Might attribute and the flimsy wizard

I would actually welcome a fantasy world that does away with the old "squishy wizard bookworm" trope and introduces wizards that need to be physically strong. Fantasy is so tediously entrenched in its clichés that it's kind of boring sometimes. It's fantasy, you can do almost anything!

 

But if you do that, it has to be consistent. From actually describing wizards that way, to including obligatory gym membership in your setting's Hogwarts, to wizards doing appropriate tasks in non-wizarding daily life. That's where PoE fell short - it sold its wizards as traditional bookworms and required them to be physically strong in stats.

In storytelling.

Not in stats.

 

If stats were same but your convo or cutscene said forcepush instead of push or blow door instead of kick door it would be ok

Not exactly sure what you mean.

Stats and story should go hand in hand. Both are different sides of the same coin. Characters can't do anything in the story when their stats don't allow it; what they can do in the story, should be reflected in their stats. That's how it should be.

Not exactly sure what you mean.

Stats and story should go hand in hand. Both are different sides of the same coin. Characters can't do anything in the story when their stats don't allow it; what they can do in the story, should be reflected in their stats. That's how it should be.

Like the coin in your example might has two sides

 

Might for a fighter means physical brawn

Might for a wizard means arcane power

 

 

Same stat. Different wording.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Leeuwenhart

 

I really don't see why they even changed the system that worked for D&D so well. Strength describes a physical trait of a character perfectly, and there are consequences for having low or high strength. And since there is one other attribute that is problematic, namely perception because through providing accuracy, it is necessary for everyone. So remove perception, add Willpower that improves the power of spells and spell like abilities akin to Might, and split accuracy between accuracy for spells that comes from intelligence and an accuracy for physical attacks that comes from dexterity. Problem solved.

 

It didn't work well in baldur's gate d&d. you couldnt make a low int wizard or a low might fighter. This is the point you didn't even have a choice. At least in POE there is some choice. And no perception is not necessary for everyone. I've made builds with leaving perception even or slightly below. POE was a step in the right direction. If they tweek it i hope they dont go back to BG style for sure. 

 

 

Despite my strong support of the AD&D multi-classing, that is about the only thing I liked about those rules. 3rd edition did the stats far better, and I think it's dishonest to automatically compare the current system to the absolutely worst version of D&D out there that has been used in a crpg.

 

 

I really don't see why they even changed the system that worked for D&D so well. Strength describes a physical trait of a character perfectly, and there are consequences for having low or high strength. And since there is one other attribute that is problematic, namely perception because through providing accuracy, it is necessary for everyone. So remove perception, add Willpower that improves the power of spells and spell like abilities akin to Might, and split accuracy between accuracy for spells that comes from intelligence and an accuracy for physical attacks that comes from dexterity. Problem solved.

 

It didn't work well in baldur's gate d&d. you couldnt make a low int wizard or a low might fighter. This is the point you didn't even have a choice. At least in POE there is some choice. And no perception is not necessary for everyone. I've made builds with leaving perception even or slightly below. POE was a step in the right direction. If they tweek it i hope they dont go back to BG style for sure. 

 

 

Despite my strong support of the AD&D multi-classing, that is about the only thing I liked about those rules. 3rd edition did the stats far better, and I think it's dishonest to automatically compare the current system to the absolutely worst version of D&D out there that has been used in a crpg.

 

 

I understand but that is what the game was originally compared to so i may have just misunderstood your reference to d&d

Fair enough. The point is merely that a stat system can be used to describe character traits in a meaningful way without removing choice altogether. Physical strength can be useful for a spellcaster just like Intelligence can be useful for a Fighter without succumbing to completely arbitrary effects like AoE & Duration. Strength should be a purely physical stat, although no one has said there can't be certain spells that benefit from high strength; for example conjuring a powerful magical current might require certain amount of physical prowess to hold onto, but it shouldn't directly affect spell damage so that wizards don't have to be steroid pumped body-builders, but there would still be room for a wizard build that can potentially utilize a higher strenght.

