583 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

I've never liked attributes increasing on level-up because I have trouble explaining it within the setting.

[Cyonan]

I've never liked attributes increasing on level-up because I have trouble explaining it within the setting.

 

Level up mechanics in general are kind of difficult to explain within most settings, unless they're like Skyrim where the actual level up bonuses aren't that noticeable on a level by level basis.

 

Otherwise it feels a lot like "I fought 50 enemies and didn't improve at all. After the 51st enemy though, I got significantly better somehow".

[Lebanese Dude]

Level up mechanics in general are kind of difficult to explain within most settings, unless they're like Skyrim where the actual level up bonuses aren't that noticeable on a level by level basis.

 

Otherwise it feels a lot like "I fought 50 enemies and didn't improve at all. After the 51st enemy though, I got significantly better somehow".

 

I like Skyrim's character development, but it's not easy to implement properly in single player squad-based games like DA and it's easy to see how.

 

If you don't use a particular character, the only thing that keeps them in line with your active party is the level catch-up mechanic. On the other hand, skills can't be gained cause they aren't being used on active characters.

 

I think Dungeon Siege 2 had a somewhat similar character development where using certain abilities that belonged to a particular school increased your skill in the school. What ends up happening is that un-used characters fall way behind. They implement a catch-up bonus but it can be frustrating.

[StanojeZ]

I think the X-Men Legends and Avengers Ultimate Alliance games did something similar, with only the characters you use gaining the full amount of XP.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I like Skyrim's character development, but it's not easy to implement properly in single player squad-based games like DA and it's easy to see how.

If you don't use a particular character, the only thing that keeps them in line with your active party is the level catch-up mechanic. On the other hand, skills can't be gained cause they aren't being used on active characters.

I think Dungeon Siege 2 had a somewhat similar character development where using certain abilities that belonged to a particular school increased your skill in the school. What ends up happening is that un-used characters fall way behind. They implement a catch-up bonus but it can be frustrating.

I dislike the catch-up mechanic. Unused characters should stagnate.

To mitigate the cost of that, however, you could have an exponential XP curve like AD&D did. So, for example, in BG you could find a companion that was still level 1 when you were level 6. But the exponential curve meant that the amount of XP it took to get that level 6 character to level 7 was the same amount as it would take to get that level 1 character to level 6. So characters could never fall more than one level behind for long, and that without having a nonsensical catch-up mechanic.

I don't dislike the abstraction of levels themselves, but I do dislike learn-by-doing systems. Skyrim is only saved by that easily exploited training mechanic.

[Giantdeathrobot]

I think that's a disingenuous claim. Yes, misallocating points might gimp your character, but that doesn't mean that doesn't mean that gimping the character was your intent.

I played a gimped character in DAO as a roleplaying exercise (he only put points in Cunning) and it was the most fun I ever had in the game. I loved that guy, right up until Sten killed him in Haven (he was hopeless in that duel). And that's the sort of thing we should be allowed to do.
But in DAI, without allocatable attributes, gear can no longer be stat-limited, so now it's class-limited, and that reduces options again.

Being able to allocate stats both gives greater control over our character's development (as a person, rather than just a game piece), and allows the rest of the game's mechanics to make more sense.

Why a warrior can't wear mage robes I will never understand.

Plus, you've ignored the different ways in which characters could be built and still be effective. DAO tanks could be dexterity based rather than strength based. Rogues could use strength, dexterity, or cunning as a primary stat. 2H warriors benefitted considerably from allocating points not to give them greater base damage (strength) but instead seeking greater stamina (willpower).

 

I love how Pillars of Eternity do it. No restriction on gear whatsoever. You want your mage to wear full plate and fire a war bow? Done. A barbarian dual wielding rapiers in padded cloth and a fancy hat? Knock yourself out. A priest wearing animal hides and packing a blunderbuss? No problem. That last one is even kinda viable.

