@Tartantyco,

 

(However, I wouldn't make this my main argument against Might. I have other problems with it, like the ones regarding Intimidation I mentioned in an earlier post here.)

 

And mutonizer has also made some excellent points.

Edited September 9, 201411 yr by Fearabbit

 

And mutonizer has also made some excellent points.

 

I have learned to "accept" it though.

I have also learned in the process that core parts of the lore is just bull****, which is a worry further down the line (especially extreme immersion disconnects as I explained), but not something I can full assess right now due to limited content. All in all: only time will tell at this point.

Isn't one of the major points of the attribute bonuses that even if you distribute them suboptimally, the character is not gimped, but just plays a little bit differently?

 

Anyway I chose to interpret them as being relative to the character - which they are mechanically. They can mean different things to different classes and races. A giant and a human can both have 5 might, yet the giant will still squish the human.

 

Anyway the d&d stats are not any better, they have all the ambiguity issues that PE ones do, the only difference is that people dropped the questions and just ran with it. Besides I think the descriptions and the displayed bonuses should (I agree they need improvements atm) give you enough of an idea of what a stat does. And I guess there will be a manual. If someone doesn't want to read, this game is not for them anyway, right?

Anyway I chose to interpret them as being relative to the character - which they are mechanically. They can mean different things to different classes and races. A giant and a human can both have 5 might, yet the giant will still squish the human.

And you're be wrong in that assumption.

Without MIGHT attribute to modify the damage, the giant in your example would be for example wielding a massive club (or anything else really) that would be the factor for it's damage. By doing that, it means anyone wielding that given club, would hit just as hard as a giant, harder if his might is higher.

There are no other factor for damage so it's either Might, or Weapon damage. You are of course free to interpret however you want, but you're just wrong is all

 

Anyway the d&d stats are not any better, they have all the ambiguity issues that PE ones do, the only difference is that people dropped the questions and just ran with it. Besides I think the descriptions and the displayed bonuses should (I agree they need improvements atm) give you enough of an idea of what a stat does. And I guess there will be a manual. If someone doesn't want to read, this game is not for them anyway, right?

D&D stats are not perfect, nothing is, but they have the advantage of serving the purpose they are designed for, allowing the entire game system to work perfectly within that context. Strength being an abstract of raw muscular strength, it's therefore logical within that context for stronger things to be stronger than weaker things, lift heavier objects, have better chance of penetrating AC, etc... (Ogres are expected to have have more STR than gnomes for example, and unless heavy magic comes into play, they actually do).

In PoE, a gnome could potentially have much higher Might than an Ogre (or a Dragon, or anything really), which means that, by derivation of how the mechanic works, if both were to wield equivalent weapons, the gnome would hit for more damage than the Ogre every-time and the Ogre wouldn't be able to do jack.

 

And again, please note that PoE designers themselves seem to adhere more strongly to the D&D context than their own PoE context and stronger muscular beings, have higher might (even if they have no soul whatsoever, see my plant lurker example). This is, to me, because while interesting on a theoretical level, it's actually totally impractical in use, since one factor is missing: actual raw strength.

 

To be complete, the system would need to add Strength as an Attribute (and act as defined by the definition of the word), while Might would just be Soul Power (a layer separated from all physicality, above them, as the lore intended it to be). This would allow them to fully embrace the lore and make it all work perfectly fine within their own context. Creatures would each have their average Strength depending on their race, but individual entities within each race could have wide ranges of Soul Power.

 

 

Everyone's a prophet. God I hate that. "People will find it difficult", "no they won't". Is this what our discussions have turned into?

 

As far as I know, most people read the description on the side before deciding what to pick or put points into. So I personally expect the majority to have no issues at all with Might current existence going by its description.

 

In fact, the only people I see complaining about Might are people who can't get over the fact that it's not just an clone of the D&D strength stat.

 

 

"Most people read the description on the side"... bold statement. I don't think that's the case. Of course, at some point people will understand the system, but I think in their first playthrough many people will pump certain attributes for the wrong reasons.

 

I didn't talk about understanding the system. I'm talking about reading the description in the page to just know what the attribute is supposed to represent.

