Attributes

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Get a room and **** already nerds, this is a muscle wizard board.

 

[Fenixp]

#justwizardthings

[dukeisaac]

 

 

Honestly, I don't understand why some posters insist on posting about a game they clearly cant stand. We get it, you dont like POE. Why waste time repeating it? There are plenty of other games that can scratch your itch.

 

For the rest of us, the stats fill their purpose. Is it an elegant/genius solution? Nope. They are serviceable and play in ok with the mechanics. Nothing minor tweaks cant solve.

 

There are a lot of things about PoE I do like, that's why it bothers me so to see an otherwise excellent game ruined by a few idiotic design decisions. This is an old issue, a small but incredibly impactful part of the game that many people dislike immensely. I'm not here to mindlessly praise Obsidian like an idiot, I'm here because I'm interested in ideas that could improve the game, and that means discussing about things I don't like so much.

 

And if you think that minor tweaks can solve the issues then by all means, share your ideas with the class: those ideas are the reason this thread exists, not this bull**** spewed by infantile people getting defensive because their favorite game gets criticism.

 

I don't pretend to have the awesome solution that solves everything. I read posts, show my support when good ideas are thrown around and very rarely, I express my disagreement. In cases such as this one, I try to explain (in a polite and respectful tone) my point, which basically is this : if you want the devs to listen to you, maybe spitting on their work isn't the way to go.

 

If your goal is actually that. I'm starting to believe otherwise.

 

In any case, being condescending only goes so far. Eventually, people don't take you seriously.

[Ninjamestari]

 

 

So you just decided that now is a good time to act like an ****.

 

That's basically it.

 

 

Glad we cleared that up. Now was there something you'd like to say regarding this discussion about the attribute system you so rudely interrupted or are we done?

 

Not to nitpick, but that's often not the impression you leave. Personally, I question the value of repeated attacks against a system that pleases or is at least considered serviceable by most players. In any case, I'm happy to see that you enjoy enough of the game to feel so strongly about it.

 

Fair enough. But you need to take into account that I didn't start half of these conversations. There are plenty of people who dislike the attribute system, but they've had to face with the same disingenuous arguments and other bull**** I've had to endure when speaking up, and thus many of them have been effectively bullied into silence or completely out of these forums. I'm completely serious when I say that these forums are a kind of an echo chamber when fans congregate to agree with eachother; this happens with gaming forums quite often so this isn't so surprising, but the kind of attitude some people here have towards differing viewpoints is downright disgusting. With lesser games I don't even bother to look at the forums, let alone create an account and post on them, for this very reason.

 

And to emphasize again where I come from: I'm interested in ideas that could improve the game, that's why I naturally focus on the flaws. Sitting in a circle repeating a mantra of how good the game is isn't useful to anyone, not to us as players and not to Obsidian as the developer.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

If your wizard can't bench 300, go back to forgotten realms.

[Ninjamestari]

I don't pretend to have the awesome solution that solves everything. I read posts, show my support when good ideas are thrown around and very rarely, I express my disagreement. In cases such as this one, I try to explain (in a polite and respectful tone) my point, which basically is this : if you want the devs to listen to you, maybe spitting on their work isn't the way to go.

 

If your goal is actually that. I'm starting to believe otherwise.

 

In any case, being condescending only goes so far. Eventually, people don't take you seriously.

 

I'm sure that the people at Obsidian are professional enough to focus on the arguments and not the tone. I don't see how people not taking me seriously is a bad thing in any way, then they can more easily either focus on what I say and should that inspire creative thought they can then contribute, and if not, they can ignore me and not derail the conversation. I trust in my words to justify themselves, and thus have no interest in trying to establish any sort of authority or personal credibility. The last thing I want is a bunch of mindless sycophants praising every word I say, those kind of people make me sick.

[dukeisaac]

 

 

 

So you just decided that now is a good time to act like an ****.

 

That's basically it.

 

 

Glad we cleared that up. Now was there something you'd like to say regarding this discussion about the attribute system you so rudely interrupted or are we done?

 

Not to nitpick, but that's often not the impression you leave. Personally, I question the value of repeated attacks against a system that pleases or is at least considered serviceable by most players. In any case, I'm happy to see that you enjoy enough of the game to feel so strongly about it.

