How to Fix the Attribute Design in Pillars of Eternity

[Sensuki]

My reasons for disagreeing with the separation of AoEs and Durations are not based on creating hard choices between concepts, but trying to meet the design goals of the system and create the maximum amount of flexibility for class build viability.

 

I don't know if you understand how Interrupt works properly, I'll find the mechanics for you and edit the post. That 3% is 3% of the Base Interrupt value of the weapon or spell you are using, it's not 3% more chance to Interrupt.

 

Matt516 is the numbers guy, he'll be able to tell you better than I can when he posts here next.

[Seari]

@Cunning Would it really be a problem for dialogue? I would think that if fits really well. But I don't know enough to say.

 

On the other hand, is changing INT as a stat really a bad idea? I mean right now it's just a go-to pick for casters. Separating AoE and duration would increase build variety, no?

Edited September 13, 2014 by Seari

[Valorian]

Renaming Intellect would create problems with the dialogue and scripted interactions too.

 

 

Just like introducing increased action speed would make combat more frantic, cause bugs and other problems. The Deflection attribute will affect some classes disproportionately more than everyone else.

 

 

But I guess that doesn't matter as long as ego is intact.

[Sedrefilos]

It's goot to see Obsi devs testing and change mechanics. If only we had more frequent updates by them, we wouldn't need to argue over many things is so many threads.

[Valorian]

My reasons for disagreeing with the separation of AoEs and Durations are not based on creating hard choices between concepts, but trying to meet the design goals of the system and create the maximum amount of flexibility for class build viability.

 

I don't know if you understand how Interrupt works properly, I'll find the mechanics for you and edit the post. That 3% is 3% of the Base Interrupt value of the weapon or spell you are using, it's not 3% more chance to Interrupt.

 

 

You're making "design goals" and "preference goals" for yourself and then meeting these goals. Look, I get it, you spent a lot of time writing that stuff, but you've not suddenly become the holder of universal truth as a consequence.

 

I do understand how it works Sensuki. And you're confusing Interrupt and Concentration. We're talking about Resolve here, remember?

[Sensuki]

Just like introducing increased action speed would make combat more frantic, cause bugs and other problems. The Deflection attribute will affect some classes disproportionately more than everyone else.

 

But I guess that doesn't matter as long as ego is intact.

That's a bold statement and you're back to being antagonistic again because I refuse to agree with you. And by the way, now I recall you were arguing with me about the Interrupt relationship the other day in another thread before we posted this paper. Let's have a look at those posts.

 

Interrupt chance is modified whether the hit is a graze or a crit (halved or doubled), therefore it relies on Accuracy vs Defense. For every point of Accuracy you have, you are increasing your chance of scoring an Interrupt.

Just like a point in dexterity increases your chance do deal damage (which is, in turn, modified by might).

As long as a point in perception has a greater impact on your ability to interrupt than a point in dexterity, it's fine.

 

No. Low Accuracy High Interrupt is a gimped character.

 

You're wrong, because you can't lower your dexterity to the point of not hitting anything. There's a base accuracy that advances as you level up, not to mention abilities/spells/gear.

 

That would be like saying; low accuracy (you rarely hit anything!) + high damage (from might) is a gimped character; might is useless! It's just an unlikely scenario, like the above.

 

You'll graze/hit things regardless.

 

 

Let's make it simple:

 

Character A with 3 PER and 18 DEX. His chance to hit against a specific opponent is 50%. His chance to interrupt on a hit is 20%, on a graze 10%.

 

Character B with 18 PER and 3 DEX. His chance to hit against a specific opponent is 35%. His chance to interrupt on a hit is 60%, on a graze 30%.

 

Character B is not "gimped".

Clearly it depends on the numbers: does 1 point in perception increase my chance to interrupt (considerably) more than 1 point in dexterity. That's hardly a shocking revelation.

Now we have found in the paper that having a low Perception/high Accuracy character in the current system is the _WORST_ possible build you could make in the current system, and Matt will attest to that.

 

Now as for the antagonistic part, when checking your most recent posts 31/40 of your lasts posts are all arguing and disagreeing with me on various topics and often subtly insulting me as well. You obviously have some kind of problem with me mate *shrug*.

