I never finished Pillars of Eternity.

[Abel]

Having a beard doesn't hurt though, yes? ^^

 

The point is an important one though, as so many people seem to get the whole "reduction to core components" - idea so very wrong. It is important to understand that simple fetch - deliver - loot - kill - quests are the lowest of the available standards, and that we not only can but absolutely should demand more than that. Much more.

 

Thanks for having clarified my point about fetch quests. While reading some answers to my comment, i felt too lazy to argue further.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Abel

[Amentep]

Having a beard doesn't hurt though, yes? ^^

 

The point is an important one though, as so many people seem to get the whole "reduction to core components" - idea so very wrong. It is important to understand that simple fetch - deliver - loot - kill - quests are the lowest of the available standards, and that we not only can but absolutely should demand more than that. Much more.

 

I agree for the most part - other than I think video games will always have some filler content (ie simple quests) because they can't be as naturally reactive as PnP RPGs can. 

 

To use BG as an example, the fetch quest in Candlekeep to buy some bolts forces the player to interact with a merchant and also doles out much needed XP so there is a systemic place for it. Such a simple quest can serve a real purpose at the beginning of the game.

 

But I think this discussion has hit at the core of the problem - its less about fetch quests and more about simple quest design and particularly as I see it simple quests that persists well beyond the beginning of the game when their use in orienting the player to the game's system is long past.

[Ninjamestari]

...not to mention that a good game has to offer contrast, and those early BG quests are well tied within the fantasy and the identity of your character at that point. They're the kind of eloquent solution I like; simple stuff that accomplishes oh so many things. And of course, one has to introduce the basic ideas first before moving on to more elaborate content. If the very first quest you get is overwhelmingly complicated, the chances of a player even getting started with the game drop quite significantly.

 

EDIT: in other words, exactly what you said.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Ninjamestari

[JFSOCC]

Ok so, when this page was 5 pages long I started with a reply based on multiquote, then when I got close to responding to all, it was 7 pages long and getting hijacked, now it's 9 pages long and slowly back on track.

 

I'm going to limit my response now in order to actually get it out.

 

Great debate, I'm pleased to see so many interesting insights in this thread.

Ninja, I actually believe you had a lot of interesting points. However, the use of loaded language, as you can see, distracted from the points you were trying to make. I think That's a shame because you did have some pretty interesting insights. Politics will certainly influence someone's design philosophies. All art is political. I don't believe that the idea that women in PoE should have the option to have the same might statistics as men comes from an political equality agenda however, and more from the "We want players to roleplay whatever character they please" agenda.

 

 

At the core of it all, there are only two types of quests. Either bring something back, or bring something somewhere.  I definitely agree that it all depends on the context. Just take a look at the Witcher, Pathologic, or New Vegas side quests. All of them are bring this object to a place, go kill something, or bring me a mcguffin. However, the writing around it all is good enough to make the player ignore what the mechanics are. PoE did this really well with the Twin Elm quests, with how tied to lore/exploration/ and loot they are

 

 

 

At the core of it all, there are only two types of quests. Either bring something back, or bring something somewhere. ..

 

 or kill something. 

 

I think this deserves a whole thread of its own.

 

I do not agree AT ALL that these are the only quest types available. And as I'm working on my own vision document for an Adventure-RPG, I think it's an important issue to discuss.

 

How is it that these quest-types have become such staples in RPG's and what other options are available?

 

I believe that it has to do with quest bounding. By which I mean that quests in RPG's tend to have a set number of ends and outcomes. There is an obstacle, there is a solution, sometimes more than one, and then they're over and then there is the player reward. (item, XP. etc)

 

Generally speaking, it's only the critical path that avoids this.

 

Edit: PS: Ninja, I'm also pretty far left, I hope that doesn't influence how you feel about my posts in this thread

Edited April 6, 2017 by JFSOCC

[IndiraLightfoot]

@JFSOCC: Just reading these few threads of yours makes me pretty happy. I remember plenty of your threads and posts most fondly. I'm just glad that I get to read a few more. Welcome back, and I do hope you're gonna enjoy PoE2 next year.  

 

And yes, a humongous YES, to there are more quest types than those few proposed. I do agree with you that RPGs, and CRPGs in particular, need to diversify their quest structuring, and the best way to start is to build a solid foundation in numerous, intricate and interlinked story threads. Time-consuming, but certainly worthwhile, if we want to avoid too many simple fetch quests.

