Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Why fix something that's not broken? Pillars stats is one of the things the game did great, imo. Exemplary to future games of the genre that want to use stats.

 

 

These type of threads would not be common if Pillars' system wasn't broken.  It's functional, but that's about the best that can be said for it.  There's clearly a reason Obsidian are putting a sizable amount of effort into tweaking and revamping the character creation system for Deadfire.

 

These types of threads are common because it's common that some people have very strong opinions about their ideal system (that is as old-school as ADnD most of the times). The team is putting time in perfecting character creation but the stats is not something that will change much (if any), as Sawyer himself mentioned.

Edited by Sedrefilos
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

^ when i played Pillars with my INT 8 wizard i pretty much steamrolled through the main game (hard/expert mode). Can't tell you anything else about him since i deinstalled the game long ago. I did that because from BG2 i'm used to deal with spells as they are designed and in this kind of game where i can move, reposition and click wherever and where combat is decided in the first few seconds, INT didn't matter to me. I think the attributes are just flavour for the roleplayers in us. It should be mainly about decision-making during combat shouldn't it? My sorcerer didn't care about stats, no stat was important in particular, what i did during combat was what made him viable and fun. I think Obsidian did a good job of keeping that flavour and weakening attributes' impact, it's just that they forgot about the reactivity of BG2 combat. Perhaps, it would be an improvement if attributes would decide on the amount of available abilities and not on their design (effect radius/duration), dunno, just IMO.

 

There are plenty of spells available that mostly deal damage and/or have effects that last for a short duration. These are going to be least impacted by a low Int. To me it's mainly a matter of tuning your spell selection to your attributes. Low Mig/High Int: go for Aoe spells with long durations; High Mig/Low Int: targeted spells with short durations; Low Mig/Low Int: maybe jack up your Dex and Per, focusing on rapidly spamming a target with damage spells.

  • Like 1

"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to se some minor changes in the attributes:

 

Might: Take the "damage dealing for mages" out of might and in to  resolution. This would improve the wizard with less attributes to focus on.

 

Resolution: Take "+ to defence" out and into dexterity. This would improve dexterity.

 

 

Result:

 

Might -> strength (dnd-style). Strength/might would still be very strong.

 

Dexterity: Stronger and more focused.

 

Resolution: Just as strong, but more focused on some classes like wizard.

 

I think this would improve the system  lot.

 

Cheers! :-)

 

This issue keeps coming up, and it's always the same **** (whom I shall not name) that aim to shoot it down. While there are those who genuinely like the system among the defenders, the fact is that most people outside regular forum-goers find this current system to be detracting from the game. I hope Obsidian has the wisdom to recognize the situation and fix the stat system, but I don't know how much faith I can have in them since they didn't have the wisdom to recognize how bad of an idea the current system was in the first place. When people seek to re-invent the wheel, they usually end up just making a retarded pseudo-wheel that is inferior to a proper wheel in every way.

The most important step you take in your life is the next one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. Ty for many good thoughts. I still believe that might is to strong and for roleplaying reasons resolve should be something for a wizard to focus on.

 

Still I love the Pillars system. I think its better than DnD, but it isnt perfect. I particulary like the idea that attributes isnt as important as in DnD (f.ex. Baldurs Gate).

 

Resolve should be for wizards and paladins and "mind-strong" characters.

 

When it comes to "dump-stats": The system could punish dumping by giving 0,5 attributes per point removed under 8 or so... Just like "buying" high stats in some systems cost more (17-18 "costs" 3 attribute points..)

 

Anyway, I hope to se some improvements on this. This is definitely the best rpg since the Baahlspawn saga. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why fix something that's not broken? Pillars stats is one of the things the game did great, imo. Exemplary to future games of the genre that want to use stats.

 

 

These type of threads would not be common if Pillars' system wasn't broken.  It's functional, but that's about the best that can be said for it.  There's clearly a reason Obsidian are putting a sizable amount of effort into tweaking and revamping the character creation system for Deadfire.

 

These types of threads are common because it's common that some people have very strong opinions about their ideal system (that is as old-school as ADnD most of the times). The team is putting time in perfecting character creation but the stats is not something that will change much (if any), as Sawyer himself mentioned.

