Ok, I will fix your stat system for you

[Eurhetemec]

I find it interesting that a year or so ago a lot of folks on this page insisted RPG systems / mechanics needed to be 'intuitive' 'simple' and 'clean.'

 

I was inclined to agree, more or less.

 

Now PoE is released, they seem to have had a Damascene conversion. The underlying mechanics are counter-intuitive, dense and byzantine. Yet hordes of folks love it.

 

Y'all the new grognards. Congrats.

 

Man what? Pillars of Eternity has relatively straightforward and highly consistent mechanics. You could claim Might and Int (only) were mildy counter-intuitive, for people who are somewhat narrow-minded, but dense and byzantine? Compared to what? Certainly not AD&D 2E or D&D 3E. Particularly not with all the obscure and bizarre FR-specific or otherwise rather arcane spells and mechanics dug up by BG2. You seriously need to tell us what your point of comparison is here.

 

Edit - Also, you apparently don't know what a grognard is. A grognard by no means automatically likes complex mechanics, nor is a grognard a fanboy or whatever. A grognard moans and groans (hence his name - it's from the Napoleonic wars) about everything new and harks back to the "good old days". So here a grognard would insist that everything was better in BG1/2, for example. Which seems to be the opposite of what's going on. If you're going to use these sort of insults, please learn to use them correctly.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Eurhetemec

[santiims]

How about a system where

 

Might - adds damage and chance to hit
Dexterity - adds deflection

Constitution - adds HP

Perception - improves priest/druid spells, monk abilities etc.

Intelligence - improves wizard spells

Resolve - improves chanter and cipher spells

 

 

(I hope you guys have a sense of humour)

[dirigible]

I'm hijacking OP's thread to post my own stat suggestions:

 

Fitness

• + % melee damage
• + % Health
• + Fortitude
• + Deflection

Coordination

• +% Action Speed
• + Reflex
• + Deflection
• - Chance to be interrupted

Perception

• Notice objects
• +% Ranged damage
• + Reflex
• + Chance to interrupt

Intelligence

• +% AOE size
• +% Duration
• + Will

Resolve

• +% Spell power
• +% Endurance
• + Fortitude
• + Will

I combined Strength and Constitution into Fitness. Thematically, I don't think its worth having them as separate stats.

Also, notice that Fitness gives Health, but Resolve gives Endurance. This gives more control and forces you to trade off between long-term tankiness and short-term tankiness.

Edited April 5, 2015 by dirigible

[speeder]

I'm hijacking OP's thread to post my own stat suggestions:

 

Fitness

• + % melee damage
• + % Health
• + Fortitude
• + Deflection

Coordination

• +% Action Speed
• + Reflex
• + Deflection
• - Chance to be interrupted

Perception

• Notice objects
• +% Ranged damage
• + Reflex
• + Chance to interrupt

Intelligence

• +% AOE size
• +% Duration
• + Will

Resolve

• +% Spell power
• +% Endurance
• + Fortitude
• + Will

I combined Strength and Constitution into Fitness. Thematically, I don't think its worth having them as separate stats.

Also, notice that Fitness gives Health, but Resolve gives Endurance. This gives more control and forces you to trade off between long-term tankiness and short-term tankiness.

Whoa I like that!

[jackjack]

No thanks. I like it as is.

[Tigranes]

I don't really like how the stats are balanced right now, for obvious reasons (how was it not obvious that 3 stats are so much better than the other 3?).

 

Of course, OP's system just reproduces every existing problem in a different guise. Instead of 3 stats everyone takes, you now have "each type of player has 1 or 2 obvious no-brainer stats and ignores everything else". Instead of schwarzenegger wizards, you now have fighters who have to be intelligent to hit people more often, whereas a really perceptive and dexterous character doesn't get any bonus to hitting anybody. There's no improvement. 

 

I do hope Obsidian gets on rebalancing the stats in a future patch, perhaps reintroducing the accuracy bonus to perception where people who dump perception end up far worse than the 'normal' accuracy.