[Messier-31]

I don't believe that the idea that women in PoE should have the option to have the same might statistics as men comes from an political equality agenda however, and more from the "We want players to roleplay whatever character they please" agenda.

 

Besides, this idea isn't new and was already present last century...

I'll leave these Baldur's Gate character creation quotes here:

 

GENDER: This is an aesthetic choice and will not affect your attributes in any fashion.

MALES of the Realms can excel in whatever profession they choose, whether wizardry, thievery or the arts of war.

FEMALES of the Realms can excel in whatever profession they choose, whether wizardry, thievery or the arts of war.

 

Tun, tun, TUN!

[Amentep]

I think its also fair to point out that PoE doesn't use the idea of physical strength like the BG games do - ie there's no weight limit, only an item number limit and anything goes in the deep stash.

 

I know it was mentioned when PoE was in development, but "might" could possibly have been a poor descriptor, as it represented more of a general potency than it did physical power. 

 

 

 

I think this deserves a whole thread of its own.
 
I do not agree AT ALL that these are the only quest types available. And as I'm working on my own vision document for an Adventure-RPG, I think it's an important issue to discuss.
 
How is it that these quest-types have become such staples in RPG's and what other options are available?
 
I believe that it has to do with quest bounding. By which I mean that quests in RPG's tend to have a set number of ends and outcomes. There is an obstacle, there is a solution, sometimes more than one, and then they're over and then there is the player reward. (item, XP. etc)
 
Generally speaking, it's only the critical path that avoids this.
 
Edit: PS: Ninja, I'm also pretty far left, I hope that doesn't influence how you feel about my posts in this thread

 

Actually I'd argue the critical path doesn't avoid it, its just that there are usually multiple obstacles with multiple solutions that create an illusion that the critical path is not a typical quest.  But it is, just odds are it'll be the most complex and multi-staged one.

 

I think collection and combat quests are the most typical simply because they play towards two systems usually present in RPGs - some kind of inventory/equipment system and some kind of combat system.  As the player will naturally interface with both throughout the course of the game. the natural inclination is to favor these systems in quest design either through focusing on one (kill the raiders, find the loyhargil) or some combo of both (like collecting herbs to make potions to increase potency in combat).

[Ninjamestari]

snip

 

All language that is used to discuss loaded issues becomes loaded. Trying to circumvent the language distracts from the actual subject and serves only to muddy the waters. I don't find it useful to try to placate people who can't discuss reality without being triggered, their emotions and feelings are their responsibility, as are their behaviors and reactions. Trying to take that responsibility away from them doesn't serve anyone, where as letting their tantrums come out publicly serves as a lesson to everyone on what happens when you don't exercise emotional self control. The one thing that separates a mature mind from that of a child is the ability to not be triggered by reality.

 

As far as the role of women argument goes, there are certain people who can't seem to grasp the difference between general and universal. I don't think restricting the stats of player rolled female characters serves any purpose, especially in a single player game, where everyone can adjust their stats according to the fantasy they have in mind. Understanding the biological and economical role women play in a society on the other hand is incredibly important when designing plausible worlds and stories. People in general waste way too much time on fantasizing how things *should be*, time they could use to figure out how things *are*. The important thing here is to realize that you cannot hope to understand the former question before you've tackled with the latter. When you understand how things *are*, the how they *should be* kinda starts forming on its own. This is a universal truth that applies to everything, including game design.

 

You need to *know* your target audience before you can determine the kind of product they want, and part of that is realizing that your audience rarely knows itself. A democratic approach to game design leads to an abundance of surface thoughts, but it tends to prevent any deeper ideas from surfacing, and a lot of the problems PoE suffers from are a product of this. Having a singular vision is paramount to achieving excellence, otherwise people will all wander around in their own direction instead of truly working together. This happens everywhere in any industry where design choices matter, and can be observed in the steady decline in the overall quality of user interfaces in the last couple of decades. The more people use fancy methodologies to test usability in larger groups instead of trusting a singular vision, the less user friendly the products have become. The UI of skype is a prime example, Youtube is another.

 

EDIT: oh, and just to prevent this post from being exclusively a rant, I agree on your assessments on quests 100%.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Ninjamestari

[Ninjamestari]

I think its also fair to point out that PoE doesn't use the idea of physical strength like the BG games do - ie there's no weight limit, only an item number limit and anything goes in the deep stash.

