A matter of spiritually physical descriptions

[Valorian]

This topic is not about changing attribute mechanics.

 

"Might represents a character's physical and spiritual strength, brute force as well as their ability to channel powerful magic."

 

From an RP perspective, judging by the description, this is the alpha attribute. It measures both your inner spiritual power and muscular strength. The collateral effect of this is that creatures that are barely sentient are considered "spiritually stronger" than your entire party just because of their sheer physical strength.

 

There are classes and creatures that don't channel powerful magic or use magic at all. I'd say fighters, rogues, barbarians, rangers and monks(?) fall into this category.

 

For these classes, I propose to change the description to: "Might primarily represents your character's physical strength, (channeling powerful magic cut)..." And it really does. Mechanically and from a lore standpoint, we can abstract it's their physical strength that contributes to damage in combat. This way, if you invest only a few points into might, you won't feel like your character is both physically and spiritually crippled, as the current description implies.

 

For classes that do use magic the description is fine ("Might represents your character's physical and spiritual strength.."), because their magical and physical strength are undeniably connected.

[Nonek]

I still can't understand this arbitrary grouping of the two entirely different damage groups, and i'm not particularly comfortable with only the strong having a whole Soul, it seems off and rather uncomfortable to me and i can't see the reason for the grouping. If it's just to simplify the attributes then I don't see any point, i'm more than capable of handling a little complexity, in truth i'm beginning to long for it as accessibility is rendering most games so dumbed down that there's no challenge anymore. 

 

Still it's probably too late to change anything now, so there you go.

[Lephys]

I'm with you, Nonek. BUT, since it is how it is, I do see the prudence in Valorian's suggestion. It's easy enough. This guy, this guy, and this guy, because of class, get different "flavor" text descriptions, simply because they don't really use "magic." Seems non-problematic.

[Valorian]

I don't like this fusion either, but I think it won't be changed.

 

 

I'm with you, Nonek. BUT, since it is how it is, I do see the prudence in Valorian's suggestion. It's easy enough. This guy, this guy, and this guy, because of class, get different "flavor" text descriptions, simply because they don't really use "magic." Seems non-problematic.

 

 

Right, people would be able to play a character who's spiritually strong, but physically weak and vice versa without the character sheet telling them they're wrong.

[rjshae]

It's perhaps best not to think of 'Spiritual Strength' in terms of sentience. I find the concept to be similar to the Chinese Qi, or life energy, so it may not be as familiar as Western philosophies used in most fantasy games.

[Valorian]

Sentience or not, the spiritual strength or whatever you choose to call it is fused and is proportional to physical strength in Might's description. This alteration allows more RP options.

[Lephys]

Yeah, I'd hate to have a Fighter main, and get to some giant, magical contraption that's releasing power, and just have a Might check that's all "Hey, congratz! You dominated this force with your Might, even though you have NO idea how magical power works! 8D!"

 

It's really just accuracy, at this point. Representational accuracy. Not... not like chance-to-hit-combat-factor Accuracy. 8P