 

 

Very stupid.  Maybe the rest of the game will redeem the garbage stat system, then.  It worked for BG2.

 

 

^ when i played Pillars with my INT 8 wizard i pretty much steamrolled through the main game (hard/expert mode). Can't tell you anything else about him since i deinstalled the game long ago. I did that because from BG2 i'm used to deal with spells as they are designed and in this kind of game where i can move, reposition and click wherever and where combat is decided in the first few seconds, INT didn't matter to me. I think the attributes are just flavour for the roleplayers in us. It should be mainly about decision-making during combat shouldn't it? My sorcerer didn't care about stats, no stat was important in particular, what i did during combat was what made him viable and fun. I think Obsidian did a good job of keeping that flavour and weakening attributes' impact, it's just that they forgot about the reactivity of BG2 combat. Perhaps, it would be an improvement if attributes would decide on the amount of available abilities and not on their design (effect radius/duration), dunno, just IMO.

 

There are plenty of spells available that mostly deal damage and/or have effects that last for a short duration. These are going to be least impacted by a low Int. To me it's mainly a matter of tuning your spell selection to your attributes. Low Mig/High Int: go for Aoe spells with long durations; High Mig/Low Int: targeted spells with short durations; Low Mig/Low Int: maybe jack up your Dex and Per, focusing on rapidly spamming a target with damage spells.

 

 

Or: don't skimp on the only two useful stats in the game since there is no build where being deficient in one is better than being good in both.

 

Low might and int - your spells do **** damage (and your auto attacks), have tiny AOE, reduced duration.  Three casts of minor missiles will do about as much damage as one cast from a high Might build.  Three casts of Fireball will do about as much damage and cover as many targets as one cast from a high Might, high Intelligence build.  Oh, you pumped PER instead of MIG or INT, for that pathetic ACC bonus?  Cool, my high INT build just pops a +50% duration Eldritch Aim and has more ACC than your PER build while also having larger spell AOE and duration.  So remind me again why dumping INT or MIG ever makes sense?

 

Seriously - it's not hard to figure this out.  It's kind of crazy how many people are on a board that basically caters to the more dedicated/hardcore players and yet don't seem to even understand the stat system or how character builds work.

Edited by PizzaSHARK
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why fix something that's not broken? Pillars stats is one of the things the game did great, imo. Exemplary to future games of the genre that want to use stats.

 

 

These type of threads would not be common if Pillars' system wasn't broken.  It's functional, but that's about the best that can be said for it.  There's clearly a reason Obsidian are putting a sizable amount of effort into tweaking and revamping the character creation system for Deadfire.

 

These types of threads are common because it's common that some people have very strong opinions about their ideal system (that is as old-school as ADnD most of the times). The team is putting time in perfecting character creation but the stats is not something that will change much (if any), as Sawyer himself mentioned.

 

 

 

 

 

^ when i played Pillars with my INT 8 wizard i pretty much steamrolled through the main game (hard/expert mode). Can't tell you anything else about him since i deinstalled the game long ago. I did that because from BG2 i'm used to deal with spells as they are designed and in this kind of game where i can move, reposition and click wherever and where combat is decided in the first few seconds, INT didn't matter to me. I think the attributes are just flavour for the roleplayers in us. It should be mainly about decision-making during combat shouldn't it? My sorcerer didn't care about stats, no stat was important in particular, what i did during combat was what made him viable and fun. I think Obsidian did a good job of keeping that flavour and weakening attributes' impact, it's just that they forgot about the reactivity of BG2 combat. Perhaps, it would be an improvement if attributes would decide on the amount of available abilities and not on their design (effect radius/duration), dunno, just IMO.

 

There are plenty of spells available that mostly deal damage and/or have effects that last for a short duration. These are going to be least impacted by a low Int. To me it's mainly a matter of tuning your spell selection to your attributes. Low Mig/High Int: go for Aoe spells with long durations; High Mig/Low Int: targeted spells with short durations; Low Mig/Low Int: maybe jack up your Dex and Per, focusing on rapidly spamming a target with damage spells.

