Betabackers: Are racial bonuses important?

[PrimeJunta]

I'm in some ways sorry to provoke people who seem happy enough in spite of their disabilities. 

 

Haha wow. Are you for real? That's .sig material right there.

[archangel979]

Well I am opposite to you Nipsen. I care for simulation approach to attributes first and balance second.

I was perfectly happy with how IWD2 and NWN games did attributes (more streamlined and easier to understand for general player population than BG1/2 and IWD1).

 

If they are completely gamist they as well need not exist. Might is stupid stat, it is totally gamist and does not let me define physical strenght of my character. They would be better to just have Damage and Healing stats instead of Might. Same goes for the rest.

If they are not going to have simulation approach then lets not lie to each other and just have character sheet full of direct gameplay bonuses.

[Sensuki]

Well that's technically what they are for the purposes of combat, except the bonuses are grouped.

[PrimeJunta]

It's not like DnD attributes were particularly simulationist either. I'll give you STR, but the others are entirely gamey and arbitrary.

 

CON - the toughness of your bones and thickness of your skin has nothing to do with your immune system or ability to deal with poisons.

DEX - watchmakers do not necessarily make great gymnasts, and vice versa.

INT - the ability to do maths is unrelated to the ability to write a book, and neither has anything to do with the ability to find a secret door.

WIS - bullheadedness is just about diametrically opposed to a knack for getting deep, intuitive insights into things or understand someone else's motivations.

CHA - same stat covers Azog the Defiler (intimidation), Brigitte Bardot (seduction), and Miles Davis (good at playing a trumpet). Makes no sense.

[Gorbag]

CHA - same stat covers Azog the Defiler (intimidation), Brigitte Bardot (seduction), and Miles Davis (good at playing a trumpet). Makes no sense.

That one has troubled me for some time as well. If intimidation is natural to fighters, then why is it not governed by their fighting abilities (such as strenght or constitution) rather than their charisma? If I am being intimidated by someone and have to decide whether to give in, I would base this decision on whether the guy can make short work of me, rather than whether or not he is a looker. 

The answer to that one is obvious and pretty gamist: because otherwise fighters would dump charisma with no consequences whatsoever.

I guess you could argue that CHA governs not only good looks but rugged/scary/musculed as well, depending on the case, but then again you can find grounds for pretty much any gamist decision or mechanic if you try hard enough.

[GordonHalfman]

I'm pretty sure nipsen has to be an elaborate troll who may not have even played the beta. 

 

I mean are we clear that there has never been a "Resistance" attribute in any version of the game? How can you be so mad about stuff you're just making up? It makes no sense.

[PrimeJunta]

Ne, I think he's genuinely butthurt.

 

What I find amusing though is that he got his refund, yet he insists on continuing to mope here bemoaning how awfully the game is treating him while talking down to us poor fools who don't share his take on it. Even those who are butthurt about it for different reasons. 

 

Ah the humanity...

[archangel979]

It's not like DnD attributes were particularly simulationist either. I'll give you STR, but the others are entirely gamey and arbitrary.

 

CON - the toughness of your bones and thickness of your skin has nothing to do with your immune system or ability to deal with poisons.

DEX - watchmakers do not necessarily make great gymnasts, and vice versa.

INT - the ability to do maths is unrelated to the ability to write a book, and neither has anything to do with the ability to find a secret door.

WIS - bullheadedness is just about diametrically opposed to a knack for getting deep, intuitive insights into things or understand someone else's motivations.

CHA - same stat covers Azog the Defiler (intimidation), Brigitte Bardot (seduction), and Miles Davis (good at playing a trumpet). Makes no sense.

When you try hard enough you can make anything look bad. I will not bother replying until you quit your agenda first and present stuff in more neutral manner.

[Sonntam]

 

It's not like DnD attributes were particularly simulationist either. I'll give you STR, but the others are entirely gamey and arbitrary.

 

CON - the toughness of your bones and thickness of your skin has nothing to do with your immune system or ability to deal with poisons.

DEX - watchmakers do not necessarily make great gymnasts, and vice versa.

INT - the ability to do maths is unrelated to the ability to write a book, and neither has anything to do with the ability to find a secret door.

WIS - bullheadedness is just about diametrically opposed to a knack for getting deep, intuitive insights into things or understand someone else's motivations.

CHA - same stat covers Azog the Defiler (intimidation), Brigitte Bardot (seduction), and Miles Davis (good at playing a trumpet). Makes no sense.

When you try hard enough you can make anything look bad. I will not bother replying until you quit your agenda first and present stuff in more neutral manner.

 

That's exactly the point! All attribute systems are pretty ridiculous, because they encompass too many different things and are rather unrealistic by default. It may seem that DnD attributes are more logical, but I would argue that this is because we are so used to this system. 

[PrimeJunta]

When you try hard enough you can make anything look bad. I will not bother replying until you quit your agenda first and present stuff in more neutral manner.

 

See, that's your problem right there, archangel. You constantly confuse your personal opinions with a "neutral point of view" or "general consensus among backers" or whatever.