I have no problem to might as it is now. Whenever I build a "weak" character it is constitution that determines the physical condition

 

They could emphasize the muscular aspect of the Constitution stat more by putting in minimum Con requirements for the various armor, shields, and weapons. If you want to wear heavy plate mail, carry a tower shield, and wield a two-headed battle axe, then you need a higher Con to wield those without a penalty. But it seems unlikely they would ever implement something like that.

Hello guys, first time posting here. What do you think of tying the Might stat in conversations from Pillars to Constitution instead? That way your mighty Wizard doesn't have to be physically brawny and Obsidian don't have to tweak dialgoue to encompass both the brawny Fighter and the mighty Wizard doing the same thing in conversations.

 

The might -checks from Pillars could even be split between Might and Constitution so that Constitution gives you all the "I'm physically powerful" options whereas Might retains all the "I'm very capable" more general power statements.

 

If you add such a system then with the multiclassing a Fighter/Wizard that invests in both Might and Constitution could presumably use both types of lines in dialogue so you could still play as the brawny Wizard if you wanted to.

 

The might -checks from Pillars could even be split between Might and Constitution so that Constitution gives you all the "I'm physically powerful" options whereas Might retains all the "I'm very capable" more general power statements.

 

 

Here is the issue:

 

“Might represents a character's physical and spiritual strength, brute force as well as their ability to channel powerful magic. During interactions, it can be useful for intimidating displays and acts of brute force. In combat, it contributes to both Damage and Healing as well as the Fortitude defence.”

 

Might represent both physical strength of your character and magic/spiritual strength.

 

While Constitution:

 

“Constitution is a combination of the character's overall health and endurance. Although it is not used much in interactions, it is sometimes checked to withstand pain or endure a physically taxing ordeal.”

 

So while a character with low might but high constitution could do Captain America’s “I can do this all day!” routine, or sustain environmental dangers (like escaping from burning house in white march) he is unlikely to threaten someone or lift heavy stuff.

 

For me It would be enough if they would explain lorewise how physical strength correlates with powerful spell casting.

 

The might -checks from Pillars could even be split between Might and Constitution so that Constitution gives you all the "I'm physically powerful" options whereas Might retains all the "I'm very capable" more general power statements.

 

 

Here is the issue:

 

“Might represents a character's physical and spiritual strength, brute force as well as their ability to channel powerful magic. During interactions, it can be useful for intimidating displays and acts of brute force. In combat, it contributes to both Damage and Healing as well as the Fortitude defence.”

 

Might represent both physical strength of your character and magic/spiritual strength.

 

While Constitution:

 

“Constitution is a combination of the character's overall health and endurance. Although it is not used much in interactions, it is sometimes checked to withstand pain or endure a physically taxing ordeal.”

 

So while a character with low might but high constitution could do Captain America’s “I can do this all day!” routine, or sustain environmental dangers (like escaping from burning house in white march) he is unlikely to threaten someone or lift heavy stuff.

 

For me It would be enough if they would explain lorewise how physical strength correlates with powerful spell casting.

All this back and forth on this is only because for some reason people cant seperate physical strength from "might" Might has no direct connection to specific origin of strength (physical or magical) its simply "the power to do something" whether through physical or magical means. no mental gymnastics required its simply a false perception that might is defined as only physical strength. Edited October 12, 2017 by DigitalCrack

All this back and forth on this is only because for some reason people cant seperate physical strength from "might" Might has no direct connection to specific origin of strength (physical or magical) its simply "the power to do something" whether through physical or magical means. no mental gymnastics required its simply a false perception that might is defined as only physical strength.

... this is how the game defines it. Might determines how hard you hit (with physical weapons), it is a check for all physique connected rolls (intimidate someone with your posture, lift an object, push the wall etc), while also reflecting spellcaster’s spell power. It IS strength and more.