 

Fair enough. But you need to take into account that I didn't start half of these conversations. There are plenty of people who dislike the attribute system, but they've had to face with the same disingenuous arguments and other bull**** I've had to endure when speaking up, and thus many of them have been effectively bullied into silence or completely out of these forums. I'm completely serious when I say that these forums are a kind of an echo chamber when fans congregate to agree with eachother; this happens with gaming forums quite often so this isn't so surprising, but the kind of attitude some people here have towards differing viewpoints is downright disgusting. With lesser games I don't even bother to look at the forums, let alone create an account and post on them, for this very reason.

 

And to emphasize again where I come from: I'm interested in ideas that could improve the game, that's why I naturally focus on the flaws. Sitting in a circle repeating a mantra of how good the game is isn't useful to anyone, not to us as players and not to Obsidian as the developer.

 

I've followed this thread (and most others) quite a bit and it seems to me that most posts are entirely from a subjective viewpoint. Not to say that good ideas arent written, but I havent seen any clear argument to justify a complete overhaul of attributes. Maybe you and many others think so, if so, so be it. In any case, this is Obsidian's game, and the devs chose a system and they should probably stick to it.

 

That being said, I agree that certain stats should be made more relevant (Resolve and Constitution comes to mind). Some good ideas have been said, namely, better bonuses for those two attributes and a clarification of their roles in dialogue. The whole Might thing is, IMO, de l'enculage de mouche, as we say in French.

 

I think we can all agree that we're impatient to learn more about the different systems in POE2.

[Ninjamestari]

 

If your wizard can't bench 300, go back to forgotten realms.

 

Hah, someone should edit a wizard hat and a grimoire hanging from a chain for that guy.

[rjshae]

 

 

 

 

So you just decided that now is a good time to act like an ****.

 

That's basically it.

 

 

Glad we cleared that up. Now was there something you'd like to say regarding this discussion about the attribute system you so rudely interrupted or are we done?

 

Not to nitpick, but that's often not the impression you leave. Personally, I question the value of repeated attacks against a system that pleases or is at least considered serviceable by most players. In any case, I'm happy to see that you enjoy enough of the game to feel so strongly about it.

 

Fair enough. But you need to take into account that I didn't start half of these conversations. There are plenty of people who dislike the attribute system, but they've had to face with the same disingenuous arguments and other bull**** I've had to endure when speaking up, and thus many of them have been effectively bullied into silence or completely out of these forums. I'm completely serious when I say that these forums are a kind of an echo chamber when fans congregate to agree with eachother; this happens with gaming forums quite often so this isn't so surprising, but the kind of attitude some people here have towards differing viewpoints is downright disgusting. With lesser games I don't even bother to look at the forums, let alone create an account and post on them, for this very reason.

 

And to emphasize again where I come from: I'm interested in ideas that could improve the game, that's why I naturally focus on the flaws. Sitting in a circle repeating a mantra of how good the game is isn't useful to anyone, not to us as players and not to Obsidian as the developer.

 

I've followed this thread (and most others) quite a bit and it seems to me that most posts are entirely from a subjective viewpoint. Not to say that good ideas arent written, but I havent seen any clear argument to justify a complete overhaul of attributes. Maybe you and many others think so, if so, so be it. In any case, this is Obsidian's game, and the devs chose a system and they should probably stick to it.

 

That being said, I agree that certain stats should be made more relevant (Resolve and Constitution comes to mind). Some good ideas have been said, namely, better bonuses for those two attributes and a clarification of their roles in dialogue. The whole Might thing is, IMO, de l'enculage de mouche, as we say in French.

 

I think we can all agree that we're impatient to learn more about the different systems in POE2.

 

Yes, an attribute overhaul at this point would create more work than it would solve. Everything would need to be rebalanced and retested. It seems pretty unlikely to happen, and I really don't think the game needs it.

[Ninjamestari]

I've followed this thread (and most others) quite a bit and it seems to me that most posts are entirely from a subjective viewpoint. Not to say that good ideas arent written, but I havent seen any clear argument to justify a complete overhaul of attributes. Maybe you and many others think so, if so, so be it. In any case, this is Obsidian's game, and the devs chose a system and they should probably stick to it.

 

That being said, I agree that certain stats should be made more relevant (Resolve and Constitution comes to mind). Some good ideas have been said, namely, better bonuses for those two attributes and a clarification of their roles in dialogue. The whole Might thing is, IMO, de l'enculage de mouche, as we say in French.