[dirigible]

 

I'm hijacking OP's thread to post my own stat suggestions:

 

Fitness

• + % melee damage
• + % Health
• + Fortitude
• + Deflection

Coordination

• +% Action Speed
• + Reflex
• + Deflection
• - Chance to be interrupted

Perception

• Notice objects
• +% Ranged damage
• + Reflex
• + Chance to interrupt

Intelligence

• +% AOE size
• +% Duration
• + Will

Resolve

• +% Spell power
• +% Endurance
• + Fortitude
• + Will

I combined Strength and Constitution into Fitness. Thematically, I don't think its worth having them as separate stats.

Also, notice that Fitness gives Health, but Resolve gives Endurance. This gives more control and forces you to trade off between long-term tankiness and short-term tankiness.

Whoa I like that!

 

Thanks, bro. I think it adds a lot more customization while preserving the "no wrong choices" concept.

Every stat is useful, and they lead to different builds.

A ranged DPS is gonna focus on Coordination and Perception, and will be interrupting people a lot.

A melee DPS is gonna focus on Fitness and Coordination, and will have good natural deflection.

You can put a wizard in full plate, stack Resolve and Fitness, and turn him into a pretty capable battlemage.

 

Also the fact that each stat contributes to damage in one way or another

Edited April 5, 2015 by dirigible

[AncientToaster]

Good job, you have successfully reverted this to any cookie cutter RPG stat system ever created.

 

Might is now only important to melees,

Perception is the new Might for casters, but also comes with defensive bonuses to that casters are the new tanks?

Intelligence is even more overpowered than it is currently, Barbarians will want to stack even more Intelligence

Resolve is even more of a must-have for tanks and overpowered because damage reduction is armor-only right now and should stay that way,

Constitution is still useless except for tanks, except nobody will have any specialized resistances anymore

Dex is now a tank stat, which leads to the weird solution that tanks attack blazing fast and DDs have high deflection scores.

 

Which is why this game is so disappointing on so many levels, is because they tried to reinvent the Attribute system and it's a poorer game for it in every way.

 

Might for spell casters = Meat Head Mages and Priests?

Might for gun damage? Might for Arrow damage?

If you want to have a character that is somewhat competent in combat in ANY WAY, you need Might. Resolve and Perception are only really good for frontline tanks that do nothing else but soak up hits and auto attack. 

 

Resolve and Perception are absolutely worthless unless you want to tank and never contribute damage in combat. Resolve and Perception are also the most overused dialogue stats in the game with extremely high checks.

[Jasta11]

I don't think the stats need an overhaul, just a rebalance. Might, Resolve, Intelect and Dexterity work fine. Constitution needs to be buffed (adding resistances and perhaps resistance to disengagement) and Perception needs to be more useful for damage dealers (+accuracy is my best bet, transfer some of its defensive bonuses to Con).

 

I kinda understand why Obsidian didn't want a stat to give +accuracy, since accuracy is critically important to every single character build in the game. But we already have Con and Res as tank stats, Per doesn't need to be one too.

 

As for Might increasing bullet damage, wel lthat makes about as much sense as high Resolve increasing your deflection or intelligence increase the AoE of a barbarian's attacks. Stats are always an abstraction.

Edited April 5, 2015 by Jasta11

[Caerdon]

A little pet peeve of mine, but..  Strenght (or Might or Fitness or whatever you want to call it) should affect bow damage just as much as it affects melee damage. Other ranged damage can depend on Perception or Coordination or Prescience or something like that.

 

As you were.

[crabe]

 

Ok, I will fix your stat system for you

 

 

No, thank you.

[dirigible]

A little pet peeve of mine, but..  Strenght (or Might or Fitness or whatever you want to call it) should affect bow damage just as much as it affects melee damage. Other ranged damage can depend on Perception or Coordination or Prescience or something like that.

 

As you were.

Sorta, yeah.

Str/Might/Fitness should improve the damage of war bows, but not crossbows or firearms (and not really Hunting Bows either, since a hunting bow is gonna have pretty low max poundage - you'd just snap it if you tried drawing it too far).

[Serdan]

If you want to have a character that is somewhat competent in combat in ANY WAY, you need Might.

False. A debuff/cc/summoner chanter is perfectly viable with low might.

[View619]

Oh, you're going to make an attribute mod? Or is this another "I know how to make a better attribute system then the devs" thread?