 

Or: don't skimp on the only two useful stats in the game since there is no build where being deficient in one is better than being good in both.

 

Low might and int - your spells do **** damage (and your auto attacks), have tiny AOE, reduced duration.  Three casts of minor missiles will do about as much damage as one cast from a high Might build.  Three casts of Fireball will do about as much damage and cover as many targets as one cast from a high Might, high Intelligence build.  Oh, you pumped PER instead of MIG or INT, for that pathetic ACC bonus?  Cool, my high INT build just pops a +50% duration Eldritch Aim and has more ACC than your PER build while also having larger spell AOE and duration.  So remind me again why dumping INT or MIG ever makes sense?

 

Note: I removed the condescending and insulting statements from your reply.

 

Your argument applies purely to power gaming. Other approaches that make sense are cases where the player wants to play a particular build that isn't tightly wrapped around that narrow power gaming concept. Let's call it "role-playing". Players do play the game that way, and the attribute system makes it viable.

Edited by rjshae
  • Like 3

"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your argument applies purely to power gaming. Other approaches that make sense are cases where the player wants to play a particular build that isn't tightly wrapped around that narrow power gaming concept. Let's call it "role-playing". Players do play the game that way, and the attribute system makes it viable.

 

This.

 

Sometimes I even tend to lower the difficulty a bit so I can make silly builds and roleplay with it.

Edited by Messier-31

It would be of small avail to talk of magic in the air...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like stats and planning builds but I don't like excessive math or spreadsheets when I'm playing a game. So I would take action speed out of Dexterity. It's an unnecessarily complicated modifier on top of other modifiers. The whole concept of recover time in combat i.e. standing still and waiting for the recovery bar to finish is a dead moment. A much better way is to have the action itself take longer and then let the player do the next action immediately.

 

Removing magical might from Might is something I support fully. I would, however make Might / Strength a more important stat by having heavier weapons and especially armor have strength requirements to use effectively.

 

Stats in general need to matter more in Pillars. That is the system's greatest weakness. You think you are making a character that is really good at stat X but you end up just like everyone else with only a micro modifier to whatever your stat affects. Having a really good stat or a lack thereof doesn't influence your playstyle enough.

Edited by 1varangian
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your argument applies purely to power gaming. Other approaches that make sense are cases where the player wants to play a particular build that isn't tightly wrapped around that narrow power gaming concept. Let's call it "role-playing". Players do play the game that way, and the attribute system makes it viable.

 

 

So in other words: you don't want to play a game, you want to play make-believe. You can do that if you want, but don't expect others to take your views on character building seriously if that is your aim.

  • Like 1

The most important step you take in your life is the next one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your argument applies purely to power gaming. Other approaches that make sense are cases where the player wants to play a particular build that isn't tightly wrapped around that narrow power gaming concept. Let's call it "role-playing". Players do play the game that way, and the attribute system makes it viable.

 

So in other words: you don't want to play a game, you want to play make-believe. You can do that if you want, but don't expect others to take your views on character building seriously if that is your aim.
There has to be a balance reached between the two. Average player (aka majority) is gonna fall in the middle on this. they want to role play and play a character ideal but still want to be effective, gameplay wise, without having to get too deep into (or worry about) the math and mechanics. My point being, what would be some acceptable middle ground changes that arent pure role play or pure power gaming? Thats where I have a hard time thinking what could be changed to make it better overall. Edited by DigitalCrack
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So in other words: you don't want to play a game, you want to play make-believe.

 

Huh? Still trying to wrap my head around this surreal statement.

  • Like 3

"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Your argument applies purely to power gaming. Other approaches that make sense are cases where the player wants to play a particular build that isn't tightly wrapped around that narrow power gaming concept. Let's call it "role-playing". Players do play the game that way, and the attribute system makes it viable.

So in other words: you don't want to play a game, you want to play make-believe. You can do that if you want, but don't expect others to take your views on character building seriously if that is your aim.
There has to be a balance reached between the two. Average player (aka majority) is gonna fall in the middle on this. they want to role play and play a character ideal but still want to be effective, gameplay wise, without having to get too deep into (or worry about) the math and mechanics. My point being, what would be some exceptable middle ground changes that arent pure role play or pure power gaming? Thats where I have a hard time thinking what could be changed to make it better overall.

