Might attribute and the flimsy wizard

[Wormerine]

I still fail to understand why exactly having certain stats be more relevant for certain classes is such a bad thing. Personally I prefer each class be as different as possible from the next. And I very much prefer a class based system to a classless one... Besides it makes sense for wizards to be more brainy and less brawny. You know, all those years spent in the Academy of Almighty Laws-of-physics Defying Magic of Godlyhood didn't leave much time for martial training... It's a matter of class flavor and role-playing. I don't see what is so wrong with it. In a d20 type system having a str of 10 is smack average. Nobody is saying mages should have a str score of 3... And if you dump the stat that's entirely up to you. I always make well rounded characters and never drop ANY stat below the average 10 even if the stat isn't much worth to a particular class. Sure I focus on int on casters, str on warriors but that's part and parcel of the system and it makes sense... What's so wrong about it?

If the class defines what stats your character should have than why allow player to distribute their stats at all and not tie stats to classes? If you give player control over stat distribution but classes benefit from one or two stats we get possible conflict between role playing and gameplay (a charactertype player has in mind and character they are creating because of game mechanics). While it’s fine for certain stats to be more useful for certain classes Obsidian wanted to unlock more role playing potential by making sure classes are viable with various builds. Ideally you want classes which are flexible with stats they favour while different builds feel distinct. I feel Obsidian’s systems weakness is differentiating in combat same classes with differently distributed stats.

[Valci]

fair enough mate but for me the result is that we have a system that has detracted from the importance of stats altogether. Personally for role-playing purposes i prefer a system where the class is very much tied to a "main stat"... like back in BG where classes had a higher minimum value in their main stats. And then depending on how you want to build you can play with the OTHER stats (non-class specific). I understand what they tried to do with it and it's akin to what they did with gear that has no requirement of STR for instance - which ofc was to let players create more diverse characters. That doesnt really make sense for me because in the real world, in order to use a big two-hander you would indeed require a certain amount of strength... similarly, your physical build would have to support a heavy plate armor and so on. That is a part of the game i dont particularly like since i can play around it i've accepted it. For me personally... i will never make a mage in heavy armor for instance, or a mage wielding a big two-hander because it ruins the role-playing for me. Others like it, thats fine... 

 

Similarly, i think stats should be tied in with classes much more then they are rather then having the sort of universal effects that we got in PoE. I am a traditionalist in that sense simply because it makes sense lore wise and RP wise. I wasnt so much a fan of class related gear restrictions (like only mages being able to equip robes) but i do think gear should have STAT restrictions and as previously stated that classes should have a "main stat". Then, if you went mage and say he had a min. intellect requirement of 16 (just as an example) and wanted to create a heavy armor wearing mage you'd go with strength as a secondary stat... if you wanted a light armor wearing mage you'd have no reason to max strength and might go for another stat ,etc. Ofc this would require a rework of what stats do in the Pillars Universe which is unlikely. I'm just describing what would make the most sense for me...

Edited October 27, 2017 by Valci

[Lephys]

@Valci:

 

I don't understand what the "main stat" for classes accomplishes. Why do this?

 

Allow me to illustrate the main problem I have with this. In DnD (earlier ones, at least), Intelligence = good for the Wizard. It affects bonus spells per day, AND some magic checks, AND gates spell tiers.

 

Okay, so, you could make some different Wizards, but you probably don't want to go lower than about 12 with Intelligence, and 18 is obviously ideal. Heck, I think there was a minimum requirement to even BE a Wizard. Anywho... so in this world, no dumb Wizards exist. You can have a SUPER smart Wizard, or just a pretty-smart Wizard, but you're never going to have Wizards of average Intelligence or lower. Also, how is potency measured in this system? Can I have one Wizard who only has access to spell tiers 1-4, but is much more powerful in his magicking? In other words, if Intelligence makes you a better Wizard because you can better comprehend the complexity of spells, etc, then what affects the POWER of spells? The Precision of spells? If it's Intelligence that does all that, then again, we have a very boring spectrum of Wizards.

 

This is one of the only things that PoE's attribute system did correctly: they took something like DnD's attribute system and allowed all aspects of things to be tweaked: Might can make you a Powerful Wizard, etc. However, they lost track of how unique and interesting the attributes can be. Each one should feel like it's contributing to a large aspect of a character, regardless of class. You should be able to build a character type, THEN select a class and have the class be affected in interesting ways. For example, Resolve could affect a Fighter's taunts and warcries, etc. (regarding the old "but how do you make things other than Strength and Constitution appealing to a Fighter?" issue). Want to make that type of a Fighter? Boost Resolve. Want to make a power-smashy Fighter? Boost Strength.

