What attribute bonuses should have been

[Cronstintein]

• Counterintuitive. "Why does Might make guns do more damage?" "Why does Int make you harder to hit? (when Defl was on Int)"
• Pumpy/dumpy. "Dexterity adds Accuracy! Dexterity FTW for everyone!" "Might only pumps melee damage, dump for casters!"
• Overly complex. "Let's see, I want to make a damager, and Damage is split between Might and Resolve, crit chance is spread across Perception, Intellect, and Dexterity, action speed is split between... argh, what did I want to do again...?"
• Cosmetic. The effects were so nerfed that a toon with 3 in all stats played more or less the same as a toon with 18 in all stats.

 

I would say what we have now is an A+B situation (and a bit of D for Dex, Res, Per).   I would prefer a C. 

 

I understand the reasoning for trying to keep complexity low for new-comers to the genre but lets be real here: most of us are pretty hardcore rpg nerds and can handle a complex system.  By making the stats affecting more things (like Alweth's suggestion) you make them less prone to dumping.  As it stands, I might as well have 3 CON as that little bit of health will make no difference.  But if it also effects duration.. maybe not! It's, at the very least, a more interesting cost/benefit choice.

 

I obviously realize Obsidian is not going to change these things at this stage, this is more a request-list for when the modders get into full swing

[PaintingInAir]

I think the current stats allow for more build diversity. I can make an AoE wizard or a nuke wizard. A damage ranger, or an interrupt ranger. Etc.

[PrimeJunta]

@Cronstintein IMO another problem with "overly complex" systems where you split the stats many ways between abilities is that it quickly melds into "cosmetic." If you've got all the numbers split across three abilities each, then the differentiation between abilities gets diluted to the point where it doesn't make that much difference anymore which ones you pick.

 

Think of it as a dial where at one end one ability affects one number, and at the other, every number is evenly split between every ability. The former is obviously pumpy/dumpy, the latter is obviously purely cosmetic. The more you move the dial from left to right, the more complex and less impactful it gets.

 

I don't really see any way around this dilemma. I kinda like the dial to be somewhere near the middle where it is now so I actually have to think of what to pick for a bit, even if there are some fairly obvious pump/dumps. AD&D had it way too far to the left. I don't like everything about this system but it's close enough that I'm pretty happy with it.

[Cronstintein]

I would disagree slightly.  I don't think complexity (in this case--affecting many variables) necessarily leads to cosmetic.  I would see cosmetic as more a side-effect of stats not doing enough. For example the interrupt/concentration aspect of dex/res is basically cosmetic.  If you jacked those bonuses up 500% that would change but the complexity would stay the same.

[MrBirthday]

By now I'm fairly convinced that six attributes is just plain a bad idea.

Well then, how many attributes do you think would be the right number, if you don't mind my asking? And what would they be?

[Arhu]

Some options, maybe some ideas for mods:

 

- Rename Might to what it's supposed to mean. Soul strength, Chi / Qi, Ferocity, ... Be consistent -- don't use it only for physical strength checks, but also for mental strength, if both are supposed to be the same.

 

- Replace all Might checks with Athletics checks, as that would make much more sense with Might in its current form, or maybe a combination of Might and Athletics. So far all Might checks I've seen in dialogues or text adventures have really been checks for physical strength; mental strength was exclusively checked with Resolve.

 

- Analogous to how different defense types are spread between different main attributes, spread different damage types. Yes, it might create dump stats, but you can be creative, like with INT. Most physical damage increase = Might, most mental damage increase = Resolve seems obvious.

 

- Rename Might to Strength, because that's what it is. Think of other things to make it a bit more useful for casters, if that's the goal.

 

- Remove Might.

[Lephys]

I would say what we have now is an A+B situation (and a bit of D for Dex, Res, Per).   I would prefer a C. 

 

I understand the reasoning for trying to keep complexity low for new-comers to the genre but lets be real here: most of us are pretty hardcore rpg nerds and can handle a complex system.  By making the stats affecting more things (like Alweth's suggestion) you make them less prone to dumping.  As it stands, I might as well have 3 CON as that little bit of health will make no difference.  But if it also effects duration.. maybe not! It's, at the very least, a more interesting cost/benefit choice.

