Things you want PoE 2 to specifically avoid if possible

[Amentep]

Please discuss and debate each others arguments and not each other.

[rjshae]

Consider, an Mig 18 Wizard inflicts +18% more damage than a Mig 12 Wizard. However, an Int 18 Wizard inflicts damage over +36% greater "area" than an Int 12 damage. If you are targeting groups concentrated over a particular region of the battlefield, then the high Int Wizard will tend to inflict a greater net damage than the high Mig Wizard. And in fact it gets even better, because that +36% area is actually an increase in the radius. Hence, for a given density of enemies, the average number of targeted enemies increases by 1.36 x 1.36 = 1.85; a +85% increase.

 

If you're using Wizards for artillery, then high Int is better. For a Battle Mage targeting specific enemies though, a high Mig is better.

[Ninjamestari]

Yes cause I totally and specifically mentioned Aloth and dps.... you were being d*ck plain and simple and totally disregarding everyone elses opinion on the basis that your build philosphy was undeniable "because reasons" and then got all over people for not providing proof of their opinion. mine was an argument of process and nothing to do with the arguement itself which actually had nothing to do with Aloth being a dps god... Which was what I have been trying to get across more than once. anyway, over it think the topic has derailed enough.

 

 

The relative power of a character is not a matter of opinion, it is a measurable quantity that can be calculated. The game logic and character power is based on math. I'm really not interested in having an argument about sentiment, those are never useful for anyone.

 

In all fairness, "deals more damage" is not necessarily the most helpful way to assess a DPS wizard's effectiveness. The answer to "how many spell slots do I need to spend to kill these opponents?" can be the same for the Mig 12 Per 12 wizard who deals 50% of the target's health with a single spell as it is for the Mig 18 Per 18 wizard who manages to get a few lucky crits in and deals 70% instead.

 

 

Correct, but that situation is highly specific and hypothetical. That 70% crit will allow a secondary damage source of 30% to kill that opponent, while the former case will need another full blast. Also, 18 perception will get crits much more likely than the 12 perception making him/her a more reliable damage dealer. All in all, trying to account for all possible scenarios in these sorts of discussions is neither possible nor useful, which is why we're dealing with generalizations. Obviously if you run into a situation where your first spell deals anywhere between 50% and 99% depending on your build and excluding random elements such as criticals, it really doesn't matter how your stats are distributed; you're still going to need two spells to finish off the enemy, but those situations are extremely rare when accounting for the random hit rolls, the damage of other party members and potential heals the enemy might get.

 

When it comes to INT vs MIG for an artilery Wizard, that will depend on how many extra enemies you will manage to fit in the larger radius, but in a hypothetical generalized situation where the number of enemies is high but undetermined and they are spread relatively evenly along the surface area being targeted, you're correct. The MIG vs INT in the artilery case does have a certain gray area. Overall though, an optimal artillery wiz would have max MIG max PER *and* max INT; having a decent value in one of the three most important stats isn't enough to make a character very good in this particular role, so when it comes to Aloth (if anyone is interested in his case anymore), his spec is still far from optimal.

 

All in all, Wizards will usually want to dump RES completely and CON and DEX slightly to be able to get most out of all of their spells, both control and damage. In essence this still means min-maxing the stats, but instead of following class flavor when doing so, you're simply defining a mechanical role with the stats.

[PizzaSHARK]

Consider, an Mig 18 Wizard inflicts +18% more damage than a Mig 12 Wizard. However, an Int 18 Wizard inflicts damage over +36% greater "area" than an Int 12 damage. If you are targeting groups concentrated over a particular region of the battlefield, then the high Int Wizard will tend to inflict a greater net damage than the high Mig Wizard. And in fact it gets even better, because that +36% area is actually an increase in the radius. Hence, for a given density of enemies, the average number of targeted enemies increases by 1.36 x 1.36 = 1.85; a +85% increase.

 

If you're using Wizards for artillery, then high Int is better. For a Battle Mage targeting specific enemies though, a high Mig is better.

 

A properly built Wizard will typically have high INT and MIG both.  You don't need PER so much because you have self-buffs like Eldritch Aim and Merciless Gaze (or, better yet, can just drink potions of the same) and because virtually all spells have Accuracy bonuses (which is stupid, why even bother giving Wizards low base ACC if you're just going to compensate for it by giving all of their spells a huge ACC bonus?)