 

The way in which PoE attributes simplified things just doesn't provide THAT much benefit, other than allowing all classes to adjust different sliders. But it doesn't even give them enough of the sliders, AND the same thing could've been achieved by simply lifting class restrictions from DnD-esque rules. Like the "heavy armor makes you a horrible spell caster" thing. Strength already globally made you a better melee attacker, and Dex made you a better ranged attacker. It didn't matter what your class was (except for the weapon restrictions). I'd often play as an Elven Wizard in DnD, and use a Bow.

 

To look at it another way, you're either supposed to ALWAYS and ONLY do what your class specifically does, or you're supposed to do a mix of things that all humans/peoples do AND specifically what your class does. If it's the former, that's boring. If it's the latter, then you've gotta build attributes around character types, THEN apply class to the mix. "This affects this person's accuracy, NOW how do spells utilize that accuracy modifier?" Etc.

[Skaddix]

So your saying that PoE went so far overboard focusing on balancing stats mechanic wise that they forgot about the thematic and flavor?

 

As for DEX its the God Stat for a reason. Works on light weapons, ranged weapons, armor class, reflex saves and initiative. Things a Wizard would want since you can't just dump all your points into INT at the start so usually the rest goes into WIS and DEX. Maybe CHA if you care about being the Face.

Whereas strength only helps the heavier weapons and heavy armor.

[MortyTheGobbo]

Sure, but I think looking at more traditional attributes can help out a lot. I'm not saying you're doing it, but whenever this topic comes up, people act as though ALL possible ways in which to do attributes have been exhausted, and there's no point in changing anything. Looking at traditional attribute systems for their strengths is perfectly feasible, and downright reasonable. And when else should an attribute system be considered for rework, than during earlyish production? More notably, pre-production, I suppose, which I realize we're probably past now.

 

I just don't really understand the "It's no use! All attribute systems just suck, and there's no point in putting any effort into getting one to not do so!" mentality that gets thrown around. If that's the case, then why was any effort put forth in the first place? Let's just draw words out of a hat, then effects out of another hat, slap them all together and call it an attribute system. It'll just be a fun random thing we have to deal with.

 

"My Fighter has a Potatos stat of 3/4ths, and a Narbles stat of pi. This grants him 7.4 carrier pigeon bandoliers per encounter." There. We're done. WOOHOO!!!

 

I can see why it would be confusing, after you've gone to so much trouble to ridicule it and bring it to the point of absurdity. If that's how you see the arguments I've been making, I see no point in arguing further.

 

You completely underestimate the usefulness of Strength in a system where armor and weapons have a Strength requirement to use.

 

Also in a good combat system, staying out of melee completely isn't up to the Wizard.

 

DnD is a great example where having 14 Strength suddenly gives your Wizard the ability to fight in melee. Compared to 10 Str you hit a lot more and can one hit goblins with a staff. So it has been done even without the pre-reqs I mentioned above.

 

Man, the quote function on this forum sucks royally. In order:

 

I underestimate nothing. I simply realize that if weapons and armour require an attribute people won't otherwise see much use for, they simply won't use them. Or take the bare minimum for some light-weight but decent. Thus reinforcing the age-old stereotype that only dedicated warriors wear anything with metal in it. Of course, many hand-to-hand fighters will also be content to wear light armour, thus making strength even more niche.

 

A wizard might not be able to stay out of melee completely, but if Strength does nothing whatsoever for them other than allow them to wear armour, they'll still be better served investing more in intelligence and magical strength and disable or destroy the enemies quicker while the more durable party members try to protect them. Besides, while Pillars tries to encourage non-traditional gear setups, a robed wizard with a magic stick is still supposed to be a viable option.

 

As for the D&D wizard... this again? A wizard with 14 strength has a +2 to hit and +2 or +3 to damage with their stick. Which doesn't begin to make up for their d4 hit dice, lack of armour, lack of weapons that aren't stick or knives and 1/2 BAB. Investing resources in it detracts from their actual job, which is casting spells, and risks getting their d4 hit point selves killed.

[1varangian]

In DnD, with the progressive point buy system, you are making meaningful choices with attributes.

 

A Wizard can raise Int from 16 to 18, or use the same amount points to get 6 points distributed between Str / Dex / Con up to 14. You can trade that last bit of spellcasting power with better survivability and the ability to smack goblins with a staff or sword or whatever.

 

Without the progression, it would be a no brainer to always pump Int to max. So perhaps PoE needs progressive costs as well. And with that comes making the stats have much more impact.

 

In NWN, when you are distributing attributes you are making important choices. The attributes create a clear image of the character in your mind. In PoE it's mostly just annoying trying to figure out the spread you want because your character will play the same whatever you do and it just feels like some really vague micromanagement.

