How to Fix the Attribute Design in Pillars of Eternity

[Silent Winter]

^That's a good summary of where my brain's at right now.

 

what I meant to convey was that every time you cast a spell with a duration, you are benefiting from your % duration bonus (getting more Dot, longer buff, etc - it's pretty much never wasted). But sometimes when you cast an AoE, you don't benefit from the extra radius because you would've been able to hit all your targets anyway. So Duration is always helpful on spells with a duration, but AoE is only selectively useful, even for spells with a duration.

I think Carnage is no friendly fire by default.

Ah, gotcha - makes sense now.

[Guest 4ward]

My opinion:

Players should not be punished with large AoEs, they should not have to deal with that and with investing in an attribute to make up for bad AoE design. Rather players should be given acceptable AoEs and more spells with varied AoEs so they can choose. Players should be able to control AoE by movement/positioning of their caster and targeting wherever they seem fit. If a spell has a too large AoE in a certain situation, players should be able to either choose another AoE spell or they should be forced to use a spell with no AoE in this situation. Giving you spells with AoE that fill up a quarter of an area kill variation in tactic and strategy. Tactic: you will for most of the time stand back and scale your AoE as you see fit, but you will not actively engage and move the caster around, your caster will be passive and just revert to the passive cloudkill tactic; Strategy: you will not bother to use other spells but stick with just a few because in any given situation this AoE spell will work as you can scale the AoE

 

My suggestion:

scratch AoE completely, leave duration on INT if you will or if it works put it on whereever concentration is. Put spells/abilities/talents on INT. Something like: INT=duration / 1 extra spell/ability/talent per level with +2pt increase

 

This is just my opinion, it’s not based on math (because I’m not good at that) and is just a guts felling.

[Monte Carlo]

Just to bring this topic back down to earth.... The clusterphuck of stats, variables, maths, 'gamism' and all round BS of this system Sawyer has conjured from the pit of Logic Hell is hilarious. And this is from people who allege AD&D is too complex. I'm not too proud to admit I haven't a bloody clue how this system works. It's so obtuse it feels like a parody of some ultra-nerdist homebrew. I almost want premade characters with auto-levelling so I don't need to waste my life trying to understand this nonsense, some hipster RPG nirvana where there's no strength for fighters and where some arcane stat might increase your chance of something awesome happening linked to your soul.

 

W.T.F?

[Lasweetlife]

Just to bring this topic back down to earth.... The clusterphuck of stats, variables, maths, 'gamism' and all round BS of this system Sawyer has conjured from the pit of Logic Hell is hilarious. And this is from people who allege AD&D is too complex. I'm not too proud to admit I haven't a bloody clue how this system works. It's so obtuse it feels like a parody of some ultra-nerdist homebrew. I almost want premade characters with auto-levelling so I don't need to waste my life trying to understand this nonsense, some hipster RPG nirvana where there's no strength for fighters and where some arcane stat might increase your chance of something awesome happening linked to your soul.

W.T.F?

I knew the kumbaya singing and level-headed discourse in this thread couldn't last.

[Namutree]

 

I knew the kumbaya singing and level-headed discourse in this thread couldn't last.

 

Lasweetlife, can it ever last?

[Sensuki]

I.e. IMO switching Duration and Deflection would be a net loss both in intuitiveness and especialy mechanically, in terms of character-building freedom.

Debating with Sawyer on SA atm and he doesn't want you to have that freedom, he wants it to be a tough choice, but I am pointing out that their proposed change only makes it a tough choice for one type of build - support classes.

[PrimeJunta]

Point out that it is a tough choice. More durations and AoE's are always desirable, and more defensive ability is also always desirable. If you're trading off one for the other, you need to adjust tactics accordingly.

 

So my answer to his question "would you ever trade off INT for RES on a caster" is "absolutely I would, for example when building a front-line caster."

[Sensuki]

Yeah but my point is that for DPS classes - Might, no brainer. For tanks - CON, no brainer. It throws off the attribute choice balance. I said they'd have to change the game to make it a tough choice for all builds.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Sensuki

[IndiraLightfoot]

Sensuki, Yes, please lobby hard for Josh making distributing attributes as tough as possible for as many and varied builds as possible!

[PrimeJunta]

For DPS characters obviously DEX (and in your system PER) and MIG are highly desirable; for defensive ones, yeah, CON and RES.

 

If this makes DEX and MIG or CON and RES no-brainers for particular classes, IMO the solution should be to add talents that permit either DPS or defensive builds within them.

