Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Attributes


  • Please log in to reply
168 replies to this topic

#161
darkling.lithely

darkling.lithely

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 30 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

I always build fairly balanced characters. I'll have an attribute or two that are above average but nothing extreme.

 

Now what would be cool is if my high dex buckswasher (aka rogue/fighter) actually appeared to be a very agile person as opposed to a brute.


Edited by darkling.lithely, 11 October 2017 - 03:37 PM.


#162
Valci

Valci

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 59 posts
  • Location:Timisoara, Romania
The system has it's problems I agree but is workable. Might for magical damage and healing doesn't make the must sense it's true... But it's much easier so have all damage dependant in only one stat for design purposes. Aside from that you more or less get around the strength requirement restriction issue for equipment in the sense that almost anyone well pick up at least average might due to it's importance... All in all I think they chose ease of game design rather then rp value. Is it ideal? Probably not... But it works well enough. I don't see it as something to get too wound up about...

#163
Nail

Nail

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 143 posts
  • Location:Kiev, Ukraine
  • Steam:Perebor
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

According to my observation, many who tend to think about role playing perspective share an erroneous opinion of Constitution, substituting it with Might.

My wizard is like 28 might and only 8 constitution - how would this look like? :)

I guess just very sinewy guy, but without huge muscles, what is kinda weird, still that's only my opinion...



#164
Sedrefilos

Sedrefilos

    (10) Necromancer

  • Members
  • 1407 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

According to my observation, many who tend to think about role playing perspective share an erroneous opinion of Constitution, substituting it with Might.

My wizard is like 28 might and only 8 constitution - how would this look like? :)

I guess just very sinewy guy, but without huge muscles, what is kinda weird, still that's only my opinion...

It'll look like Bruce Lee.


  • morhilane, rjshae, illathid and 2 others like this

#165
Varana

Varana

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 462 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!
He has a lot of raw power but is kind of a glass cannon. He gets tired easily, has a weak stomach and several allergies, his bones break more often, he needs his 9 hours of beauty sleep to fully function. :D
  • rjshae likes this

#166
Lamppost in Winter

Lamppost in Winter

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 69 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Honestly my main problem with the attribute system is still Accuracy being the deciding stat for every type of attack. At the risk of over-complicating things, I would prefer something like Might attacking Fortitude, Resolve/Intellect attacking Will, etc. Still wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for magic, but then making perfect sense has never really been the focus of this system. 



#167
MortyTheGobbo

MortyTheGobbo

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 270 posts

Honestly, if I were to design a system with a traditional stat spread, I'd fold Strength and Constitution together. Neither has legs to stand on separately. Strength, in particular, is very narrow in most systems that use it. Which is precisely why Pillars uses Might. Folding Strength and Constitution wouldn't work with its approach of every stat applying to the same thing regardless of "power source", as it were, either.



#168
Sedrefilos

Sedrefilos

    (10) Necromancer

  • Members
  • 1407 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Honestly, if I were to design a system with a traditional stat spread, I'd fold Strength and Constitution together. Neither has legs to stand on separately. Strength, in particular, is very narrow in most systems that use it. Which is precisely why Pillars uses Might. Folding Strength and Constitution wouldn't work with its approach of every stat applying to the same thing regardless of "power source", as it were, either.

Banner Saga does something similar. Strength = damage and health. Of course it is a different type of game but it's a cool mechanic.


  • illathid likes this

#169
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7078 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

I don't ask that an attribute system perfectly simulate all things. However, in a role-playing game, its goal should probably be to provide a full-spectrum of significant character distinguishments. That's the core of my issue with the PoE system. The only problem with Might that I have is that the system essentially says "Let's just assume anyone with X amount of Might can do all the exact same things that anyone else with X amount of Might can." It would be like combining armor and dodging. If you just say "Meh, at the end of the day, all that matters is whether or not you took damage," then you've diluted the whole role-playing aspect of the game world. Do you dodge things well, or actually nullify attacks that strike you? Ahhh, who cares. You avoid damage. Everyone is just a damage-avoider now.

 

The only reason Might "isn't that big of a deal" in PoE is because it's not really checked as significantly as it should be. This is the problem with Strength in 99% of RPGs. It's why there are dump stats. "Why should I take any Strength, as an (insert non-Warrior class her)? What... to pass those 2 Strength checks in the whole game that let me get past some minor obstacle, or achieve an outcome in a scenario that already had an alternative route to it anyway?" Same with Intelligence for Fighters. You maybe don't want them to be so dumb they can't function, but what's the use in their being smarter than a 10-year-old? You're spending an attribute point and getting FAR less for your "dollar." The solution to that isn't over-simplifying the attributes. Why take away the robustness of the system?

 

This is why I LOVE some of the things mentioned/suggested in this thread. Give Fighter-types a sub-grouping of abilities and talents with INT pre-requisites, for example. Make more checks to attributes, directly, and/or skills, directly.

 

And don't get me wrong... I know that with the first game, they had a pretty huge crunch, and were building all their assets and figuring Unity out from scratch, basically. But now that they've got a little more wiggle-room, I don't see it as unreasonable to try and get closer to some sort of ideal with attributes. The ideal isn't "make it just like DnD." But DnD had a pretty good foundation, coincidentally because of what all the stats represented. There are a ton of different attribute systems in different table-top games, but all the best ones are the ones that actually measure interesting, differentiating factors about your character, then are backed up by a system that actually uses those measurements to produce significant and dynamic results. When we went from table-top to CRPG, the tech at the time couldn't really handle the vast majority of the checks and attribute usages that you'd see in a tabletop session. Thus, the attributes were reduced to "how does this affect me, numbers-wise, in combat?", with dialogue checks trailing behind in second place and a sprinkling of other checks throughout.

 

Now that video games have come so far, the solution is not to reduce the attribute measurements down to the level of existing gameplay systems, but instead to bring the existing gameplay systems up to par with the attribute measurements.

 

Obviously Deadfire's budget only allows for so much, so if they can't do something, they can't do it. No one can feasibly be mad about that or demand that it be done anyway. However, to just say "Meh, the attribute system's okay, I guess. Better not waste any time even considering improvements to it" would be ludicrous. Proposing and discussing changes and improvements to the system and brainstorming reasons for them doesn't hurt anyone, and can only potentially contribute to a better understanding of attribute design on the part of anyone reading or taking part in such a discussion. So, I say collaborate away. :)


  • blotter, esyvjrt and Wormerine like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users