I agree. I'm not saying there's not a threshold across which things get ridiculous. But, "overly complex" loses a of its worry when you're dealing with complexity you're only ever going to really deal with 1 time (character creation). After that, everything's just going to work as it should, and you're going to make decisions to influence things on top of that.

 

It's like a D&D character sheet. When you first sit down with one, it's a TON of info. But, when you're done, you just go "Oh, a Dex check? *looks at Dex Modifier box* +3? Okay, so *rolls d20*... 15, +3, 18. How'd I do?"

 

You're not like "WHOA, wait a minute! What are all the things in the whole universe that Dex affects again? Lemme get out my calculator and do some Calculus..."

 

So, yeah, I'd much rather the for-the-most-part permanent stuff that's decided up-front be where the complexity is, and for complexity to not be shied away from there. I think the benefit of "avoiding" complexity there isn't very high, compared to the cost (stuff like we can't make Wizards who aren't effective with clubs, or Fighters who aren't effective with wands -- especially in all the RP/scripted interaction/dialogue applications.)

 

Also, I keep reading more and more responses on this topic, and I still can't help but feel people don't realize that the goal isn't to make sure a stat isn't dumpable at all, but that it isn't the obvious/superior choice (to dump OR pump it) for any given class.

 

For example, the separation of physical and non-physical power is not an automatic "dump stat for Wizards, pump stat for Fighters" scenario. Honestly, if any given stat is THE one stat you always want to have on a given class, you're designing your classes incorrectly. You shouldn't have to max out Strength to make an effective Fighter. There's no reason not to have a finesse-y Fighter build, who either fights from a range mainly, or deals more damage through tactical effectiveness and accuracy than through straight-up smash-force. That's not an impossibility to code, and it's existed in games before. So, if a Fighter has enough different feasible ways to fight, then various stats can all be quite useful.

 

ALSO, A Fighter/Paladin/what-have-you shouldn't be the ONLY classes designed specifically for tanking. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having a Wizard tank. What would you tank with? Magic. Honestly, you should be able to have a Wizard hold the front line (basically, all your magic would be focused on cool, interesting Wizardly ways of mitigating damage, taking hits, and holding enemies' attention and/or preventing their movement), and have him backed up by several Fighters and such. It's the same as the "a Wizard can't wear heavy armor and use swords" convention. We change that, but it's still infeasible to us that magic does NOT equal "you have to deal lots of damage, usually from afar and to many targets at once, and for that reason you must be soft and squishy."

 

That's the kind of thing that contributes 7,000% more to the dumpability/pumpability of certain stats. A Fighter should be a Fighter because he's a Fighter, not because he has the most Health, or does the most damage. A Wizard should be a Wizard because he's a friggin' Wizard, not because he only performs very specific applications of magic for some reason. It's freaking MAGIC, and we're like "Oh, you could never possibly specialize in fulfilling the same role as a Fighter could fill." The second you say "Wizard tank," people just think "Oh man, but if a Wizard's wearing full plate and wielding a sword and shield, how is he any different from a Fighter?" Well, he's not. But if he's causing people's weapons to glow red-hot when they strike his magical barrier, and magnetizing people's weapons to their allies' armor, and delivering melee-range offensive spells to them, he's a LOT different.

 

So, yeah, stats just measure your character. They don't care what class your character is. If you're strong, you're strong. If you're accurate, you're accurate. If you're fast, you're fast. If you're durable, you're durable. Smart... etc. It's up the rest of the game mechanics to actually make good use of those measurements.

 

So, there were plenty of things the PoE stat system approach got away from, in a good way, from previous renditions. But then, there are things it did that have nothing to do with actually preventing dump stats, etc. A lot of the "problems" that arose with the various PoE stat system iterations/proposals stemmed more from a lack of flexibility in the class/role design than from the stats. As I've said before, ESPECIALLY in PoE, you don't even really have a huge physical/magical potency divide, since everyone's got "magical" souls, essentially. So you have the PERFECT excuse to let everyone have at least one build spectrum: Physical versus magical. Pretty much any class could have abilities facilitated by soul magic, or abilities facilitated by sheer class training and physical prowess.