Edited April 5, 2015 by View619

[Caerdon]

 

A little pet peeve of mine, but..  Strenght (or Might or Fitness or whatever you want to call it) should affect bow damage just as much as it affects melee damage. Other ranged damage can depend on Perception or Coordination or Prescience or something like that.

 

As you were.

Sorta, yeah.

Str/Might/Fitness should improve the damage of war bows, but not crossbows or firearms (and not really Hunting Bows either, since a hunting bow is gonna have pretty low max poundage - you'd just snap it if you tried drawing it too far).

 

A hunting bow made for a stronger person would still have comparatively higher draw weight - i.e. higher damage - than one made for a weaker person. The difference to a war bow is that it doesn't go for the maximum draw weight the user can handle.

 

Of course, if we're really getting technical, every single bow should have their own draw weight and draw length which the archer must be able to match to be able to use them without hefty penalties (or at all), any extra strength wouldn't be of any use. A smaller person with small draw length could use a bow with higher draw length with less strength, but would also get less damage out of it.

 

But I guess that's a bit too simulationist. I prefer a system where a bow functions as if it was made for its user - just like things are right now with armors.

[mrmonocle]

how many of these we have here already. OP go make your own game with your fabulous stats.

[Jasta11]

 

 

A little pet peeve of mine, but..  Strenght (or Might or Fitness or whatever you want to call it) should affect bow damage just as much as it affects melee damage. Other ranged damage can depend on Perception or Coordination or Prescience or something like that.

 

As you were.

Sorta, yeah.

Str/Might/Fitness should improve the damage of war bows, but not crossbows or firearms (and not really Hunting Bows either, since a hunting bow is gonna have pretty low max poundage - you'd just snap it if you tried drawing it too far).

 

A hunting bow made for a stronger person would still have comparatively higher draw weight - i.e. higher damage - than one made for a weaker person. The difference to a war bow is that it doesn't go for the maximum draw weight the user can handle.

 

Of course, if we're really getting technical, every single bow should have their own draw weight and draw length which the archer must be able to match to be able to use them without hefty penalties (or at all), any extra strength wouldn't be of any use. A smaller person with small draw length could use a bow with higher draw length with less strength, but would also get less damage out of it.

 

But I guess that's a bit too simulationist. I prefer a system where a bow functions as if it was made for its user - just like things are right now with armors.

 

 

I'm not sure if that much complexity is a good thing for just one weapon type. Either you start being stat grindy and simulationist for all weapons (such as making slashing weapons completely worthless against plate, and piercing weapons not pass harmlessly though allies), or you have the current PoE model where it's more generic, with different weapons getting different bonuses but not being used in drastically different ways. The game is probably complex enough as it is.

 

Plus, tying damage to another stat than Might just means that Might becomes useless for that character type in favor of X other stat. Personally I like the concept that, if you want to hit harder, you put points in Might, period. I realize some don't, but I don,t see the point of separating stats into, say, melee and ranged damage increase. It just means you have several stats doing the exact same thing, as I see it.

[gurugeorgey]

I'm hijacking OP's thread to post my own stat suggestions:

 

Fitness

• + % melee damage
• + % Health
• + Fortitude
• + Deflection

Coordination

• +% Action Speed
• + Reflex
• + Deflection
• - Chance to be interrupted

Perception

• Notice objects
• +% Ranged damage
• + Reflex
• + Chance to interrupt

Intelligence

• +% AOE size
• +% Duration
• + Will

Resolve

• +% Spell power
• +% Endurance
• + Fortitude
• + Will

I combined Strength and Constitution into Fitness. Thematically, I don't think its worth having them as separate stats.

Also, notice that Fitness gives Health, but Resolve gives Endurance. This gives more control and forces you to trade off between long-term tankiness and short-term tankiness.

 

I like the look of that system thematically, but who knows (until it's tested) how it would play out in a videogame.

 

Fundamentally, the problem with RPGs is that the idea of creating a person by assigning attributes is sound, but the attributes need to be abstracted and distinguished more carefully, and more attention needs to be paid to how attributes can influence each other.  IOW, some attributes should be the resultant of other attributes.  Also, some attributes can improve with exercise (and exercise of other attributes) while others are more or less fixed and can only alter magically.