 

I think we can all agree that we're impatient to learn more about the different systems in POE2.

 

 

Whether or not you find the current system likable or acceptable is a subjective thing. The fact that a significant portion of the player-base finds the current system to be detracting is not, and the argument I make is that if a system X is acceptable to group A but not to group B, while a system Y is acceptable to both groups, then system Y is the superior choice.

 

Also, I agree that a major overhaul isn't necessary, as the problem mostly boils down to the way Might works; people want their physical and mental strength to be separate, and that is the main issue most people have with the system. Other lesser issues arise, such as perception being a bit too important for everyone due to it governing accuracy and the stats being a bit MMOy are another issue, but both issues are fixable with minor tweaking. The discussion could even evolve to brainstorming about alternatives, which could be very interesting *and* useful for obsidian, if the topic didn't get attacked by hysterical fans who are threatened by the idea. There are people who want to have an honest discussion about this subject and so far an opportunity to do so has been denied, which is part of the reason this subject keeps coming up all the time.

 

EDIT: just to clarify, what I think needs an overhaul is not the math of the stat-system, but the specifics of what they represent and such. Also, they're reworking the way classes work rather completely, with them getting rid of vancian casting and all, so redesigning the attribute-system wouldn't really add that much extra work. I'd wager in fact that they're already planning to change some details about the stat system.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Ninjamestari

[Messier-31]

Messier-31 didn't actually make a point with that picture. 

 

Surprise. I did.

 

 

Actually the graph you posted is simply a depiction of the current system. I really don't understand what you wished to accomplish with it.

 

The current system is exactly what you propose to "change".

 

I rest my case, take two.

[Baltic]

The fact that a significant portion of the player-base finds the current system to be detracting is not,

I'm not trying to claim that this is completely wrong or anything, but do we actually know this for sure?

[HooAmEye]

 

If your wizard can't bench 300, go back to forgotten realms.

 

Edited April 22, 2017 by HooAmEye

[rjshae]

 

The fact that a significant portion of the player-base finds the current system to be detracting is not,

I'm not trying to claim that this is completely wrong or anything, but do we actually know this for sure?

 

Yes; pick any game system you want and it's going to have a "significant" number of detractors. Probably at least a half dozen. There's no way to know for sure whether the attribute system had any "significant" impact on sales. Some players may have found the system a deterrent; others may find the new approach appealing. In the end, the two may well cancel each other out. Who knows?

[Durgarnkuld]

I'm not sure where these statistics always come from. What are considerably numbers for people who like or dislike that ****. Where are these coming from? I don't even know how many like it.

Anyways, **** got real in this thread.

I haven't really seen much: "oh well, we just want some civil discussion and look at problems we have and express how we feel about them and make devs notice our concerns". More: well, this isn't DnD, which is gold, and thus it's obviously **** and who can't see this is **** and stupid.

Which is ludicrous, of course. And then next point is: we are an army btw and have significant impact on sales, so better listen! These other guys would be happy with anything anyways!

 

Sure, that's my reading so far, doesn't have to be 100% accurate. I'm all for exchanging ideas, voicing concerns and debating how these come to pass. But not in the so long displayed manner of: well, Might isn't Strengths so it's objectively bad. Maybe there is a problem with having physical and mental attack powers tied to one attribute. But then just show and tell how and why. And next: is this really a problem. In case of might I can't see it. Seems more like writing and semantics so far. But I guess I can understand that it's just weird or uncomfortable for some. On the other hand, other settings have roundhouse kicking Wizards too. Doesn't seem to be a universal problem at least.

 

For all I care we can have 20 attributes if it has real merit and improves mechanics and immersion. But I somehow doubt it.

 

Then again, maybe I'm watching too much anime where magical and physical prowess seems to be linked all the ****ing time, so I don't even care about this **** anymore.

Edited April 23, 2017 by Durgarnkuld

[Sedrefilos]

In a fantasy game, fantasy stuff, such as magic, can be linked to whatever the creator likes. Having magic derive from might is as meaningful as diriving from intellect (who said magic is mental ability?). In South Park: Stick of Truth, magic derived from fart power; so what? So let's leave D&D arguements to D&D and start having some Pillars arguments for Pillars.

[rjshae]

Why are there no Wizard spells with singular attribute drains or boosts? There are spells that apply status effects, but none that apply, say, a Dex only boost similar to cat's grace. Not even one that would instead apply a bonus to Reflex.