 

I know it was mentioned when PoE was in development, but "might" could possibly have been a poor descriptor, as it represented more of a general potency than it did physical power. 

 

Can't believe I missed this one. It's not only fair to point that out, it is also extremely important, as that leads directly to the consequences of this particular design choice. Strength as an attribute is very concrete and people have a strong instinctual understanding of what it is. This helps in creating stronger immerison, as everyone already has an instinctive understanding of what the stat does and thus it helps establish the connection between player and player character. Replacing such a stat with an abstract concept of might only serves to create confusion, and it is incredibly detrimental to player immersion.

[Fenixp]

Strength as an attribute is very concrete and people have a strong instinctual understanding of what it is. This helps in creating stronger immerison, as everyone already has an instinctive understanding of what the stat does and thus it helps establish the connection between player and player character.

Really? There's an instinctual understanding that when I'm 5 strong, I get -5 to hit and -4 to damage, but when I'm 18/76-90 strong I get +2 to hit and +4 to damage? Do you really believe that people feel more connected to their characters when their character has a "strength" attribute that can be an arbitrary number?

 

At least system in Pillars was consistent - Might made things more powerful. All of them, universally. If you ask me, that's exactly the kind of streamlining attributes need, because as it stands, it's always "This attribute does this, this, this and this, except when that happens, that's when it starts doing this." You have to stretch it for it to make roleplaying sense, but you have to do that with pretty much all abstractions in RPGs.

[Ninjamestari]

 

Strength as an attribute is very concrete and people have a strong instinctual understanding of what it is. This helps in creating stronger immerison, as everyone already has an instinctive understanding of what the stat does and thus it helps establish the connection between player and player character.

Really? There's an instinctual understanding that when I'm 5 strong, I get -5 to hit and -4 to damage, but when I'm 18/76-90 strong I get +2 to hit and +4 to damage? Do you really believe that people feel more connected to their characters when their character has a "strength" attribute that can be an arbitrary number?

 

At least system in Pillars was consistent - Might made things more powerful. All of them, universally. If you ask me, that's exactly the kind of streamlining attributes need, because as it stands, it's always "This attribute does this, this, this and this, except when that happens, that's when it starts doing this." You have to stretch it for it to make roleplaying sense, but you have to do that with pretty much all abstractions in RPGs.

 

 

Don't act like an idiot, you're smarter than that and you know exactly what I meant. People have an instinctual understanding what strength is an what it means to have more or less of it.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Ninjamestari

[Amentep]

I took it to mean that if you see in D&D someone has an 18 STR is stronger than someone who has a 10 STR and that carries through to higher carry weight, greater damage, ability to use weapons that rely on STR attribute like a compound bow.  The actual numerical values and percentages are never obvious (if I asked what benefit is there to a 17 con vs a 16 con in PoE, could you tell me without looking it up?  I couldn't beyond "17 con will have more Fortitude and Endurance")

Might being an abstracted quality can create confusion since it means a damage increase to physical, ranged, magical, mental and divine attacks, which seems to be pretty straightforward, Might isn't talking about a physical quality but 'soul power'...

 

...except then you have Dexterity and Constitution which clearly are physical attributes so the natural question becomes how strong is my 18 MIGHT wizard?

 

And while it doesn't bother me much, I can understand where people find a disconnect with might (and it was there from the early days of PoE1 development).

[Abel]

And while it doesn't bother me much, I can understand where people find a disconnect with might (and it was there from the early days of PoE1 development).

 

Yeah, it's always the same problem. If i want to roleplay a character with great magic powers but no physical strenght, i just can't. It would just lead to dumb things everywhere where your frail character will have better odds than Eder to move this 1T rock out of the way... Sigh... Ninjamestari is exactly right. Might is a pure concept that serves game mechanics. It could be a great idea in many game genres, but i still fail to see "Why? Why in a RPG?"

Edited April 6, 2017 by Abel

[Fenixp]

Don't act like an idiot, you're smarter than that and you know exactly what I meant.

Arguments, not slurs and appeals to my ego.

 

People have an instinctual understanding what strength is an what it means to have more or less of it.