Edited October 27, 2017 by 1varangian

[Lephys]

I can see why it would be confusing, after you've gone to so much trouble to ridicule it and bring it to the point of absurdity. If that's how you see the arguments I've been making, I see no point in arguing further.

 

I'm not ridiculing it. I'm simply using sarcasm, a dash of humor, and the broadened illustration of the idea to show why the idea is flawed. Clearly it DOES matter how you do attributes. That isn't to say that universally, there is a best attribute system that all games should use, or that SOME games don't really need attributes. However, PoE/Deadfire is not one of those games, because it is actually utilizing RPG systems, which are heavily influenced by the design of the attribute system.

 

I see the arguments you've been making as overly dismissive of others' efforts to evaluate and collaborate on the specific effects of attribute design and the possibilities there-in. So, I can either respond with "No, man, you are incorrectly applying these valid points, and I implore you to reconsider this," or I can ramp up the potency of my responses to actually try to illustrate, in a deeper/different manner, the counterpoint that I am trying to make. Is it okay for you to simply hand-wave away evidence I've presented behind a point, but it's not okay for me to actively redouble my efforts to get you to not hand-wave away my point?

 

I underestimate nothing. I simply realize that if weapons and armour require an attribute people won't otherwise see much use for, they simply won't use them. Or take the bare minimum for some light-weight but decent. Thus reinforcing the age-old stereotype that only dedicated warriors wear anything with metal in it. Of course, many hand-to-hand fighters will also be content to wear light armour, thus making strength even more niche.

 

So, if people don't see multiple uses for something, they just won't use it? Your point seems to be "people don't care about using weapons and armor, really," but you've provided no evidence to support this. Why not? And, if not, is this the fault of how Strength works, or the fault of how the weapons system or class system's work? Also, hand-to-hand fighters might be content wearing light armor, but would probably want as much weapon damage as possible to make up for the fact that hands don't inherently do as much damage as maces and axes, so you're simultaneously pointing out an effect that would make Strength more niche AND an effect that would make Strength even more desirable.

 

 

A wizard might not be able to stay out of melee completely, but if Strength does nothing whatsoever for them other than allow them to wear armour, they'll still be better served investing more in intelligence and magical strength and disable or destroy the enemies quicker while the more durable party members try to protect them. Besides, while Pillars tries to encourage non-traditional gear setups, a robed wizard with a magic stick is still supposed to be a viable option.

 

True, but who says things must be designed this way? They'll be better served investing more in Intelligence and disabling or destroying enemies because of how Wizards are designed in that ruleset. What about wielding magic makes it so that, say, a Wizard couldn't conceivably be a huge tank who enchants his body/armor with debilitating effects when foes try to strike him? That wouldn't go against the idea of a magic wielder, would it? Is it not arbitrary to think "you INHERENTLY try to stay at range and blast things with uber-powerful spells"? There are all kinds of schools of magic, even in DnD, some of which don't even have anything to do with standing at range or blasting anything. So if the magic's so versatile, why is the idea of what a Wizard might basically, functionally do so limited?

 

(To clarify, I'm not suggesting you're arguing specifically for these things. I realize that we're talking about DnD rules, which is why I'm positing these questions, as my biggest point is not that DnD's entire ruleset is the best, but rather that the way in which it handles Attributes, at its core, is extremely useful to build a versatile class-based system.)

 

 

As for the D&D wizard... this again? A wizard with 14 strength has a +2 to hit and +2 or +3 to damage with their stick. Which doesn't begin to make up for their d4 hit dice, lack of armour, lack of weapons that aren't stick or knives and 1/2 BAB. Investing resources in it detracts from their actual job, which is casting spells, and risks getting their d4 hit point selves killed.

 

Exactly. None of that is necessary, nor is any of that Strength's fault, nor any Attribute's fault. So why are we talking about how dumb Strength is for a DnD Wizard, and not how dumb their class-specific BAB, hit die, armor restrictions, and weapon restrictions make Strength?

 

This is one of the over-arching questions throughout this entire thread (and several others): People are quick to condemn an attribute system when it might be doing its job just fine. Just because DnD has problems doesn't mean they're at all related to the fact that it measures a character's Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, etc.

[Valci]

@Lephys

 

I take your point... I was simply stating my preference. I prefer systems where the classes are as different as possible from each other and I don't believe ask classes should be able to fill all roles. For instance, no, I don't think a mage should be a tank. I prefer systems more rooted in lore but also in realism... By that I mean that for me it makes sense that you should need higher strength to wield a large two hander or wear heavy, bulky armor... Conversely, it makes sense that you should have higher intelligence in order to learn and cast spells. That is why I think it makes sense for each class to have a main stat. A warrior with crap strength (so he can't hit hard) and also crap dexterity (if we're taking a rapier wielder for instance) SHOULD BE a crap warrior as far as I am concerned no matter of he had maxed intellect. I'm over simplifying it a bit but anyway, the gist of it is that for my part I prefer distinct roles for classes (with some overlap ofc between certain classes) and stats that logically affect the performance of those classes. Would I trade that just for added flexibility and more viable builds even if it goes against logic as well as the lore of the setting? No.