 

I do feel Bioware has been to keen on gear restriction. They did remove some of it in Inquisition, but that's later on via the crafting system. Admitedly, it also means that the playstyle of two-handed warriors and shield-using ones in Dragon Age is different, while in Pillars they have the exact same abilities and just auto-attack 90% of the time anyway. It's a trade-off, I suppose. But I prefer mundane classes having access to a wealth of abilities, myself.

 

I also disagree rogues and warriors should be homogenized, if you mean in terms of abilities that is. The two classes should remain distinct. If you simply mean rogues should be able to wear chainmail and swing greatswords, then I agree.

[Lilithor]

Present in DAI. Anyone using the "cannot distribute them manually" excuse is clearly being pedantic, because everyone knows that you are ALWAYS forced to take the core attributes if you want to be remotely efficient. There is no real choice, unless you are intentionally gimping yourself. If you didn't take Strength as a Warrior in DAO and especially DA2, you lose out on Attack and damage done to the point of being obsolete. 

 

In DAO you HAD to take the primary attribute to unlock both gear AND skills, making the skill increasing even MORE linear. The "choice" in attributes reduced the "choice" in skills. By the time you overcame the stat limit requirements, you had more skills than you could use.

 

DA2 did it better by relegating the stat requirements only to gear. Even so, the relevance of the main stat was also increased. Good luck hitting anything but 1's if you didn't stack Dexterity early on your rogue until you had enough skills and took the right specializations late into the game to be able to get %Attack elsewhere.

 

Also gear in previous games was MASSIVELY inferior in stat relevance to the player attributes. The best plate gear in DAO (Sentinel) only offered a measly +2 to stats at a time you had 170 strength on your warrior. 

 

By relegating some stats to the armor, which is chosen or crafted by YOU according to YOUR choices, not only are stats more malleable, but they can be altered to suit YOUR needs at any given time.

 

Stats are WAY less constricted now and the number of secondary stats has been dramatically increased. The number of potential builds has skyrocketed. Could you play a crit mage in previous games? Not at all, unless you count a 20+ level mage when you can afford to put points in Dex and Cunning as opposed to Magic (100). At that point, the game's already over.

 

So glad you (or Bioware) didn't develop Pillars of Eternity. My monk have 20 resolve and no constitution not agility, for RP reasons.
I have no optimal character in any game.

The point is not sucking, the point is going against the standards, the patterns, the expected, and so on. This is what makes me happy in real life and fantasy. Going with the flow, even when the flow is being a rebel, makes it all boring for me. Stats make it amazingly easier also they let me tell a story about my character. Your character, and the characters of all other people who argue about it see to be all Gokus. If the only point is being the strongest possible perhaps you should stop playing RPGs and start playing Dragon Ball Xenoverse.

 

If you are not playing to build a character with a story, why bother? Just like you keep believing everybody should play to wear the best equips, to hit and damage the enemy I believe everybody should play distributing stats to reflect what the character is. If your character is a warrior and is intelligent, pump intelligence, even if it will screw your build completely. That is what I do. If in DnD I have a dumb wizard, low int it is, try to make up for it with other things. I can't see how people can enjoy a warrior swinging his giant sword full of strength yet another time again and again and over again...

There is nothing better than making a build that makes casual seem 2x harder than nightmare with a standard build. You will waste time, for no reason at all, except to say: I did what I was not supposed to. BEST FEELING EVER. But only if my stats tell everything that is to know about my character. When my clothes are everything about me, as in Inquisition, I have no urge to tell a story about my clothes, and it is retarded, really, I'm a generic mass of flesh with clothes full of personality, strength, intelligence and... really... your clothes are smarter than you. (And considering the Inquisitor voice acting it actually does make sense)

Stats are the character, floating stat numbers tell a story, they express that entity, even if the entity is a nothing, on the other side, a character without stats is nothing and tell nothing. Who is my Inquisitor? A random 10,10,10,10,10,10 standard person. Who is my monk? A person who was not born to be a monk but that is not going to quit no matter how hard the quest becomes. I could make up a story about who my Inquisitor is but it would never be true with those generic 10,10,10,10,10,10. It would also be shallow if it was 100str and 100con. (S)he would be just another boring warrior among another 10 million warriors. Now a warrior that would be OHKOd by a 12 year old girl slap but that makes up for it in speed and mobility, that would be something! And no, I'm not talking about clothes and equip I'm talking about STATS, because THE CHARACTER is something, not the clothes.