 

Yes, I tend to build based on the character I want to play rather than for power gaming purposes. My geeky power gaming "munchkin" itch has long since been sated and now I prefer flexibility in design. A less optimal but more interesting character is simply more enjoyable to play.

 

Unless one is playing with an entire party of custom characters, creating your PC purely for power gaming purposes isn't going to make a major difference anyway. You're just one-sixth of a team made up of mostly pre-built, non-optimized characters.

  • Like 4

"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my quick take on stats and how I would change them.

 

Might:

 

1) Remove mental strength from Might. There's already Resolve, Intelligence and Perception that cover all aspects of the psychic side better and more convincingly. 3 strictly physical and 3 mental stats is a good balance.

2) Give weapons and armor strength requirements to use. This makes strength useful for any class who wants to melee. Might score would reflect the characters ability in a descriptive way e.g. "he's too weak to wield a proper axe har har" or "she moves like a drunk snail in plate armor"

3) Increase damage modifier to +5% per point but only for those points that exceed a weapons strength requirement, E.g. Sword requires 12 Might to use, 12 Might = 15 dmg, 16 Might = 18 damage.

 

Constitution:

 

1) A major change outside stats but one that affects Constitution's importance would be: Encounter powers have unlimited use but are paid for with Endurance. Endurance regenerates slowly in combat and high Constitution increases the regeneration rate. Constitution is just flat out useful for everyone instead of the bit of a dump stat is currently is in Pillars.

 

2) Since Endurance is now more of a resource in combat rather than just a health bar, add a separate Injury system where getting hit at low Endurance can cause persistent Injuries that impose penalties. High Constitution = high Endurace = harder to injure (unless you exert yourself in combat with too many knockdowns or arcane veils or whatnot.)

 

Dexterity:

 

1) I'd remove action speed from Dex. Action speed is a bit of an unnecessary modifer on top of accuracy vs. defense and dmg vs dmg reduction. It basically adds damage since you attack more frequently, but it's very difficult to know just how effective it is without doing math or spreadsheets which are not fun in a game. Arguably attack speed has more to do with weapon weight and strength anyway.

 

2) Replace action speed with an improved Deflection bonus, +2% per point. Slick evaders and skilled blockers are about speed and coordination, not so much about being strong willed.

 

Perception:

 

1) Remove the Interrupt mechanic as such from the game. Any hit's damage already determines how much of an Interrupt it is. And Perception already makes you more likely to interrupt someone since you are more likely to hit or crit in the first place. Interrupt is another mechanic that was already in the system before it was unnecessarily duplicated. It's confusing, unnecessary and hard to understand how much it really does. Axe it.

 

2) Raise Accuracy modifier to +2 per point. Very useful for everyone. Only use for spells that need to be aimed at a target e.g. rays and single target projectiles.

 

3) Have Perception influence detection skills for secrets, traps and sneaking enemies but still have those abilities as trainable skills.

 

4) Influence the amount of spells a Wizard or any other memorizing caster can memorize instead of the flat 4 per level. (Let's say Perception includes memory, keen senses, sharp mind.)

 

 

Intelligence:

 

Have Intelligence influence the amount of skill points for all classes. Intelligence means ability to learn and adapt which clearly translates to a wider assortment of skills or deep specialization in a particular field.

 

Resolve:

 

1) Remove Deflection bonus from Resolve. You can't will yourself to block an attack if you're simply too slow.

 

2) Encounter powers cost -5% Endurance per point

 

 

I think the entire spell system could use some kind of a reworking on how stats affect spell Accuracy and what the relation between spell-like Encounter powers and actual spells is. Resolve could be used in a will contest for control/mind type effects and their duration while Intelligence could provide general spell potency and Perception could help with spells that need to actually be aimed at someone. Can't get into that now. :)

 

 

What I wouldn't change is how the stats affect Fortitude, Reflex and Will defenses. That's just right.

Edited by 1varangian
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I quite enjoy the stat system.  Attack speed is a goddamn mess, and the game should be better about telling players to stop building tanks.  I have only one change to recommend.