[DigitalCrack]

@Lephys

 

I take your point... I was simply stating my preference. I prefer systems where the classes are as different as possible from each other and I don't believe ask classes should be able to fill all roles. For instance, no, I don't think a mage should be a tank. I prefer systems more rooted in lore but also in realism... By that I mean that for me it makes sense that you should need higher strength to wield a large two hander or wear heavy, bulky armor... Conversely, it makes sense that you should have higher intelligence in order to learn and cast spells. That is why I think it makes sense for each class to have a main stat. A warrior with crap strength (so he can't hit hard) and also crap dexterity (if we're taking a rapier wielder for instance) SHOULD BE a crap warrior as far as I am concerned no matter of he had maxed intellect. I'm over simplifying it a bit but anyway, the gist of it is that for my part I prefer distinct roles for classes (with some overlap ofc between certain classes) and stats that logically affect the performance of those classes. Would I trade that just for added flexibility and more viable builds even if it goes against logic as well as the lore of the setting? No.

It is possible for classes to be too rigid though. I would agree to an extent that I like classes having a certain level of distinctness from each other and pillars I thought did a good job with having classes feel distinct but still allowing flexibility within each distinct class. A wizard in pillars still feels like a wizard even if i build him more like a fighter.

[Seafarer]

The funny thing is that, while I understand why people don't always want to play a buff/ body builder wizard in regards to strength, I am planning on Multi classing one of my original POE characters who only uses summoned weapons and self buffs. He is literally a brawler wizard and so the idea of strength working for his damage works for me as he pretty much just uses his arcane arts to beat people into the ground. 

[Lephys]

@Lephys

 

I take your point... I was simply stating my preference. I prefer systems where the classes are as different as possible from each other and I don't believe ask classes should be able to fill all roles.

 

No worries on that front. I completely understand, and I'm not trying to dictate your preferences or anything, nor combat them. And, admittedly, I'm not presenting a refined system. I'm honestly just tossing out food for thought on the matter of class restriction, because I believe there's plenty of room for less restriction while the big class distinctions are still maintained. 

 

For example...

 

 

 

 For instance, no, I don't think a mage should be a tank. I prefer systems more rooted in lore but also in realism... By that I mean that for me it makes sense that you should need higher strength to wield a large two hander or wear heavy, bulky armor... Conversely, it makes sense that you should have higher intelligence in order to learn and cast spells.

 

A "tank" is essentially just someone who can clog up the enemies' attention/fire and remain alive whilst doing so. I'm not saying that a Wizard should be able to wield the largest, heaviest equipment AND still be an uber-powerful caster. That's still thinking to restrictedly, in a way. I'm saying that there's no reason a Wizard can't wizardly enchant his own armor or use barriers, etc., to wade into the fray and tank, whilst the Fighter (just for example) rushes in and flanks everyone to death with his super cool martial training abilities that the Wizard doesn't have. Basically, it's silly for the system to go out of its way to be like "No, no you just go do these Wizard things, befcause I've decided those are the things that you do, and THESE are the things that Fighters do, and that way I've created artificial class differentiation." I think things like "You only get to use sticks, Mage!" (again, just as an example) create exaggerated class distinction. That makes a Mage different from a Fighter, but to what end? And why? Why can't I wield a freaking kusarigama and also use magic? Is that illegal? How would that make me no-longer-a-Wizard?

 

Secondly regarding that lil' quoted portion, there is nothing in the universe that suggest magic would require incredible intellect. How do we know what feels "correct" when we're dealing with the shaping of a fictitious power source into spells? I'm not saying that treating magic like med school is inherently incorrect, but neither is it inherently correct. It's just kind of boring, if you ask me. "Study a lot, kids, and you can SUMMON INTERDIMENSONAL RIFTS! Don't, and you can't. Everyone can do it all the same, as long as they're smart and they study hard." That's almost like saying that if you have high enough Strength, you can be the best Warrior ever. When really, it takes agility and smarts and talent, etc. Now, you CAN be a super-buff smashy Barbarian/Fighter, and just tear into people head-on. OR, you can be a very defensive Fighter, or a Fighter who focuses on countering, etc.