 

I don't really have an agenda, either, other than I'd really like a game I'd really like to play.

 

I do have opinions, of course, which include a general dislike of DnD mechanics and an immense affection for much of its content, but I don't make any secret about that -- and I'm not about to change or hide those opinions just to please you TYVM.

[GordonHalfman]

All stat systems will suffer from incomplete or approximate representation, that not really the same kind of issue as stuff that just makes no sense. 

[archangel979]

 

When you try hard enough you can make anything look bad. I will not bother replying until you quit your agenda first and present stuff in more neutral manner.

 

See, that's your problem right there, archangel. You constantly confuse your personal opinions with a "neutral point of view" or "general consensus among backers" or whatever.

 

I don't really have an agenda, either, other than I'd really like a game I'd really like to play.

 

I do have opinions, of course, which include a general dislike of DnD mechanics and an immense affection for much of its content, but I don't make any secret about that -- and I'm not about to change or hide those opinions just to please you TYVM.

 

Only personal opinion is yours. I cba to c/p SRD that beats all your points. Go read it yourself. Edited January 23, 2015 by archangel979

[PrimeJunta]

Which stat system are you talking about, DnD's or P:E's?

[PrimeJunta]

 

 

When you try hard enough you can make anything look bad. I will not bother replying until you quit your agenda first and present stuff in more neutral manner.

 

See, that's your problem right there, archangel. You constantly confuse your personal opinions with a "neutral point of view" or "general consensus among backers" or whatever.

 

I don't really have an agenda, either, other than I'd really like a game I'd really like to play.

 

I do have opinions, of course, which include a general dislike of DnD mechanics and an immense affection for much of its content, but I don't make any secret about that -- and I'm not about to change or hide those opinions just to please you TYVM.

 

Only personal opinion is yours. I cba to c/p SRD that beats all your points. Go read it yourself.

 

Yep, archangel doesn't have opinions, he only states objective truths. :eyeroll:

[wanderon]

I cba to c/p SRD ....???

 

Tried plugging this into google and it didn't know wtf it meant either...

[PrimeJunta]

can't be arsed to copy-paste a System Reference Document

[archangel979]

can't be arsed to copy-paste a System Reference Document

At least you didn't use your agenda to on purpose misinterpret this

[illathid]

Well I am opposite to you Nipsen. I care for simulation approach to attributes first and balance second.

I was perfectly happy with how IWD2 and NWN games did attributes (more streamlined and easier to understand for general player population than BG1/2 and IWD1).

 

If they are completely gamist they as well need not exist. Might is stupid stat, it is totally gamist and does not let me define physical strenght of my character. They would be better to just have Damage and Healing stats instead of Might. Same goes for the rest.

If they are not going to have simulation approach then lets not lie to each other and just have character sheet full of direct gameplay bonuses.

 

*Hissss* Simulationist! Kill it with fire!

[archangel979]

Well that's technically what they are for the purposes of combat, except the bonuses are grouped.

Then lets group them in ways that are not fake. And remove the middle man of fake attributes just for the sake of being similar to IE games.

[Namutree]

 

 

THIS! I wish I could give two likes!

 

 

 

 

I still remember how pissed I was that the fighter had to be an active defender because that's all fighters were good for when the beta came out. Now the system is much more flexible and I can make my fighter focus on offence with passive talents rather than active abilities. Like a fighter should be.

 

I'm in some ways sorry to provoke people who seem happy enough in spite of their disabilities. But you guys realize on some level or other that "more flexible", and 'it now fits the limited role I think a fighter should have, perfectly' - are not two statements that could reasonably be said to have the same meaning?

I never said, "It now fits the limit role I think a should have, perfectly." I said I CAN make a fighter with a limited role that focuses on offense. If I want to I can still make the defense build that was your only viable choice in the early beta; just now I have other options as well.

 

 

 

Meanwhile, I have demonstrated, in detail, how you could vary your builds on the original schema. I'm not making that up.

 

Pretty sure you are...

 

 

 

Resistance was the "dump stat", remember? The one that "no one picked", because it was "unneeded". Also, "waah, the crystal spiders are hard".

 

Like I thought; making things up. There is nor was any "Resistance" stat. Ever. Maybe you're thinking of resolve? Just a guess.

 

 

an extremely fast but lightly armored striker, 

Such a build would have been worthless. In the early build fighters were terrible at dps compared to other classes. The fighter NEEDED his heavy armor to be useful.

 

 

 

So from that one class, you could make completely different characters, and all had a role to play if you configured your party well. None of the characters would have incredibly debilitating weaknesses, but they would have super-specialized attacks and ways of bypassing or bashing through certain types of defenses.

BS. In the early beta the ONLY viable fighter build was armored tank. Attempt to make anything else and you were nerfing your fighter greatly. Tanking was the only thing the fighter was good at.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Namutree

[Lord Wafflebum]

@Namutree

Sounds like you at least played the beta

[Lephys]

 

Yeah, I could be mistaken, but I don't recall anything ever affecting your chance to make an attack of opportunity. Ever since its conception, engagement was "you leave the circle, you get attacked." And what stat is "resistance"?

