Currently, compared to IE games and D&D, the values of your Attributes (Might, Dex, Con, Int, Per, Res) in Pillars of Eternity just generally matter a lot less. F.ex. the difference in total health (or Fatigue) between a character with Con 10 or Con 20 in PoE is about the same as the difference between Con 10 and Con 12 in DnD 3.0/3.5. Might 10 to Might 20 gives only a +16,7% damage increase, about equivalent to the difference between STR 10 and STR 12 in D&D.

 

Intended to have clearer choices than the other one (http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67747-more-meaningful-attributes-vs-more-viable-variation/).

Edited August 23, 201411 yr by limaxophobiacq

They should double the effect of attributes and reduce how many we get by 25%.

 

Also, the aoe of abilities should reduced by 25% as well so max aoe isn't uber gigantic.

Do we need second poll on this?

 

Seriously, do people just want to have their own poll on everything or whats up with multiple combat exp polls and threads and now the attributes?

Do we need second poll on this?

 

Seriously, do people just want to have their own poll on everything or whats up with multiple combat exp polls and threads and now the attributes?

The other poll had slightly different implications.

Do we need second poll on this?

 

Seriously, do people just want to have their own poll on everything or whats up with multiple combat exp polls and threads and now the attributes?

 

People complained in the other poll that the choices weren't mutually exclusive, or about an option to leave it as is, that's why I made this one.

As I posted somewhere else, to actually test all that stuff and get a nice overview we need a way to generate a complete party and something that spawns enemies so we can try out combinations and balance.

Edited August 23, 201411 yr by Mayama

I don't know. I prefer the old AD&D 1-25 stat system. You make the character and the stats should define him. Makes sense to me. If you have "20" in might and it is defined as how much damage you do it becomes meaningless. Might as well ask for 25% more stat points. Really, why not rename it damage modifier? 

I would've voted "more than twice" had you left out the (A)D&D reference. I don't want the cookie-cutter attribute distributions of (A)D&D: I want all attributes to remain important to all classes, and to support diverse builds within classes, and I believe the best way to do that is to significantly increase the mechanical effects of the stats.

I want Attribute scores to make more of a difference, values pending on whatever Obsidian considers that fit their system and not based on number crunching of D&D (which is not the system used by PoE).

 

So... yeah. Tweak the system as needed.

So far this poll seems pretty one sided...

Really hoe Obsidian doubles attributes. Make the builds more diverse. After all; the stupid wizard isn't stupid enough!

I want attributes to make a difference in a different manner.

 

The minimum value in any attribute should be a definite handicap; something that doesn't make the character unplayable, but forces you to find ways to go around it. On the other hand, the attributes should give diminishing benefits so that you'd have to make actual sacrifices to max more than one attribute.

 

In other words: the attribute/benefit graph shouldn't be a straigh line but a curve that has high steepness at the start and low at the end. The total amount of points would have to be lowered to compensate, as the middle values would give more benefit.

I want attributes to make a difference in a different manner.

 

The minimum value in any attribute should be a definite handicap; something that doesn't make the character unplayable, but forces you to find ways to go around it. On the other hand, the attributes should give diminishing benefits so that you'd have to make actual sacrifices to max more than one attribute.

 

In other words: the attribute/benefit graph shouldn't be a straigh line but a curve that has high steepness at the start and low at the end. The total amount of points would have to be lowered to compensate, as the middle values would give more benefit.

That would be interesting. I think KOTOR did that at character creation.

 

I do still think just doubling the curve is better though. Don't want the system encouraging "jack of all trades" build over others.

Edited August 23, 201411 yr by Namutree

 

I want attributes to make a difference in a different manner.

 

The minimum value in any attribute should be a definite handicap; something that doesn't make the character unplayable, but forces you to find ways to go around it. On the other hand, the attributes should give diminishing benefits so that you'd have to make actual sacrifices to max more than one attribute.

 

In other words: the attribute/benefit graph shouldn't be a straigh line but a curve that has high steepness at the start and low at the end. The total amount of points would have to be lowered to compensate, as the middle values would give more benefit.

That would be interesting. I think KOTOR did that at character creation.

 

I do still think just doubling the curve is better though. Don't want the system encouraging "jack of all trades" build over others.

 

Compared to what I'm proposing, with the current system it's impossible to create characters that are not jacks of all trades. Right now low attributes just don't impair your character in any meaningful way, every attribute only gives you bonuses on top of the 100% base level. Doubling the "curve" wouldn't change that, even if that would make low attributes relatively weaker. Everyone would still be min-maxing their brains out.