People also tend to know what does the word 'Might' mean. Point is, everybody has their own understanding of words and the everybody person will also very quickly understand that what they expect 'strength' to do isn't quite what it does in whatever game they're playing, unless the meaning is flexible (like it can be in pen and paper games). So, in order to find out what does it mean, Everybody'll have to dig deep into a manual/tutorials and find it out the hard way anyway - so there's no real difference there, both might and strength are well known terms with meanings that are never clear when you try to make abstractions of them, because it can't really be done consistently.

 

The only argument you can make is that people have a rough idea of what'll strength do from other videogames, just like people get a rough idea of bullets being incapable of penetrating car doors because it's how that's done in movies. To which I say that I'm kinda tired of looking up whether strength is of any influence in that particular application or not, decided arbitrarily on whatever developers deemed to be more "realistic" (when at the end of the day nothing really ends up being), and welcome Obsidian trying to do something with that issue by attempting to introduce attributes that'll behave consistently across in every situation - I'm really hoping Deadfire will make the rest of the game this transparent. Because "That's how it's always been done" is not a good reason by itself to adhere to an old approach.

 

...except then you have Dexterity and Constitution which clearly are physical attributes so the natural question becomes how strong is my 18 MIGHT wizard?

Constitution is a physical attribute? How do you tell that guy over there has more constitution than you do? At the end of the day, it's all abstractions - and while I agree that numbers themselves are only useful with a point of reference, there's a lot more than a couple of stats to human physique. I'd transmute your question to: "How thin is my 10 Constitution wizard?" or "How good is my 10 perception wizard's eyesight vs. his hearing?" Answer would be: Whatever you want to, really.

 

In context of heavy abstraction that's necessary to make any RPG work, questions that would make sense in terms of description of an actual person's abilities stop making sense and you have to move to the mindset of whatever the designers came up with anyway.

 

If i want to roleplay a character with great magic powers but no physical strenght, i just can't.

What if I want to roleplay a character who has a really good lower body strength because he was a courier but pretty weak arms? What if my character has really good lung capacity but otherwise poor constitution? Edited April 6, 2017 by Fenixp

[rjshae]

 

I think its also fair to point out that PoE doesn't use the idea of physical strength like the BG games do - ie there's no weight limit, only an item number limit and anything goes in the deep stash.

 

I know it was mentioned when PoE was in development, but "might" could possibly have been a poor descriptor, as it represented more of a general potency than it did physical power. 

 

Can't believe I missed this one. It's not only fair to point that out, it is also extremely important, as that leads directly to the consequences of this particular design choice. Strength as an attribute is very concrete and people have a strong instinctual understanding of what it is. This helps in creating stronger immerison, as everyone already has an instinctive understanding of what the stat does and thus it helps establish the connection between player and player character. Replacing such a stat with an abstract concept of might only serves to create confusion, and it is incredibly detrimental to player immersion.

 

There's no perfect approach to attributes because in the end they are all just crude abstraction of reality. None of the approaches I've seen are ideal -- D&D attributes encourage excessive min-maxing; Champions is more complex; GURPS has too few attributes; PoE is more abstract. In my case I modified my viewpoint and enjoyed myself while playing PoE. Clearly this approach bothers you a lot though, so this probably isn't the game for you.

[Amentep]

 

...except then you have Dexterity and Constitution which clearly are physical attributes so the natural question becomes how strong is my 18 MIGHT wizard?

Constitution is a physical attribute?

 

 

Per the in-game description yes - 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. In combat, it affects maximum Health and Endurance and contributes to the Fortitude defense.

 

Health and Endurance.  Physically taxing. 

 

Might - 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 defense.

 

Might is both physical and spiritual, but there's no way to divide the two - if you are spiritually mighty you also have all the benefits of the physically mighty.

 

Like you, I'm not bothered by the abstractions but the complaint/concern has been there since the stats were announced.

 

[Fenixp]

Well... Considering enduring pain and long, taxing activities tends to be much more psychically than physically taxing, I don't think constitution's a very good example for what you're saying (especially since I'm pretty sure the game used it for checks of psychical constitution on numerous occasions)

[PizzaSHARK]

 

 

...except then you have Dexterity and Constitution which clearly are physical attributes so the natural question becomes how strong is my 18 MIGHT wizard?

Constitution is a physical attribute?

 

 

Per the in-game description yes - 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. In combat, it affects maximum Health and Endurance and contributes to the Fortitude defense.