 

Reverse the names for might and intellect.  Have huge, long-lasting spells sounds like more of a might thing.  And it would make sense that high int mages know how to hit where it hurts.  It would improve role-playing for the people who can't get around the idea that super-powered warriors might not be powered by muscles alone; it would let simplistic players who expect mages to be teh best at everything experience high damage rates without getting muscle in their wizard.

 

And everyone could go back to arguing about romances or not enough items or how engagement is ruining America.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And everyone could go back to arguing about romances or not enough items or how engagement is ruining America.

As long as Pillars of Eternity isn't a carbon copy of Infinity Engine games, people won't stop arguing about why is that wrong. Obsidian brought that upon themselves by building their KS on IE legacy I suppose.

 

At any rate, Josh Sawyer seems to listen to arguments, not to how many people are making them - which gives me hope.

Edited by Fenixp
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as Pillars of Eternity isn't a carbon copy of Infinity Engine games, people won't stop arguing about why is that wrong. Obsidian brought that upon themselves by building their KS on IE legacy I suppose.

 

IIRC the IE promise was about:

  • Planescape Torment style storytelling
  • Baldur's Gate style exploration
  • Icewind Dale style engaging strategy and battles

No-one ever said a thing about other stuff, like stat systems, gaining experience or level progression.

  • Like 5

It would be of small avail to talk of magic in the air...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my quick take on stats and how I would change them.

 

Might:

 

1) Remove mental strength from Might. There's already Resolve, Intelligence and Perception that cover all aspects of the psychic side better and more convincingly. 3 strictly physical and 3 mental stats is a good balance.

2) Give weapons and armor strength requirements to use. This makes strength useful for any class who wants to melee. Might score would reflect the characters ability in a descriptive way e.g. "he's too weak to wield a proper axe har har" or "she moves like a drunk snail in plate armor"

3) Increase damage modifier to +5% per point but only for those points that exceed a weapons strength requirement, E.g. Sword requires 12 Might to use, 12 Might = 15 dmg, 16 Might = 18 damage.

 

I’m going to “play” PoE2 on Youtube if that happens.

  • Like 4

Pillars of Bugothas

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Your argument applies purely to power gaming. Other approaches that make sense are cases where the player wants to play a particular build that isn't tightly wrapped around that narrow power gaming concept. Let's call it "role-playing". Players do play the game that way, and the attribute system makes it viable.

So in other words: you don't want to play a game, you want to play make-believe. You can do that if you want, but don't expect others to take your views on character building seriously if that is your aim.
There has to be a balance reached between the two. Average player (aka majority) is gonna fall in the middle on this. they want to role play and play a character ideal but still want to be effective, gameplay wise, without having to get too deep into (or worry about) the math and mechanics. My point being, what would be some exceptable middle ground changes that arent pure role play or pure power gaming? Thats where I have a hard time thinking what could be changed to make it better overall.

 

Yes, I tend to build based on the character I want to play rather than for power gaming purposes. My geeky power gaming "munchkin" itch has long since been sated and now I prefer flexibility in design. A less optimal but more interesting character is simply more enjoyable to play.

 

Unless one is playing with an entire party of custom characters, creating your PC purely for power gaming purposes isn't going to make a major difference anyway. You're just one-sixth of a team made up of mostly pre-built, non-optimized characters.

 

 

Right, but this is a forum that largely caters to the power gamers, the people that want to know exactly how things tick.  Going "well I don't want to power game!" here is kind of silly.  Who cares what "average" players want?  Give them an "automatically assign stats" button to go with the "level up automatically" option and they can focus on having fun.  Pathfinder is not somehow hostile to roleplaying and "just want to have fun" players that don't obsess over eking 5% more throughput from their attributes, despite being a "Wizards must have Intelligence" system.  You'd simply have an interface that goes "Strength is necessary for Fighters, Dexterity and Constitution are recommended!" and that would make everything accessible and simple for regular players (along with "suggested feats" buttons like we got in KOTOR 2 etc.)

 

I'm not even talking about min-maxing when I say every build needs Might and Intelligence to be good.  I don't min-max any of my characters.  Doesn't make Might and Intelligence any less dominant.

