Do you get Attributes on Level Up?

[Lephys]

Also, your destinction between feats and attributes is nonsensical. Imagine PoE had a talent called "Schmight" that could be taken multiple times and gave you 2% damage and healing each time you selected it. According to what you've said this would be completely fine as it's a talent and not an attribute increase, which is utterly rediculous.

To be fair, there's a functional difference between Might, and a talent that grants +2% damage that can be taken when you level up. What Might gives you is not what makes it a stat. How it functions is what makes it a stat. In the context of PoE, Might points are only chosen at character creation. You are a person who is X Mighty, as opposed to some other character who is differently Mighty.

 

And, I really don't think it'd be fine to have a Talent you can take 20 times. But it is fine that a talent could increase your damage, just like it's fine that a weapon's base damage value can do so, or an active ability can do so, or a buff can do so, etc.

 

Yes, you can mechanically use stats as "improve as you go" factors for your characters in a given game, but when the stats are specifically representative of the inherent measure of your character, as distinct from other characters in the game world, it becomes a bit at-odds with the game's design. But, that's conditional. That doesn't mean "frequently increaseable stats = TEH SUCK!" or anything. In that point, you are correct. But you're (maybe unintentionally?) sort of inferring that such a design choice is never a bad idea.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Lephys

[GreyFox]

Maybe 4-5 stat increases TOTAL throughout the entire series of games through level ups....if there are tomes or spells or some other way to permanently increase stats then that's fine as well.

 

The stats in this game don't actually amount to very much in that the bonuses are not that great so maybe there is more room for adding a decent amount of stats but probably not.

[Matt516]

The idea of attributes that do not change is a very very IE game (and Fallout) thing. That's why a lot of people prefer it. It's a mindset, carried over from that ruleset, that attributes represent inherent characteristics of a being and therefore do not change significantly. Hence why there is an "average" value for attributes in the game world.

 

Most newer RPGs, on the other hand, tend to view attributes as more of a general level of a character's learned or practiced ability. Hence why they tend to increase by ~5 pts with every level.

 

Neither system is inherently better, though (in my opinion) the first one is much more suited for a game like PoE. A hybrid system could certainly work as well (like something akin to 3e D&D as implemented in NWN), but if they're going for the "infinity engine" feel the first system is certainly the way to go.

[Pray]

I very much like the feeling of being able to inch my characters in the directions I want. Not knowing exactly what feats etc my team will be taking, it would be nice to adjust the attributes as i learn more about the game.

 

I think it's a minor thing.

 

Many of you have pointed out that it's the strength/weakness inherent to your character - but even those things can change over time and with effort. It's a very shallow answer, when the only real answer that is acceptable is "i prefer it that way," just as I prefer to be able to continue to manipulate attributes as my champs level up.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Pray

[Sky_walker]

I like current system. Makes you really THINK about choosing your attributes and in the end of a day - they do "describe" your character in by far better way than they would otherwise being basically nothing more than an added layer of skills.

 

If anything I think that mentioned complains can be addressed by some complex and difficult side-quest that would award you with an option to alter attributes on your characters (either re-set all of them on one character, or "undo" two or three of attributes invested in few/all of your characters with option to assign them again in wherever you'd like to). Magical character transmogrification

 

That would actually create some interesting twist on a classical approach to the RPGs.

[Gulliver]

Many of you have pointed out that it's the strength/weakness inherent to your character - but even those things can change over time and with effort. It's a very shallow answer, when the only real answer that is acceptable is "i prefer it that way," just as I prefer to be able to continue to manipulate attributes as my champs level up.

 

Some of them might change with time and effort.

 

One thing that always bothered me about increasing attributes is that it treats physical and mental attributes the same way. Attributes like strength, dexterity and endurance would certainly change with time. The more you work out, the fitter you are - hence your strength and endurance increase. (I know PoE uses might, I'm using strength as an example).

But when you look at mental attributes, this doesn't really apply. Okay, maybe an attribute like resolve might change, but intellect?