 

To be clear, I realize that with Fighter and Barbarian and Rogue and Monk, etc., that some of this is split between classes. Which is okay. If they're kind of specializations of "fighting" (which... "fighter" is pretty broad to begin with, so yeah...), then that works, I suppose. This is why so many systems use base classes (Fighter, Mage, Rogue), then have prestige classes that build off of those, rather than just 12 different base classes. But, the point is, if it makes sense for there to be variance, there's no reason to artificially limit that. We should only limit it when it causes a problem with another class component that has a place in the system. I mean, if you wanted to have "Knife Juggler" be a class, and you already had Rogue and Fighter, I don't think you should just limit Knife Jugglers to being able to use daggers, JUST so you can justify the Knife Juggler class. That's awfully specific, and there's still no reason other classes shouldn't be allowed to use daggers, other than "but if they all can, then my Knife Juggler isn't distinct enough!" Does that make sense?

 

I honestly think there's room for your preference to remain happy, AND for there to be less artificial limitation amongst certain classes. And just more creativity in how they function, to be honest. The focus of class distinction needs to be how characters get stuff done more so than what characters get done, as almost all of them are going to have a lot of overlap. What do you do, Mr. (insert class name here)? Well, I deal damage, prevent other people from dealing damage, help allies out a bit, etc. That's pretty much going to be the answer for any class. "I do damage by creating tiny vortexes of energy that ricochet between walls" versus "I deal damage by utilizing fancy weapon techniques" is where it's at. Not "I do damage from way over there, and you do damage from up-close. That's what makes us different." That's a boring distinction. A magic person could burn people up close just as easily as from far away. 

[Valci]

In principle i agree with an approach in the vein of what you're describing in that we would have diversity and options for "builds" while keeping a distinct feel for each class. And i think PoE did a relatively good job in this though ofc it can always be improved. I do think that having different deflection values for classes for instance does make sense and such but as a general point i doint disagree with you. Where i do take issue is the ability of any character being able to use any item... i just dont see that as realistic as mentioned above... Though i dont think item usage should be linked to classes but with stats as per the example i gave. If you have enough strength to wield a large two-hander you can if you dont you cant... same with heavy armor. If you dont have a certain level of intellect you cant read a scroll for instance (lore doesnt really do it for me as that is different then knowing how to read which would be intellect related for me). Dont have enough dexterity... you get a penalty to ranged accuracy... and so on and so forth. Imho this would allow a variety of different builds but would make your choice of attributes matter so that you could build a character able to do almost anything but not at the same time... if that makes sense

[Juodas Varnas]

I'm fine with muscle wizards.

[Lephys]

Where i do take issue is the ability of any character being able to use any item... i just dont see that as realistic as mentioned above... Though i dont think item usage should be linked to classes but with stats as per the example i gave. If you have enough strength to wield a large two-hander you can if you dont you cant... same with heavy armor.

 

Very much in agreement here. I just think that, with a few exceptions, there's very little reason to say "You're an (insert class here), so you use these few weapons and armors. All the other ones are for other classes, u_u...". I'm all for stats determining your raw capabilities when it comes to weapons. Although, I kind of like the idea (at least to an extent) of, for example, a big two-handed weapon having a lower minimum Strength requirement simply to wield it, then some kind of "par" rating for it, below which you simply attack more slowly with it or something. Basically, "You can use this, but it's a bit troublesome." That can make for an interesting character. Especially if you have someone like, say, a Barbarian, and they use a weapon that they can't wield SUPER easily, but they recklessly wield it anyway. But if you have 4 out of 18 Strength, you probably shouldn't be able to swing a Great Maul around.

[MortyTheGobbo]

In principle i agree with an approach in the vein of what you're describing in that we would have diversity and options for "builds" while keeping a distinct feel for each class. And i think PoE did a relatively good job in this though ofc it can always be improved. I do think that having different deflection values for classes for instance does make sense and such but as a general point i doint disagree with you. Where i do take issue is the ability of any character being able to use any item... i just dont see that as realistic as mentioned above... Though i dont think item usage should be linked to classes but with stats as per the example i gave. If you have enough strength to wield a large two-hander you can if you dont you cant... same with heavy armor. If you dont have a certain level of intellect you cant read a scroll for instance (lore doesnt really do it for me as that is different then knowing how to read which would be intellect related for me). Dont have enough dexterity... you get a penalty to ranged accuracy... and so on and so forth. Imho this would allow a variety of different builds but would make your choice of attributes matter so that you could build a character able to do almost anything but not at the same time... if that makes sense

 

No one is forcing you to play class/attribute/equipment combinations that are insufficiency traditional. So there's no reason to prevent everyone else from being creative.

 

If I want to play a fighter/rogue with light armour and a greatsword and more dexterity than might, which is precisely what I'll do when Deadfire comes out, I'd like it if the game didn't get in my way.