 

Your posts are also vitriol to the good tone of the thread, and I would hate to see it ruined, so I'm just not going to bother replying to you in it anymore.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Sensuki

[FootDive]

Change Might to Physical Damage, add Magic Damage to Intellect or Resolve and Range Damage to Dexterity or Perception.

 

Having Might dictate physical strength AND magical strength in roleplaying dialogue decisions really screws up especially if you plan on playing some sort of hybrid (I'm planning a Battlemage Wizard myself).

 

I cannot see any other resolution to this.

 

Edit: If Magic Damage goes to Intellect then the original bonuses Intellect originally gave should go to Resolve.

 

 

Resolve (RES): A measure of the character strength of personality, intensity, and determination.

It makes sense since spell/skill duration is increased due to the character's resolve to see events to the end.

Edited September 13, 2014 by FootDive

[Valorian]

 

Now we have found in the paper that having a low Perception/high Accuracy character in the current system is the _WORST_ possible build you could make in the current system, and Matt will attest to that.

 

Now as for the antagonistic part, when checking your most recent posts 31/40 of your lasts posts are all arguing and disagreeing with me on various topics and often subtly insulting me as well. You obviously have some kind of problem with me mate *shrug*.

 

Your posts are also vitriol to the good tone of the thread, and I would hate to see it ruined, so I'm just not going to bother replying to you in it anymore.

 

 

One of the reasons for the change, unfortunately, is design by committee, fueled by knee-jerk 'likes'. And like I already said, it depends on the numbers, Perception could have been made more viable by simple number tweaking, regardless of the attribute that governs accuracy (but you again missed the point and mentioned "accuracy" instead of the Attribute that affects it, but doesn't totally govern it).

 

Oh please, most of those were replies to your replies. If I post an opinion in a topic and then someone quotes me and goes on about "incorrect this or that", I'll most likely reply.

[Seari]

Change Might to Physical Damage, add Magic Damage to Intellect or Resolve and Range Damage to Dexterity or Perception.

 

Having Might dictate physical strength AND magical strength in roleplaying dialogue decisions really screws up especially if you plan on playing some sort of hybrid (I'm planning a Battlemage Wizard myself).

 

I cannot see any other resolution to this.

 

Edit: If Magic Damage goes to Intellect then the original bonuses Intellect originally gave should go to Resolve.

 

 

Resolve (RES): A measure of the character strength of personality, intensity, and determination.

It makes sense since spell/skill duration is increased due to the character's resolve to see events to the end.

This has been discussed countless times in other threads by myself included, and I wouldn't want this thread to change into another Might discussion.

 

edit: typo

Edited September 13, 2014 by Seari

[Sensuki]

It's been known since June 2013 that all damage would come from the same attribute. I suppose that wasn't widely known info, you'd had to have read our RPGCodex Q&A from back then.

[Gumbercules]

Change Might to Physical Damage, add Magic Damage to Intellect or Resolve and Range Damage to Dexterity or Perception.

 

Having Might dictate physical strength AND magical strength in roleplaying dialogue decisions really screws up especially if you plan on playing some sort of hybrid (I'm planning a Battlemage Wizard myself).

 

I cannot see any other resolution to this.

 

Posts like this are why I wish Obsidian had remained 100% behind their original "EVERY CLASS USES SOUL MAGIC!!!!!XTREME!!!!!" idea instead of retreating to the current "Well, all classes kind of use soul magic at least a little, unless you'd throw a tantrum at that, in which case sometimes maybe they don't I guess?" position, because Might governing physical and magical damage would make perfect sense if even Fighters used soul magic to hit people harder.

[Sensuki]

All they have to do is change the wording of the attribute description and it solves the problem. I don't know that physical strength equates to more damage anyway as with swords, their damage comes from cuts, do you need to be strong to draw a blade across skin? Not really.

[Seari]

Heavy swords can be used as blunt weapons as well, but let's not discuss stupidities. How about you answer my question Sensuki, so we don't derail this thread.

 

is changing INT as a stat really a bad idea? I mean right now it's just a go-to pick for casters. Separating AoE and duration would increase build variety, no?

[Valorian]

Now we have found in the paper that having a low Perception/high Accuracy character in the current system is the _WORST_ possible build you could make in the current system

 

...

Who would have thought that Perception is so powerful to even hamper high Dexterity characters.