I will sah this, i dont really have a problem with might. Growing up reading and watching fantasy, "Mighty" has been used to describe alot of classes. The band of mighty warriors-aka powerful warriors, the undead army is lead by a mighty wizard-aka powerful wizard, the woods are offlimits because they are guarded by a group or a single might druid-aka powerful.

the MIGHT is governing that ur class is powerful in what they do. Ur wizard wants to weild a mace and throw spells out, well they are mighty in doing that.

is might the end all be all stat? Hell no. How many stories have we heard about mighty beings being outdone or defeated by lesser or no where near as powerful things? Take tolkien for example, a lowly bumbling hobbit frees the dwarves from the elves prison, survives the mighty dragon, destroys one of the most powerful artifacts, etc etc.

The other skills are important as well.

Now im not saying the atributes are perfect, nope they still need some fine tuning. Perception i would like for being able to find hidden caches as well as dialogue or better "sneak damage". Resolve i think will shine once we are exposed to more story aspects as well as being used as the "will saves" and "concentration checks".

 

The atribute list is fine as long as u look at it from a different light and not expect something to be the same as something else when its not trying to be. Imho the list is fine, the ones there just need to be fine tuned.

I didn't talk about understanding the system. I'm talking about reading the description in the page to just know what the attribute is supposed to represent.

 

I know. To which I responded "I doubt that most people read the description, and even if they do, they might not understand it". Your point?

 

I will sah this, i dont really have a problem with might. Growing up reading and watching fantasy, "Mighty" has been used to describe alot of classes. The band of mighty warriors-aka powerful warriors, the undead army is lead by a mighty wizard-aka powerful wizard, the woods are offlimits because they are guarded by a group or a single might druid-aka powerful.

the MIGHT is governing that ur class is powerful in what they do. Ur wizard wants to weild a mace and throw spells out, well they are mighty in doing that.

 

Yeah but the thing is, you can be a mighty warrior or wizard without the attribute Might. Being "mighty" means that you're awesome at what you're doing, it's an all-encompassing "in general, he's freaking good at killing stuff" kind of evaluation of a person.

Or the other way around: "He was a mighty warrior, even though he was not very agile and kind of low on health and lacking any willpower." - "Soooo he was not, in fact, very mighty at all?" - "Yes he was, for his attacks did a lot of damage!" - "Yeah but they missed all the time!"

 

Like you say, a "mighty warrior" or "mighty wizard" is mighty in general. It's a single stat that evaluates his combat prowess. It's actually... the character level.

 

And it feels kind of weird to create a really awesome character who more or less dumped Might in order to kick ass by being an agile-as-hell interrupter with far-reaching special attacks who's constantly doing critical hits... and then have the game imply that this character

1) is not actually a mighty warrior

2) does not have a very powerful soul and is therefore not very heroic

3) psych! - does of course still have a powerful soul although his "powerful soul" attribute is low, because he's the main character and him having a powerful soul is actually a plot point.

 

Anyway I chose to interpret them as being relative to the character - which they are mechanically. They can mean different things to different classes and races. A giant and a human can both have 5 might, yet the giant will still squish the human.

And you're be wrong in that assumption.

Without MIGHT attribute to modify the damage, the giant in your example would be for example wielding a massive club (or anything else really) that would be the factor for it's damage. By doing that, it means anyone wielding that given club, would hit just as hard as a giant, harder if his might is higher.

 

You're also assuming that both player characters and monsters use the same template ("classes") and equipment. Which might not be true.

 

For example in 2e the monsters did a certain about of base damage, with a bonus if they wielded a weapon, not the other way around. This is what I'm thinking is happening here, too. Keep in mind it's still a tailored experience for the player, not meant to be viewed from different angles. The attributes are just the "exposed" 10/11 base average from dnd. It's probably unfortunate that they opted for the dnd like 3-18 distribution, it it deceptive when it's a different beast that it's trying to portray.

As an aside, if you're not going to read the descriptions (of the abilities, spells, attacks etc.), you're going to have a bad time. Even on Easy.