A good read about physicaly strong wizards

[Caerdon]

Some wimpy but otherwise moderately capable wizards:

 

 

 

[Naurgalen]

 

Well, thank you for pointing that out to us.

 

If you'd read the thread, however, you would be aware that no one here claimed that might equalled strength. The point of the discussion is that given that might isn't strength, what is? Is the physical body of people in this world independent of their ability to smash boulders? Will we see hordes of shaky old men rip people apart with bare hands due to their enormous soul power?

 

 

1) Yes I have read the thread, but it seems that when it derailed from the first idea you didn´t. It was, in fact, asked:

 

The real question is: Is the notion that might has nothing to do with strength reflected in the attribute checks it is relevant for?

Meaning: Which attribute is checked for lifting a heavy boulder?

 

Here you have it, the question that united "strength" with the in-game attribute "might". It has a lot of answers too, but you can re-read to find them.

 

2) You are wrong again, the real point of the post is that there can be physicaly strong wizards, heck its even on the title. You may or not agree to that but that was the real point of the thread. (I don't for example: as some people pointed out most of the characters that are not flawed in the dichotomy body-mind, are supernatural beings, sometimes of godlike powers (Tolkiens Noldors) or directly gods (Gandalf, Thor, Mercury), not the more terrenal "nerdy" creatures to what wizards are actually associated)

 

3) Yes, you will see old mans ripping mountains apart with their bare fists, the monk has all the traits for that.

 

 

 

People, please: MIGHT  is not  STRENGTH.

 

If you destroy boulders with your fists in this game is not because your biceps are of epic proportions, its just that your ability to take power from your soul is epic. That is what might means. Does it feel counter intuitive coming from years of d&d? Yes, but its not a mistake in a coherent level. Think of might as "Ki", "Energy", "Presence","Chakra", "Cosmos" or heck, the lore friendly "soul power"!

 

Ok then so when the Might stacking wizard hits a beetle with his longsword he is in someway interacting with some internal soul energy that then causes more damage to the creature?

 

Is this the same for the fighter then? It isn't his muscles (seeing as athletics has no effect on combat damage) its his soul energy. Well ok then. So given that having a fighter with zero points in athetics has no effect on combat I guess we have to conclude that in this game your body's physical ability to effect the world isn't represented by the attribute system.

 

This is the the road the developers want to take then ok. It is their game. However, this doesn't meet my expectations and I am very dissappointed with the current system.

 

As I have done previously in this thread I think there are ways the developers could alter the attribute system to resolve this problem to my (and maybe others?) satisfaction

 

 

I don't think Might is an absolute attribute, like the old "wisdom" that represented will, knowledge and sometimes perception, "might" may be Strength + Soul Power without problem. Whats is Soul Power may not be explained until we play the game to prevent spoilers.

 

-----

 

 

Don't misunderstand me, for me it "feels" strange and I would like the return of old and classic Strength as much as you both, but the attribute by itself is not illogical, just vague. (and possibly on purpose)

 

PS: For the 100% body physycal ability to affect the world there is still constitution

[Sartoris]

 

 

Well, thank you for pointing that out to us.

 

If you'd read the thread, however, you would be aware that no one here claimed that might equalled strength. The point of the discussion is that given that might isn't strength, what is? Is the physical body of people in this world independent of their ability to smash boulders? Will we see hordes of shaky old men rip people apart with bare hands due to their enormous soul power?

 

 

1) Yes I have read the thread, but it seems that when it derailed from the first idea you didn´t. It was, in fact, asked:

 

The real question is: Is the notion that might has nothing to do with strength reflected in the attribute checks it is relevant for?

Meaning: Which attribute is checked for lifting a heavy boulder?

 

Here you have it, the question that united "strength" with the in-game attribute "might". It has a lot of answers too, but you can re-read to find them.