 

All this back and forth on this is only because for some reason people cant seperate physical strength from "might" Might has no direct connection to specific origin of strength (physical or magical) its simply "the power to do something" whether through physical or magical means. no mental gymnastics required its simply a false perception that might is defined as only physical strength.

 

Incorrect.

 

All this back-and-forth is unnecessary, I'll give you that. However, there's a single, perfectly valid problem with all-encompassing Might, and that's simply that it makes a world in which neither physical strength nor non-physical strength can be measured. If a Wizard has 18 Might, what kind of physical strength does he have? He has ??? physical Strength, because "Wizards' Might is their MAGICAL power, 8D!". That's great, but he still has a body and a capability. Same with a Barbarian. He still has a mind and a magical capacity (in the PoE world), even if he doesn't cast spells, per se. So, which are you measuring on each character? Both (in which case all Wizards are the hugest, Conan-y dudes ever), or only one on any given character.

 

Thus, imagine your party is trapped in a cell and there's a nearby device that's like a magical EMP. If your Wizard has high MAGICAL strength but is a feeble, no-muscley tiny person, then he can't do much. If he IS muscle-y and physically strong, then maybe he can break or lift something. Reciprocally, if everyone's tied up or restrained, but your Wizard is super magically powerful, then he can do magic stuff to significantly affect the situation, as distinct from physical things.

 

The all-encompassing "Might" allows for neither of these scenarios. The game simply cannot measure physical strength as distinct from magical strength, even though they both exist. So, to just say "Wizard's power is magical, and Warrior's power is physical" doesn't cut it. That's ignoring that 2 things are defined, and neither is ever measured.

Edited October 12, 2017 by Lephys

Whilst Obsidian could define and show might better, as soon as you start thinking too much about these options you run into trouble. Yes a high might wizard would probably use magic to intimidate people but so would a might 3 level 1 wizard.

@Baltic,

 

That's a lovely example to illustrate how simple it all is and how silly it is to "overthink" this whole Might thing. So now that Deadfire has multiclassing, what would a Barbarian/Wizard use to intimidate someone? Better yet, how would Barbarian/Wizard A's intimidation differ from the very differently-built Barbarian/Wizard B's intimidation?

@Baltic,

 

That's a lovely example to illustrate how simple it all is and how silly it is to "overthink" this whole Might thing. So now that Deadfire has multiclassing, what would a Barbarian/Wizard use to intimidate someone? Better yet, how would Barbarian/Wizard A's intimidation differ from the very differently-built Barbarian/Wizard B's intimidation?

I guess that’s to the choice of the individual Wizard/Barabarian I guess it would depend on the situation but if you were strong and knew magic you’d probably try and demonstrate with both.

I meant more along the lines of whilst high Might wizards or druids would probably use some sort of ‘force push’ to knock down a wall, low might Wizards or Druids could also probably use a spell to do it. Whilst Obsidian could have done better at explaining Might than they did, when spellcasters are involved scripted interactions and conversations are likely always gonna have a few ‘Why I can’t I use magic?’ moments. Does that make any sense?

 

 

The might -checks from Pillars could even be split between Might and Constitution so that Constitution gives you all the "I'm physically powerful" options whereas Might retains all the "I'm very capable" more general power statements.

 

Here is the issue:

 

“Might represents a character's physical and spiritual strength, brute force as well as their ability to channel powerful magic. During interactions, it can be useful for intimidating displays and acts of brute force. In combat, it contributes to both Damage and Healing as well as the Fortitude defence.”

 

Might represent both physical strength of your character and magic/spiritual strength.

 

While Constitution:

 

“Constitution is a combination of the character's overall health and endurance. Although it is not used much in interactions, it is sometimes checked to withstand pain or endure a physically taxing ordeal.”

 

So while a character with low might but high constitution could do Captain America’s “I can do this all day!” routine, or sustain environmental dangers (like escaping from burning house in white march) he is unlikely to threaten someone or lift heavy stuff.