Mhm, you're mistaken.

 

Well crap. When you so clearly lay it out like that, how can I possibly doubt that I was mistaken?

 

Could you perhaps, I dunno... produce some modicum of evidence that actually shows me I'm wrong? 'Cause I'm totally fine with being wrong. In fact, I'd rather KNOW I'm wrong than THINK I'm right. I'm just kinda missing out on the knowing part, here.

[nipsen]

 

 

Resistance was the "dump stat", remember? The one that "no one picked", because it was "unneeded". Also, "waah, the crystal spiders are hard".

 

Like I thought; making things up. There is nor was any "Resistance" stat. Ever. Maybe you're thinking of resolve? Just a guess.

 

 

an extremely fast but lightly armored striker, 

Such a build would have been worthless. In the early build fighters were terrible at dps compared to other classes. The fighter NEEDED his heavy armor to be useful.

 

 

 

So from that one class, you could make completely different characters, and all had a role to play if you configured your party well. None of the characters would have incredibly debilitating weaknesses, but they would have super-specialized attacks and ways of bypassing or bashing through certain types of defenses.

BS. In the early beta the ONLY viable fighter build was armored tank. Attempt to make anything else and you were nerfing your fighter greatly. Tanking was the only thing the fighter was good at.

 

Oh, yeah. Resolve. Thanks. ..It actually granted a bonus to a "resistance" stat, though. But thanks for that.

 

Other than that - "I am convinced completely that I'm right" isn't an argument. I know you think the first system dictated one single build for the fighter. But I don't know how you came to that point of view, or why that is the case. I'm obviously open to the suggestion that there is a good reason why you personally think the system only allowed one build. And that understanding how you arrive at that view might be interesting.

 

But - it's still the case that you could create a light and fast fighter, and rely on defensive abilities when you were outnumbered, and so on. And it would give you the advantage of having a fighter placed in the right situation more often - specially if you built for interrupts, which you could. That was the build concept. Not complicated.

 

 

 

Yeah, I could be mistaken, but I don't recall anything ever affecting your chance to make an attack of opportunity. Ever since its conception, engagement was "you leave the circle, you get attacked." And what stat is "resistance"?

Mhm, you're mistaken.

 

Well crap. When you so clearly lay it out like that, how can I possibly doubt that I was mistaken?

 

Could you perhaps, I dunno... produce some modicum of evidence that actually shows me I'm wrong? 'Cause I'm totally fine with being wrong. In fact, I'd rather KNOW I'm wrong than THINK I'm right. I'm just kinda missing out on the knowing part, here.

 

... evidence that perception at one time was what determined "interrupt%" and "range", determining how likely you were to interrupt casters, ability triggers, runners and so on that were in range? 

 

Turns out I actually don't have evidence that that ever happened. But I think the game simulated (badly, imo - even if it was a good idea) a system where you would generate a possible attack of opportunity at pretty much everything - movement, ranged attack preparations, spells, ability triggers, stance changes, whatever. But only a few of these would actually be exploited, depending on the build standing next to you. And typically, the might-based builds would have low perception, making them less dangerous than a faster one if you were triggering a lot of interrupts against you.

 

Like my example with the weak but criminally perceptive priest, who normally doesn't fight much, has low stamina, etc. But he can spot any detail, etc. and could for example completely dominate in a defensive battle if he had a magical touch attack prepared, that didn't rely on accuracy to beat the armor class. Gaining attacks, and hitting every time, with the defensive bonus an interrupt would give you.

 

That's what made the system interesting. That you could literally break a formation, or crash a well-organised attack. And when the line falls, it's overy in a moment. Instead of... after kiting down to the next corner, etc.

Edited January 24, 2015 by nipsen

[PrimeJunta]

Oh, yeah. Resolve. Thanks. ..It actually granted a bonus to a "resistance" stat, though. But thanks for that.

 

There is no "resistance" stat, and never was. You may be thinking of Concentration though, but given how confused you clearly are about the game's mechanics it's hard to take anything you say seriously at this point. And you claim to have turned this into a PnP system? :boggle:

 

Like my example with the weak but criminally perceptive priest, who normally doesn't fight much, has low stamina, etc. But he can spot any detail, etc. and could for example completely dominate in a defensive battle if he had a magical touch attack prepared, that didn't rely on accuracy to beat the armor class. Gaining attacks, and hitting every time, with the defensive bonus an interrupt would give you.

And since in P:E all attacks, including touch attacks, rely on Accuracy to hit, and there is no such thing as "armor class"... well.

 

That's what made the system interesting. That you could literally break a formation, or crash a well-organised attack. And when the line falls, it's overy in a moment. Instead of... after kiting down to the next corner, etc.

Your imaginary system maybe. You clearly have no idea about what the actual system in P:E is, or was like though.

 

But keep talking, this is amusing.

[GordonHalfman]

if he had a magical touch attack prepared, that didn't rely on accuracy to beat the armor class

 

 

May slightly have jumped the shark there.