 

2) You are wrong again, the real point of the post is that there can be physicaly strong wizards, heck its even on the title. You may or not agree to that but that was the real point of the thread. (I don't for example: as some people pointed out most of the characters that are not flawed in the dichotomy body-mind, are supernatural beings, sometimes of godlike powers (Tolkiens Noldors) or directly gods (Gandalf, Thor, Mercury), not the more terrenal "nerdy" creatures to what wizards are actually associated)

 

3) Yes, you will see old mans ripping mountains apart with their bare fists, the monk has all the traits for that.

 

 

 

People, please: MIGHT  is not  STRENGTH.

 

If you destroy boulders with your fists in this game is not because your biceps are of epic proportions, its just that your ability to take power from your soul is epic. That is what might means. Does it feel counter intuitive coming from years of d&d? Yes, but its not a mistake in a coherent level. Think of might as "Ki", "Energy", "Presence","Chakra", "Cosmos" or heck, the lore friendly "soul power"!

 

Ok then so when the Might stacking wizard hits a beetle with his longsword he is in someway interacting with some internal soul energy that then causes more damage to the creature?

 

Is this the same for the fighter then? It isn't his muscles (seeing as athletics has no effect on combat damage) its his soul energy. Well ok then. So given that having a fighter with zero points in athetics has no effect on combat I guess we have to conclude that in this game your body's physical ability to effect the world isn't represented by the attribute system.

 

This is the the road the developers want to take then ok. It is their game. However, this doesn't meet my expectations and I am very dissappointed with the current system.

 

As I have done previously in this thread I think there are ways the developers could alter the attribute system to resolve this problem to my (and maybe others?) satisfaction

 

 

I don't think Might is an absolute attribute, like the old "wisdom" that represented will, knowledge and sometimes perception, "might" may be Strength + Soul Power without problem. Whats is Soul Power may not be explained until we play the game to prevent spoilers.

 

-----

 

 

Don't misunderstand me, for me it "feels" strange and I would like the return of old and classic Strength as much as you both, but the attribute by itself is not illogical, just vague. (and possibly on purpose)

 

PS: For the 100% body physycal ability to affect the world there is still constitution

 

 

I like your post because I think you have captured exactly what is strange about the attribute system. I definitely agree the attribute is vague. Its made vaguer by having inconsistent lore.

 

Do you know what isn't vague, at least to the majority of people to will play the game? The attribute system from the IE games. So what we are seeing here as well as in many other places, is that in those instances where the developers chose to take a radical departure from the IE system, multiple people end up being confused, feel that the system they have chosen is strange, or are otherwise unhappy. However, I will note there are some folks who do like it just as much or better.

 

Let me ask, are any of you happier with this system and why?

 

If not, wouldn't it be better for the developers to adhear to a more IE-like attribute system? Wasn't Pillars of Eternity supposed to do exactly that?

[PrimeJunta]

I think having a different attribute system is vital. Perhaps one problem with it now is that it's not different enough.

 

STR-DEX-CON-INT-WIS-CHA is absolutely central to DnD as an identity. For anyone who's grown up with DnD, it immediately evokes the entire system. Put them in a system with different mechanics, and massive cognitive dissonance follows. It becomes impossible to change anything without causing howls. "Butbutbut, everyone knows STR affects melee accuracy!"

 

OE made it clear from the very start that P:E isn't DnD. Perhaps a lot of this drama would have been avoided if they had gone with a genuinely different list of attributes, perhaps with a different number, and certainly one where so many of them map so neatly to the DnD equivalents. MIG-STR, DEX-DEX, CON-CON, INT-INT, RES-WIS, PER....Cha?

 

All that is kinda hindsight now. They're not going to change the number of attributes, and probably not what they're called. Pity, that.

[Gulliver]

Here you have it, the question that united "strength" with the in-game attribute "might". It has a lot of answers too, but you can re-read to find them.

 

As you can clearly see, I asked that question. Now, care to explain how I implied in that post that in this game might equals strength? The question asked was whether or not the fact that it doesn't is reflected in attribute checks and if so, which other attribute would get checked for cases where strength would be the usual go-to attribute.

