Hi all! I've pre-purchased PoE and been following backers beta videos as well as some of these discussions. When it comes to the attributes debate and dump stats...

 

1. Have a system of diminishing return, where lower attributes are significantly worse, been considered? Such a system would mean that even though not all attributes are equally important to all builds, some distribution of points would be encouraged. For example, if intelligence would increase some kind of will-save (or whatever its called), going far below 10 would result in a significantly lowered will-save, so a 20 might 3 intelligence barbarian would be constantly charmed etc. 

 

2. Have attributes with more effects than one or two been considered? I realize we don't want an overly complicated system, but if for example accuracy would depend on both perception and dexterity, we would perhaps avoid most dex 3, per 20 -scenarios? If every attribute had say 3 effects, but some overlap, people might be encouraged to distribute more evenly without feeling that a wizard must be mighty or that a dex 3 dual wielding rogue would be a good idea.

 

In the best of worlds I imagine these would be combined, simultaneously making stats more meaningful less forced and preventing stat dumping.

http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Attribute

http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Attribute

I guess this is in response to the second question? Wasn't this changed with 333, so that dex for example only impact action speed and one defense? Although more overlap might be worth considering, I was not aware of the impacts of attributes on defenses, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Anyway, the exact effect of attributes on defenses should probably be clearly stated in game.

Diminishing returns suck. If I want my tank to have the strength of an ox and the brains of a potato, then thats what I want to see in game.

Diminishing returns suck. If I want my tank to have the strength of an ox and the brains of a potato, then thats what I want to see in game.

Well, the idea kind of allows that. Maybe I should have used the term non-linear? Kind of like this, using arbitrary stats/numbers:

 

From 10-15 each point in strength adds 5% to skill A, 16-19 each point adds 3% and from 20+ each point adds 1% or whatever. So 20 str would always be better at skill A than 15, but you may sometimes be better off spending them elsewhere, depending on what build you're going for. And the opposite for lower values of course, so that each point between 6-9 decreases skill A by -8% and 5 and below decreases it by -10% per point etc.

 

Am I making sense here? The point would by no means make your ox-potato useless or less of an ox-potato, but that character will have some quite specific and extreme advantages and disadvantages, which should be the case when min-maxing.

No thanks. Current system is fine. Your idea would penalize player choice and create arbitrary sweet spots.

From 10-15 each point in strength adds 5% to skill A, 16-19 each point adds 3% and from 20+ each point adds 1% or whatever. So 20 str would always be better at skill A than 15, but you may sometimes be better off spending them elsewhere, depending on what build you're going for. And the opposite for lower values of course, so that each point between 6-9 decreases skill A by -8% and 5 and below decreases it by -10% per point etc.

The problem with that is that it kind of defeats the point of the scale. We use numbers because their relationship makes sense. Each point in the stat represents the same amount of effect. Thus, I know that someone with 18 strength is going to have three more points' worth of Strength effect than someone with 15 Strength.

 

That, and every point isn't worth the same amount. And I don't mean in the Shadowrun "it takes 7 points to reach 7 in an attribute, and 8 to reach 8, etc.". I mean, the actual value. So, unless you have to spend fewer points to get to 18 Strength (to get a lesser % increase), it becomes much more prudent to simply put your points in other stats that are lower, and get more bang for your buck.

 

Also, would you treat the negative range the same way? If you have 7 Strength, maybe you get -5% per point, but then as you work your way down to 4, you start getting -2%?