 

 

Here's my quick take on stats and how I would change them.

 

Might:

 

1) Remove mental strength from Might. There's already Resolve, Intelligence and Perception that cover all aspects of the psychic side better and more convincingly. 3 strictly physical and 3 mental stats is a good balance.

2) Give weapons and armor strength requirements to use. This makes strength useful for any class who wants to melee. Might score would reflect the characters ability in a descriptive way e.g. "he's too weak to wield a proper axe har har" or "she moves like a drunk snail in plate armor"

3) Increase damage modifier to +5% per point but only for those points that exceed a weapons strength requirement, E.g. Sword requires 12 Might to use, 12 Might = 15 dmg, 16 Might = 18 damage.

 

Constitution:

 

1) A major change outside stats but one that affects Constitution's importance would be: Encounter powers have unlimited use but are paid for with Endurance. Endurance regenerates slowly in combat and high Constitution increases the regeneration rate. Constitution is just flat out useful for everyone instead of the bit of a dump stat is currently is in Pillars.

 

2) Since Endurance is now more of a resource in combat rather than just a health bar, add a separate Injury system where getting hit at low Endurance can cause persistent Injuries that impose penalties. High Constitution = high Endurace = harder to injure (unless you exert yourself in combat with too many knockdowns or arcane veils or whatnot.)

 

Dexterity:

 

1) I'd remove action speed from Dex. Action speed is a bit of an unnecessary modifer on top of accuracy vs. defense and dmg vs dmg reduction. It basically adds damage since you attack more frequently, but it's very difficult to know just how effective it is without doing math or spreadsheets which are not fun in a game. Arguably attack speed has more to do with weapon weight and strength anyway.

 

2) Replace action speed with an improved Deflection bonus, +2% per point. Slick evaders and skilled blockers are about speed and coordination, not so much about being strong willed.

 

Perception:

 

1) Remove the Interrupt mechanic as such from the game. Any hit's damage already determines how much of an Interrupt it is. And Perception already makes you more likely to interrupt someone since you are more likely to hit or crit in the first place. Interrupt is another mechanic that was already in the system before it was unnecessarily duplicated. It's confusing, unnecessary and hard to understand how much it really does. Axe it.

 

2) Raise Accuracy modifier to +2 per point. Very useful for everyone. Only use for spells that need to be aimed at a target e.g. rays and single target projectiles.

 

3) Have Perception influence detection skills for secrets, traps and sneaking enemies but still have those abilities as trainable skills.

 

4) Influence the amount of spells a Wizard or any other memorizing caster can memorize instead of the flat 4 per level. (Let's say Perception includes memory, keen senses, sharp mind.)

 

 

Intelligence:

 

Have Intelligence influence the amount of skill points for all classes. Intelligence means ability to learn and adapt which clearly translates to a wider assortment of skills or deep specialization in a particular field.

 

Resolve:

 

1) Remove Deflection bonus from Resolve. You can't will yourself to block an attack if you're simply too slow.

 

2) Encounter powers cost -5% Endurance per point

 

 

I think the entire spell system could use some kind of a reworking on how stats affect spell Accuracy and what the relation between spell-like Encounter powers and actual spells is. Resolve could be used in a will contest for control/mind type effects and their duration while Intelligence could provide general spell potency and Perception could help with spells that need to actually be aimed at someone. Can't get into that now. :)

 

 

What I wouldn't change is how the stats affect Fortitude, Reflex and Will defenses. That's just right.

 

I would make offensive stats contribute less to defenses than the defensive stats.  Might gives you a bonus to Fortitude, but you get more per point from Constitution.  Resolve gives you more to Will than Intelligence, and you get more out of Perception than you do Dexterity (this one's tricky since both are arguably of equal importance for "get out of the way of the big fireball", and both are arguably offensive stats.)