[FlintlockJazz]

I have found that Fantasy has a restrictive status quo that prevents change: some people are unwilling to accept changes to what appears to be an already established paradigm and will complain and fight automatically against anything that changes the status quo.  Magic has to work a certain way, you have to have certain classes and those classes must fulfill certain roles and not others.  You must have X races and they must be this or that.  You must have this stat and it must do that.  Quite often it seems to be more restrictive than even historical fiction even.  People like familiarity and abhor change.  Shame, really, as it has limited growth in the genre for quite some time.

[Insidous]

I for one am happy with the attributes as they are, including might, but all arguments have been made I guess. Since we won't change each others mind about this, what do you think about a somewhat related topic: Race attribute boni?

 

They hardly play a role since they only really affect the maximum value of said attribute and even if they do, starting with one more doesn't do much. A NWN style attribute cost system would solve this, but comes with other drawbacks, so I thought of something like this:

Instead of having a bonus of +2 might an Aumaua could have "Skip might 12 and 18" which would mean after having 11 might and spending another point you instantly get 13, same thing then happens at 18 points. This could also affect you later ingame via buffs and actually encourages Aumauas to focus in might and doesn't simply at two points to the attribute pool. Of course just one example and you could also change -1 attribute point to "double cost [attribute] 14" 

[CornyCarrot]

About the Might(y) controversy - while I personally didn't mind the joint stat (I even like the concept of soul-strength being more tangible that in your average fantasy setting) I do think it was a bit of a lousy execution. Truth be told, I don't recall a single scripted interaction where Might would be used in a context different than physical, whereas it it supposed to represent both spirit and body.  As for the more combat/mechanics perspective, I think that it felt off to some, due to the fact that spells did little to reflect the more versatile stats.

 

Taking Wizards example specifically, they could make a bunch of (un)official schools/spheres/aspects/lores/whatever of magic that benefit heavily from a certain stat but others have little impact on them. For instance, all the "martial" spells (weapon summons, magic armour and the like) could have a mostly fixed duration that is only slightly affected by Int, but a magnitude that benefits, or suffers, greatly form a high, or low, Might score. Makes a lot of sense for a beefy mage to be sort of a arcane knight type who focuses on those spells. Similarly, there can be spells where high Might adds negligible dmg, but Int has a dramatic effect on duration or area of effect (possibly even turning a single target nuke into a small AoE, or adding a Foe Jump effect), allowing to create the "fragile but powerful" archetype enjoyed by so many. You can even extend the concept to encompass more than just dmg, radius and duration - you can have illusion spells that benefit from high Resolve - things like Mirrored Image are defensive in nature and Res is THE defence stat, it makes perfect sense. Moreover, it also makes sense that someone already charismatic has a greater aptitude for creating illusions (i.e. some kind of bonus to spells that apply the Terrified affliction?).

 

IMHO this creates a kind of natural way for your character to specialize - a high Res Wizard is likely to be a guy who prefers persuading (or enforcing his will on) others anyway, so he uses his magic to supplement that, hence illusions. On the other hand the broscience Wizard with high Might goes for the more straightforward approach - just summon a magic stick and beat them to death with it.

 

Of course where I see a "natural way to specialize", someone else might see "limiting the number of useful spells". However, there is going to be this Empower mechanic. So maybe it could, in my rough design, allow a illusionist to occasionally cast a fireball worthy of a savant battlemage, and vice versa? Food for thought.

[dukeisaac]

About the Might(y) controversy - while I personally didn't mind the joint stat (I even like the concept of soul-strength being more tangible that in your average fantasy setting) I do think it was a bit of a lousy execution. Truth be told, I don't recall a single scripted interaction where Might would be used in a context different than physical, whereas it it supposed to represent both spirit and body.  As for the more combat/mechanics perspective, I think that it felt off to some, due to the fact that spells did little to reflect the more versatile stats.

