Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity - Original Sin - General Primary stats

Not yet. We can still do that. That's why I explained that "changes are easy to make" because I expected to see discussions like this.

The only problem I have atm is that damage depends largely on your weapon.

So if you have a level 4 item that you really like and you're fighting a level 6 character, it takes a lot of hits to take him down, because dmg vs hp difference is too large. We could tweak this by making the bonuses from stats larger... So you see, this is still very WIP

Ok, I have a new/improved proposal for the stat syteme. I would still split up combat and social skills because (I'm fully with Josh Sawyer here) you shouldn't try to bring P&P rules 1to1 to video games but instead you should try to find the best working system that offers the best gameplay in video games in respect of your focus there. And as Larian's focus is on combat AND on interaction/communication I still think a split would improve the system by large.

You should gain one stat point per level for either:

- strenght
- dexterity
- intelligence
- constitution
- speed

And another stat point per level for either:

- intimidation
- charming
- reasoning

I cut perception (because of the good comments above) and thievery (because thief abilites like pickpocketing and lockpicking should be active skills with basic/advanced stats in dexterity/speed and not stats themselves)

Do you know what you've just done?!








I admit that I like that idea, it does increase roleplaying opportunities. You could make a scary wizard or a charming thief or a thoughtful warrior.

Instead of being forced down the same path for conversations as you do for fighting, you can choose, and that's good. It would also nicely solve the problem of a ranger build not having any stats tied to persuasion.

I've warned David already yesterday.........

Now there is no way back...

I'm going to attempt to speak on Larian's behalf here, so just bear in mind this is my interpretation.

The existing system has 3 stats for 3 styles of combat

Strength -> Melee
Dexterity -> Ranged
Intelligence -> Magic

plus 3 stats of "Nice to have" for every class.

So while you could roll to hit into Dexterity or perceive stats into Perception the splits exist so every style of combat has its basic damage and some out of combat perk, but no more. The kickstarter post specifically states that this is not based on pure realism but an attempt to make balanced stats.

I myself would further posit it's an attempt at balancing between simulationists, role players and strategy gamers. Role players can't make every kind of class they'd like to imagine but there's some room to make the clever archer or the average strength warrior that isn't <i>too</i> weak. The stats fit into a broadly realistic frame for simulationists and strategy gamers might not have something exactly tuned towards providing interesting options but they can make varying archetypes with the stats available.

As a result it's not wildly exciting, but it gets the job done. I'd personally like to see Strength, Intelligence and Dexterity get more widespread appeal so as to both enable roleplayers to build that Dextrous melee build without feeling too weak and also to let me make a character that blends missile and melee effectively.

The only thing I'm genuinely concerned about is that it might be hard to do without ever increasing amounts of perception and speed, otherwise your characters will hit too rarely and be hit too often. That's fine except it's odd if all effective high level characters are running faster than horses and doesn't allow for the specialness of a party of high movement hit and run specialists. I'm fine with the latter, but it does undermine the purpose of having a speed stat at all.

I prefer (& like it more) to only have 1 statpoint each level-up!
And combat and social skills are in ONE and the same rpg, one big journey full of wonders and adventure, so please don't split the basics of this Gem of a game ... it's a "no go" I darf to say !

A game is for fun, not analysing it to death, not analysing all things until the basic fundation will blow up !

Why do you assume that a game which has dedicated "social" system could be no fun?

Obsidian has already strongly considered to make such a break between combat and interaction systems.

Your argument is absolutely pointless I fear. Because it is "one" RPG there cannot be more than one system running in the background? You're aware that there WILL (probably) be a 2nd stats/skills system with the traits and talents from the 650k goal already?

I already proposed to "give up" the communication skills and reinvent them with the traits and talents system. In this case strenght and other stats could still give small bonuses to things like intimidation but you would still be able to "perform" intimidation attempts with a puny mage who has the respective talent or character trait.

Not to be able/allowed to talk about basic game mechanics in RPG is ridiculous. The core mechanics of a CRPG are systems, systems, systems, indeed, a numbers game.

You've got that wrong. It's not one key and three "nice to have" stats.