I guess that's a typo though.

[FootDive]

All they have to do is change the wording of the attribute description and it solves the problem. I don't know that physical strength equates to more damage anyway as with swords, their damage comes from cuts, do you need to be strong to draw a blade across skin? Not really.

Changing the description doesn't solve the issue. A magically adept wizard with high might can still rip and tear even though the player might have originally planned the character to be physically inept but because Might governs both physical and spiritual strength the player cannot roleplay like this.

 

Greater physical strength can dictate a hammer swing to break bones or the surface of a metal golem. It can dictate whether a sword thrust will pierce through all the way or through tough skin.

 

It's like saying you can increase magical strength by lifting dumbbells all day.

[Sensuki]

I guess that's a typo though.

Ahhh LOL yes

 

Changing the description doesn't solve the issue. A magically adept wizard with high might can still rip and tear even though the player might have originally planned the character to be physically inept but because Might governs both physical and spiritual strength the player cannot roleplay like this.

 

Greater physical strength can dictate a hammer swing to break bones or the surface of a metal golem. It can dictate whether a sword thrust will pierce through all the way or through tough skin.

 

It's like saying you can increase magical strength by lifting dumbbells all day.

Yeah but you're looking at it from the wrong point of view. The whole game design is being done from a mindset not bound by 'simulation' so some stuff may not make complete sense and you may have to use your own suspension of disbelief, but it is being done because it will produce better gameplay.

 

It takes time to get over. When we first learned that all damage would be from the same attribute, I was not impressed and I had the same reaction as you did. However it's taken me time to come to terms with/understand the point of view.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Sensuki

[FootDive]

Yeah but you're looking at it from the wrong point of view. The whole game design is being done from a mindset not bound by 'simulation' so some stuff may not make complete sense and you may have to use your own suspension of disbelief, but it is being done because it will produce better gameplay.

 

It takes time to get over. When we first learned that all damage would be from the same attribute, I was not impressed and I had the same reaction as you did. However it's taken me time to come to terms with/understand the point of view.

 

Ah fair enough. From a game design point of view it's fine.

 

Still, the problem is that the game design and roleplaying POVs clash heavily with each other and because this is, first and foremost, a RPG then I believe that the roleplaying element takes more precedence and game design philosophy/balance comes after. I don't think this is an issue that can be gotten over and ignored.

[archangel979]

Agility would work, yep.

 

I don't like Cunning though I think Intellect is good.

and lets finally call Might something else that does not resemble strength.

[Valorian]

 

Heavy swords can be used as blunt weapons as well, but let's not discuss stupidities. How about you answer my question Sensuki, so we don't derail this thread.

 

is changing INT as a stat really a bad idea? I mean right now it's just a go-to pick for casters. Separating AoE and duration would increase build variety, no?

 

 

Of course it would increase build variety, but paper says deflection and concentration (both ultra important for melee) should be on Resolve. How could paper possibly be wrong? 

[Matt516]

It seems to me that a lot of people are taking "all attributes should be useful in some way for all classes" to mean "all attributes should be useful for all characters". Those aren't the same thing. Yes, Constitution is not as useful for back liners as it is for front liners. That doesn't mean it fails to meet the design goal though, because all classes can benefit from increased survivability if the player chooses to build and play them that way. The meaning of this design goal is that systems such as the Infinity engine stats, where certain classes literally mechanically do not benefit in any way from some attributes, should be avoided. But let us not fall into the trap of trying to make all attributes useful for all character archetypes. That is simply a nonsensical goal in my opinion.

[Iucounu]

 

Problem I generally see with adding deflection into the mix: Deflection is generally more valuable for fighters than health/endurance because of their already high base deflection.

Not necessarily, that's only against Deflection-based attacks. If you neglect your CON as a Fighter you'll get d1cked hard by Reflex, Fortitude (and possibly Will) attacks. You could pump both for this effect:

 

 

I think there could be a way to make the Barbarian work with a high Deflection build, you'd also need to compensate with some other items though, which is fine. Like, use two Hatchets or something. It also depends on the enemy accuracy, it would be great against lower accuracy enemies but not quite as good as higher accuracy enemies that target Deflection.