 

Taking Wizards example specifically, they could make a bunch of (un)official schools/spheres/aspects/lores/whatever of magic that benefit heavily from a certain stat but others have little impact on them. For instance, all the "martial" spells (weapon summons, magic armour and the like) could have a mostly fixed duration that is only slightly affected by Int, but a magnitude that benefits, or suffers, greatly form a high, or low, Might score. Makes a lot of sense for a beefy mage to be sort of a arcane knight type who focuses on those spells. Similarly, there can be spells where high Might adds negligible dmg, but Int has a dramatic effect on duration or area of effect (possibly even turning a single target nuke into a small AoE, or adding a Foe Jump effect), allowing to create the "fragile but powerful" archetype enjoyed by so many. You can even extend the concept to encompass more than just dmg, radius and duration - you can have illusion spells that benefit from high Resolve - things like Mirrored Image are defensive in nature and Res is THE defence stat, it makes perfect sense. Moreover, it also makes sense that someone already charismatic has a greater aptitude for creating illusions (i.e. some kind of bonus to spells that apply the Terrified affliction?).

 

IMHO this creates a kind of natural way for your character to specialize - a high Res Wizard is likely to be a guy who prefers persuading (or enforcing his will on) others anyway, so he uses his magic to supplement that, hence illusions. On the other hand the broscience Wizard with high Might goes for the more straightforward approach - just summon a magic stick and beat them to death with it.

 

Of course where I see a "natural way to specialize", someone else might see "limiting the number of useful spells". However, there is going to be this Empower mechanic. So maybe it could, in my rough design, allow a illusionist to occasionally cast a fireball worthy of a savant battlemage, and vice versa? Food for thought.

Interesting, I don't think I read about something like this before. I don't know how feasible it would be for the devs (since its a whole new layer to class balance) but its worth a look, at the least.

[CornyCarrot]

 

About the Might(y) controversy - while I personally didn't mind the joint stat (I even like the concept of soul-strength being more tangible that in your average fantasy setting) I do think it was a bit of a lousy execution. Truth be told, I don't recall a single scripted interaction where Might would be used in a context different than physical, whereas it it supposed to represent both spirit and body.  As for the more combat/mechanics perspective, I think that it felt off to some, due to the fact that spells did little to reflect the more versatile stats.

 

Taking Wizards example specifically, they could make a bunch of (un)official schools/spheres/aspects/lores/whatever of magic that benefit heavily from a certain stat but others have little impact on them. For instance, all the "martial" spells (weapon summons, magic armour and the like) could have a mostly fixed duration that is only slightly affected by Int, but a magnitude that benefits, or suffers, greatly form a high, or low, Might score. Makes a lot of sense for a beefy mage to be sort of a arcane knight type who focuses on those spells. Similarly, there can be spells where high Might adds negligible dmg, but Int has a dramatic effect on duration or area of effect (possibly even turning a single target nuke into a small AoE, or adding a Foe Jump effect), allowing to create the "fragile but powerful" archetype enjoyed by so many. You can even extend the concept to encompass more than just dmg, radius and duration - you can have illusion spells that benefit from high Resolve - things like Mirrored Image are defensive in nature and Res is THE defence stat, it makes perfect sense. Moreover, it also makes sense that someone already charismatic has a greater aptitude for creating illusions (i.e. some kind of bonus to spells that apply the Terrified affliction?).

 

IMHO this creates a kind of natural way for your character to specialize - a high Res Wizard is likely to be a guy who prefers persuading (or enforcing his will on) others anyway, so he uses his magic to supplement that, hence illusions. On the other hand the broscience Wizard with high Might goes for the more straightforward approach - just summon a magic stick and beat them to death with it.

 

Of course where I see a "natural way to specialize", someone else might see "limiting the number of useful spells". However, there is going to be this Empower mechanic. So maybe it could, in my rough design, allow a illusionist to occasionally cast a fireball worthy of a savant battlemage, and vice versa? Food for thought.

Interesting, I don't think I read about something like this before. I don't know how feasible it would be for the devs (since its a whole new layer to class balance) but its worth a look, at the least.

 

 

Well I can't take any credit, it's not exactly a new concept. Pre-Skyrim, the TES games had this division between magic schools - some were dependent on Willpower, while others on Intelligence (with plausible lore reasons behind it). This created more build choices since it was not an all-or-nothing deal with magic - you could ignore will/intelligence and still excel in magic powered by your preferred attribute. I believe stretching it over more than two attributes would fit PoE's design philosophy pretty well.

 

As for the difficulty in implementation, it depends on how far they would want to go with it. If we're talking full-blown schools that are made autonomous thanks to having a high score in the relevant stat then it is a nightmare to balance. However, I was thinking more in line of putting emphasis on what kind of a Wizard you are - your spells of choice would simply have an edge unattainable by others, making them that much better, but it would not detract from the inherent versatility of the class.