[Lephys]

Well said, Morty. A character should be limited in their core capabilities purely by the way in which they build their character. Having high Strength doesn't make your Wizard a Fighter. It just makes them a strong Wizard. The Fighter and Wizard classes should easily be able to differentiate your character, and they should do so on a completely different layer than the stats. If a Wizard who can adequately wield a two-hander and wear plate armor is basically the same thing as a Fighter, but with the addition of arcane spells, then your Fighter class is doing it wrong.

 

Again, this goes for more than just Wizards and Fighters and Strength and whatnot... these are just examples.

[Valci]

@Morty & Lephys ... I agree with that as previously discussed... ignoring logic (ex. allowing a character who dumped str to 3 to wield a great sword for the sake of "diversity") is a whole other ballgame though. it has nothing to do with "tradition" and everything to do with common sense...

[DigitalCrack]

 

In principle i agree with an approach in the vein of what you're describing in that we would have diversity and options for "builds" while keeping a distinct feel for each class. And i think PoE did a relatively good job in this though ofc it can always be improved. I do think that having different deflection values for classes for instance does make sense and such but as a general point i doint disagree with you. Where i do take issue is the ability of any character being able to use any item... i just dont see that as realistic as mentioned above... Though i dont think item usage should be linked to classes but with stats as per the example i gave. If you have enough strength to wield a large two-hander you can if you dont you cant... same with heavy armor. If you dont have a certain level of intellect you cant read a scroll for instance (lore doesnt really do it for me as that is different then knowing how to read which would be intellect related for me). Dont have enough dexterity... you get a penalty to ranged accuracy... and so on and so forth. Imho this would allow a variety of different builds but would make your choice of attributes matter so that you could build a character able to do almost anything but not at the same time... if that makes sense

 

No one is forcing you to play class/attribute/equipment combinations that are insufficiency traditional. So there's no reason to prevent everyone else from being creative.

 

If I want to play a fighter/rogue with light armour and a greatsword and more dexterity than might, which is precisely what I'll do when Deadfire comes out, I'd like it if the game didn't get in my way.

 

Imo I think the current setup already reflects your stats in your equipment without gating you.  More might means you do more damage with a great sword where as more Dex means you can handle the sword better/faster even though you don't hit as hard.  Is it a perfect translation.. no, but its more than acceptable to me for the creativity it allows in builds as opposed to gating equipment behind stat thresholds (which wouldn't bother me just less desirable).  I have a great real life example of Dex verses Strength, I play in a few softball rec leagues over the summer and without fail always end up with a few muscle head types who can never figure out why all their muscle doesn't get them a home run and yet I can go up and crush it over often with the same Bat they use and I am regular joe type who doesn't work out at all and has no visible muscle.  That's mostly cause hitting a home run is all about bat speed and not the strength of swing.  I know how to handle the bat so that it works for me instead of relying on the power of my arms to carry the ball plus its easier for me to do so without a lot of muscle getting in the way.  Point being that a weak character could still use a larger sword effectively, that effectiveness just stems from something other than the strength he can apply to an individual swing.

 

Edit: obviously there is a common sense aspect to this and that yes if you have the strength of a three year old it would be impossible to hold a great sword.  But this all depends on what zero represents in pillars for stats.  Meaning if zero in might means you are regular guys strong or if ten is considered normal guys strong, basically which number is the baseline for normal person might?  PoE never really establishes this.

Edited November 1, 2017 by DigitalCrack

[MortyTheGobbo]

@Morty & Lephys ... I agree with that as previously discussed... ignoring logic (ex. allowing a character who dumped str to 3 to wield a great sword for the sake of "diversity") is a whole other ballgame though. it has nothing to do with "tradition" and everything to do with common sense...

 

I'm not going to play a character with 3 in might, so I fail to see how that's relevant. Furthermore, if I did play a character with 3 in Might, their damage with the greatsword would be pitiful, so once again, I'm not sure I see the problem.

 

Come to think of it, Dragon Age: Origins had Strength requirements on armor. The result was very poor for tank warriors - they needed strength to wear the heaviest sets, which meant they couldn't get the constitution and dexterity they needed to survive.

Edited November 1, 2017 by MortyTheGobbo

[Lephys]

@Morty & Lephys ... I agree with that as previously discussed... ignoring logic (ex. allowing a character who dumped str to 3 to wield a great sword for the sake of "diversity") is a whole other ballgame though. it has nothing to do with "tradition" and everything to do with common sense...