But again, your philosophy is Bioware's philosophy, if most people want to be a great powerful hero, let's go for it! Why bother with freedom and people who dislike the rules? Because John Doe isn't smart enough to click "auto-level" or to understand that STR/CON make him a better warrior why not take away the possibility of creative people to develop characters right? **** creativity! **** freedom! **** non standard people! You will all be heroes, fight the evil and have two main stats because we can't make our fans heads hurt.

Yeah, sorry, I feel bad for wishing people to think, it is really cruel. Learning to click auto-level is really dire! Also, in this SUPER BALANCED game letting us distribute stat points would really screw everything right?

So the bottom question is: WHY NOT? You don't need to agree with a single word of what I posted but seriously what titanical damage assigning stats would bring to this balance masterpiece of a game?

[o Ventus]

^ "Stop playing RPGs and play Dragon Ball Xenoverse"

 

Dragon Ball Xenoverse IS an RPG. I also like the whole tirade about deliberately playing in a subpar fashion, as if that has any relevance here. Why would something that only a tiny, TINY minority of people do have any bearing on anything?

[StanojeZ]

Lilithor, the discussion has been rather polite for the last couple pages, there's no call to insult people. We're talking about preferred methods of pretending to be an elf, yeah, not life and death. It's ridiculous to insult people over such trivialities.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lilithor, the discussion has been rather polite for the last couple pages, there's no call to insult people. We're talking about preferred methods of pretending to be an elf, yeah, not life and death. It's ridiculous to insult people over such trivialities.

I'll echo your concern about tone, but Lilithor does have a point about the stats defining the character. They certainly offer one way to do that, and in a well designed ruleset they can describe nearly everything about a character. I like things to be quantifiable, and there's very little thay cannot or should not be quantified.

A ruleset without meaningful stats under the player's control os a system that lacks customization compared to systems that do have them.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Attributes rising on level up always bugged me.

 

I'm one who sees Attributes as a characters baseline physical and mental capabilities. To have them rise after certain important events (quests), sure. But to have them rise at every level? Doesn't make sense to me. I'd rather make character creation intensely detailed and have the Attributes spread and Traits you pick there be more important.

 

Customisations on level ups (if you have level ups) ought to focus on Skills and Abilities. So that you aren't using your experience to become genetically superior, you are using them to become better at doing certain things.

 

Attribute on level up design can also lead to unbalanced progression, where numbers just balloon out of control by the time you reach the endgame. I hate that so much since it goes hand in hand with HP bloat and artificial difficulty. JRPGs are rife with that kind of stuff and I really don't want to see them in WRPGs too. Even worse still when it's all just scaled to your level.

[Cyonan]

I'll echo your concern about tone, but Lilithor does have a point about the stats defining the character. They certainly offer one way to do that, and in a well designed ruleset they can describe nearly everything about a character. I like things to be quantifiable, and there's very little thay cannot or should not be quantified.

A ruleset without meaningful stats under the player's control os a system that lacks customization compared to systems that do have them.

 

I have nothing against assignable stats, but the problem with Dragon Age specifically is the encouragement to dump most of your stats into a single one other than Inquisition which just automates doing that.

 

In PoE high resolve may not be optimal in combat, but it opens up a lot of dialogue options. In D&D every stat provides some kind of benefit. A smart warrior would be a bit of a skill monkey, and could even remain effective provided you didn't skimp on the strength. I'm not well versed in D&D, but in Pathfinder you could even have a high DEX warrior that used the Weapon Finesse feat to switch the to hit stat in combat.