 

For me It would be enough if they would explain lorewise how physical strength correlates with powerful spell casting.

 

 

If Obsidian just needs to slightly alter the ingame descriptions of their attributes it doesn't seem like an insurmountable obstacle to me, the question is if it would be better than what they did for Pillars 1.

 

 

 

All this back and forth on this is only because for some reason people cant seperate physical strength from "might" Might has no direct connection to specific origin of strength (physical or magical) its simply "the power to do something" whether through physical or magical means. no mental gymnastics required its simply a false perception that might is defined as only physical strength.

 

Incorrect.

 

All this back-and-forth is unnecessary, I'll give you that. However, there's a single, perfectly valid problem with all-encompassing Might, and that's simply that it makes a world in which neither physical strength nor non-physical strength can be measured. If a Wizard has 18 Might, what kind of physical strength does he have? He has ??? physical Strength, because "Wizards' Might is their MAGICAL power, 8D!". That's great, but he still has a body and a capability. Same with a Barbarian. He still has a mind and a magical capacity (in the PoE world), even if he doesn't cast spells, per se. So, which are you measuring on each character? Both (in which case all Wizards are the hugest, Conan-y dudes ever), or only one on any given character.

 

Thus, imagine your party is trapped in a cell and there's a nearby device that's like a magical EMP. If your Wizard has high MAGICAL strength but is a feeble, no-muscley tiny person, then he can't do much. If he IS muscle-y and physically strong, then maybe he can break or lift something. Reciprocally, if everyone's tied up or restrained, but your Wizard is super magically powerful, then he can do magic stuff to significantly affect the situation, as distinct from physical things.

 

The all-encompassing "Might" allows for neither of these scenarios. The game simply cannot measure physical strength as distinct from magical strength, even though they both exist. So, to just say "Wizard's power is magical, and Warrior's power is physical" doesn't cut it. That's ignoring that 2 things are defined, and neither is ever measured.

 

 

I agree the problem is that you can't distinguish the types of Might that Might represent in the Pillars system. If magic was tied directly to physical prowess and this was clearly communicated in the game that would be different and might even be quite interesting but that's not what was done.

 

In any case I went over all of the backer updates including the latest one about multiclassing and one of the passive skills you can aquire for all characters is named "Intimidation" so it would seem my point might be moot and they have already divorced Might and Intimidation for Deadfire. Josh Sawyer also talked about abilities such as spell-casting being a part of challenges so presumably we will get into situations in the storybook interactions we can specifically magick our way out of as well.

Regarding might in scripted interactions: Would it make sense to check two attributes instead of one? So opening a door could work like that:

- Minimum Mig plus minimum Con: Bash door
- Minimum Mig plus minimum Int: Bash door with magic

completely agree concerning the scripted interactions regarding might. it isnt clear in those instances. My earlier comment was purely towards people wanting magic damage on a seperate stat because "might=muscles." As someone said earlier the expansion and revamp of the skills system may have fixed this in regards to scripted interactions.

A Magic attribute

@Baltic:

 

Your uncertainty in that response illustrates my point. Basically, you're correct, but that just means that All Barbarian/Wizards are equally as strong physically as they are magically. Which kind of goes against multi-classing, but only in character measurements. In other words, everyone with muscles doesn't have magic (a pure Barbarian doesn't "use magic." Sure, he does "magical" soul ability stuff, but there's something different about what a Wizard can do that the Barbarian cannot do, as stated in both game mechanics AND lore). Yet, everyone with X amount of magical power has either an equal amount of muscle power, OR an indefinite amount of either. This isn't about just making perfect sense, or being realistic. Within the game world's own context, it has decreed that each individual person possesses both physical differences of size and strength, AND differences in magical prowess, but the stat just measures both at the same time, or ambiguously only one or the other at the very least.

 

 

Regarding might in scripted interactions: Would it make sense to check two attributes instead of one? So opening a door could work like that:

- Minimum Mig plus minimum Con: Bash door
- Minimum Mig plus minimum Int: Bash door with magic

 

That would be better, yes, but it still doesn't really solve the problem. Fighters with high Int would still be bashing the door down with magic, even though they don't really use potent magic.