 

 

2) You are wrong again, the real point of the post is that there can be physicaly strong wizards, heck its even on the title. You may or not agree to that but that was the real point of the thread. (I don't for example: as some people pointed out most of the characters that are not flawed in the dichotomy body-mind, are supernatural beings, sometimes of godlike powers (Tolkiens Noldors) or directly gods (Gandalf, Thor, Mercury), not the more terrenal "nerdy" creatures to what wizards are actually associated)

 

 

You do realize that I'm the one who made that point?

 

 

You can be academical and studious and work out 3 times a week easily. In fact, it's probably a good idea if you don't get much excercise during work. [...] Might stacking Wizards aren't necessarily the type that also spends time at the gym in their off hours. They are the guys with the really big fireballs.(you could even say they have huge balls which are on fire)

 

 

Of course you can do exercise after studying magic. The point is that such exercise requires extra work. A wizard in DnD could also be strong - all he had to do was increase his strength. As for the second point:

 

Might stacking wizards aren't the ones with the really big fireballs. Intellect increases aoe, might increases damage. So for some reason, intellect doesn't enable you to do more damage per area, but it does make you capable of putting an extra 77%(or 33%? is it radius or area?) of energy into your spell with 18 int, as opposed to 30%(I think?) extra for 18 might (assuming damage is proportional to energy density), which is somehow concentrated better. If might governs how much power (or energy to be less colloquial) you can put in your spells, why is the energy increase for intellect greater (or at least the same)?

 

How does that make any sense at all?

Edited August 26, 2014 by Gulliver

[Wintersong]

OE made it clear from the very start that P:E isn't DnD. Perhaps a lot of this drama would have been avoided if they had gone with a genuinely different list of attributes, perhaps with a different number, and certainly one where so many of them map so neatly to the DnD equivalents. MIG-STR, DEX-DEX, CON-CON, INT-INT, RES-WIS, PER....Cha?

Considering the hurt butts, maybe they weren't clear enough. Also, Perception cannot be Charisma equivalent. Paying attention to detail is usually tied to Intelligence?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Where does this preference for making systems inconsistent and complicated come from?

Nostalgia.

[Azrael Ultima]

 

How does that make any sense at all?

 

Might stacking wizards aren't the ones with the really big fireballs. Intellect increases aoe, might increases damage. So for some reason, intellect doesn't enable you to do more damage per area, but it does make you capable of putting an extra 77% of energy into your spell with 18 int, as opposed to a measly 30%(I think?) for 18 might (assuming damage is proportional to energy density).

You know exactly what is meant by "big fireballs".

 

That aside, all stats are, necessarily, game mechanical abstractions. Asking for them to be fully explained in-universe is often not terribly sensible. Int somehow makes abilities affect larger areas and last longer. Does that make logical sense? Probably not. Does it work as a game stat? I think so. Maybe it would have been better suited with a name like "Intensity".

[Sartoris]

 

 

How does that make any sense at all?

 

Might stacking wizards aren't the ones with the really big fireballs. Intellect increases aoe, might increases damage. So for some reason, intellect doesn't enable you to do more damage per area, but it does make you capable of putting an extra 77% of energy into your spell with 18 int, as opposed to a measly 30%(I think?) for 18 might (assuming damage is proportional to energy density).

You know exactly what is meant by "big fireballs".

 

That aside, all stats are, necessarily, game mechanical abstractions. Asking for them to be fully explained in-universe is often not terribly sensible. Int somehow makes abilities affect larger areas and last longer. Does that make logical sense? Probably not. Does it work as a game stat? I think so. Maybe it would have been better suited with a name like "Intensity".

 

 

Sounds like a good reason to use the familar Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma to me. With an attribute system were penalties/rewards range from around -4 to 4 and have exponential effictiveness as they increase/decrease.

 

So basically the developers could have stayed as close to the IE mechanics as possible.

 

This would definitely cut down on much of the strange feeling of the current attribute system and fix some the glaring issue that not many people want to discuss about the a character who spends absolutly zero points at character creation is still viable.

[Gulliver]

You know exactly what is meant by "big fireballs"

 

That aside, all stats are, necessarily, game mechanical abstractions. Asking for them to be fully explained in-universe is often not terribly sensible. Int somehow makes abilities affect larger areas and last longer. Does that make logical sense? Probably not. Does it work as a game stat? I think so. Maybe it would have been better suited with a name like "Intensity".