 

But in Origins if I want a high magic Rogue? I get more mental resistance, which is equal to what I would get point for point with Willpower that also gives more Stamina. There is no opportunity for in-game RPing about your unusual stats like there might be in a PnP game. There is essentially no in-game reason to take Magic on a Rogue and even as a Warrior, according to the wiki only one ability from the Reaver specialization uses spellpower.

 

Honestly at that point they might as well just give me points to assign to random words that don't really do anything.

 

I'd also agree with Knight of Colour that if you do have stats I prefer it to mainly all be assigned at character creation. It feels weird to have your "genius" level 1 character with 18 intellect, and then by level 5 the idiot warrior in your group has 30.

[Lilithor]

I have nothing against assignable stats, but the problem with Dragon Age specifically is the encouragement to dump most of your stats into a single one other than Inquisition which just automates doing that.

 

In PoE high resolve may not be optimal in combat, but it opens up a lot of dialogue options. In D&D every stat provides some kind of benefit. A smart warrior would be a bit of a skill monkey, and could even remain effective provided you didn't skimp on the strength. I'm not well versed in D&D, but in Pathfinder you could even have a high DEX warrior that used the Weapon Finesse feat to switch the to hit stat in combat.

 

But in Origins if I want a high magic Rogue? I get more mental resistance, which is equal to what I would get point for point with Willpower that also gives more Stamina. There is no opportunity for in-game RPing about your unusual stats like there might be in a PnP game. There is essentially no in-game reason to take Magic on a Rogue and even as a Warrior, according to the wiki only one ability from the Reaver specialization uses spellpower.

 

Honestly at that point they might as well just give me points to assign to random words that don't really do anything.

 

I'd also agree with Knight of Colour that if you do have stats I prefer it to mainly all be assigned at character creation. It feels weird to have your "genius" level 1 character with 18 intellect, and then by level 5 the idiot warrior in your group has 30.

In Pathfinder you can use DEX for everything even damage. Agile weapons. It is marvelous. Anything 3.5 or that looks like 3.5 is godly and perfect.

The rest, well, you are ALL heatens that forsake stats. Hell awaits.

[Cyonan]

That is precisely why I posted. I hate anything polite. I'm sorry you're such a sissy. You can go cry to your mom, please take pictures while you do it and post it later. Don't worry, if I get banned I will see them with my other accounts.

 

For me it is life and death. I have no real life to speak of, my whole existence revolves around the RPGs I played. The reason this discussion is not heated and full of my hatred is only because Pillars of Eternity is amazing, even better than I thought initially, if it wasn't for that I would surely been wreacking havoc in here. Bad thing is that sometimes I'm unable to play it for few hours and then I come here to insult you.

Just cry all you need because internet random wasn't polite than go on with your life, which you do have, I don't. Have at least a little empathy for those who are sick, retarded and imbeciles like myself.

 

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

In Pathfinder you can use DEX for everything even damage. Agile weapons. It is marvelous. Anything 3.5 or that looks like 3.5 is godly and perfect.

The rest, well, you are ALL heatens that forsake stats. Hell awaits.

 
It's funny you mention this, and then talk about Pillars. I love Pillars and am currently playing through it, but it feels it was based on D&D 4e with a dash of Darklands and custom rule making rather than anything from 3.5e.
 
The engagement mechanics + flanking bonuses were essentially ripped from Darklands, the per-encounter Abilitiy design were definitely taken from 4e and the Health/Endurance mechanic is superficially from Darklands, but in reality also takes cues from the healing surges in 4e by functioning as second winds.
 

this topic seems beaten to death but I have a simple definition of RPG which is that you have lots of customization both in your own character and your progression so it is unique depending on how you play, which it seems to me that the SP of this game fits perfectly.

I wouldn't really say it's that easy though, otherwise Saint's Row or WWE games are as much of an RPG as say, Inquisition, which I don't feel is right. It would also suggest that many JRPGs with a fixed protagonist and rigid class system are not RPGs. Which I don't agree with either.