 

BUT THEN, you have the whole problem of how that pans out in a videogame, in which the developers have to make it hard to make a gimp build.

 

My solution is that choice for the attributes of the person and choice for the class have to be tied together in some way.

 

I think the flaw in all the systems hitherto is the the idea of having a) a "pool" of points, and b) a choice of attributes and choice of class be choices you can make separately.  They have to be tied together.

 

IOW, every class has a "graph" with a "band" of required-attributes-for-functionality, the total pool of points is fixed and the same for every player, and most of them are assigned to the class within that "band", but there are a few points left over for free choice.

 

You either choose a person (a bunch of attributes representing a person) and the class those attributes would be suitable is chosen for you, or you choose a class, and the attributes come with it.  You then have a few points to play with, within that "band", for flavour and rp.  That way, you can't make a gimp (of that class), but you can shape the character somewhat, either for rp flavour or for min-maxing, but only within the lower and upper bounds of the "band" of functionality.  Any attribute going beyond that "band" in the upper limit, has to be attained either by exercise (if it's an attribute that's improvable by exercise), or by magic.

 

tl;dr  What's needed is a setup where you can't make a magician who's dumb as rocks and strong as an ox, because such a "mage" would never have gotten into mage college and been able to become a mage, but you can make a mage who's still functional as a mage, but was the laughing stock at mage college for being the dumbest mage in college, and can also lift heavy backpacks, but isn't quite as strong as an average warrior.  Simlarly a physically wimpy "warrior" would never have survived long enough to become a warrior.  But you can have a particularly cunning or perceptive warrior, who's still functional as a warrior but has an edge in conversations.

Edited April 5, 2015 by gurugeorgey

[vattghern]

None of you has managed to solve the problem that, given the same weapon, an intelligent barbarian has bigger reach on his cleaving attacks than a dim one. Realistically, the only stat that should affect it is arm length.

 

Back to the drawing board y'all.

[dirigible]

A hunting bow made for a stronger person would still have comparatively higher draw weight - i.e. higher damage - than one made for a weaker person. The difference to a war bow is that it doesn't go for the maximum draw weight the user can handle.

 

Of course, if we're really getting technical, every single bow should have their own draw weight and draw length which the archer must be able to match to be able to use them without hefty penalties (or at all), any extra strength wouldn't be of any use. A smaller person with small draw length could use a bow with higher draw length with less strength, but would also get less damage out of it.

 

But I guess that's a bit too simulationist. I prefer a system where a bow functions as if it was made for its user - just like things are right now with armors.

 

I'd actually prefer the other way around - for both weapons and armor.

 

Like, most of the bows, swords, and armor you pick up aren't going to "fit" you. You can use them, but they won't be ideal. But if you craft equipment, then it's made perfectly for you.

 

I dunno. This just isn't that type of game.

[Horrorscope]

We were told the #'s would be easily modifiable prior to release? Is that true? If so, don't talk the talk OP, walk the walk and send me the download link!

[dirigible]

I like the look of that system thematically, but who knows (until it's tested) how it would play out in a videogame.

 

Fundamentally, the problem with RPGs is that the idea of creating a person by assigning attributes is sound, but the attributes need to be abstracted and distinguished more carefully, and more attention needs to be paid to how attributes can influence each other.  IOW, some attributes should be the resultant of other attributes.  Also, some attributes can improve with exercise (and exercise of other attributes) while others are more or less fixed and can only alter magically.

 

BUT THEN, you have the whole problem of how that pans out in a videogame, in which the developers have to make it hard to make a gimp build.

 

My solution is that choice for the attributes of the person and choice for the class have to be tied together in some way.

 

I think the flaw in all the systems hitherto is the the idea of having a) a "pool" of points, and b) a choice of attributes and choice of class be choices you can make separately.  They have to be tied together.

 

IOW, every class has a "graph" with a "band" of required-attributes-for-functionality, the total pool of points is fixed and the same for every player, and most of them are assigned to the class within that "band", but there are a few points left over for free choice.