 

People with average intelligence will never become geniuses, no matter how much effort they put in. They could do intense mental work for a decade, but their basic intellect would change marginally at best.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Gulliver

[illathid]

The idea of attributes that do not change is a very very IE game (and Fallout) thing. That's why a lot of people prefer it. It's a mindset, carried over from that ruleset, that attributes represent inherent characteristics of a being and therefore do not change significantly. Hence why there is an "average" value for attributes in the game world.

 

Most newer RPGs, on the other hand, tend to view attributes as more of a general level of a character's learned or practiced ability. Hence why they tend to increase by ~5 pts with every level.

 

Neither system is inherently better, though (in my opinion) the first one is much more suited for a game like PoE. A hybrid system could certainly work as well (like something akin to 3e D&D as implemented in NWN), but if they're going for the "infinity engine" feel the first system is certainly the way to go.

 

Yep, that's pretty much what I've been trying to say. Both are valid design choices that serve different purposes. One isn't inherently better than the other.

 

 

Many of you have pointed out that it's the strength/weakness inherent to your character - but even those things can change over time and with effort. It's a very shallow answer, when the only real answer that is acceptable is "i prefer it that way," just as I prefer to be able to continue to manipulate attributes as my champs level up.

 

Some of them might change with time and effort.

 

One thing that always bothered me about increasing attributes is that it treats physical and mental attributes the same way. Attributes like strength, dexterity and endurance would certainly change with time. The more you work out, the fitter you are - hence your strength and endurance increase. (I know PoE uses might, I'm using strength as an example).

But when you look at mental attributes, this doesn't really apply. Okay, maybe an attribute like resolve might change, but intellect?

 

People with average intelligence will never become geniuses, no matter how much effort they put in. They could do intense mental work for a decade, but their basic intellect would change marginally at best.

 

 

yeah, but that puts simulationism over gameplay which is just about the worst thing you can ever do (in my opinion at least).

[gkathellar]

Exactly. Fast attribute progression is just a pavlovian reward mechanism, so how is that not lame?

 

Technically, it's more of a Skinner box reward mechanism.

 

... gpedantellar, away!

 

No, but seriously, there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

 

Rewards given lightly become under appreciated, and in the current dark age of S.M.E.G. (Spoiled Millennial Entitled Gamers™) we have need of rarer and hence more precious cRPG rewards on the stat department.

 

Some people just, you know, want different things. It's okay. Take a deep breath. You don't have to make up interesting new pejoratives just because some people aren't hardcore enough for you.

 

I very much like the feeling of being able to inch my characters in the directions I want. Not knowing exactly what feats etc my team will be taking, it would be nice to adjust the attributes as i learn more about the game.

 

I think it's a minor thing.

 

Many of you have pointed out that it's the strength/weakness inherent to your character - but even those things can change over time and with effort. It's a very shallow answer, when the only real answer that is acceptable is "i prefer it that way," just as I prefer to be able to continue to manipulate attributes as my champs level up.

 

Fairly said. It's a point of aesthetic taste, I agree - but since PoE is rooted in IE games, it's an aesthetic which has always been a component of the experience.

 

 

One thing that always bothered me about increasing attributes is that it treats physical and mental attributes the same way. Attributes like strength, dexterity and endurance would certainly change with time. The more you work out, the fitter you are - hence your strength and endurance increase. (I know PoE uses might, I'm using strength as an example).

But when you look at mental attributes, this doesn't really apply. Okay, maybe an attribute like resolve might change, but intellect?

 

People with average intelligence will never become geniuses, no matter how much effort they put in. They could do intense mental work for a decade, but their basic intellect would change marginally at best.

 

 

You could just as well argue the opposite - huge numbers of people work tirelessly at athletics, but only 1% of them ever get anywhere, while actual neuroscientific research points increasingly towards the brain's mutability. I'm not advocating for any particular side of those arguments, only noting - the greatest problem with trying to simulate "realism" in a game is that first, you have to determine what reality is. And more often than not, reality is weird, and does not obey simple axioms. Better to focus on verisimilitude than try to simulate what is, at best, debatable.