Guess it indeed depends on the encounters, if there'll be enough encounters with reasonable amount of attacks that targets other defenses, or if there perhaps are some particularly challenging opponents with very high accuracy (like endbosses tend to be) that might also be an incentive for players to pump constitution of Fighters instead of the deflection stat, even if the usual trashmobs have low accuracy. Pumping both to get the ultimate tank is of course always valid I agree. Don't know about the deflective Barbarian, but as long as the deflection stat isn't a complete dumbstat that's good enough I guess, even if Con>Res for them in the end.

 

In any case, if deflection is really gonna be incorporated into the attributes my first character will sure as hell have maxed defense (maxed most common defense in this case), dumbed constitution and all the rest in attack. My cheap powergaming instincts haven't failed me often with this build as of yet. 

 

 

 

Problem I generally see with adding deflection into the mix: Deflection is generally more valueable for fighters than health/endurance because of their already high base deflection. For Barbarians on the other hand, pumping health/endurance seems to be always the better choice because of their low base deflection and high health multiplier, plus using a shield is not their style. Of course they'd have less concentration in the proposed system, but that was already declared as a not so important stat.

 

Deflection is important to everyone who doesn't want to be hit often at full damage via weapons. Like Sensuki said, Deflection doesn't help against Reflex (AoE), Fortitude(Poisons/disease) and Will (mental) attacks. A defensive character needs to invest into both the Deflection stat and Constitution to be effective.

Depends on the ratio. What we know is attacks that target deflection will be the most common, and for most encounters you might get better survivability by dumping Constitution and maxing Res than by just setting average values for both. 

[agris]

I know some people have objected to it, but I still think that if the marginal increased area for AoEs were made foe-only for friend-or-foe spells (e.g. a Fireball that, in the expanded margin, only affects hostiles), it would immediately become much more valuable.

Rather, I think being able to dial in the extra AoE, from the stock radius to the max granted by your abilities, would be the most beneficial. Like Matt516 suggested, with the mouse wheel or a click+drag scheme. Mixing who is affected by the spell sounds less useful than being able to tactically apply an AoE spell based on the environment and enemy positioning.

[Sensuki]

yeah if I had to choose I'd prefer mouse wheel scaling of aoe as well (for hostile aoes only)

Edited September 13, 2014 by Sensuki

[TrueMenace]

Is it just me but I can't seem to find the urge to playtest the beta until these changes are implemented...

[Matt516]

Nice work with the paper, although as a mathematician I always die a little inside if this stuff is treated as maths when it's basically engineering.

 

Someone on the RPGCodex had a similar comment haha... You're right - this is engineering rather than math in the strictest sense. xD

 

It's seems I'm somewhat alone in thinking Interrupt & Concentration should both be put into Resolve, but that's never stopped me before. Here's what I'd do based on this thread and this old poll that showed most people (76.32%) would like the effect of attributes magnified.

 

2 things:

1) We're really not dealing with the magnitude of attributes at the moment, just the effects. If all the attributes are balanced with X stat boni on X attributes, then tuning is mostly a matter of applying a simple multiplier to everything. Some stats may scale nonlinearly in power, but most should be close enough to linear to allow for that kind of balancing.

2) Interrupt and Concentration on one attribute would be a bad idea both from a thematic perspective (IMO, YMMV) and from a mechanical perspective - as we go into in the paper, the efficacy of Interrupt is so heavily dependent on Accuracy that pairing it with anything else would mean that the two attributes are then coupled  - in order to make a "good" Interrupt build you would also require a high score in the Accuracy attribute. Additionally, the effects of Interrupt and Concentration are hard to quantify, so putting both on the same attribute would make the worth of that attribute somewhat difficult to evaluate. Lastly, if these were combined you would then have 1 attribute governing one single system in combat. All the other attributes are beneficial for a variety of combat situations, but a combined Interrupt/Concentration attribute would be extremely specialized. 

 

 

Heavy swords can be used as blunt weapons as well, but let's not discuss stupidities. How about you answer my question Sensuki, so we don't derail this thread.

is changing INT as a stat really a bad idea? I mean right now it's just a go-to pick for casters. Separating AoE and duration would increase build variety, no?

 

Well, separating AoE and Duration wouldn't so much increase build variety as it would make it more difficult for casters to build a good statline. YMMV though.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Matt516