 

 

Yes, I do. But the fact that you made that 'mistake' illustrates the problem that people have with this attribute system.

 

From a mechanical standpoint, the attributes work okay. And that's what they were designed for. They seem to be sliders for tweaking the combat abilities of your characters. At the same time, attributes are supposed to describe what kind of person your character is. What they fail to do, however, is to establish a reasonable connection between the character they are supposedly describing and the mechanical effects they have for that character.

[Azrael Ultima]

Sounds like a good reason to use the familar Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma to me. With an attribute system were penalties/rewards range from around -4 to 4 and have exponential effictiveness as they increase/decrease.

 

So basically the developers could have stayed as close to the IE mechanics as possible.

 

This would definitely cut down on much of the strange feeling of the current attribute system and fix some the glaring issue that not many people want to discuss about the a character who spends absolutly zero points at character creation is still viable.

 

They could have. They didn't want to, because that system has it's own slew of problems, not to mention that they probably would have had to license it to avoid legal trouble. Sounds to me like you're looking for a D&D based game, in which case you're wrong here.

 

It works just as well as an argument to use any other possible stat system as well. That is, it is completely useless for the purpose of advocating one stat system over another.

 

You also seem to have misread the pitch. They wanted to stay close to the look and feel of IE games, not to the AD&D rule set and by extension, IE games mechanics.

[Azrael Ultima]

 

Yes, I do. But the fact that you made that 'mistake' illustrates the problem that people have with this attribute system.

You purposely misinterpreting a statement does not a mistake make. Stop playing dumb, unless you want me to treat you like you are.

 

 

Edit: Bleh, to used to forums auto-merging double posts.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Azrael Ultima

[Gulliver]

You purposely misinterpreting a statement does not a mistake make. Stop playing dumb, unless you want me to treat you like you are.

 

Way to miss the point.

 

You intuitively associated might with the ability to make big explosions. In this case, that's simply false. Might does not make fireballs big. At the same time, larger explosions would intuitively come from more 'boom' behind the spell, which is what might is supposedly describing. Your particular choice of words when explaining what might does is a perfect illustration of how little sense the mechanical effects of might and intellect towards spells make considering what they're describing according to the lore.

[BlueLion]

I'm not sure what builds you guys are using but I tried a 'Muscle Wizard' build and he is much squishier than my Fighter or Paladin.

[Azrael Ultima]

 

You purposely misinterpreting a statement does not a mistake make. Stop playing dumb, unless you want me to treat you like you are.

 

Way to miss the point.

 

You intuitively associated might with the ability to make big explosions. In this case, that's simply false. Might does not make fireballs big. At the same time, larger explosions would intuitively come from more 'boom' behind the spell, which is what might is supposedly describing. Your particular choice of words when explaining what might does is a perfect illustration of how little sense the mechanical effects of might and intellect towards spells make considering what they're describing according to the lore.

Replace fireball with any single target spell. You're purposely interpreting things to mean something that supports your point, then assume everybody does so for no reason other than to make your argument seem more valid.

 

Besides, what does any of that have to do with the discussion at hand at all? We're not discussing here whether Might and Intellect are the best possible names for the stats. You also only made an argument for why Might could include AoE and duration as well, but stacking that much stuff on one stat is probably not the best of ideas.

[Seari]

Chakra infused super muscle wizard reporting in!

I think they should add a power charging mechanic

edit: Maybe you could mash a button for charging a spell?

Edited August 26, 2014 by Seari

[Gulliver]

 

 

Replace fireball with any single target spell. You're purposely interpreting things to mean something that supports your point, then assume everybody does so for no reason other than to make your argument seem more valid.

Still missing the point, I see.

 

It's not about what you meant. It's about the kind of language you used to illustrate the meaning of might.

 

 

 

You also only made an argument for why Might could include AoE and duration as well, but stacking that much stuff on one stat is probably not the best of ideas.

Actually, it's an argument for might to determine the overall energy of a spell and for intellect to decide to what degree you can manipulate the energy density while keeping the total energy constant.