[Gulliver]

You could just as well argue the opposite - huge numbers of people work tirelessly at athletics, but only 1% of them ever get anywhere, while actual neuroscientific research points increasingly towards the brain's mutability.

 

No. No, you really couldn't. While I appreciate the point you made in general (i.e. "the greatest problem with trying to simulate "realism" in a game is that first, you have to determine what reality is"), in this specific case the notion that one could just as well argue the opposite is simply not true.

 

The brain is mutable, sure. But it is well established that you can't really train your general intellect. It's not like you can do math for a year and thereby increase your IQ by 15 points. It simply does not work like that.

 

If you, however, haven't been working out a lot and then start going to the gym for several hours a day, six days a week, every week of the year, your strength and endurance will increase massively and quickly. (Unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.)

[AlperTheCaglar]

 

You could just as well argue the opposite - huge numbers of people work tirelessly at athletics, but only 1% of them ever get anywhere, while actual neuroscientific research points increasingly towards the brain's mutability.

 

No. No, you really couldn't. While I appreciate the point you made in general (i.e. "the greatest problem with trying to simulate "realism" in a game is that first, you have to determine what reality is"), in this specific case the notion that one could just as well argue the opposite is simply not true.

 

The brain is mutable, sure. But it is well established that you can't really train your general intellect. It's not like you can do math for a year and thereby increase your IQ by 15 points. It simply does not work like that.

 

If you, however, haven't been working out a lot and then start going to the gym for several hours a day, six days a week, every week of the year, your strength and endurance will increase massively and quickly. (Unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.)

 

 

Well said.

 

Imagine yourself as a bundle of basic attributes. It isn't that hard. Let's take AD&D (my fav) for a spin.

• Albert Average is 6 feet 1 inches, he's a regular at the gym and can do basic body lifting exercises that form the benchmark for muscoskeletal strength. Though he isn't an 18(100) world record level, he might be considered 15 STR.
• He's pretty fast on his foot, but his stretching sucks and hence he isn't as mobile as a gymnast, he will never win any rewards for nimbleness -- 12 DEX
• Albert does get tired pretty easily but he has a robust immune system, whenever he had a close brush with a fall or an accidental trauma, he's fortunately never broken any bones, but had some nasty bruises to heal, 16 CON
• Albert is very smart, his intuitive deduction and capacity for learning are top notch, he's always been a good student, though due more to nature than nurture -- 16 INT
• Albert however, is a very bad decision maker. His short term appetites always land him in trouble in every area of his personal life, everyone wishes he would have been more of a long distance thinker -- 7 WIS
• Albert personality and looks-wise is a normal person, your average sort of guy, nothing exceptional, well liked, not idolized or emulated -- CHA 10

Now Albert lets say is 26, he's pretty much done with his development, or rather core attributes in terms of adolescence. His life may take him many places.

 

Albert enlists to fight in some war, and after an arduous tour of duty returns. He has become more jaded, lost some friends, views the world differently, but nothing in that grueling experience could ever change who he was at his core physical and mental being. He still made bad decisions, caught on quickly, carried his LBE full of stuff because his muscles could handle it, and never stuck out as a leader or outcast amongst his buddies in service.

 

A life altering experience didnt change his physical mental foundation no, it added experience and gave him skills, certain amounts of knowledge and/or medical expertise. It gave him additional facets to his being, but nothing that would suddenly make him a strongman competition winner, or a quantum physicist nominated for the Nobel prize for finally solving how exactly dark matter makes up most of our universe without creating any gravity at all. As for the strength issue, swinging a sword and carrying loot isnt squatting for years or getting on a 6day brosplit strength routine.

 

Now imagine adding 1 to any of those attributes above just because Albert leveled from 1 to 2, or 4 to 5. They become numerical representations of the metagame, rather than the character being played. Sounds trite doesn't it?