 

Oh definitely. My only emphasis is to make sure the class system (or any other system, for that matter) doesn't strong-arm the stat system, and vice versa. Stats should determine what stats determine -- no more, no less. And classes should take it from there. But, the basic measure of your character as an entity is the attribute system. What are you like? Are you tall, short, spindly, beefy, incredibly witty, super agile? Okay, now what do you do? What skills have you acquired, and/or what abilities have you developed, regardless of your metrics?

 

@DigitalCrack: I'm following what you're saying. For what it's worth, though, because we can't literally measure every single thing that factors in, it usually gets a little bit abstracted. For example, Dexterity might affect your precision or finesse with a weapon. But then, if you're a Ranger, for example, then your class progression should provide you skill-based improvements to precision, etc. Directly to the value that represents precision, itself, or to your modifier, etc. Technically, you are however Dexterous you are, and you're simply honing the extent to which you utilize your potential Dexterity. To look at it another way, you could have extremely good Perception, but learning how to better aim a bow is learning how to utilize the detail in your vision to better judge where to aim an arrow in order to get it to strike in the spot you want, at certain distances, etc. You don't actually start with 20/40 eyesight, and practice until you get 20/15 eyesight. Or, if you gain a magical ability, like Infravision, etc.... that's completely separate from the base measure of your Perception. You don't gain +2 Perception. But you DO gain an advantage on your perception checks in the darkness. So it's not really that you magically see better than you used to, in general. It's just that your eye doesn't see as much worse in the darkness now.

 

I know it's very robotic, but that's about the only way we have of doing things. The alternative is for the attributes to directly be a measure of your capabilities at any point in time, which can be done, but it would have to be supported that way. Either everything just directly modifies them (essentially, your Perception would be come your Accuracy, so anything that wanted to make you "see better" would just directly modify Perception, and Perception would account for all things, rather than there being a separate Accuracy value which simply gets modified by your Perception.) You run into problems if you try to mix and match, though. "No no, this is your base capability as a human, but then in this one instance, I'm also going to increase it because I feel like your overall capability increased." That's what modifiers are for. You generally have attributes, modifiers, and secondary stats that get modified (like Damage, for example. Strength may give a Damage modifier, then other things that aren't attributes could also give separate Damage modifiers, as Damage should be affected by more than just Strength.)

[1varangian]

Come to think of it, Dragon Age: Origins had Strength requirements on armor. The result was very poor for tank warriors - they needed strength to wear the heaviest sets, which meant they couldn't get the constitution and dexterity they needed to survive.

 

 

 

DAO is a great game but the attribute and equipment systems were definitely NOT good. Attributes and equipment scaled way too much, like in an action RPG.

 

All armors had 7 (or more) tiers with pretty linear strength requirements. Basically those were level requirements to wear better gear. I don't want to see that in an RPG again, ever.

 

DnD 5e has str requirement of 13 to wear chain mail and str 15 to wear splint or plate mail. Something along those lines works great.

[MortyTheGobbo]

If I had to introduce attribute minimums on heavy armour, Constitution makes a great deal more sense. Simply putting metal armour on and moving around in it isn't hard. But running, dodging, fighting and jumping in it for a while will test your endurance. In the context of Dragon Age: Origins, it would also let tank warriors invest in the attribute that actually lets them do their job - standing in the front while the mages do all the actual work by nuking everything into oblivion. But then, DA never needed attributes to begin with.

 

And of course, it loops us right back to traditional Strength and Constitution having very little business being separate attributes.

Edited November 2, 2017 by MortyTheGobbo

[Skaddix]

I think they could balance it for PoE but usually you dont want put CON and STR together because it creates a God Stat...tends to be why Dex fines itself being so broken when its the only stat you need.

[Lephys]

DnD 5e has str requirement of 13 to wear chain mail and str 15 to wear splint or plate mail. Something along those lines works great.

 

I like those, but feel they should be softer. Well, and they may very well be in 5e. But, the whole "Oh, your Strength is 12? You can't wear this. Oh, it's 13? Slap it on! You're golden! 8D!" idea is a bit silly. There should be a more gradual effect of increased fatigue/hindrance whilst wearing it, versus simply being unable to feasibly wear it. If it requires 13 Strength and you have 6, then sure. No wearies. Strength of 11? Wearies, but you're gonna be less effective.

 

Along those lines...

 

 

If I had to introduce attribute minimums on heavy armour, Constitution makes a great deal more sense. Simply putting metal armour on and moving around in it isn't hard. But running, dodging, fighting and jumping in it for a while will test your endurance. In the context of Dragon Age: Origins, it would also let tank warriors invest in the attribute that actually lets them do their job - standing in the front while the mages do all the actual work by nuking everything into oblivion. But then, DA never needed attributes to begin with.

 

And of course, it loops us right back to traditional Strength and Constitution having very little business being separate attributes.