 

Also, it's not really about the semantics of what the text states that the character is doing. Your example is one of a feat that can be performed by either type of power. Imagine if there was something in the game that could only be overcome via magical power, OR can only be overcome by physical power. How, then, do you determine that character A can overcome it, but character B cannot? The game is literally incapable of determining that, because Might measures both.

 

Simply put, the all-encompassing Might stat causes a couple of problems, AND separately there are improvements to be made in the checking system (check abilities and more stats, etc. to produce more interesting interactions than just "are you powerful?! YOU BLOWED UP THING WITH FORCE!" The first problem (Might stat) isn't a humungous problem, but not-changing it just makes the solution to the second problem more convoluted, (i.e. "just keep checking Might + other stuff until you sort of maybe measure the thing you're wanting to, but still quite don't because Might's arbitrarily two measurements in one").

The "problem" with the Mig stat is player preconception. Viewed without that bias, Mig does the job its supposed to do just fine.

really what could determine your options would be class. So if your a magically inclined class you get magic versions of might choices in scripted events and if physical you get physical versions. In the event of a multiclass situation you would simply offer both options so they could either pull the wall down with muscles or magic. This would also allow for you to have scripted events that could require a physical or magical version of a might check to pass.

 

edit: I realize multiclass (magical/physical based) would have an advantage of more choice but thats the benefit of being hybrid instead of specialized.

Edited October 13, 2017 by DigitalCrack

It sounds like we may not be using attributes in dialogue in the same way, so we shouldn't have any wizards intimidating people with their jelly arms.

 

Scripted interactions could just be worded differently. Using magical force instead of heaving and shoving.

 

But then, it doesn't make sense for might to increase gun damage, does it? Some things we may have to just learn to roll with.

The "problem" with the Mig stat is player preconception. Viewed without that bias, Mig does the job its supposed to do just fine.

 

This is simply incorrect. It's not about bias or preconception, it's about the literal purpose of stats. They are simply player metrics. Why? Because, well, imagine PoE without any stats, (nothing else added to compensate, just no stats), then tell me nothing would be missing. Imagine that everything's subjective, and there's no objective reason for the existence of stats within an RPG system. Can you tell me what's missing in that hypothetical? Of course you can.

 

Same thing with Might. If I were a developer, and I wanted to quite feasibly take advantage of a character metric that exists within the game world (physical strength), in the interest of creating a scenario in which ONE Wizard might be able to do something that a different type of Wizard would be unable to do, I am unable to do it. In the equation, Might is a big "(X+Y)", and I cannot call upon either X or Y, separately, even though they exist. I'm not inventing muscles or arcane power. They both exist, as dictated by the game.

 

Maybe Might does everything that you and Obsidian want it to do, but that's not the same thing as doing what it's "supposed to." Or, to be more technically specific, the stat system is not doing what it is supposed to do. If you had a system whose stats were only Tallness, Gumption, and Hair, would you tell me that "Meh, if that's how the person who invented it wanted it to be, then it does everything it needs to do"? Would it be simple bias that anyone would have any kind of a problem with those stats, as entire character metrics?

 

I really wish you would put as much effort into actually explaining how the problem is only player preconception as I put into explaining my point. Everyone keeps trying to shoot down this stuff with "Nope, sorry. Incorrect. Also you just like DnD stats too much" or some such nonsense. Just because two things happen to be similar doesn't mean they correlate. I'm not biased against anything. I'm objectively evaluating the stat system as it exists, in the unbiased context of an RPG that aims to do what it is RPGs do. The Might stat (amongst others) have shortcomings within this context, not simply as compared to one or another attribute systems that I just so happen to like. If I like a different stat system, it's because it does a better job of actually providing character metrics that support more creativity in the game world. Not "because it's stat system X."