 

(Note: I like the system for what it is, and am not trying to say it sucks. I've just been hoping for a much better/different stat system in an RPG for a really long time).

[FalloutBoy]

After playing this game for a while I've come to the conclusion that the only stats that matter to me for a main character are the conversation ones, Resolve, Int, Perception mostly. Because the game is easy enough with good combat tactics that you don't need the DPS increase.

[Kveldulf]

My .02 cents:

 

I remember the whole might discussion in beta as well. I was quite vocal about opposing it, but the consensus & devs determined otherwise. I fully understand the points of making might abstract, and even some of the rationality behind how 'muscle doesn't always equate to more damage'. Even with these points made, it was still very counter intuitive. I get the impression the devs were looking for this perfect level of symmetry AND enable classes to have flexibility - so you can have an intelligent warrior. This fell so short its not even funny.

 

At the end of their reasoning, it was all about a very biased opinion that got shoe horned; they liked the idea of something different and I suspect, some had a bias to favor frail archtypes. Seriously, it stinks of some pet project in development that got higher-ups fawning over it.

 

I know that the lead designers are pnp guys, but I get the impression they are sort of posing or, that they play a certain way thats very inconsistent in their group. I don't mind making things abstract for the sake of brevity in a system, but this went too far.

 

Choosing to make exceptions equal to general expectations (like the intelligent warrior with less brawn - that does well in combat, or the wizard who can hit hard in melee) is like saying a dog can piss in a toilet just as good as a human. Unless that dog has some awesome training, he's probably not going to pull through, hence is why you have skills/feats/abilities - to flesh out exceptions - not attributes.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Kveldulf

[Parsong]

current stat spread is what is causing the crazy polarization.

[Daemonjax]

The only way to do it right is to have different attributes for different character classes, so each attribute can be tailor made to be useful to that particular class in its own unique way.

 

That's not going to happen, but would make for an interesting rpg system.

 

 

current stat spread is what is causing the crazy polarization.

 

I agree.  It's a strange design decision that actually encourages min/maxing.  High stats should cost more points, and the stat minimum should be 7 before adjusting for racial bonuses.  While nothing forces anyone to optimize their attributes that way, it's the same as saying no one is forcing you to even spend all your attribute points.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Daemonjax

[nipsen]

Told you so....

 

Seriously, though. After the entire thing in the beta, got to admit that they've ended up at a good compromise with the current system.

 

..Even if the compromise was between something no one really wanted and couldn't have, and what Sawyer designed to actually fit with the game's setting on the other. So that they ended up with something that is closer to but still isn't d&d convention, and also doesn't quite fit with the game's setting.

 

But you can still see the problem with how the current stats don't fit as intuitively with the setting as they should, when you're prompted for dex checks for accuracy and fiddly tasks (and the accuracy as a disciplined action mechanic doesn't exist as far as the stats are concerned, but govern deflection, and is found in the hidden class variables instead). Or perception for .. perceiving things more broadly in the scrolling parchment scenes, for example. And the stats in the character page say it means something else, and grant bonuses to yet more abilities that aren't easy to see where comes from.

 

So it shouldn't exactly be unexpected that people don't intuitively understand what the stats mean. And that it does, still, require a learning curve that is almost like a leap of faith across floating rocks rather than a winding road up a mountain. (Maybe it's even more complex now than it was originally, because of the way the stats don't match narratively either, yes?)

 

In the end you're better off not reading too much into what the variables say, and just go with the narratively pleasing explanations (that also the writing and the story is using, and the overall description generally runs with), and trust that Obsidian will balance the power of the spells and the abilities to seem reasonably in line with what you expect from that point of view. And for me at least, playing it on "normal" basically lets you do that.