 

You either choose a person (a bunch of attributes representing a person) and the class those attributes would be suitable is chosen for you, or you choose a class, and the attributes come with it.  You then have a few points to play with, within that "band", for flavour and rp.  That way, you can't make a gimp (of that class), but you can shape the character somewhat, either for rp flavour or for min-maxing, but only within the lower and upper bounds of the "band" of functionality.  Any attribute going beyond that "band" in the upper limit, has to be attained either by exercise (if it's an attribute that's improvable by exercise), or by magic.

 

tl;dr  What's needed is a setup where you can't make a magician who's dumb as rocks and strong as an ox, because such a "mage" would never have gotten into mage college and been able to become a mage, but you can make a mage who's still functional as a mage, but was the laughing stock at mage college for being the dumbest mage in college, and can also lift heavy backpacks, but isn't quite as strong as an average warrior.  Simlarly a physically wimpy "warrior" would never have survived long enough to become a warrior.  But you can have a particularly cunning or perceptive warrior, who's still functional as a warrior but has an edge in conversations.

 

That sounds a lot like something I suggested in a different thread:

 

stats being the result of your character choices

 

Ex:

Aumaua start with 8 con, 8 might, 5 dex, 6 per, 7 int, 8 resolve

Coastal Aumaua get +2 con, +3 might, +3 dex, +1 per, +1 int, +2 resolve

Rangers get +1 con, +2 might, +5 dex, +4 per

Wolf Companion grants +2 con, 2 might, +2 per

And then you get 6 points to spend wherever you want

 

So a Coastal Aumaua Ranger with a wolf companion would have

13 constitution

15 might

13 dexterity

13 perception

8 intelligence

10 resolve

with 6 points left to spend anywhere they want

Edited April 5, 2015 by dirigible

[illathid]

None of you has managed to solve the problem that, given the same weapon, an intelligent barbarian has bigger reach on his cleaving attacks than a dim one. Realistically, the only stat that should affect it is arm length.

 

Back to the drawing board y'all.

 

Realism and/or stimulationism can die in fire. This is game.

[Dongom]

 

None of you has managed to solve the problem that, given the same weapon, an intelligent barbarian has bigger reach on his cleaving attacks than a dim one. Realistically, the only stat that should affect it is arm length.

 

Back to the drawing board y'all.

 

Realism and/or stimulationism can die in fire. This is game.

 

 

Whats funny is people make the exact opposite argument when defending the Camping system vs IE game Rest system  

 

"It's more realistic".

[Akos]

Might for casters is a little weird if you're only used to the typical D&D wizard who places an intense focus on study and learning and nothing else, swiftly becoming but one of a thousand other wizards who perfectly fit that exact same description. 

I actually like the idea that a very typical wizard who places emphasis on the intellectual aspect of magic is going to excel at crowd control effects which cripple his adversaries. It makes more sense to me that a highly intelligent person would want to manipulate the battlefield in an intelligent and tactful manner, and would consider simply blasting everyone with a fire-ball a bit primitive. 

 

Meanwhile there exists another kind of wizard who is quite physically strong and this lets him to channel his magic in a way that allows him to take better advantage of spells which do direct damage. Perhaps he lacks the intelligence to be truly creative with spells, and prefers the simple logic of burning enemies alive to tactfully turning the tide of a battle. Maybe he even wears heavy armor and wades into the thick of combat where his destructive magic can be used most effectively. Like a barbarian that breathes fire. 

 

The way Might is set up as a physical attribute that allows characters to more capably channel their spiritual energy makes sense to me. More importantly, it allows for different *kinds* of characters beyond the normal (and frankly, over-done) D&D archetypes of book-worm wizard, stupid barbarian, or crafty beguiling rogue. How many times are we going to make these characters before we get bored? Might is fine. 

The only attribute I think need work is constitution; the way it scales health simply isn't very useful to classes with high health who don't need it, or classes with low health who can't benefit much from it. If it added flat health/endurance per level, and perhaps even gave some natural DR (say +1 DR every 4 points in constitution) I could see it being more than a dump stat. 

But Might is fine, and I quite like how it is represented. 
 

Edited April 5, 2015 by Akos