 

I'm not against a very major quest, an item or some exceptional event altering these stats -- afterall this is fantasy, heroes do develop in multiple lifetime speeds.

 

Remember playing through Fallout 1/2 with the lowest intelligence possible? Remember the sheer hilarity and outrageousness of that design choice? It wouldn't have been possible if you had 25 points to spread during your 25 level increases in the wastes.

Edited September 28, 2014 by AlperTheCaglar

[illathid]

As I think Gromnir has pointed out a few times, the original Fallouts were some of the absolute worst when it came to min/maxing.

 

You're right though that frequent stat increases probably wouldn't be the best fit for Fallout. However, that doesn't mean stat increases on level up are always a bad design choice.

[Azrael Ultima]

The brain is mutable, sure. But it is well established that you can't really train your general intellect. It's not like you can do math for a year and thereby increase your IQ by 15 points. It simply does not work like that.

Of course you can't do that. IQ isn't a representation of your math skills. You will, however, become better at math.

 

The brain can(and should) be trained, same as the rest of your body.

[Pray]

Well, regardless of what happens, I'll probably want to install a mod that gives me 1 attribute per level up, and play on a harder difficulty level to accomodate, or have all the skill checks increased slightly.

 

I just think it's vastly more fun to see my character grow in more than 1 direction.

[Matt516]

 

The brain is mutable, sure. But it is well established that you can't really train your general intellect. It's not like you can do math for a year and thereby increase your IQ by 15 points. It simply does not work like that.

Of course you can't do that. IQ isn't a representation of your math skills. You will, however, become better at math.

 

The brain can(and should) be trained, same as the rest of your body.

 

 

Actually, IQ does go up with practice and training because it's based on a test and actually isn't a great representation of "pure" mental ability, not that we're even sure that that means.

 

Not that I'm trying to make any kind of point with this. Just ramblin.

[gkathellar]

The brain is mutable, sure. But it is well established that you can't really train your general intellect. It's not like you can do math for a year and thereby increase your IQ by 15 points. It simply does not work like that.

 

There is little or no agreement on what "general intellect" constitutes, least of all IQ (it definitely measures something of value in modern society, but the what is a baffling question). And of course, as Matt516 notes, IQ absolutely does shift around.

 

 If you, however, haven't been working out a lot and then start going to the gym for several hours a day, six days a week, every week of the year, your strength and endurance will increase massively and quickly.

 

But you'll never be as strong as someone who works out the same amount and is six inches taller. That core difference in talent is roughly what Strength (or any other ability score) represents in an idealized AD&D model, while the difference in how much training you have comes down to your level.

[Azrael Ultima]

Six inches taller doesn't mean much, especially if the bigger person has a slimmer build.

But that doesn't mean that people don't have varying ability to develop muscles, and somebody on the low end will never catch up to the higher end if both train equally.

 

Same as mental capability, really.

Actually, IQ does go up with practice and training because it's based on a test and actually isn't a great representation of "pure" mental ability, not that we're even sure that that means.

 

Not that I'm trying to make any kind of point with this. Just ramblin.

Definitely. It's just that training math alone isn't enough for a 15 point difference. Math simply isn't big enough of a part of the test, not to mention that the math involved tends to be fairly simple.

[Lephys]

The idea of stats specifically as measures of your character's unique potential are already abstract. In D&D, how does your Gnome come to have 20 Strength, just because you put the points in, while a probably-4-times-the-size Half Orc could have a strength of only 14?

 

It's not about perfectly simulating. Or, rather, it's about simulating the inherent differences in people. Some small people can do some amazing stuff that you wouldn't think them capable of doing. Just like Constitution. Some people can simply withstand more punishment than other people.