 

But people who wonder what in the world went on here should know that there was a better (frankly, uniquely well made) alternative in the game presented to us in the first public beta. That allowed for more diverse builds to exist in the game's mechanics.

 

And that that system also had the same "problem" as the new one, in the sense that "might" simply means the characters ability to channel raw force, whether it be physical or mental power. But that this had to be kept because it is core to the game's lore. While the other stats had a very graceful link between narrative and gameplay, that the game doesn't have now. On the other hand, the game now "looks more" like a "conventional rpg" setting. Which is.. good?

 

I mean, still think this was the silliest and least explainable thing a developer has done that I've seen in the last 15 years of gaming, given that they didn't actually have a publisher breathing down their neck, insisting they had to .. "make it look like d&d to sell!", or something like that.. Hence the thing about the pledge money in the link on top of the post. 

 

And sadly, I have very little difficulty seeing people will eventually talk about the attribute system in PoE as "different from D&D for the sake of being different from D&D".

 

You can probably bet good money on that someone will cook up a story about how the PoE attribute system originally was just normal D&D, but was changed at the last minute because Obsidian "forgot" the Wizards of the Coast owned the D&D system, or something like that. And that it's happening at Gaf as we type right now.

 

Even though the opposite was what happened.

 

Also, note that because of how the game is very intricately tied to specific tweaks and ability buffs and so on now, you can't simply "mod" the stats to change other variables. It's just not doable without making the game unplayable, or allowing hilariously overpowered builds. So what you have now is the best and only offer they're going to have. Honestly looking forward to some kind of post-mortem for this game in a few years, if someone will actually come up with a full rationale for the initial moving around with the stats. If there really was a mechanical explanation for it, or if it came from "concerns from users". Or if nothing else, exactly how the process was - when they figured out that adding a bunch of stat-points made the characters too strong, and when they went back to the 3d6 type stats, and what that was supposed to answer, etc.

 

So if you want my advice (though that would be a first), ignore the minutae with the stats, go with the narratively pleasing explanations when you pick things, and just enjoy the game for what it is.

Edited April 3, 2015 by nipsen

[Minezeye]

Its obvious thier was some real problems going on during development of the stat system

 

No matter what you call these stats there will ALWAYS be a dump stat for xxx class...

 

It seems like the number crunchers did one thing, and the story writers did another.  So they made up some bull**** background excuse to account for the story using might to break walls and bars and also the main DPS stat for very single class....

 

Might is the biggest most important stat in the game no matter which way you shake it ,  if you cant kill the enemies before they kill you its game over.

 

Might Kills enemies faster so ALL my heroes have MAX might and ALWAYS will as long as this backasswards system is in place.

 

Its sooo obvious that Might was suposto be an interpretation of pyhsical strength. Not some whacked out hippy, religious garbage about souls, MIght should just be renamed THE FORCE imo...

 

All they needed was a Stat called "Spirit" or "Luck" that affects every action and lo and behold the perfect dump stat.

 

This system is so convluted, just because they wanted to be different.

 

They remake baulder gate in every way except these few little silly changes they made Just so they can say its different.

 

There is nothing wrong with the original D&D stat system, we just have a bunch of silly devs who want to reinvent the stat wheel for no reason other than to stoke ego.

 

They failed, and we will probably not see this game continuing in the future because the CORE players of this series ARE D&D fans and most of us dont like this stat setup at all.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Minezeye

[Lephys]

The only way to do it right is to have different attributes for different character classes, so each attribute can be tailor made to be useful to that particular class in its own unique way.

 

That's not going to happen, but would make for an interesting rpg system.

Well, or you can have the same stats, but with differing secondary effects for each class. There are games that have done that. I realize it's more complex, but, still.

 

I don't know if having actual different stats for each class is the way to go, since you start running into "why doesn't Class B have any measurable Strength or Dexterity?" etc. The type of stats we're dealing with in PoE are meant to measure the basic properties of your character. Then, the rest of the system's purpose is to decide how you use those properties. Oh, you're Dexterous? What do you do more dexterously? Oh, you fling spells more dexterously? Oh, you stab people in the lung while they don't yet see you, more dexterously? Etc.