Edited April 6, 2017 by PizzaSHARK

[Ninjamestari]

A properly built Wizard will typically have high INT and MIG both.  You don't need PER so much because you have self-buffs like Eldritch Aim and Merciless Gaze (or, better yet, can just drink potions of the same) and because virtually all spells have Accuracy bonuses (which is stupid, why even bother giving Wizards low base ACC if you're just going to compensate for it by giving all of their spells a huge ACC bonus?)

 

 

That would depend on whether or not there's a cap on crit chance. If not, then you want to go all the way into PER to get more reliable crits.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

 

 

If your going to state it as undeniable fact without evidence and dimiss anyone elses opinion then yes you better regardless of a high probability of being right. but thats neither here nor there and wasnt what I was getting at either.

 

 

Perhaps you should go back to school so you can learn to use terms like "high probability" in a proper context. A wizard with 18 might and 18 perception does better damage than wizard with 12/12. I really don't appreciate your dishonest arguments.

 

 

No one every was arguing this but you. So i dont why you keep saying this stuff.

 

 

If you go back, this line of inquiry started due to an assertion about Aloth being less-optimal as DPS vs control wizard based on stats made against an argument that he was as good a DPS as anyone else in the party, which is where the 12/12 & 18/18 example comes from.

 

Ultimately I'm not sure arguing a normal distribution really gets anyone anywhere. If you follow the system, the statistics tells us that a 12 perception 12 might wizard will deal less damage than the one with 18 in both on average.  The formulas will provide a range and if the RNG is truly random that range will provide a normal distribution which, when compared, will have the normal distribution shifted higher on the 18 character when compared to the 12 one.

 

This again assumes the RNG is indeed random.

 

The problem is I think that while the argument made was statistical ('Aloth is just as good at DPS'), I think the argument on hand wasn't about statistics, but about whether the character was "good" or not.

Or to put it another way, I think the problem lies in an argument about whether being less optimized for a specific role is a value judgement about that character in that role.  If Aloth's DPS is the same as my rogue's DPS, then my rogue - like Aloth - isn't built in a way that maximizes the characters for a  DPS role.  That to me doesn't mean the character is bad (unless your goal was to build a high DPS rogue).  Given the make-up of the party, the difficulty setting, etc., the character may actually be quite serviceable and fulfill a role within the party.  So that Aloth is less-optimal in a role doesn't mean that he couldn't have utility in that role relative to the party.

 

Further there's the question of whether the ability to create less viable builds is inherently a problem within the system.  I'd argue that its a natural consequence of trying to build characters to not have dump stats.  If the effort is to devalue min-maxing, then the value is going to be either towards jack-of-all-trades where the skills show limited variance or building a character towards a specific goal in mind and applying the stats in ways that will least penalize that role.

 

This.  I also find that people fixate on the stats that directly affect the role they are going for and neglect other parts thinking that they just want to specialise, not realising the problems that can cause for their role.  Someone (I can't remember unfortunately it was some time ago) on these forums once said "You can't DPS if you're dead" and they are right: having maxed out stats for doing damage is great but if you spend most of the battle faceplanted then it is not doing anything.  This was something that gave me a headache in the early days of release: people stated that armour was of no use to ranged DPS characters and others who stayed in the back because they would never get hit and the recovery just slowed down their attacks, then complained about the wraiths in Caed Nua teleporting past their meatshields and attacking the squishes behind...

 

Not sure this is all that relevant to the discussion at hand, but I haven't spaffed on the forum for a while so... spaff!

[PizzaSHARK]

 

 

 

 

If your going to state it as undeniable fact without evidence and dimiss anyone elses opinion then yes you better regardless of a high probability of being right. but thats neither here nor there and wasnt what I was getting at either.

 

 

Perhaps you should go back to school so you can learn to use terms like "high probability" in a proper context. A wizard with 18 might and 18 perception does better damage than wizard with 12/12. I really don't appreciate your dishonest arguments.

 

 

No one every was arguing this but you. So i dont why you keep saying this stuff.

 

 

If you go back, this line of inquiry started due to an assertion about Aloth being less-optimal as DPS vs control wizard based on stats made against an argument that he was as good a DPS as anyone else in the party, which is where the 12/12 & 18/18 example comes from.

