouldn't be useful)

[Hamenaglar]

So everybody is making suggestions, I will make one too. This is going to be a looong post.

 

Let's divide character stats into Ability Scored and Derived Attributes.

 

Ability Scores: Strength/Might, Dexterity, Constitution/Endurance, Intellect, Resolve, Perception

 

Derived Attributes - ability scores modifying them:

Deflection defense - Dexterity (and Perception?)

Reflex defense- Dexterity and Perception equally (perhaps unify deflection and reflex)

Will defense - Intellect and Resolve equally

Fortitude defense - Strength and Endurance equally

Interrupt defense - Resolve (and Stamina?)

Health - Strength and Endurance equally

Stamina - Endurance (and Resolve?)

Melee damage - Strength obviously

Melee accuracy - Strength and dexterity equally.

Ranged accuracy - Dexterity and perception

Critical chance - Perception (you are able to notice better where the holes in enemy's defence are)

Critical damage - Intellect (you know where it hurts the most)

Spell power - Strength (spells are physically taxing to cast and stronger individuals can channel more energy into spells)

Spell duration - Resolve (you are able to focus longer and maintain the effect of your spells)

Bonus spells per day - Endurance (if spells are physically taxing, characters with high endurance might squeze that extra spell per day/encounter)

Bonus known spells - Intellect (smarter persons would know more spells)

 

 

So to sum it up:

Strength - bonus to spell power (damage), melee damage, melee attack, health and fortitude

Dexterity - bonus to melee attack, ranged attack, deflection and reflex

Endurance - bonus to health, stamina, fortitude, spells per day, interrupt defense (?)

Intellect - bonus to critical damage, known spells, will

Resolve - bonus to spell duration, interrupt defense, will, stamina (?),

Perception - bonus to critical chance, ranged attack, reflex and deflection (?)

 

So every attribute provides some bonus, it isn't all that different from what we currently have. I've just added two derived attributes: bonus spells per day and bonus known spells (that were in D&D anyway). This provides incentive for spell casters to use Intellect and Endurance.

 

I think something like this makes all attributes useful to all classes and allows for different playstyles.

 

Melee warrior:

Strength, Dexterity and Endurance are obviously beneficial because they allow him to consistently deal damage and avoid/absorb it. Typical front line fighter. However a more cerebral fighter might not deal as much damage consistently, but he would crit more often and for more damage, while looking to avoid damage altogether. Dexterity seems like the most important stat not to dump, as it governs both offense and defense. Still you don't have to have it prioritized, because defense can come from Perception and offense from Strength.

 

 

Ranged warrior:

Dexterity and perception look like the most important stats. You could dump everything else and just hope you'll never get targeted with Will/Fortitude spells, or attacked in melee. That would depend a lot on enemy composition and AI. Also strength seems pretty useless right now. Perhaps it should provide some damage bonus for bows and reload speed for crossbows. Or simply be a requirement for heavier bows/crossbows (indirectly affecting damage). Also, I'm not sure if there are throwing weapons (axes, darts etc.) but if there are they should obviously have damage be dependant on strength. There is also a question, how range affects accuracy. This seems the most SAD (single attribute dependant) build. I think it would be cool to prioritize strength and play an axe-thrower. Throwing few axes to cause mayhem and then charging to melee.

 

Ranged caster:

You can prioritize strength and endurance, which will allow you to do more damage with spells and cast them more often during the day. However by dumping intellect and resolve you are would have less versatility, making you a kind of a pseudo-sorcerer. You can also prioritize Intellect and Resolve to create a more typical Wizard/Wise priest. He would have a large variety of spells to choose from, his buffs and controlling spells would last for a long time. The problem is Dexterity and Perception seem dumpable for both types of playstyles as it's unlikely that wizard will get under attack because he is behind. If there are some sort of powerful single target ranged touch spells, than those attributes would be useful. Perhaps they might also provide bonus to spell casting speed?

 

Melee caster (Muscle wizard/Gish/Battle cleric):

If you opt for strength and endurance, you would again have few spells but could use them often. Playstyle would most likely be suited to charging into combat and using melee touch spells or cone spells for devastating effect. Endurance and Strength would provide decent staying power, but still this kind of build would basically be a Melee Glass cannon. It would be cool if touch spells could crit, then perception would become important as it would allow for crit-fishing for gishes. In that case prioritizing Dexterity and Perception would make a character that would more often avoid damage, deal less damage consistently, but you would burst more often for obscene amounts. Intelligence and Resolve are obviously useful for greater utility. I think that for Melee caster all attributes are useful, but depending on desired playstyle you could prioritze some and dump others and still it would be a viable build.

 

 

Issues:

Ranged warriors depend only on Dexterity/Perception for their offense. Strength might be useful. Intelligence useful for critical damage. Defensive attributes, resolve and endurance are not really useful if the player can stay away from threat (depends on AI). They are useful for a switch-hitter though.

 

Ranged casters can probably dump perception and dexterity if they can stay away from threat. However if there are good ranged touch attack spells and if there is a possibility of spells making critical damage, then those attributes also become useful. Also dexterity might be used to increase casting speed.

 

For anybody claiming this would be a complex system, I would disagree, as I've only introduced two more variables (bonus spells). I also don't think that having different ability scores influencing same derived attributes is complex, it worked pretty well in Fallout 1&2. Plus we already have two ability scores influencing a specific defense.

 

Okay, that's it.

 

Edit:

OMG this is a wall of text. Nobody will probably read it. Eh...

Edited August 26, 2014 by Hamenaglar