 

Health and Endurance.  Physically taxing. 

 

Might - 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 defense.

 

Might is both physical and spiritual, but there's no way to divide the two - if you are spiritually mighty you also have all the benefits of the physically mighty.

 

Like you, I'm not bothered by the abstractions but the complaint/concern has been there since the stats were announced.

 

 

 

The problem is almost purely because all of the scripted interactions revolve around using Might for physical tasks, not mental ones.  You aren't using psionics to bust down a wall, you're pushing on it.  You aren't lifting someone off their feet with your Force powers, you're physically picking them up (which is already a monstrously difficult task for even someone as large as an amaua, and would likely be utterly impossible for a dwarf or orlan... but you still get the option.)

 

You end up with a substantial disconnect between the abstraction and its implementation... which is probably why people take issue with it so often.  By comparison, replacing Wisdom with Perception and Charisma with Resolve is a smart move, since that's often what they amounted to in regular D&D play anyhow.

 

 

 

In regards to the OP 10 pages ago, I can agree with a lot of it.  Pillars lets me down in almost as many areas as it makes me happy.  Maybe it was just a case of expectations being set unreasonably high.  I do feel that lack of modding support is a huge issue, particularly since - let's be honest here - Obsidian games tend to have really bad gameplay balance.  If modding is accessible for players, then it doesn't matter what the vanilla game's balance is like - the developers can design it the way they want to make it, and if that makes it too easy for some players (or too hard)... hey, they can mod it to the where they like it.  XCOM2, for example, is a game that is so easy for experienced players that it quickly becomes boring... but because Firaxis put a lot of effort into making modding accessible and easy, you can adjust settings to your heart's content - to say nothing of the numerous mods that add, remove, or change entire sections of gameplay.

 

WeiDU mods, in particular, are what made BG2 so memorable for me.  The base game was fine and I loved it, but I stuck around for SCS, for Ascension, for Solaufein, and all of the other wonderful things modders were able to do with it.  Pillars lacking that is a huge black mark against it, although I understand that Obsidian was already stretched in twenty different directions trying to get all of the promised content into the game and getting the game out the door.

 

Pillars is a good game.  As with basically everything Obsidian touches, I'd give it a solid 8/10 at bare minimum - everything Obsidian makes or is directly involved with seems to be at least that good.  But it's frustrating to play in many cases, because you can see what it COULD have been.  I sometimes wonder if devoting so much effort to the Endless Paths was a smart design choice.  I know both players and Obsidian themselves wanted a sort of sequel to the stellar Watcher's Keep from BG2, but I can't help but feel like it might have been better to devote some of that energy and effort into polishing the rest of the game.  Maybe they could've added new floors to the Endless Paths later, or something.

[Ninjamestari]

 

Don't act like an idiot, you're smarter than that and you know exactly what I meant.

Arguments, not slurs and appeals to my ego.

*Honest* arguments. You understand perfectly well the differences in the shades of grey on the subject. Trying to muddy the waters and confuse the point that is quite clear is not arguing, it's deception. And I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you were smart enough to understand the very basic concept and why Strength, even though it is an abstraction, has a stronger connect with reality than "might" that doesn't even behave like you'd expect to. Might as well refers to physical prowess, not mental, and that is just another flaw in the idea. Are you saying that I cannot safely make that assumption with you?

[Amentep]

Well... Considering enduring pain and long, taxing activities tends to be much more psychically than physically taxing, I don't think constitution's a very good example for what you're saying (especially since I'm pretty sure the game used it for checks of psychical constitution on numerous occasions)

 

Health and Endurance. Physically taxing activities.  These are physical qualities.

 

I'd argue that "enduring pain" is a physical quality as well; IMO the correct way to address it as a mental descriptor would be 'coping with pain'.

[Fenixp]

I'd argue that "enduring pain" is a physical quality as well; IMO the correct way to address it as a mental descriptor would be 'coping with pain'.

There's no such descriptor tho, there's just an abstract 'Constitution'. This whole line of argumentation is made fairly fruitless by the inclusion of such attributes as 'Intelligence', 'Charisma' or 'Resolve' - in other words, physical and mental attributes get mixed together and combined without much coherence to it anyway, might as well clear up the confusion to some extent and give them clear gameplay effects.