 

I don't know to fix Action Speed.  It's a total mess and while I understand holding to turn-based concepts like rounds is kind of archaic for a RTwP game format, it makes it so much easier to understand and calculate things.  "Haste gives you an additional attack per round at your highest attack bonus (full ACC in Pillars terms)" is so much easier to quantify and understand than "ADoM increases your action speed by 50% but you need to calculate how much you're getting from Dexterity and losing from your armor penalty to figure out what that actually means."  I don't expect them to scrap the current system, of course, but it's unnecessarily confusing and seems like a questionable design choice.  I do like the idea of actions starting immediately after completion (rather than a "cooldown" period), and Action Speed just influencing how long an action takes.  Characters standing around staring at each other menacingly was always one of the downsides of the IE's RTwP system.

 

 

 

As long as Pillars of Eternity isn't a carbon copy of Infinity Engine games, people won't stop arguing about why is that wrong. Obsidian brought that upon themselves by building their KS on IE legacy I suppose.

 

IIRC the IE promise was about:

  • Planescape Torment style storytelling
  • Baldur's Gate style exploration
  • Icewind Dale style engaging strategy and battles

No-one ever said a thing about other stuff, like stat systems, gaining experience or level progression.

 

 

It only delivered on the Baldur's Gate style exploration, though.  The storytelling fluctuates between "pretty decent" and "bland", and Pillars has less tactical depth than any IE game except perhaps BG1 (which was a 2E game built for low levels.)  They absolutely nailed the BG1 feeling of exploring random areas, though.

 

I give Obsidian a lot of **** because I know what these people are capable of.  They're industry veterans with phenomenal writers, game designers, artists, animators, etc.  Pillars was such a massive ****ing let-down for me in so many ways and it's got me gun shy about Deadfire.  I backed it because I have faith in the skill of the fine people working at Obsidian, but they really need to knock this one out of the park.  They stretched themselves too thin with Pillars, and I really hope they go for a more Tyranny style "less is more" focus for Deadfire.  If they want to add stuff after launch for us to explore and investigate (whether free or sold as expansions), I'm totally fine with that if it means the core product is more polished and balanced as a result.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Are all those people ranting about stats aware that this is a role playing game and not just a fantasy combat dungeon crawler? This stat system helps you (role) play almost any character you can envision (that is possible within the unavoidable restrictions of a video game). Why wish for something closer to DnD systems that traslate so bad in video games?

The problems of Pillars are not the stats, imo, and the team showed with White March that they are aware of what they did wrong; I'm very optimistic about character creation/advancement for the sequel from what I've seen in their updates up to now.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

There has to be a balance reached between the two. Average player (aka majority) is gonna fall in the middle on this. they want to role play and play a character ideal but still want to be effective, gameplay wise, without having to get too deep into (or worry about) the math and mechanics. My point being, what would be some acceptable middle ground changes that arent pure role play or pure power gaming? Thats where I have a hard time thinking what could be changed to make it better overall.

 

 

No it doesn't, because the two aren't mutually exclusive. You can create a game that has well specified mechanics for the different kinds of characters people want to create; this benefits both groups since strongly specified mechanics firmly rooted in reality and fantasy rather than being there for convenient gearing and easy stat distribution will not only make the game more interesting, but it will provide a stronger context for those 'silly' builds people are so fond of and why they're weaker in some aspect and useful in certain other ways. Like has been said, there already are lower difficulty options for those interested purely on the make-believe, let game-mechanics have some actual meaning for the rest of us.

The most important step you take in your life is the next one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There has to be a balance reached between the two. Average player (aka majority) is gonna fall in the middle on this. they want to role play and play a character ideal but still want to be effective, gameplay wise, without having to get too deep into (or worry about) the math and mechanics. My point being, what would be some acceptable middle ground changes that arent pure role play or pure power gaming? Thats where I have a hard time thinking what could be changed to make it better overall.

 

No it doesn't, because the two aren't mutually exclusive. You can create a game that has well specified mechanics for the different kinds of characters people want to create; this benefits both groups since strongly specified mechanics firmly rooted in reality and fantasy rather than being there for convenient gearing and easy stat distribution will not only make the game more interesting, but it will provide a stronger context for those 'silly' builds people are so fond of and why they're weaker in some aspect and useful in certain other ways. Like has been said, there already are lower difficulty options for those interested purely on the make-believe, let game-mechanics have some actual meaning for the rest of us.