[Nonek]

I was searching this post since the muscle mage debate started, finaly i found it. :D

Its a short but interesting read about mages and physical fitness.

 

Its from the Steve Jackson Games forum, from the user D10000, enjoy:

 

Sorry for the text background color but I have no clue how to change it.

 

Myth v. Stereotype, or "My Wizard Wears Plate and Has a 14 Strength"

 

 

In another thread on plate armor and spell casting I got off on a Semi tangent relating to magic user stereotypes and their conflict with magic user's in pre-D&D fantasy (this also overlaps and parallels Elves).

 

When I think of wizards I think of Odin, Mercury, Gandalf, Feanor, Elric, Kane or Simon Magus. Do any of them strike you as a skinny old bookworm? In many, many settings physical vitality is a prerequisite to surviving or excelling at magic use. 

 

Elric of Melnibone was a pathetic weakling who needed drugs or stolen souls to even walk and talk properly, he was skinny, androgynous, with the most delicate of constitutions resulting from millenia of inbreeding. I certainly don't think the gentleman qualifies as having any sort of physical vitality. However he was the mightiest spellcaster of his age, with demons and elementals leashed to hid will and spells that could reshape reality on his lips. He would not have any physical might though he was skilled with weapons, but his supernatural potency would be unmatched. Moorc*ck designed him as an anti Conan.

 

I think you might wish to take him out of this list.

[Tsuga C]

^ That sums up Moonglum's albino friend and wielder of Stormbringer quite nicely.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Tsuga C

[Sartoris]

 

Sounds like a good reason to use the familar Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma to me. With an attribute system were penalties/rewards range from around -4 to 4 and have exponential effictiveness as they increase/decrease.

 

So basically the developers could have stayed as close to the IE mechanics as possible.

 

This would definitely cut down on much of the strange feeling of the current attribute system and fix some the glaring issue that not many people want to discuss about the a character who spends absolutly zero points at character creation is still viable.

 

They could have. They didn't want to, because that system has it's own slew of problems, not to mention that they probably would have had to license it to avoid legal trouble. Sounds to me like you're looking for a D&D based game, in which case you're wrong here.

 

It works just as well as an argument to use any other possible stat system as well. That is, it is completely useless for the purpose of advocating one stat system over another.

 

You also seem to have misread the pitch. They wanted to stay close to the look and feel of IE games, not to the AD&D rule set and by extension, IE games mechanics.

 

 

 

I agree that the IE game's mechanics have their own slew of problems. However, there should be no problem with Pillars of Eternity using the standard D&D attribute names. KOTOR II (an Obsidian developed game) used the same names for the attributes without the license. I would point out that no one had major systemic complaints about its use of that system either...

 

Here is the description from the Kickstarter site:

 

 

Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment.

 

I always took this to mean that as much of the internal mechanics from these games would be incorporated as possible. But I can't deny that I was clearly wrong. Seems Sawyer and Co. have a plan to remove features many of us want and replace them with features we don't.

 

I really hope the final game can still capture all that they intend with that statement, but from my perspective, it doesn't look hopeful.

[Mayama]

I always took this to mean that as much of the internal mechanics from these games would be incorporated as possible. But I can't deny that I was clearly wrong. Seems Sawyer and Co. have a plan to remove features many of us want and replace them with features we don't.

 

 

What do you mean with many? I count around 10 people posting in the beta forum which have real issues with the system for one reason or another. Considering that the forum has several hundreds of unique users I would call it a very vocal minority that tries to change things in their favor by screaming loud enough. The majority seems to be ok with it or just does not care.

[Azrael Ultima]

I agree that the IE game's mechanics have their own slew of problems. However, there should be no problem with Pillars of Eternity using the standard D&D attribute names. KOTOR II (an Obsidian developed game) used the same names for the attributes without the license. I would point out that no one had major systemic complaints about its use of that system either...