[Giantdeathrobot]

That is precisely why I posted. I hate anything polite. I'm sorry you're such a sissy. You can go cry to your mom, please take pictures while you do it and post it later. Don't worry, if I get banned I will see them with my other accounts.

 

For me it is life and death. I have no real life to speak of, my whole existence revolves around the RPGs I played. The reason this discussion is not heated and full of my hatred is only because Pillars of Eternity is amazing, even better than I thought initially, if it wasn't for that I would surely been wreacking havoc in here. Bad thing is that sometimes I'm unable to play it for few hours and then I come here to insult you.

Just cry all you need because internet random wasn't polite than go on with your life, which you do have, I don't. Have at least a little empathy for those who are sick, retarded and imbeciles like myself.

 

You have issues and I suggest you go see a psychologist instead of ranting at people in video game forums.

[Al Foley]

So glad you (or Bioware) didn't develop Pillars of Eternity. My monk have 20 resolve and no constitution not agility, for RP reasons.
I have no optimal character in any game.

The point is not sucking, the point is going against the standards, the patterns, the expected, and so on. This is what makes me happy in real life and fantasy. Going with the flow, even when the flow is being a rebel, makes it all boring for me. Stats make it amazingly easier also they let me tell a story about my character. Your character, and the characters of all other people who argue about it see to be all Gokus. If the only point is being the strongest possible perhaps you should stop playing RPGs and start playing Dragon Ball Xenoverse.

 

If you are not playing to build a character with a story, why bother? Just like you keep believing everybody should play to wear the best equips, to hit and damage the enemy I believe everybody should play distributing stats to reflect what the character is. If your character is a warrior and is intelligent, pump intelligence, even if it will screw your build completely. That is what I do. If in DnD I have a dumb wizard, low int it is, try to make up for it with other things. I can't see how people can enjoy a warrior swinging his giant sword full of strength yet another time again and again and over again...

There is nothing better than making a build that makes casual seem 2x harder than nightmare with a standard build. You will waste time, for no reason at all, except to say: I did what I was not supposed to. BEST FEELING EVER. But only if my stats tell everything that is to know about my character. When my clothes are everything about me, as in Inquisition, I have no urge to tell a story about my clothes, and it is retarded, really, I'm a generic mass of flesh with clothes full of personality, strength, intelligence and... really... your clothes are smarter than you. (And considering the Inquisitor voice acting it actually does make sense)

Stats are the character, floating stat numbers tell a story, they express that entity, even if the entity is a nothing, on the other side, a character without stats is nothing and tell nothing. Who is my Inquisitor? A random 10,10,10,10,10,10 standard person. Who is my monk? A person who was not born to be a monk but that is not going to quit no matter how hard the quest becomes. I could make up a story about who my Inquisitor is but it would never be true with those generic 10,10,10,10,10,10. It would also be shallow if it was 100str and 100con. (S)he would be just another boring warrior among another 10 million warriors. Now a warrior that would be OHKOd by a 12 year old girl slap but that makes up for it in speed and mobility, that would be something! And no, I'm not talking about clothes and equip I'm talking about STATS, because THE CHARACTER is something, not the clothes.

But again, your philosophy is Bioware's philosophy, if most people want to be a great powerful hero, let's go for it! Why bother with freedom and people who dislike the rules? Because John Doe isn't smart enough to click "auto-level" or to understand that STR/CON make him a better warrior why not take away the possibility of creative people to develop characters right? **** creativity! **** freedom! **** non standard people! You will all be heroes, fight the evil and have two main stats because we can't make our fans heads hurt.

Yeah, sorry, I feel bad for wishing people to think, it is really cruel. Learning to click auto-level is really dire! Also, in this SUPER BALANCED game letting us distribute stat points would really screw everything right?

So the bottom question is: WHY NOT? You don't need to agree with a single word of what I posted but seriously what titanical damage assigning stats would bring to this balance masterpiece of a game?