 

Ultimately I'm not sure arguing a normal distribution really gets anyone anywhere. If you follow the system, the statistics tells us that a 12 perception 12 might wizard will deal less damage than the one with 18 in both on average.  The formulas will provide a range and if the RNG is truly random that range will provide a normal distribution which, when compared, will have the normal distribution shifted higher on the 18 character when compared to the 12 one.

 

This again assumes the RNG is indeed random.

 

The problem is I think that while the argument made was statistical ('Aloth is just as good at DPS'), I think the argument on hand wasn't about statistics, but about whether the character was "good" or not.

Or to put it another way, I think the problem lies in an argument about whether being less optimized for a specific role is a value judgement about that character in that role.  If Aloth's DPS is the same as my rogue's DPS, then my rogue - like Aloth - isn't built in a way that maximizes the characters for a  DPS role.  That to me doesn't mean the character is bad (unless your goal was to build a high DPS rogue).  Given the make-up of the party, the difficulty setting, etc., the character may actually be quite serviceable and fulfill a role within the party.  So that Aloth is less-optimal in a role doesn't mean that he couldn't have utility in that role relative to the party.

 

Further there's the question of whether the ability to create less viable builds is inherently a problem within the system.  I'd argue that its a natural consequence of trying to build characters to not have dump stats.  If the effort is to devalue min-maxing, then the value is going to be either towards jack-of-all-trades where the skills show limited variance or building a character towards a specific goal in mind and applying the stats in ways that will least penalize that role.

 

This.  I also find that people fixate on the stats that directly affect the role they are going for and neglect other parts thinking that they just want to specialise, not realising the problems that can cause for their role.  Someone (I can't remember unfortunately it was some time ago) on these forums once said "You can't DPS if you're dead" and they are right: having maxed out stats for doing damage is great but if you spend most of the battle faceplanted then it is not doing anything.  This was something that gave me a headache in the early days of release: people stated that armour was of no use to ranged DPS characters and others who stayed in the back because they would never get hit and the recovery just slowed down their attacks, then complained about the wraiths in Caed Nua teleporting past their meatshields and attacking the squishes behind...

 

Not sure this is all that relevant to the discussion at hand, but I haven't spaffed on the forum for a while so... spaff!

 

 

That's just a matter of tactics.  It's a temporary problem.  I wouldn't consider CON a dump stat, but nobody but your tanks really needs more than 10.  Back line characters generally shouldn't wear heavier than leather or so.

[Durgarnkuld]

I'm really not buying how Pillars stats made the whole stat-concept worse.

It's different and a breath of fresh air - I really needed that one. It's familiar enough to get into, but different enough it's not boring (for me).

My grief with D&D (3.5 or a bit Pathfinder) is that some stats just don't do jack **** for my class. At all. And these systems fix that by introducing perks or talents so you have some reason to invest into another stat. Doesn't change that the stat in of itself is of no value before that.

Sure, maybe that makes no difference for some people, but it does for me, a great deal in fact. Having at least the feeling that every stat will define my character, give him more punch in one or another category feels rewarding for thinking about my character - who isn't just a planned that cookie cutter thing.

I need different books, prestige classes, more talents here, more perks there before some of my ideas can even be realized in old school D&D, because there is a lack in some regards. And it's in the system itself, tried to be fixed over and over (and money being made).

Pillars isn't perfect in that regard, not yet. But I see promise.

 

Of course if I'm min-maxing my character I will always dump a few stats to a certain degree, but I feel the impact it makes. Really, I never felt any impact in D&D, Pathfinder, whatever for that. No tradeoff. I'm just plain better.

 

I don't really see the problem with Might? It's not Strength as far as I see it. Makes more sense as a mix stat out of training, SOUL strength (yeah, that's a thing and has impact on different scale - how is it surprising a Wizard who strengthens and trains his soul power, that allow for magic to begin with, will have high Might?). Feels more like a roll in from different kind of explanations what stats are. I see some Charisma in that. Strong personality that can shape the persons and world around them.

 

And that's how I feel about every stat in Pillars. Perception isn't plain Wisdom like: I'm an old fart and now stuff because I'm old and fart. It's more awareness of one's surroundings, little reactions of people. Makes perfect sense to have impact in combat.