 

Strength doesn't grant a Wizard skill with conventional weapons. Nor does something like soul-power grant a Fighter magical spells and knowledge. It's the class system and ability design that does that. Which makes all these fallacial mutual-exclusions we see just plain silly.

 

If you look at D&D stats, then at PoE stats, there are plenty of examples of how the rest of the game mechanics made stats dump stats, etc. In D&D, you didn't have any spell accuracy. So, the only reason to take Dex was if you wanted to use one of the 2 and 1/2 weapons a Wizard could actually use from a range, a bit better, OR to increase your AC so you wouldn't get hit (essentially, in PoE terms, it would've boosted your Deflection). That's it. Unless you were going to wade into battle, it didn't do much for you. Not only that, but you couldn't NOT-pump Intelligence, or you'd suffer later on (and early one, in terms of bonus spells) as a Wizard.

 

PoE lets Dex actually be more useful to Wizards, in concept (faster action speed). And when it affected Accuracy, it affected spell accuracy, as well. So, boom. Are you a Fighter, or a Wizard? Doesn't matter. Accuracy is equally valuable. Doesn't mean you HAVE to pump it with either of those. Just means you can get equal use out of it, should you choose it. You can make a more accurate Fighter, or a less accurate Fighter. You can make a more Accurate Wizard, or a less Accurate Wizard.

 

Annnnnywho... classes need to be more versatile, is the main thing. Just because your class design doesn't let Class X take advantage of stat A, that's not necessarily the stat's fault. If you can't find any way to allow that stat to be valuable to that class, then you should probably re-think your stat system.

 

Here's another idea/example: Endurance. I realize that in PoE, this term is used to describe temporary Health, but in many other games, it's a stat. If there was an Endurance stat, it could affect abilities per-rest/encounter. So, you could have a Wizard who was really, really strong, and had high Endurance, so he could toss 10 Firebolts per rest instead of 3 or 4, but he wouldn't have high... Resolve, let's say (the most intuitive PoE stat for magical/soul power), so his spells would be weaker. He'd still be a Wizard, though. He'd just prefer to fight more on the frontlines while casting, instead of hanging back. OR, you could have a Wizard with lower Endurance, but really high Resolve. He'd have fewer spell castings per rest/encounter, but they'd be among the most powerful instances of those spells.

 

It's not a perfect example, just an off-the-top-of-my-head one. But, a Fighter with high Endurance could get more Knockdowns/Shield Bashes/Leaps, etc. Whatever abilities you want a Fighter to have. To do that, he's got to give something up. You couldn't max out Endurance, Strength, and Constitution. Etc.

 

That's basically how you should build a stat system, though. Take each stat you want, and try to justify both a high value and a low value with a build from each class. Again, a lot of it depends on the rigidity of your class system. If Rogues, for example, are purely designed to DPS the crap out of everything, then they're always going to need accuracy and damage, etc., and aren't going to get much use out of anything else.

[Cantousent]

I've actually made my gripes about the stat system, but I don't think it's going to unravel the game. I personally don't think stats are really the end all be all at any rate. They are important. They have a significant impact on the game, but you are faced with character decisions immediately that start to put stats in perspective as a part of an entire system. ...And, I submit, you can actually do quite well with a mediocre might build. That doesn't mean that I don't have my own issues with the system, but to relegate PoE to the trashbin of gaming history just seems premature to me.

[Katarack21]

The idea that there is any particular stat that is necessary for any particular class to be effective is just silly, IMHO. It all depends on how you build and how you play; what role you are assigning that character to.

[PsychoBlonde]

I've actually found Perception to be STAGGERINGLY useful, particularly with the Interrupting Blows ability.  The mindset that MOAR DPS is the "best" build doesn't hold up so well in this game.  I found it was much more valuable to actually be able to land proper hits (instead of grazes), and keep enemies from firing off their abilities.  Might is also basically useless in conversation except for Aggressive options, so it's a crappy stat to max if you care about roleplaying as other than an overbearing jerk.

