"No Bad Builds" a failure in practice? pt 2

[Yonjuro]

 

 

No bad builds is such a ****ing stupid idea it's giving me a headache.

 

 

  This isn't a useful comment. Why do you think it's a bad idea? 

 

(1) Do you want people to inadvertently build a bad character? 

(2) Do you think that it isn't possible?

(3) Do you think it necessarily means that the attributes can't have a large enough dynamic range?

(4) Some other reason?

 

As it is, you're adding noise to the discussion. Most of the discussion revolves around something like point 3 (which remains to be seen). Point 1 is ridiculous. Point 2 is clearly not true.  Maybe you have an actual 4th point that would add to the discussion. Do you or not? 

 

 

Hey, Doctor Spock, it's called useless hyperbole and I like to bang on a pot lid with a large spoon. What's a cleric?

 

 

Fixed that for you.

[Monte Carlo]

:D

[JohnnySideburns]

I like the Idea of no bad builds.

 

I had just thought it would have been implemented in a completely different way:

 

All this talk about a muscle wizard (just to use a common example), I thought the idea of having a wizard that was strong instead of smart was basically building him as a fighter instead of as a caster, resulting in a guy who does melee supported by his own (not that strong) spells.

 

Instead the high might low intellect wizard is just another wizard with the numbers shifted from duration to direct damage.

 

To conclude I feel the problem with the "no bad builds" lies lack of choice of variation.

[Tartantyco]

 

 

By design, no bad build = no handicapped build for the guy who wants it, (to find out why he wants it, you'll have to ask him).

 

If someone says 'no' - by definition your options have been limited.

 

 

That's just a completely unreasonable argument. Anything will be limited by the definition of this argument, hence it completely negates itself, as no system can be created that isn't limiting by your definition.

 

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that.

 

 

No, really, I think this is a reading comprehension and general language skills problem. That you cannot comprehend the argument does not invalidate it.

 

Obviously, no system will allow all the choices some (not me personally), might wish it to. That's so obvious, it's really not worth stating. The issue is that this system does not allow choices that another system does (me, personally, I don't have a problem with that - it's the way the devs want it to be).

 

The devs have said: 'no'. 'No you can't build a flawed character in PoE as you can in DnD'. 'No' means less choice - in comparison to systems, to which this system will be compared. 

 

For your reference :

 

no

nəʊ/

 

     determiner: no

not any.

 

verb (used with object)

to reject, refuse approval, or express disapproval of.

 

...While allowing far more functional character choices. Hence, variety is not limited. But I'm afraid you'll have to go on my troll list for actually typing out that idiotic reply to my post.

[Danathion]

 

...

 

@Yonjuru as I said, which started all this - that is contrary to the design goal. The devs don't want it to be possible to have a character that is in anyway handicapped. I doubt suggesting that it should be possible will change their minds, when from the beginning they've said: 'no'.

 

 

 Source?

 

 

 I think the design goal was more to have a wide variety of good builds that play differently rather than to protect players from themselves.

 

Source:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64712-attribute-theory/page-2?do=findComment&comment=1398195

 

 

That goal has been achieved precisely by protecting 'players form themselves'. We do not build our character in PoE, we tweak the efficiency of the characters that have been built for us.

 

Imagine you want to play BG and that character creation consists of importing one of my characters, which I have built to be successful as whatever class, and using a handful of tomes to tweak efficiency. You may be able to make, for instance, a fighter a little more accurate with a bow and slightly improve it's AC by increasing a point of dexterity - a slightly more efficient ranged fighter. You may be able to slightly increase health with an extra point of constitution - a slightly more durable 'tank'. However you use your handful of tomes and even if you use none of them, the fighter is going to be a good fighter - I made it that way.

 

I don't have a problem with that, because:

 

Making a system that has bad builds is just wrong from a design perspective. AD&D had no bad builds if you played the pen and paper version because your ****ty strength as fighter was balanced out with the role play options that max INT gave you. Bad builds in pen and paper AD&D only existed if your Game Master was bad. That doesnt work in a computer game because the role playing part is reduced to a minimum. D&D in general is a anti-role play system because everything they introduced in later editions was counter productive to role playing. All that class hobbing etc. their was no role playing explanation for it and it was combat centered to the max. Look at any role playing game that is not build around combat like call of cthulhu or world of darkness. They have no bad builds because not beeing good at combat does not automaticaly mean ****ty character.

 

So PoE is a computer RPG and like I said the role playing is reduced to a minimum. You just cant simulate a good game master. All that is basicaly left is combat which means its the only thing characters need to be good at. So why for freaking f*** sake design the classes in a way that  makes them possibly bad at combat? Its the only real obstacle for your characters in the game. Theirs no reason to design, lets say a fighter in a way so hes not good at fighting. Its not that far away from AD&D as some people here think.