Yet based off what both sides are currently saying they are (at least here anyway.) For me personally I would love to keep the statistics, at face value, the same but just let them have more of an impact on your character. Of everything thats been said, thats the one thing I can get behind is the bonuses need to be greater per point for each stat. The whole "might shouldnt represent all damage" which seems to be a hot button issue, is small potatos compared to stats needing to make more of an impact.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet based off what both sides are currently saying they are (at least here anyway.) For me personally I would love to keep the statistics, at face value, the same but just let them have more of an impact on your character. Of everything thats been said, thats the one thing I can get behind is the bonuses need to be greater per point for each stat. The whole "might shouldnt represent all damage" which seems to be a hot button issue, is small potatos compared to stats needing to make more of an impact.

 

Then might I be so bold as to suggest that both sides are currently (at least here anyway) wrong. A more D&D style approach to what the stats represent allows for everything the defendants claim they want, silly builds aren't down to the 'system', they are down to the details of class and ability mechanics. There are two groups of people; the ones that can see the disconnect caused by the whole soul-stat-system and the ones that can't. Fixing the issue and separating the stats into physical and mental ones would fix that for the first group, but it wouldn't take anything away from the second group. Everyone could be a bunch of happy pandas.

The most important step you take in your life is the next one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC the IE promise was about:

  • Planescape Torment style storytelling
  • Baldur's Gate style exploration
  • Icewind Dale style engaging strategy and battles
No-one ever said a thing about other stuff, like stat systems, gaining experience or level progression.

 

Obviously, considering Obsidian doesn't have license to DnD. Tell that to the people who insist on the comparison tho.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would make offensive stats contribute less to defenses than the defensive stats.  Might gives you a bonus to Fortitude, but you get more per point from Constitution.  Resolve gives you more to Will than Intelligence, and you get more out of Perception than you do Dexterity (this one's tricky since both are arguably of equal importance for "get out of the way of the big fireball", and both are arguably offensive stats.)

 

I don't know to fix Action Speed.  It's a total mess and while I understand holding to turn-based concepts like rounds is kind of archaic for a RTwP game format, it makes it so much easier to understand and calculate things.  "Haste gives you an additional attack per round at your highest attack bonus (full ACC in Pillars terms)" is so much easier to quantify and understand than "ADoM increases your action speed by 50% but you need to calculate how much you're getting from Dexterity and losing from your armor penalty to figure out what that actually means."  I don't expect them to scrap the current system, of course, but it's unnecessarily confusing and seems like a questionable design choice.  I do like the idea of actions starting immediately after completion (rather than a "cooldown" period), and Action Speed just influencing how long an action takes.  Characters standing around staring at each other menacingly was always one of the downsides of the IE's RTwP system.

 

That's actually a nice idea. Maybe split bonuses into half and full.

 

Might +1 Fortitude

Con +2 Fortitude

 

Intelligence +1 Will

Resolve +2 Will

 

Dexterity +2 Reflex, +2 Deflection, +1 Accuracy

Perception +1 Reflex, +1 Deflection, +2 Accuracy

 

Arguably Dex and Per could both affect evasion and accuracy so why not split it. 15 Dex and 15 Per would total +15 Accuracy +15 Deflection which is pretty huge, so the other stats should have as big an impact on combat. E.g. high strength could be a requirement to be able to punch through medium/heavy armor in which case a high Dex/Per finesse type fighter would suffer against heavier armor and/or have the Endurance of a fly. Strength should influence the success of knockdowns and shield bashes and whatnot heavily too.

 

Intelligence is already a dump stat for melee warriors so it would only become more important for everyone if it affected the number of skill points you get.

 

Resolve could play a role for non-casters influencing how much and often they can use active talents (encounter powers) like knockdown or disciplined barrage. A resolute warrior could be more versatile and have more control options and answers for particular situations on the battlefield.

Edited by 1varangian
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing:

 

A diminishing returns / point buy system for stats would help a lot if the bonuses become bigger. That would eliminate the problem in my previous post, where maxing Dex and Per could get overpowered. Let's say a stat to 15-16 would cost 2 points and 17-18 3 points like in NWN. Having an even spread of 14's would be very competitive with 18 Dex/Per and 8 in everything else.

Edited by 1varangian
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...