 

So, yes, working out a lot would improve your immediate strength, but the general strength of your character is always going to be at whatever it is, mainly. Doesn't mean it can't change on a rare occasion, but, really, it wouldn't just be because you're working out. Because... your character isn't created at birth, then develops their strength over the course of their growth cycle and as a consequence of their activities. So, if you have a Level 1 Warrior with 15 Strength, that's a measure of his strength even after he's done all the stuff he needed to to become at least a young adult (typically) and to warrant the class title "Warrior." If he JUST picked up a sword and got off a couch for the first time, then yeah, regular muscle-requiring activities would condition him much better. However, shy of eating 73 grams of protein a day and specifically working out for 5 hours a day, for a couple months, you're not really going to measurable increase Strength, even.

 

Again, doesn't mean "You can NEVER alter stat scores, or the universe explodes!" But, I think it's best left to the abstract idea of them as inherent potential. And, again, IF you aren't using them in that manner, in your specific game design, then you can increase them all day long. But, frequently increasing attributes that are meant to measure (as designated by your particular game's design) the inherent potential of a given character in a given category... that's just a self-defeating design. "My Wizard had a Constitution of only 5 when we started the game, but, after a few weeks of adventuring, he had a Constitution of 17, because he killed lots of enemies and completed lots of quests! 8D!"

 

Neither method is better than the other, in isolation. However, they are better or worse in specific contexts. It all depends on the goal of the attribute system. You don't design attributes that conflict with the very goal of your attribute system.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Lephys

[Pray]

The idea of stats specifically as measures of your character's unique potential are already abstract. In D&D, how does your Gnome come to have 20 Strength, just because you put the points in, while a probably-4-times-the-size Half Orc could have a strength of only 14?

 

It's not about perfectly simulating. Or, rather, it's about simulating the inherent differences in people. Some small people can do some amazing stuff that you wouldn't think them capable of doing. Just like Constitution. Some people can simply withstand more punishment than other people.

 

So, yes, working out a lot would improve your immediate strength, but the general strength of your character is always going to be at whatever it is, mainly. Doesn't mean it can't change on a rare occasion, but, really, it wouldn't just be because you're working out. Because... your character isn't created at birth, then develops their strength over the course of their growth cycle and as a consequence of their activities. So, if you have a Level 1 Warrior with 15 Strength, that's a measure of his strength even after he's done all the stuff he needed to to become at least a young adult (typically) and to warrant the class title "Warrior." If he JUST picked up a sword and got off a couch for the first time, then yeah, regular muscle-requiring activities would condition him much better. However, shy of eating 73 grams of protein a day and specifically working out for 5 hours a day, for a couple months, you're not really going to measurable increase Strength, even.

 

Again, doesn't mean "You can NEVER alter stat scores, or the universe explodes!" But, I think it's best left to the abstract idea of them as inherent potential. And, again, IF you aren't using them in that manner, in your specific game design, then you can increase them all day long. But, frequently increasing attributes that are meant to measure (as designated by your particular game's design) the inherent potential of a given character in a given category... that's just a self-defeating design. "My Wizard had a Constitution of only 5 when we started the game, but, after a few weeks of adventuring, he had a Constitution of 17, because he killed lots of enemies and completed lots of quests! 8D!"

 

Neither method is better than the other, in isolation. However, they are better or worse in specific contexts. It all depends on the goal of the attribute system. You don't design attributes that conflict with the very goal of your attribute system.

 

But your thought process here is terribly flawed. You're doing 18 odd strength or whatever damage bonus u get from the beginning, second 1. Potential is potential, not a realized thing. Either stats are realized now or stats need to be set for you, because potential is just a stupid term that doesn't exist in a video game where you control everything.

 

And it doesn't even accurately represent the thing you are talking about. 

 

I'm not saying my way is better or worse, but calling the current system potential is just flat out silly. 

[Skie Nightfall]

Some games had and worked with attributes increasing on levels up, some didn't. I had no issue with either mechanic as long as it fit the game, and the game was good.

I see no point in asking for one way or the other. It just need to make sense in and to the game.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Skie Nightfall

[Lephys]

But your thought process here is terribly flawed. You're doing 18 odd strength or whatever damage bonus u get from the beginning, second 1.