 

I.e., the tanky fighter or the hurty fighter; the glass cannon wizard or the armored frontline wizard. Rinse and repeat for the other classes.

 

I do not dig the features in the character system which push you towards either frontline or second-line, like the ranged/melee base accuracy inherent to the class. Iron out these and the other problem sorts itself out too.

 

Edit: what I'm saying is, what I especially like about the S&M system is that there is something every character would want on every ability. Everybody wants to do more damage, have more health, act faster, have longer durations, hit more accurately, and avoid being hit or interrupted. Adjusting the abilities means changing the distribution between these universally desirable characteristics, which means having to adjust tactics to make use of the strengths and get around the weaknesses.

 

Which is the whole point of the exercise really. I honestly can't see why Josh would see it any other way.

Edited September 14, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[Sensuki]

Absolutely but I would order them like this:

 

DPS: Might, Accuracy

Tank: Constitution, Deflection

Support: Intellect, Dexterity

 

Other casters: primary effect (duration or AoE) and then Might (or Accuracy if debuffer).

 

Which is the whole point of the exercise really. I honestly can't see why Josh would see it any other way.

Yeah well obviously he's going to prefer the idea that he came up with, I don't know if most people care enough about it either.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Sensuki

[Hiro Protagonist II]

If this makes DEX and MIG or CON and RES no-brainers for particular classes, IMO the solution should be to add talents that permit either DPS or defensive builds within them.

 

I.e., the tanky fighter or the hurty fighter; the glass cannon wizard or the armored frontline wizard. Rinse and repeat for the other classes.

 

You have to be careful before adding talents to boost DPS or defensive builds on a class that doesn't fit that role. Remember, a class like a Wizard (whether you make it a muscle front line wizard or not) shouldn't out DPS a heavy hitter or out defence a defender. Otherwise you run the risk of making other classes that do fit their role obsolete.

[PrimeJunta]

Can't tell if sarcastic.

 

Nevertheless, I agree. You do have to be careful. That's not the same as not doing it at all however.

[Monte Carlo]

Sigh. If people who can be bothered to comment on this forum find this system too unfathomable then what hope does a common or garden RPG fan have? Can anyone explain how this system works in a couple of paragraphs? I'd be genuinely grateful.

[PrimeJunta]

@MC: Be happy to.

 

Might and Perception (and dexterity) make you do more damage.

Constitution and Resolve make you last longer and function more effectively when you're under attack.

Intellect and Dexterity makes your spells and special abilities last longer and affect more targets, and lets you fire them off faster.

 

Simple enough for you, or shall I break it down ability by ability?

Edited September 14, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[Sensuki]

That's our system anyway - Josh's proposal would make it more confusing.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Can't tell if sarcastic.

 

Nevertheless, I agree. You do have to be careful. That's not the same as not doing it at all however.

 

Not being sarcastic at all. But nice jab anyway.

 

Just highlighting the fact that making different types of builds for classes like a Wizard, shouldn't outperform other classes in other roles. And it's good to see you agree with that design philosophy. And I never said not do it at all, just you need to be careful when adding talents for different classes.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Sensuki]

This discussion has given me another idea, I think I can make it a difficult choice for DPSers to choose between Might and Perception (without Interrupt)

A difficult choice for tanks between CON and RES (our version)

A difficult choice for supports between INT and DEX

and that would make it a difficult choice for wizards, ciphers etc between four (or more) of these attributes

Give me a few days to work something together with Matt and I'll be back with a shorter .pdf

I think a lot of people like the thematic 2-2-2 split too.

Josh seems to have a problem with attributes being a non-choice but somehow is picking on supports and the Intellect attribute only which is noticing the tree but missing the forest. I think he also has a specific problem with Deflection on Resolve or Deflection and Concentration together. I think AoE/Duration and Deflection/Concentration need to stay together, but I think I have a theory that could make everything a much, much more difficult choice for all classes and builds. If Matt wants to continue with me we will be back with a shorter .pdf that revises our ideas into something stronger.

Thankyou everyone for your input and if Matt accepts, we will be back soonish with my new idea.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Sensuki

[Uomoz]

This topic has been by far one of the best to read, however the final attribute system implementation will turn out. Well Played! Well Played!