 

Hell, it can even adopt the way current Paladin Orders work. You get to chose an additional Talent at level 1 and BAM!, all your spells work with Intelligence now, at the cost of martial spells being wholly unaffected by any stats. My original proposal is more organic I think, and using a Talent for it seems less elegant, but it would simplify things quite a bit.

[Lord_Mord]

 

About the Might(y) controversy - while I personally didn't mind the joint stat (I even like the concept of soul-strength being more tangible that in your average fantasy setting) I do think it was a bit of a lousy execution. Truth be told, I don't recall a single scripted interaction where Might would be used in a context different than physical, whereas it it supposed to represent both spirit and body.  As for the more combat/mechanics perspective, I think that it felt off to some, due to the fact that spells did little to reflect the more versatile stats.

 

Taking Wizards example specifically, they could make a bunch of (un)official schools/spheres/aspects/lores/whatever of magic that benefit heavily from a certain stat but others have little impact on them. For instance, all the "martial" spells (weapon summons, magic armour and the like) could have a mostly fixed duration that is only slightly affected by Int, but a magnitude that benefits, or suffers, greatly form a high, or low, Might score. Makes a lot of sense for a beefy mage to be sort of a arcane knight type who focuses on those spells. Similarly, there can be spells where high Might adds negligible dmg, but Int has a dramatic effect on duration or area of effect (possibly even turning a single target nuke into a small AoE, or adding a Foe Jump effect), allowing to create the "fragile but powerful" archetype enjoyed by so many. You can even extend the concept to encompass more than just dmg, radius and duration - you can have illusion spells that benefit from high Resolve - things like Mirrored Image are defensive in nature and Res is THE defence stat, it makes perfect sense. Moreover, it also makes sense that someone already charismatic has a greater aptitude for creating illusions (i.e. some kind of bonus to spells that apply the Terrified affliction?).

 

IMHO this creates a kind of natural way for your character to specialize - a high Res Wizard is likely to be a guy who prefers persuading (or enforcing his will on) others anyway, so he uses his magic to supplement that, hence illusions. On the other hand the broscience Wizard with high Might goes for the more straightforward approach - just summon a magic stick and beat them to death with it.

 

Of course where I see a "natural way to specialize", someone else might see "limiting the number of useful spells". However, there is going to be this Empower mechanic. So maybe it could, in my rough design, allow a illusionist to occasionally cast a fireball worthy of a savant battlemage, and vice versa? Food for thought.

 

That's funny. I had a similar idea. I even started writing it down, but then there was this thing with the ninjaguy and I lost interest. I copied it to a text file. Here it is:

 

Might/Strength wouldn't affect the impact of lets say a fireball, as this does not have something to do with strength. That would be intellect, resolve or whatever. But apart from spells that already require might indirectly, like for example Concelhauts staff (Why would I use it, if I was a weakling. It is a melee weapon), a set of spells could be created that directly use it when it makes sense. Like for example an arcane fist striking down from the sky. It's impact would be a product of your physical strength, as it follows your movement. You could push or pull enemies with some kind of magical chains, whips or rams. Or imagine spells that require physical strength to be executed. Like ripping up a portal, wrestling down some kind of summoned force to gain control over it or compressing some kind of magical energy. I'll give an example: Imagine a forcefield that you create between your hands. As long as you hold it, it gains power until you are not strong enough to hold it back anymore. Than it explodes, pushing anyone in the area including you back, dealing damage and knocking them prone. As you were prepared for the impact, your strength or resolve or whatever determines how much it affects you. This way Strength wouldn't be a dump stat for your mage. Just your choice if you want to to be that kind of mage or not.

 

Your version is better, by the way. Mine focused too much on might and intellect.

[tinysalamander]

I for one am happy with the attributes as they are, including might, but all arguments have been made I guess. Since we won't change each others mind about this, what do you think about a somewhat related topic: Race attribute boni?

 

They hardly play a role since they only really affect the maximum value of said attribute and even if they do, starting with one more doesn't do much.

 

I’d rather have them replaced with minor thematic talents you can choose from a short list. But that’ll take more time and effort.

[Sedrefilos]

Might haters hit Tumblr
https://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/159985014186/what-do-you-think-about-having-two-sub-attributes