An INT fighter just knows how to use his abilities to best effect, hence his Knock Down lasts longer. He doesn't have to study years in an old tower for that or be a master tactician or take stupid talents, because it's otherwise useless.

For me that feels more alive. Because all of these things do matter in combat and life (if you want a well rounded life that is).

[Ninjamestari]

This.  I also find that people fixate on the stats that directly affect the role they are going for and neglect other parts thinking that they just want to specialise, not realising the problems that can cause for their role.  Someone (I can't remember unfortunately it was some time ago) on these forums once said "You can't DPS if you're dead" and they are right: having maxed out stats for doing damage is great but if you spend most of the battle faceplanted then it is not doing anything.  This was something that gave me a headache in the early days of release: people stated that armour was of no use to ranged DPS characters and others who stayed in the back because they would never get hit and the recovery just slowed down their attacks, then complained about the wraiths in Caed Nua teleporting past their meatshields and attacking the squishes behind...

 

Not sure this is all that relevant to the discussion at hand, but I haven't spaffed on the forum for a while so... spaff!

 

 

CON used to be a dump stat, but now that they've raised the effect of constitution to 5% per point instead of 3%, you can no longer safely dump it, which is good. 15% less HP didn't affect your survivability enough to be worth 5 points that could be put elsewhere. Hell, 5 points in RES seemed to be mostly a better investment, and thus CON became the favorite dump stat for damage roles. 3 points is not enough to justify a 15% drop in HP on the other hand unless you're really point starved however, and the 35% reduction in HP for going full nutcase on dumping constitution is SEVERE, unlike the 21% that just only began to be noticeable. Also 5% is enough to warrant investing in CON instead of RES for that extra survivability, and it is RES that is now the dump stat for ranged dps.

 

Also, I do have to point out the same thing Durgarnkuld did, which is that keeping a weak glass-cannon is quite easy to keep out of harms way, not to mention that you can just slap heavy armor on the guy which will help out a lot more than the added constitution, especially when everyone can get limited constant recovery, and dps casters that tend to have high int AND might get a really good regeneration out of it. That ability is amazing, and it makes it much more appealing to invest to INT and MIG for tanking characters as well. DEX is the safest dump stat on tanks, and PER can safely be neglected a little bit.

 

But in general you're right, and it definitely wouldn't be as appealing to dump RES either if keeping a caster away from harms way wasn't so ridiculously easy and if there weren't so many ways of compensating. Unlike damage, where more is always good, you only need as much HP that as you need to survive the encounter, as hitpoints are replenished afterwards, and losing out on health is easy to circumvent by simply resting more often.

[dukeisaac]

One of the things I really appreciated in POE was how most builds were relevant. You could be a total noob (as I was) and still create a decent character by allocating points in most stats, according to how you wanted to roleplay. Each stat had an effect and objectively, all stats were somewhat important to characters (of course, some more than others, ie Strength, Intelligence). Compare that to BG or DnD, where many stats are often useless (Wisdom, Charisma).

 

Perhaps for min-maxers, the POE system was a failure, but for the rest of us, it worked just fine. One might argue that it needs tweaks, but to state that the devs are completely off the mark, I think is just false.

[rjshae]

The exterior area maps in PoE felt like they were channeling movement too much. I'd prefer something closer to square, or at least more roomy vertically as in the Baldur's Gate series. Yes I understand the isometric perspective plays a role, but they could compensate for that by making them taller.

[injurai]

The exterior area maps in PoE felt like they were channeling movement too much. I'd prefer something closer to square, or at least more roomy vertically as in the Baldur's Gate series. Yes I understand the isometric perspective plays a role, but they could compensate for that by making them taller.

 

It's interesting that you mention map height. It's not something I consciously realized until now, but my favorite maps were all ones where you navigate primarily in the vertical component. Something about it felt more like I was adventuring through something. Perhaps the limited amount of screen space in the vertical direction has something to do with it.

[1varangian]

I hope they will avoid trying to avoid fantasy RPG norms or cliches too much!

 

Some of the mechanics feel a bit off.. like Might representing both physical and psychic power. Certainly a new approach to stats but why does my Eothasian healer have to be a beefcake?

 

Why do Ciphers have to hit people with weapons to be able to use their powers? It may be a brand new caster mechanic but it's too far fetched. Shooting someone with a crossbow boosts your magical power? In fact killing people with weapons is a kind of a requirement to use your powers.. what kind of a class or person is that lol.