[Infinitron]

Just to bring this topic back down to earth.... The clusterphuck of stats, variables, maths, 'gamism' and all round BS of this system Sawyer has conjured from the pit of Logic Hell is hilarious. And this is from people who allege AD&D is too complex. I'm not too proud to admit I haven't a bloody clue how this system works. It's so obtuse it feels like a parody of some ultra-nerdist homebrew. I almost want premade characters with auto-levelling so I don't need to waste my life trying to understand this nonsense, some hipster RPG nirvana where there's no strength for fighters and where some arcane stat might increase your chance of something awesome happening linked to your soul.

 

W.T.F?

 

Edited September 14, 2014 by Infinitron

[Seari]

@Sensuki Now that I've thought about it more, I don't think I like your version of RES.You're putting 2 stats together, that basically contribute to the same thing. Both deflection and concentration decrease the chance of an interrupt, I don't think putting them together is a good idea. I'm glad they're removing interrupt, because interrupt+accuracy is basically the same deal as conc+def.

[Lasweetlife]

@Sensuki Now that I've thought about it more, I don't think I like your version of RES.You're putting 2 stats together, that basically contribute to the same thing. Both deflection and concentration decrease the chance of an interrupt, I don't think putting them together is a good idea. I'm glad they're removing interrupt, because interrupt+accuracy is basically the same deal as conc+def.

Couldn't the same thing (maybe to a lesser degree) be said about constitution then?

[Sensuki]

@Sensuki Now that I've thought about it more, I don't think I like your version of RES.You're putting 2 stats together, that basically contribute to the same thing. Both deflection and concentration decrease the chance of an interrupt, I don't think putting them together is a good idea. I'm glad they're removing interrupt, because interrupt+accuracy is basically the same deal as conc+def.

 

We did this to balance Resolve against Perception, Resolve technically does almost the inverse of Perception. I believe they should go together to preserve the symmetry, and I think what they offer goes together well. I don't think removing Interrupt changes that - we need to make the attribute have roughly equal efficacy as Constitution for the purposes of survival time in combat.

 

Now you're also forgetting that Deflection on it's own contributes incoming DPS reduction, while Concentration contributes outgoing DPS loss prevention. Two completely different things. Deflection does increase effective Interrupt against Deflection attacks but so does Fortitude, Reflex and Will Defense - and you get equal points in them because they are spread across the attributes evenly.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Sensuki

[Fearabbit]

@Sensuki Now that I've thought about it more, I don't think I like your version of RES.You're putting 2 stats together, that basically contribute to the same thing. Both deflection and concentration decrease the chance of an interrupt, I don't think putting them together is a good idea. I'm glad they're removing interrupt, because interrupt+accuracy is basically the same deal as conc+def.

 

Isn't that on purpose? Otherwise you have the situation that one attribute becomes more valuable the higher another attribute is - this is why they put Accuracy and Interrupt together as well as Deflection and Concentration.

 

But I'm not sure. I haven't done the math and without having all the formulas (I don't even know what Deflection does exactly in comparison to Will, Reflex and Fortitude), I don't feel comfortable discussing small details like this. ^^

 

By the way. I know everyone likes symmetry and 2-2-2 distributions, but... we do have four defense stats. Deflection, Will, Reflex and Fortitude, as mentioned before. This part of the system still doesn't sit right with me. The old system had Deflection as a stat that was only influenced by items, and we had a nice symmetry. Now RES affects two defense stats at the same time, and I don't really like it.

 

So... I don't know. Maybe it would be better to have two attributes that do not affect the defense stats in any way, while the other attributes get one each? Just an idea. Obvious choices for defense-free attributes would be Might and Intellect. Might is the most offensive attribute, and Intellect doesn't really fit to either of the defense stats.

CON - Fortitude

DEX - Reflex

PER - Deflection

RES - Will

Seems like the most intuitive distribution to me. I do realize this messes with balance in a big way, but on the other hand I think it makes balancing easier because each attribute has its own defensive stat and increasing/decreasing its effect on that is a simple way of balancing the stat itself. Dunno. 

[Sensuki]

You also have to think about how everything is calculated

 

Fortitude, Reflex and Will are calculated like this

 

[Attribute A + Attribute B] x 1.5

 

Which is quite weird. so a 15 and 15 in Might and Con gives you 45 Fortitude at level 1

 

Class Deflection gives you between 5 and 25

 

so you are MUCH easier to hit, if targeted by Deflection

 

Attribute Influenced Deflection allows you to protect yourself from the majority of attacks (since the majority of attacks will be deflection based) which is extremely valuable.

 

Deflection is not competing against the other 3 defenses as they are out of the equation, it is competing against it's inverse - Accuracy, and other things that help with combat. I think it's really needed to be there all along.