Standard D20 attribute names, actually. Not D&D. Those are freely available for anybody to use. The issue is that PoE would edge dangerously close to being mistaken for a D&D setting(especially with the BG/IWD/PST connection), while Star Wars clearly is not one. Also, legal troubles doesn't equal that their legal opponent actually has a valid case. Lawyers don't work for free, after all.

 

And you didn't just ask for the names, you basically asked for the entire core attribute system to be used.

 

There's actually D20 rulebooks for Star Wars, though they don't fully fit in with KotOR.

[Hamenaglar]

 

I agree that the IE game's mechanics have their own slew of problems. However, there should be no problem with Pillars of Eternity using the standard D&D attribute names. KOTOR II (an Obsidian developed game) used the same names for the attributes without the license. I would point out that no one had major systemic complaints about its use of that system either...

Standard D20 attribute names, actually. Not D&D. Those are freely available for anybody to use. The issue is that PoE would edge dangerously close to being mistaken for a D&D setting(especially with the BG/IWD/PST connection), while Star Wars clearly is not one. Also, legal troubles doesn't equal that their legal opponent actually has a valid case. Lawyers don't work for free, after all.

 

And you didn't just ask for the names, you basically asked for the entire core attribute system to be used.

 

There's actually D20 rulebooks for Star Wars, though they don't fully fit in with KotOR.

 

 

D20 is under OGL, and should be able to be used (an indie game Knights of the Chalice uses it, I believe).  Not to mention, Dragon Age origins uses almost identical attributes, except Magic is Charisma, Willpower is Wisdom, Cunning is Intelligence. The names are a bit different, but the similarities are obvious. 

 

The issues with Might is (IMO), we don't know what it represents. Can anybode give me a definition of what it is? Physical prowess, soul power? How to roleplay a mage that is physically weak, but has destructive spells? Should he have high or low might? Is that concept even possible in the world of PoE.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Hamenaglar

[Naurgalen]

 

 

I like your post because I think you have captured exactly what is strange about the attribute system. I definitely agree the attribute is vague. Its made vaguer by having inconsistent lore.

 

Do you know what isn't vague, at least to the majority of people to will play the game? The attribute system from the IE games. So what we are seeing here as well as in many other places, is that in those instances where the developers chose to take a radical departure from the IE system, multiple people end up being confused, feel that the system they have chosen is strange, or are otherwise unhappy. However, I will note there are some folks who do like it just as much or better.

 

Let me ask, are any of you happier with this system and why?

 

If not, wouldn't it be better for the developers to adhear to a more IE-like attribute system? Wasn't Pillars of Eternity supposed to do exactly that?

 

 

For me, it all depends on the lore of the world. Better history > Conventions. (Check Planescape:Torment if you don't think that it really can work)

 

For example, if in the setting people have an intrinsic "soul power" or "might", and the way you channel that (muscles for fighters, brain power for wizards) is properly explained/explored through the game I wont have any problems with the attribute. I really think that attributes that match the setting are more important than attributes that match our nostalgia. And I trust the developers to don't **** the lore in that way.

 

PS: Nobody found strange that d&d´s strength and constitution were not related like in real life?

 

 

 

Here you have it, the question that united "strength" with the in-game attribute "might". It has a lot of answers too, but you can re-read to find them.

 

As you can clearly see, I asked that question. Now, care to explain how I implied in that post that in this game might equals strength? The question asked was whether or not the fact that it doesn't is reflected in attribute checks and if so, which other attribute would get checked for cases where strength would be the usual go-to attribute.

 

 

And where I said that you implied that might equals or doesn't equal strength? I only said you associated both things, and in responses to that the thread some peoples opinions implied it. =/

Edited August 27, 2014 by Naurgalen

[Azrael Ultima]

The issues with Might is (IMO), we don't know what it represents. Can anybode give me a definition of what it is? Physical prowess, soul power? How to roleplay a mage that is physically weak, but has destructive spells? Should he have high or low might? Is that concept even possible in the world of PoE.

 

By using your imagination and playing your role? Your mage shouldn't be a blacksmith or constantly carry around 3 plate armor suits, for example. If you're faced with a might based option that clearly requires physical might rather than magical, you should choose another one. That's what roleplaying is.