 

Wizards can't do their Blasts with a staff but with a scepter instead... 

[Gromnir]

our greatest concern, at the moment, is skills.  we liked poe.  we expect poe2 to be much like poe.  sure, with multiclassing and new spells and feats, there will be balancing issues, but there were balancing issues with poe and we enjoyed the game. poe2, a sequel, will be much like poe, so we expect most o' our gameplay concerns will be minor, predictable or fixable.

 

skills.

 

skills is being revamped and expanded.

 

poe2 skills may be considerable different than poe skills, which is a good thing, but it is also a source o' concern.

 

so, we want poe2 to specific avoid obvious skill pitfalls.  a multitude o' skills which sound nifty but get little or no use in game? nope.  a handful o' skills which every character benefits from taking? yeah, is as bad as the wasted skills.  a handful o' essential skills, but only essential for one party member?  hmmm.  this one is a possible unavoidable problem 'cause o' expectations.  there is gonna be a mechanics/lockpick skill, and am suspecting most every player will have 1 party member with the skill in question.  waste.  perhaps mechanics has additional (and admitted nonsensical) benefit o' making one more efficacious 'gainst constructs?  dunno, but developers should break Expectation o' the skills which is essential but o' extreme narrow usage.  

 

oh, and have skill bonuses tied to classes is unnecessary and runs counter to espoused goal o' allowing player to customize. don't simple grant lore bonuses to wizards and mechanics bonuses to rogues 'cause such is expected.  the poe classes ('least previous to the expansions) was highly differentiated w/o even considering skills, a result for which we is much applauding the developers.  am understanding how difficult it is to keep so many different classes unique from each other, but do so with cheap skills bonuses is lacking effort and creativity.  if the classes aren't unique enough w/o skill bonuses, then developers failed regardless, so why not allow players to customize as they wish?

 

am on heavy meds at the moment, so am likely to return and edit a bit.  apologies in advance if the post reads more like dr. seuss than typical Gromnir.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[DigitalCrack]

I hope they will avoid trying to avoid fantasy RPG norms or cliches too much!

 

Some of the mechanics feel a bit off.. like Might representing both physical and psychic power. Certainly a new approach to stats but why does my Eothasian healer have to be a beefcake?

 

Why do Ciphers have to hit people with weapons to be able to use their powers? It may be a brand new caster mechanic but it's too far fetched. Shooting someone with a crossbow boosts your magical power? In fact killing people with weapons is a kind of a requirement to use your powers.. what kind of a class or person is that lol.

 

Wizards can't do their Blasts with a staff but with a scepter instead...

Cipher's being so different is exactly what made them so fun to play. Its why my first play through ended up being with a Cipher.. Not to say some things couldnt be explained a little better but loved how they played as a class.

[Ninjamestari]

I hope they will avoid trying to avoid fantasy RPG norms or cliches too much!

 

Some of the mechanics feel a bit off.. like Might representing both physical and psychic power. Certainly a new approach to stats but why does my Eothasian healer have to be a beefcake?

 

Why do Ciphers have to hit people with weapons to be able to use their powers? It may be a brand new caster mechanic but it's too far fetched. Shooting someone with a crossbow boosts your magical power? In fact killing people with weapons is a kind of a requirement to use your powers.. what kind of a class or person is that lol.

 

Wizards can't do their Blasts with a staff but with a scepter instead... 

 

I have to second this. Being different for the sake of difference offers no real value, and the Cipher resource system is tedious and ludicrous. I played Cipher because I love the concept of the class, the fantasy behind it, but I absolutely hate the Cipher mechanics. The whole "I shoot you with a gun and gain power" kinda feels ridiculous at best, and isn't even a fun mechanic to play around with. It's basically just another version of Warrior's rage from World of Warcraft. I have never liked any attempt at converting rage into a spell-casting mechanic instead of a melee one and I definitely don't like it in Ciphers.

[gogocactus]

Gromnir!

here's too a speedy recovery Gromnir. Get better soon!

[JFutral]

I agree with point 1 in the OP.

 

In addition avoid long load times. I would buy PoE simply rebranded as PoE II if load times were dramatically improved. And a faster Fast Speed Mode.

 

Oh, and I agree don't f*** it up. NWN II, Diablo III, Masters of Orion III... history is littered with attempts to "rethink" what made a game successful.