 

The problem is almost purely because all of the scripted interactions revolve around using Might for physical tasks, not mental ones.  You aren't using psionics to bust down a wall, you're pushing on it.  You aren't lifting someone off their feet with your Force powers, you're physically picking them up (which is already a monstrously difficult task for even someone as large as an amaua, and would likely be utterly impossible for a dwarf or orlan... but you still get the option.)

 

You end up with a substantial disconnect between the abstraction and its implementation... which is probably why people take issue with it so often.  By comparison, replacing Wisdom with Perception and Charisma with Resolve is a smart move, since that's often what they amounted to in regular D&D play anyhow.

That I agree with 100%. The way Pillars of Eternity presented its attributes in scripted interactions was often rather strange, and I think with the amount of abstraction Obsidian went with, it would make a lot more sense to react to the player's class or picked skills rather than attributes that barely mean anything.

 

Strength, even though it is an abstraction, has a stronger connect with reality than "might" that doesn't even behave like you'd expect to.

Strength in Dungeons and Dragons gives you direct buff to damage with -all- meele (and thrown) weapons along with, I believe, buff to chance to hit - neither of which correlate with what I expect strength to do, which is allow me wield meele weapon properly, with my dexterity and training governing the precision with which I handle it, and the build of the weapon itself governing the direct damage it does to the opponent.

 

It doesn't apply to all meele weapons the same way obviously, but the way strength in majority of RPGs work quite simply isn't how physical strength works, making the word completely meaningless in its real-life sense. Might, on the other hand, is a lot wider term covering a lot more areas - and no, it doesn't mean 'Physical prowess', altho it can also mean that (which is the point).

 

As for my original post, I do apologize if you left your sense for humor in Germany, I thought the point it was making was a lot clearer than me writing an essay on the issue.

[Amentep]

 

I'd argue that "enduring pain" is a physical quality as well; IMO the correct way to address it as a mental descriptor would be 'coping with pain'.

There's no such descriptor tho, there's just an abstract 'Constitution'. This whole line of argumentation is made fairly fruitless by the inclusion of such attributes as 'Intelligence', 'Charisma' or 'Resolve' - in other words, physical and mental attributes get mixed together and combined without much coherence to it anyway, might as well clear up the confusion to some extent and give them clear gameplay effects.

By "descriptor" I mean the in-game text that explains the attribute. Had it said "enduring and coping with pain" I'd agree that the desciptors used to describe the attribute bridged mental and physical attributes.

 

Since PoE was "inspired" by the BG/IWD D&D games, I think partially the issue stems from expectations. D&D classifies STR-DEX-CON and physical attributes and INT-WIS-CHA as mental ones. Part of the disconnect I feel is that CON and DEX still heavily imply physical qualities and INT-PER-RES imply mental ones. This throws MIGHT into its own category since its in-game description does state it covers both physical and non-physical things.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

How is it a problem if lifting means your fireballs deal more damage? It's fantasy magic, not real world science, intellect doesn't need to increase magic damage because some of you want the skinny nerd in a dress to be a demigod.

 

Anyways having played through PoE's 2nd act and WM, I have to say I'd like for the expansion to be seperated more and not get locked out of certain areas after a certain event. PoE 3.whatever plays better than 1.whatever though, immunities make Prayer against StatusEffects much more valuable and I really like the WM content. And Rogues seriously need to be better, Devil of Caroc got booted when I finished her quest so Manhea could frenzy and jump into mobs.

[Ninjamestari]

Strength in Dungeons and Dragons gives you direct buff to damage with -all- meele (and thrown) weapons along with, I believe, buff to chance to hit - neither of which correlate with what I expect strength to do, which is allow me wield meele weapon properly, with my dexterity and training governing the precision with which I handle it, and the build of the weapon itself governing the direct damage it does to the opponent.

 

 

Sounds like you've never hit anything. It's obvious to anyone who has ever hit something that the more you put strength behind the strike, the more damage you can cause. To me it sounds like you're still just rationalizing 'the way you see strength' in order to keep up your argument.

[rjshae]

How is it a problem if lifting means your fireballs deal more damage? It's fantasy magic, not real world science, intellect doesn't need to increase magic damage because some of you want the skinny nerd in a dress to be a demigod.

 

It's not a problem. To me it functions like Chi in the martial arts, where it's a representation of life force. You buff up your body, and your muscles become a magical capacitor able to project more soul-based power.