 

In AD&D:

 

- you made a fighter

 

- maxed the attributes that the game system forces you to max

 

- and select your specialization 

 

In PoE

 

-you select a fighter

 

-select your specialization

 

The only REAL difference between the two system is that PoE removes a forced intermediate step.

 

Creating a system that can produce characters that are useless in combat does not make sense in a system that is all about combat. You shouldnt compare PoE with a system like BG which copied tons of stuff of the AD&D rule books no matter if it fits a computer game or not. Compare it to something like all those JRPG/Strategy games like final fantasy tactics. Do you see a useless build in those games? No because they are all build for the only purpose that a computer RPG offers and that is combat. Bad builds aka no combat orientated builds dont fit the concept so why even let player make them. If I choose a fighter, why should I be able to make it so he is not good at fighting when fighting is all that he will do in the first place? 

 

 

The problem is that people are looking at PoE's attribute system as though it does step 2 in AD&D, when that's not what it's designed to do.

 

Reducing the number of attributes and renaming them so that the system does not look - even superficially - similar to the IE games (I think), would help.

[Danathion]

...While allowing far more functional character choices. Hence, variety is not limited. But I'm afraid you'll have to go on my troll list for actually typing out that idiotic reply to my post.

 

 

Substantiate your claim.

[DigitalCrack]

Making a system that has bad builds is just wrong from a design perspective. AD&D had no bad builds if you played the pen and paper version because your ****ty strength as fighter was balanced out with the role play options that max INT gave you. Bad builds in pen and paper AD&D only existed if your Game Master was bad. That doesnt work in a computer game because the role playing part is reduced to a minimum. D&D in general is a anti-role play system because everything they introduced in later editions was counter productive to role playing. All that class hobbing etc. their was no role playing explanation for it and it was combat centered to the max. Look at any role playing game that is not build around combat like call of cthulhu or world of darkness. They have no bad builds because not beeing good at combat does not automaticaly mean ****ty character.

 

So PoE is a computer RPG and like I said the role playing is reduced to a minimum. You just cant simulate a good game master. All that is basicaly left is combat which means its the only thing characters need to be good at. So why for freaking f*** sake design the classes in a way that  makes them possibly bad at combat? Its the only real obstacle for your characters in the game. Theirs no reason to design, lets say a fighter in a way so hes not good at fighting. Its not that far away from AD&D as some people here think.

 

In AD&D:

 

- you made a fighter

 

- maxed the attributes that the game system forces you to max

 

- and select your specialization 

 

In PoE

 

-you select a fighter

 

-select your specialization

 

The only REAL difference between the two system is that PoE removes a forced intermediate step.

 

Creating a system that can produce characters that are useless in combat does not make sense in a system that is all about combat. You shouldnt compare PoE with a system like BG which copied tons of stuff of the AD&D rule books no matter if it fits a computer game or not. Compare it to something like all those JRPG/Strategy games like final fantasy tactics. Do you see a useless build in those games? No because they are all build for the only purpose that a computer RPG offers and that is combat. Bad builds aka no combat orientated builds dont fit the concept so why even let player make them. If I choose a fighter, why should I be able to make it so he is not good at fighting when fighting is all that he will do in the first place? 

Which this might play into the reasoning why there is no xp gain for combat so people have the option for roleplay builds instead of straight up combat builds without crippling themselves completely for combat.

Edited August 26, 2014 by DigitalCrack

[Seari]

On paper it would mean more build variety, but what we got here instead is low or even no build variety compared to BG2(kits, dual/multiclassing. attributes that actually mattered a lot, weapon focus and weapon style focus). I think people should stop defending this ****ty system, it needs an overhaul, in my opinion(which is just that - my opinion, and not fact).

[Mayama]

Which this might play into the reasoning why there is no xp gain for combat so people have the option for roleplay builds instead of straight up combat builds without crippling themselves completely for combat.

 

 

Yes indeed, BG forced you to play a wizard if you want all the INT dialog options, forced you to play cleric if you wanted to get all the wisdom dialog options and if you played a fighter it locked you out of all extra dialog options. You could find a charisma 18 ring very early in BG2 because that stat offered many extra dialog options and without that ring only sorcerers would actually see those options.

[Ineth]

You can't even describe your character with the current attributes, because they're missing charisma and strength equivalent. If Might is strength then every caster has to be a muscleman or has to forfeit spell damage.

 

This is also what's holding me back from being happy with the "Might as soul power" interpretation that several others have suggested...

 

No interpretation really feels satisfactory:

• OPTION 1: Might covers all aspects of physical strength -- but then it's unintuitive why it is also invariably tied to spell damage.