 

Compared to what I'm proposing, with the current system it's impossible to create characters that are not jacks of all trades. Right now low attributes just don't impair your character in any meaningful way, every attribute only gives you bonuses on top of the 100% base level. Doubling the "curve" wouldn't change that, even if that would make low attributes relatively weaker. Everyone would still be min-maxing their brains out.

 

 

Exactly, which is why they should be removed entirely.

Caerdon, I'm going to have to respectfully (but very strongly) disagree.

 

The base level and the fact that all the attribute bonuses (boni) are, in fact, bonuses (boni) doesn't mean anything. You could just as easily raise the base level of each derived statistic to the current max from attributes, then have any attributes below the max give a penalty. The end result would be EXACTLY the same statistics at any given attribute level as there is now, just with a different framing.

 

Which is why people need to stop using the fact that all the attributes give "bonuses" (boni) to argue that the attributes don't make a difference. Get away from that. It literally means nothing. The only important thing is the difference between the lowest and highest attribute. Differences are all that matter.

 

So yes, doubling the curve WOULD matter quite a bit. Even if the base values were adjusted to compensate, the difference in damage between MIG 3 and MIG 18 would still be double of what it is now. And that's significant - and it's all that matters from a mechanical and mathematical standpoint.

Edited August 23, 201411 yr by Matt516

Caerdon, I'm going to have to respectfully (but very strongly) disagree.

 

The base level and the fact that all the attribute bonuses (boni) are, in fact, bonuses (boni) doesn't mean anything. You could just as easily raise the base level of each derived statistic to the current max from attributes, then have any attributes below the max give a penalty. The end result would be EXACTLY the same statistics at any given attribute level as there is now, just with a different framing.

 

Which is why people need to stop using the fact that all the attributes give "bonuses" (boni) to argue that the attributes don't make a difference. Get away from that. It literally means nothing. The only important thing is the difference between the lowest and highest attribute. Differences are all that matter.

 

So yes, doubling the curve WOULD matter quite a bit. Even if the base values were adjusted to compensate, the difference in damage between MIG 3 and MIG 18 would still be double of what it is now. And that's significant - and it's all that matters from a mechanical and mathematical standpoint.

 

Hey, respectful disagreement is totally cool with me Oh, and it's definitely "bonuses". What do you think is the plural of "bus"?

 

I get what you mean. The use of the word "bonus" wasn't the best idea, I was using it because the base value for things like health is already quite high in my opinion, and even if the curve was doubled (and all enemy damage values etc. vere raised to re-balance the game), it would still be quite enough to survive.

 

However, my real point is that multiplying the attribute bonuses wouldn't change the fundamental problem with the current system: that they all just give flat increases. 1 MIG gives you the same amount of damage whether you go from 3 to 4 or 19 to 20 (even if there are minor diminishing returns when you look at the percentual total damage increase). You know better than most that one point in MIG is always better than one point in DEX, assuming we're just looking at plain damage output. And if they were balanced more evenly, it just wouldn't matter which you put your points in.

 

What I'm suggesting is that going from 3 to 4 DEX would be better than going from 16 to 17 MIG, and vice versa. This way it'd be very difficult to come up with the optimal way to distribute X points between those two attributes - and the same goes for every other attributes, meaning that you'd need to put a lot more thought into how you're assigning them.

 

Of course, one problem with coming up with all these ideas and solutions is that we still don't know much about many of the fundamental game mechanics. 12 RES gives you +36% concentration, so presumably you're about 25% better at concentration checks than someone with 3 RES. But what does that actually mean? What, exactly, are the calculations the game makes? We've no idea.

we do find the more normalized spread o' stats to be refreshing. d&d strength, for example, would have us, without magical boosting, challenging adult male rhinos in strength by the time we hit level 20. at level 1, we could manage an 18 strength in d&d and pathfinder. a 7' bugbear, by comparison, would have a str o' 15. centaurs, who got the body o' a freaking horse, average 18 str. a giant eagle, which could manage to carry a human in flight, also had an 18 str. gnolls, which is averaging 7.5' and weighing 300 lbs is getting str o' 15.  griffons weigh 500 lbs and can carry men in flight... they got 18 str.  a winter wolf is 450 lbs and has 18 str. a Heavy war horse has str o' 18. a crocodile is a bit stronger with a str o' 19... so wait til level 4. a mule gots a str o' 16, a Freaking Mule! has anybody here worked on a farm? clearly not the folks at wotc.

 

am not minding that abilities in PoE is not like d&d.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps keep in mind that we don't need or want reality, but if we can get enough variation with more normalized stats and still feel as if those stat choices is meaningful, then we will be happy. that being said, we does see inflated stats as being a tad bit ridiculous.

Edited August 24, 201411 yr by Gromnir

I hope Obsidian listens to this poll.