 

One of those stats ought to add to Accuracy vs. Deflection, though, probably Perception.  Resolve should add to your attack vs. Fort/Ref/Will.  That right there would pretty much "fix" this entire "issue".

Edited April 3, 2015 by PsychoBlonde

[dirigible]

I've actually found Perception to be STAGGERINGLY useful, particularly with the Interrupting Blows ability.  The mindset that MOAR DPS is the "best" build doesn't hold up so well in this game.  I found it was much more valuable to actually be able to land proper hits (instead of grazes), and keep enemies from firing off their abilities.

I don't understand... Perception has nothing to do with landing proper hits.

[Kveldulf]

The idea that there is any particular stat that is necessary for any particular class to be effective is just silly, IMHO. It all depends on how you build and how you play; what role you are assigning that character to.

 

Yea. I personally think the more stats the better (8-10). So what if you have some dump stats, at least you have the option to walk around with a Beauty score equivelant to a super model demigod lol. I say embrace them, and let the players that exploit/min-max have their fun more so. Most pnp'ers like the little details and variety. The ones that don't probably have what I call,  'the board game agenda' - which is railroading/streamling too much.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Kveldulf

[Lephys]

@PsychoBlonde:

 

In all fairness, there is no stat choice that lets you land proper hits instead of grazes more often. So, while I get what you're saying about build options beyond "DAMAGE!", one of those is not "ACCURACY!" where stats are concerned.

 

@Cantousent:

 

I agree that stats are not the most important thing in the game, but that's actually equally supportive of the "then why worry so much about making sure they're designed in such an abstract way that they can't 'ruin' everything?" argument. Or rather, if they don't pack THAT much punch, then why not at least let them do proper jobs?

Edited April 3, 2015 by Lephys

[Kveldulf]

@Cantousent:

 

I agree that stats are not the most important thing in the game, but that's actually equally supportive of the "then why worry so much about making sure they're designed in such an abstract way that they can't 'ruin' everything?" argument. Or rather, if they don't pack THAT much punch, then why not at least let them do proper jobs?

 

Yep. Why even have stats if the player feels like they're 'not that important anyway'? That's pretty depressing really.

 

Stats are meant to illicit an image in ones imagination in a classic RPG (ahem... immersion). Waving a hand and saying that they're not everything to an RPG is defenitly obvious - its deflecting the issue. 

 

What I would be impressed with is some candor from the devs, that even a statment that might infer they fouled up the stats. It would save some face with their pnp fanbase. Right now, I've lost a little confidence in regards to them making a tasteful rule system.

 

As another put it in the forums, having wizards bend iron bars is immersion breaking. Rogues particularly now have more 'inner power' than fighters to move stone walls or other more obvious feats of strength. That's so abstract it sounds like a board game mechanic than RPG. Even applying physics to the situation, a heavily muscled guy is going to wield bigger things easier than a guy with less muscle and generally have more raw physical might than one with less.... unless you are going for cartoonish depiction - like some anime or WOW, etc.

 

Just because there are some instances where less muscled dudes accomplish the same feat as an Arnold equivelant, doesn't mean you should homogenize an also valid generality. It just means you should add another mechanics like skills/feats to do it because its an exception.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Kveldulf

[Lephys]

^ Meh. I mean, I knew how they were doing it from about the halfway point. And it makes perfect sense from a purely-gameplay standpoint. "This stat affects potency in any way, shape, or fashion." Makes the design a lot simpler, etc. There are a lot of pros to it. I just happen to dislike the cons.

 

I feel like, if it were any other genre of game than RPG, the way it is right now would be perfectly acceptible. But, it's just even stranger considering what we came from is the D&D-based IE games, and what we ended up with is "I don't really know if anyone is strong, or maybe just really magically potent? *shrug*. But, they have a number for how much force they can generate, whether it be healing force, bullet force, wand blast force, hammer force, etc.".

 

As I've said before, I'm more just sad over what's lacking from this decision, rather than what's "wrong" with the current stuff that's there.