   

• OPTION 2: Might is a kind of "soul power" that adds to your natural muscle strength -- then making it also affect spell damage makes sense, but now there is no way to describe characters with different amount of physical muscle size/strength using the attribute system, which is... weird, to say the least. Why even have an attribute system if it can't physically describe your characters? If it's just about giving bonuses on top of the character's natural abilities, it might be better to move those "attributes" to the skill/feat system.

   

• OPTION 3: Might means a kind of "soul potential" that can be "actualized" in different ways by different characters over their lifetime [see this thoughtful post by PrimeJunta] -- but this does not explain why the Might bonus is rigidly applied to all damage across the board by the game engine, i.e. the Wizard doesn't just get the bonus for his spell damage, but also for his melee damage. Again, this might be a better fit for a feat system, where different feats could allow you to choose both the amount of soul potential, and the areas in which it manifested...

I can sort of accept PrimeJunta's explanation, squint really hard while building my character, and roll with it...

 

But I wish the game had an attribute system that focused on being good at what attribute systems are there for in RPGs:

1. Provide an intuitively way to describe the natural/innate^* properties of your character which distinguish him from others of his race+gender

    

2. Help to bridge the gap between roleplaying and combat mechanics

"No bad builds" is a good idea, but it should not be allowed to diminish those goals. Hopefully^** the current attribute system can be tweaked to get the best of both worlds... but I wouldn't know how.

 

 

-----

^*) as opposed to, things he learned / trained in / gained experience in

^**) since fundamental redesign or removal is unlikely to happen

Edited August 26, 2014 by Ineth

[Seari]

 

Which this might play into the reasoning why there is no xp gain for combat so people have the option for roleplay builds instead of straight up combat builds without crippling themselves completely for combat.

 

 

Yes indeed, BG forced you to play a wizard if you want all the INT dialog options, forced you to play cleric if you wanted to get all the wisdom dialog options and if you played a fighter it locked you out of all extra dialog options. You could find a charisma 18 ring very early in BG2 because that stat offered many extra dialog options and without that ring only sorcerers would actually see those options.

 

I disagree, you weren't forced into anything, you had choices. Items allowed for a lot of variety, you could make a low dexterity fighter and pump points into charisma, intellect instead, later you would find an item that sets your dexterity to 18.

 

I agree that the BG2 attribute system has a lot of flaws, but I still like it miles better than this.

[Mayama]

On paper it would mean more build variety, but what we got here instead is low or even no build variety compared to BG2(kits, dual/multiclassing. attributes that actually mattered a lot, weapon focus and weapon style focus). I think people should stop defending this ****ty system, it needs an overhaul, in my opinion(which is just that - my opinion, and not fact).

 

They didnt want multi/dual classing like in BG because it was kinda broken and not balanced at all stuff like kensai + x or beastmaster into something that could abuse dual wield was really OP. The number of variations made it more or less impossible to balance in a reasonable time. Right now almost everyone agrees that the stats need either more weight or skills need to allow more specialisation. The skills in the beta are not complete.

 

A example how it might work in the end:

You want a sharp shooter like fighter, so you max might and dex and dump all other stuff. Now you select a skill like this: Musketeer, you are proficient with fire arms and deal 20% more damage with it. 

 

All of a sudden your generic fighter turns into a sniper because those small bonuses add up. We dont know how the whole skill package will look like but thats a way to easily enable variation in the current system.

[Msxyz]

To all who defend the 'no bad build' approach... you're want removed from this videogame the challenge of understanding a rule set.

 

Screwing a character and starting over USED to be part of the challenge. It is conceptually similar to mastering the moves of a fighting game or finding the correct timing in a platform game. They can only be learned through repetition and dedication. 

 

Failure is part of learning; now people are AFRAID of failure instead of seeing it as an opportunity to learn something new. 

[Mayama]

To all who defend the 'no bad build' approach... you're want removed from this videogame the challenge of understanding a rule set.

 

Screwing a character and starting over USED to be part of the challenge. It is conceptually similar to mastering the moves of a fighting game or finding the correct timing in a platform game. They can only be learned through repetition and dedication. 

 

Failure is part of learning; now people are AFRAID of failure instead of seeing it as an opportunity to learn something new. 

 

Its a single player game around a story not a multiplayer game where you train to beat real humans.

 

Edit: Also if we talk about multiplayer games here the best equivalent would be mmorpg PvP and the major problem most people have with it beside balance is that every class has one perfect cookie cutter build and does not allow variations.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Mayama

[Seari]

My brain still can't comprehend why Might would affect fire arms, but I've long past given up on understanding it. I hope you're right about talents having that large of an effect on builds.

[Mayama]

My brain still can't comprehend why Might would affect fire arms, but I've long past given up on understanding it. I hope you're right about talents having that large of an effect on builds.