I don't follow. Why does doing 18 or whatever stat bonus you get from the beginning make my process flawed?

 

Potential is potential, not a realized thing. Either stats are realized now or stats need to be set for you, because potential is just a stupid term that doesn't exist in a video game where you control everything.

How does your character's potential not exist in a video game that's simulating the existence of a person? Do people have potentials? Do they vary? Okay. Then why would a virtual person suddenly not have a virtual potential? Or maybe there was more to what you said that I just misunderstood?

 

And it doesn't even accurately represent the thing you are talking about.

What doesn't represent what thing?

 

I'm not saying my way is better or worse, but calling the current system potential is just flat out silly.

So, you're not saying your way is better or worse, you're just saying "my" (I don't really own it) way is definitely worse? Diplomacy check, please...

[rjshae]

If they use an attribute point buy system where the cost increases as the attribute increases, then they could give you more attribute points by making improvement costs the same as during the initial build.

 

As an example, suppose your Might score is at a level where it would cost 3 points to improve by +1. You, the player, would need to accumulate 3 attribute improvement points to boost your Might by +1. If they give the player a +1 attribute point per two levels, then after six levels of advancement the Might could be increased by +1.

[Matt516]

With the way the attribute system is designed though (incremental increases and most attributes can be useful for everyone), the best build would just be a straight 12s or whatever. Boring. The attribute system design specifically avoids the need for a point buy system.

[Lephys]

If they use an attribute point buy system where the cost increases as the attribute increases, then they could give you more attribute points by making improvement costs the same as during the initial build.

 

As an example, suppose your Might score is at a level where it would cost 3 points to improve by +1. You, the player, would need to accumulate 3 attribute improvement points to boost your Might by +1. If they give the player a +1 attribute point per two levels, then after six levels of advancement the Might could be increased by +1.

If you had a reason to employ an escalating-cost point-buy system, sure. But, if not, the easiest thing to do would be to simply grant +1 attribute points every 6 levels. The result is the same. The only difference would be that, if you had lower stats, you could increase them by 3 points after 6 levels. But, in the end, you'd still be limited to whatever degree by the maximum point-buy allowed by the system, based on how many total points you could get.

[Matt516]

 

If they use an attribute point buy system where the cost increases as the attribute increases, then they could give you more attribute points by making improvement costs the same as during the initial build.

 

As an example, suppose your Might score is at a level where it would cost 3 points to improve by +1. You, the player, would need to accumulate 3 attribute improvement points to boost your Might by +1. If they give the player a +1 attribute point per two levels, then after six levels of advancement the Might could be increased by +1.

If you had a reason to employ an escalating-cost point-buy system, sure. But, if not, the easiest thing to do would be to simply grant +1 attribute points every 6 levels. The result is the same. The only difference would be that, if you had lower stats, you could increase them by 3 points after 6 levels. But, in the end, you'd still be limited to whatever degree by the maximum point-buy allowed by the system, based on how many total points you could get.

 

 ^ This.

[rjshae]

 

If they use an attribute point buy system where the cost increases as the attribute increases, then they could give you more attribute points by making improvement costs the same as during the initial build.

 

As an example, suppose your Might score is at a level where it would cost 3 points to improve by +1. You, the player, would need to accumulate 3 attribute improvement points to boost your Might by +1. If they give the player a +1 attribute point per two levels, then after six levels of advancement the Might could be increased by +1.

If you had a reason to employ an escalating-cost point-buy system, sure. But, if not, the easiest thing to do would be to simply grant +1 attribute points every 6 levels. The result is the same. The only difference would be that, if you had lower stats, you could increase them by 3 points after 6 levels. But, in the end, you'd still be limited to whatever degree by the maximum point-buy allowed by the system, based on how many total points you could get.

 

Every point-based system limits your character builds by the total possible points you can acquire. So what? But an escalating-cost point-buy system provides a means of min-maxing by using linear attribute increases with level up.

Edited October 9, 2014 by rjshae