 

Joe

[Katarack21]

I think "might" would've been better named something like "power" to avoid the conflation with physical muscle. That and fixing the scripted interactions to match the lore more faithfully would fix a lot of issues with that.

[Ashen Rohk]

Token bull**** inclusion.

 

Because we all know how well that's worked out recently.

[MortyTheGobbo]

I think "might" would've been better named something like "power" to avoid the conflation with physical muscle. That and fixing the scripted interactions to match the lore more faithfully would fix a lot of issues with that.

 

The latter part more than the former. I'm not sure how it'd work, though. A high-might character can be a beefy barbarian, a brainy wizard or a crossbow-sniping rogue. Just to name three. How do you write a scripted interaction where they get past an obstacle that fits all three of those? A wizard can bend bars or such with their magic, but what about a priest or rogue? I'm in favour of the idea behind the might attribute, and mechanically it works. But its execution in the non-combat interaction is wonky.

 

On the other hand, though, making it just physical strenght is a sure-fire way to make 50% of characters ignore it.

[1varangian]

When Might represents two different things, it becomes unclear how the ability score reflects your character. Is he physically or mentally strong or both? Scripted events where you push down walls clearly paint a picture of a muscly character when you imagined your Wizard or Rogue to be thin and fragile. And you feel a disconnect to the character you envisioned. This is bad in an RPG.

 

Secondly, there are ways to make physical strength useful for everyone without doing what PoE did with Might. A strong character could always wear heavier armor without penalty. DR is always useful. In fact its strange heavy armor and weapons don't have any kind of strength requirements.

 

I also hope the ability scores you select for your character will have more impact on your stats in PoE2. Maybe using a diminishing returns point buy system so that nothing gets out of whack, like NWN had.

[Baltic]

When Might represents two different things, it becomes unclear how the ability score reflects your character. Is he physically or mentally strong or both? Scripted events where you push down walls clearly paint a picture of a muscly character when you imagined your Wizard or Rogue to be thin and fragile. And you feel a disconnect to the character you envisioned. This is bad in an RPG.

 

Secondly, there are ways to make physical strength useful for everyone without doing what PoE did with Might. A strong character could always wear heavier armor without penalty. DR is always useful. In fact its strange heavy armor and weapons don't have any kind of strength requirements.

 

I also hope the ability scores you select for your character will have more impact on your stats in PoE2. Maybe using a diminishing returns point buy system so that nothing gets out of whack, like NWN had.

The description does say it is both. A character with 18 might is always very strong both physically and spiritually (also within the lore if you're spiritually strong you can make yourself physically strong). It is kind of on the people who expected otherwise. What they should have done is given a reason for the two to be connected. In theory in Pillars' world you can have people who are strong spiritually but weak physically but it's impossible to create a character that way. They probably should have made it impossible to have a character be weak physically but be a powerful spellcaster in the lore. Edited April 9, 2017 by Baltic

[rjshae]

 The description does say it is both. A character with 18 might is always very strong both physically and spiritually (also within the lore if you're spiritually strong you can make yourself physically strong). It is kind of on the people who expected otherwise. What they should have done is given a reason for the two to be connected. In theory in Pillars' world you can have people who are strong spiritually but weak physically but it's impossible to create a character that way. They probably should have made it impossible to have a character be weak physically but be a powerful spellcaster in the lore.

 

Because... it's magic. The setting doesn't have to fit to your expectations of how magic works; you have to adapt to it. Physical strength and spiritual strength are the same thing. Stop trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Edited April 9, 2017 by rjshae

[Baltic]

 

The description does say it is both. A character with 18 might is always very strong both physically and spiritually (also within the lore if you're spiritually strong you can make yourself physically strong). It is kind of on the people who expected otherwise. What they should have done is given a reason for the two to be connected. In theory in Pillars' world you can have people who are strong spiritually but weak physically but it's impossible to create a character that way. They probably should have made it impossible to have a character be weak physically but be a powerful spellcaster in the lore.

 

 

Because... it's magic. The setting doesn't have to fit to your expectations of how magic works; you have to adapt to it. Physical strength and spiritual strength are the same thing. Stop trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Oh I fully believe they can be, they just seem to have made it so that in the lore of Pillars you can be physically weak but spiritually strong or vice versa.