I hope too it would be a serious disapointment if its only "get +5 damage to x" stuff

[PrimeJunta]

On paper it would mean more build variety, but what we got here instead is low or even no build variety compared to BG2(kits, dual/multiclassing. attributes that actually mattered a lot, weapon focus and weapon style focus). I think people should stop defending this ****ty system, it needs an overhaul, in my opinion(which is just that - my opinion, and not fact).

 

Here's an idea: how about offering some concrete, specific ideas on how to expand choice within classes, while staying within the bounds of the system and its publicly declared design goals? Whining about what a travesty the current system is and how it betrays the legacy of the IE games and how Josh is a poopy-head is unlikely to make much of a difference IMO.

 

I've made a few--about tweaking fighters to allow ranged builds (currently not covered by any class, not counting ranger whose gameplay is so focused around Mr. Bear) and wizards with gish tactics (currently covered by ciphers, which have otherwise different gameplay).

[IndiraLightfoot]

My brain still can't comprehend why Might would affect fire arms, but I've long past given up on understanding it. I hope you're right about talents having that large of an effect on builds.

Yeah, even the Asian RPG concept of Might and so-called "muscle wizards" makes that one stretch too far.

[PrimeJunta]

Bigger powder charges make the guns kick harder, and you need to be stronger to manage them, and since durability was removed by popular demand, the damn things won't ever blow up however much you overload them.

 

There, done, moving on.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Bigger powder charges make the guns kick harder, and you need to be stronger to manage them, and since durability was removed by popular demand, the damn things won't ever blow up however much you overload them.

 

There, done, moving on.

Or move damage for fire arms to Perception.

[Monte Carlo]

I'm starting a new game of BG2.

[PrimeJunta]

You know what, Indira? I'm getting bored of this wrangling over attributes. It's really not a particularly significant feature of the mechanics anyway. I'd much rather talk about, say, what kinds of talents or spells to add to make, say, ranged fighters or gish wizards workable.

 

(But... I still wouldn't want to see the attribute system complicated more, e.g. by moving different damage type bonuses to different attributes. This is fine; it's no less 'intuitive' than STR affecting accuracy, armor making arcane spells go 'poof,' or deciding to change professions making you forget everything about your previous one until you suddenly remembered it all one tedious slog later. Or, for that matter, a rhinoceros surviving a 30-foot drop instead of going 'splash' because it has enough hit points.)

[Ineth]

An option to reduce the possibility of bad builds due to erroneous attribute selection, is to allow the player to auto-select the attributes if they are utterly clueless about the mechanics. This was possible in NWN.

 

A little feedback box next to the "OK" button would work too, where the game could display messages like "Warning: 3 STR is unusually low for a fighter. Unless you are an experienced player, a higher strength is recommended."

 

Though of course it wouldn't solve the problem of missing build variety, which seems to be a bigger motivation for the "no bad builds" goal than the fact that it provides handholding for newbies.

 

In BG2, extra variety is added by multi- and dual-classing. Want a muscle wizard who fights in melee and casts mostly "melee spells"? Build a fighter/wizard multiclass and try to give him at least 15 STR and 17 INT. Just as an example.

 

PoE does not have multiclasses, so that kind of variety has to be supported using stats outside of the class system. That's the idea behind making every attribute somehow useful for every class - so the attributes can more or less "define" your "sub-class" and the play style that goes along with it.

 

But as some of the beta feedback shows, simply having "no bad builds" does not automatically guarantee build variety in every way that players would like it.

[DigitalCrack]

I feel like the attribute system would be better off without a damage modifier at all.  Have might (reword if necessary) do something else and have all damage buffs come from selectable talents instead, like when you select the weapon group talent for say ruffian you now do more damage with that weapon set.  Then you could have specific weapon proficiency talents of various effects (after the initial weapon group talent was selected). 

[IndiraLightfoot]

You know what, Indira? I'm getting bored of this wrangling over attributes. It's really not a particularly significant feature of the mechanics anyway. I'd much rather talk about, say, what kinds of talents or spells to add to make, say, ranged fighters or gish wizards workable.

 

(But... I still wouldn't want to see the attribute system complicated more, e.g. by moving different damage type bonuses to different attributes. This is fine; it's no less 'intuitive' than STR affecting accuracy, armor making arcane spells go 'poof,' or deciding to change professions making you forget everything about your previous one until you suddenly remembered it all one tedious slog later. Or, for that matter, a rhinoceros surviving a 30-foot drop instead of going 'splash' because it has enough hit points.)

Agreed. Personally, anything that at least makes it possible to vary fighters to be specialized in ranged weapons, rangers in close combat, druids in dual wielding sickles, or war priests focussed on a single weapon, like a flail or a morning star, would be so very welcome. That would increase builds, and expand on the build freedom that could be argued being part of the IE games sprit.