I get what you are saying, because I have done similar things.  I have intentionally killed Arl Howe with the family sword on my first playthrough strictly for Role Playing reasons.  And I do view stats as a means for role playing and telling a story.  

 

But...they are not the most significant ones.  Dialog choices, judgements, what you do and how you interact with the world I think are far more important.  Just my two cents.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

I have nothing against assignable stats, but the problem with Dragon Age specifically is the encouragement to dump most of your stats into a single one other than Inquisition which just automates doing that.

The Dragon Age ruleset is extremely combat focused, and that's a detriment to roleplaying.

[In Exile]

The Dragon Age ruleset is extremely combat focused, and that's a detriment to roleplaying.

 

It's really exclusively combat focused, since the non-combat skills (such as they are or were) operated almost entirely independent of stats, talents, etc. (the partial exemptions being lockpicking and persuade in DA:O). 

[PhroXenGold]

I've never liked attributes increasing on level-up because I have trouble explaining it within the setting.

 

In general I agree with this.

 

I will say, however, if you are going to have attribute increases on level up, then doing the way DA:I does - tying it to the skills you learn - as opposed to the way Origins did - being totally freeform - is much better. After all, it makes some sense that if you spend the time since the last level training a skill that involves brute force, your strength would go up. On the other hand, it makes no sense that doing that would make you more intelligent....

[StanojeZ]

That is precisely why I posted. I hate anything polite. I'm sorry you're such a sissy. You can go cry to your mom, please take pictures while you do it and post it later. Don't worry, if I get banned I will see them with my other accounts.
 
For me it is life and death. I have no real life to speak of, my whole existence revolves around the RPGs I played. The reason this discussion is not heated and full of my hatred is only because Pillars of Eternity is amazing, even better than I thought initially, if it wasn't for that I would surely been wreacking havoc in here. Bad thing is that sometimes I'm unable to play it for few hours and then I come here to insult you.

Just cry all you need because internet random wasn't polite than go on with your life, which you do have, I don't. Have at least a little empathy for those who are sick, retarded and imbeciles like myself.

You should seek out professional help. If what you wrote here is true, then you need some medical advice, at the very least. I hope you get better.

[Elhanan]

In general I agree with this.
 
I will say, however, if you are going to have attribute increases on level up, then doing the way DA:I does - tying it to the skills you learn - as opposed to the way Origins did - being totally freeform - is much better. After all, it makes some sense that if you spend the time since the last level training a skill that involves brute force, your strength would go up. On the other hand, it makes no sense that doing that would make you more intelligent....

Dunno; experience can bring knowledge and wisdom, as well as an increase to physical traits. A reason why college are called institutes of higher learning as an example.

That said, it is fairly easy for me to adapt to various RPG methods; do not need to adhere to complex RL facsimiles, or simplistic simulations. However, I do prefer the Player to retain as much control over the character as possible. With each restriction that the game removes from Player control seems to threaten the attachment the Player has with the character, IMO.

[AlanC9]

It's really exclusively combat focused, since the non-combat skills (such as they are or were) operated almost entirely independent of stats, talents, etc. (the partial exemptions being lockpicking and persuade in DA:O).

Isn't this a general problem with Bio's house style? Even when they have non-combat skills, they don't use them for much. KotOR had skills, but mostly they were used to blow people up before clearing the room with standard combat.

[In Exile]

Isn't this a general problem with Bio's house style? Even when they have non-combat skills, they don't use them for much. KotOR had skills, but mostly they were used to blow people up before clearing the room with standard combat.

 

Oh, entirely. The removal of non-combat skills is really just a reflection of how Bioware doesn't use them, with their removal effectively being to cut away pointless bloat in their own ruleset/mechanic. 

 

Even dialogue skills are pointless, since in Bioware games they're just a binary "I-win" button. DA:I's used the most sophisticated persuade system in a Bioware game thus far (by having multiple skills). 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Isn't this a general problem with Bio's house style?

Yes it is, and we should encourage them to change that style.