[Cronstintein]

I just wish I had a reason to put points into PER and RES on my wizard besides dialogue options. 

 

A perceptive, stubborn, intelligent spell caster makes great sense conceptually but is poop in practice compared to a muscle-bound,   intelligent, ninja-wizard... I just wish there was some balance there.

 

I suspect it's a side-effect of going d100 but having a +8 to will (or the same spread on deflection on a non-tank) vs -7 has almost no effect on your ability to dodge strikes.  So you can sacrifice 15% dodge (on only 2 of 4 attacks forms, mind you) for a permanent and all encompassing 42% increase to all forms of damage?  The balance department dropped the ball BIG TIME.  You could double all the reflex/will/deflection modifiers and they would still be hard-pressed to compare to the attack stats of int and might.

 

EDIT: Sorry, I seem to have misremembered.  Apparently each stat point gives TWO to will/reflex/fort bonus.  But my point still stands, it IS doubled and still doesn't compete :D

 

Is this some kind of game-ruining affair? No. 

Is it kind of a bummer for someone who likes to really dig into character creation? Yes.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Cronstintein

[Cronstintein]

 

Also, note that because of how the game is very intricately tied to specific tweaks and ability buffs and so on now, you can't simply "mod" the stats to change other variables. It's just not doable without making the game unplayable, or allowing hilariously overpowered builds. So what you have now is the best and only offer they're going to have.

 

Really not sure what you're going on about here.  At first it sounds like you're saying it can't be done, then move on to say it'll be unbalanced?  The joke of it is, these stats are currently NOT widely stretched out into lots of systems, that's the problem!  They each modify like 3 variables and that's it. 

 

We already have complete imbalance in builds, so I'm not too worried about what the modders will come up with.  Or at least, I'll judge it when I see it.  I don't consider Obsidian to be some kind of prescient god-king of balance and any changes from their divine vision will ruin the game. 

[Kveldulf]

^ Meh. I mean, I knew how they were doing it from about the halfway point. And it makes perfect sense from a purely-gameplay standpoint. "This stat affects potency in any way, shape, or fashion." Makes the design a lot simpler, etc. There are a lot of pros to it. I just happen to dislike the cons.

 

 

 

 

A thing to consider, is that I've noticed the same trend among pnp'ers, that they are more concerned with gameplay mechanics than accurately portraying the universe. For example, I play warhammer fantasy and 40k, and there is quite the division there (but its a wargame so abstractness even more so- similar principle in general though), ahem, where most  of the players look to making things streamlined mechanically vs others who are more concerned with the narrative/accuracy of units depicted.

 

[Please understand for the following that I'm speaking in a generic sense - its not true for everyone who favors the whole Might idea, kk?]

 

Usually the ones who care about the narrative have deeper reasoning as to why even value the game. However, guess who has more hands in the franchise - the competitive players (the more gameplay centric guys). The reason for this higher population of gameplay cronies is that I think it has something to do with the propensity of people: in this age, people have their interest too divided that they would rather skid over the surfaces of many interests and borrow shallow concepts to form opinions than really assess a particular hobby ( a sort of mass ADHD). Eh, I digress though... 

 

What isn't usually considered by this gameplay-nazi crowd (imo) is the fact the genre and/or setting really is depicted first in an RPG, not the mechanics. Granted things should be balanced in a game, but there are so many ways to accomplish it, but so many people get fixated on a myopic pedantic solution - which again, inherently comes from the band wagon of 'new and improved gameplay'.

 

If there is one thing that Warhammer has gotten right the past few years, is that variety is better than trying to balance things out so symmetrically. League of Legends took this concept and ran with it too. This same concept could be said for having more than 6 stat categories and classless rpgs; they make for a more interesting and immersive setup because of the amount of variety given to the player.  Which would you rather have, 100 crazy backgrounds to choose from or 10 classes streamlined for linear tactical mechanics?

 

To think a tactical RPG works with such streamlining is really limiting its potential - from my estimation.

 

Oh.... how I ache for an Arcanum II.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Kveldulf