 

Constitution can make sense, in a way, but it's more your Endurance that's affected by the weight of the armor. In other words, anyone with an appropriate amount of strength could wear the armor, but someone with 3 Constitution would simply run out of stamina before someone with 20 Constitution.

 

The attributes are abstract, to a degree. Would someone in real life have 20 Strength and only 4 Constitution? Probably not. But, there are people who are very strong but don't have a lot of endurance, and vice versa. So, it doesn't really make sense to measure them both in one stat. I get what you're saying, though. If you're mega strong, you're probably in pretty good shape as well, so you probably have MORE Endurance, on average, than someone who isn't strong at all. However, that's more fitness. Attributes are more measured as sort of your core, slightly-abstracted qualities. Honestly, I almost feel like Fitness level or whatever you'd call it should be a separate thing, because person A can be generally stronger than person B, such that, if they're both out of shape, person A is still way stronger. If person B gets super fit/buff, they could become stronger than person A, but if person A did the same, he'd be equally as far above person B as he was when they were both out of shape.

 

Honestly a lot of this is just a coding mentality applied to much-more-complex measurements. But, the vast majority of the reality of the measurement is covered by the numbers, if you do it right. You can always supplement the attribute system with secondary attributes/modifiers, if you need to. It's all about "what would this affect, and what WOULDN'T this affect?". The goal is to get as close to perfect as possible, with an attribute affecting all the relevant things it would affect, and not affecting anything it wouldn't affect. That's not usually very easy to hit, though.

[MortyTheGobbo]

I think they could balance it for PoE but usually you dont want put CON and STR together because it creates a God Stat...tends to be why Dex fines itself being so broken when its the only stat you need.

 

I'm not suggesting that they introduce it in PoE. That wouldn't work without a severe overhaul, and besides PoE doesn't use attribute minimums (nor should it).

 

As for being a god-stat, combining strength and constitution would let them compete with others. Strength is too narrow and easily discarded. Constitution is everyone's second choice - you don't want it too low, but you won't focus on it, either.

 

 

If I had to introduce attribute minimums on heavy armour, Constitution makes a great deal more sense. Simply putting metal armour on and moving around in it isn't hard. But running, dodging, fighting and jumping in it for a while will test your endurance. In the context of Dragon Age: Origins, it would also let tank warriors invest in the attribute that actually lets them do their job - standing in the front while the mages do all the actual work by nuking everything into oblivion. But then, DA never needed attributes to begin with.

 

And of course, it loops us right back to traditional Strength and Constitution having very little business being separate attributes.

 

Constitution can make sense, in a way, but it's more your Endurance that's affected by the weight of the armor. In other words, anyone with an appropriate amount of strength could wear the armor, but someone with 3 Constitution would simply run out of stamina before someone with 20 Constitution.

 

The attributes are abstract, to a degree. Would someone in real life have 20 Strength and only 4 Constitution? Probably not. But, there are people who are very strong but don't have a lot of endurance, and vice versa. So, it doesn't really make sense to measure them both in one stat. I get what you're saying, though. If you're mega strong, you're probably in pretty good shape as well, so you probably have MORE Endurance, on average, than someone who isn't strong at all. However, that's more fitness. Attributes are more measured as sort of your core, slightly-abstracted qualities. Honestly, I almost feel like Fitness level or whatever you'd call it should be a separate thing, because person A can be generally stronger than person B, such that, if they're both out of shape, person A is still way stronger. If person B gets super fit/buff, they could become stronger than person A, but if person A did the same, he'd be equally as far above person B as he was when they were both out of shape.

 

Honestly a lot of this is just a coding mentality applied to much-more-complex measurements. But, the vast majority of the reality of the measurement is covered by the numbers, if you do it right. You can always supplement the attribute system with secondary attributes/modifiers, if you need to. It's all about "what would this affect, and what WOULDN'T this affect?". The goal is to get as close to perfect as possible, with an attribute affecting all the relevant things it would affect, and not affecting anything it wouldn't affect. That's not usually very easy to hit, though.

 

 

I'm not terribly concerned with the attributes representing real human (or almost-human) capabilities. Yes, there can be people who are strong, but not tough, or vice versa. How many of those do you see in fiction and gaming? How many of those have enough of a discrepancy for it to matter? In a way that can't be represented with other elements, like talents or class features?

 

Like I said above, merging constitution and strength makes sense because neither of them is good enough to stand on its own, if we're talking about traditional ability spreads. Edge of the Empire by Fantasy Flight Games uses a general Brawn attribute and it work well enough. Traditional strength is of very limited use to people who don't rely on brute strength. Constitution is everyone's second choice. Combine them and you've got an attribute that competes with more versatile ones.