A warrior who has a lot of strength but can't take a hit or make a hit is worthless. If you pump up both his CON and STR so he can take a hit, and do a lot of damage, but can't hit anything because of poor PER - he's also ineffective.

Meanwhile, a Wizard really does have one "must-have" stat for all his abilities and a bunch of "nice to have"'s. A ranger is in the middle, with 2 must-haves.

The problem is that it isn't balanced.

But having one point just for this whould make conversation to end more or less always in your favour. We need strong counter to this. What will then do resistance to the influence of one of this sats?
For example, if I use every social stat per level just for charming, what will stop me to end every conversation to my favour, just by charming everyone?

LordCrash,
I'm sure I've explained what I was trying to say in a confusion way because you missunderstood me:
I never said a rpg with social skills is no fun ! I very like social skills in rpg, together with combat it can make a good balans between different kind of actions !

I just wish to give the hero 1 statpoint each level, like the devs have in mind. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm only afraid too many analysing of the primary and secundary stats can make loose its strong(er) basic fundation .. I feel it like someone is trying to split a mountain in two pieces, like Mozes ! Its only a warning not to loose the way into all the numbers, like you said, systems, many of them, with numbers ... ! It can start to be a real MAZE ... And LordCrash, it's NOT a warnig for You, just for everybody and especially for the developers of Larian !

And for God sake, its just a GAME, entertainment for having fun ... please may I give MY opinion without being attacked immediately ?
Thanks !

Surprisingly, I can agree with the calls to get rid of perception. The hearing/sight could be folded into constitution to make that stat more attractive, and the chance to hit could be based on a combination of Strength/Dexterity/Speed that is different for each weapon type, maybe? A big 2H weapon will handle better if you have higher Strength. That might be too much cross-over with “Required Stat to use this item: X” though.

There’s another problem with perception being the majority determiner of to-hit chance – if you neglect it, you could end up getting stuck – you could wipe out all the low-level non-respawning enemies and end up a few points behind the needed perception to reliably hit higher-level ones, turning combat into a frustrating exercise as you struggle to stay alive enough to level-up so you can start trying to fix your PER deficit.



That's a very valid concern. One thing that Larian has said that might counter that is that not every situation can be resolved in one of three ways – sometimes there will be a bonus to one and a penalty to another. The example they used was that “if you’re in a dungeon trying to flee, and there’s a decision point about which way to go, using Charm there is not going to be very effective, but Intimidate and Reasoning will be more useful.


Joram – Your opinion is certainly welcome. The thing is that in many threads you go in and say “who cares about system X and Y, the most important thing is that it is FUN”. Fun is of course important, but it’s also hard to define.

Each person has a different idea of what fun would be like for them. People aren’t posting these opinions debating what the game should play like because they hate fun. They’re posting the opinions because they think that it would make the game more fun for them. We may all have different ideas how to get there, that’s what these discussions are about, trying to hash out the way to make the game the most fun. Coming in and saying that a game should be about a nebulous, undefined idea of fun, so we should stop talking about HOW to make it fun - that doesn’t really get us anywhere.

Oh, then I got you indeed wrong, I'm sorry, mate.

You could avoid the stat distribution for social skills at all if you really interweave the social skills in the traits and talents system. So you get better in conversation/coummincation skills the more often you use them (which is quite reasonalbe and logical) and you could have certain talents from the beginning which could give you a better chance to perform certain communication attempts. Even some skills are possible to enhance social interaction.

This way stat distribution would be for combat "alone" and you could build up the character you want to play with in comat (mage, warrior, ranger, ....) without the fear in mind that you might not be able to do certain social interaction that way (which is actually my biggest concern now). There could still be a (small) bonus for social skills based on certain stats (like intimidation trait/talent could gain a bit from strenght). But social skills wouldn't be determind by in first place combat stats.

So new/improved approach:

1) Active stat distribution/level/XP system for combat skills:
-strenght
-dexterity
-intelligence
-speed
-constitution

2) Social interaction stats are interwoven with the traits and talents of characters which can't be improved actively but only due to using them implicitly in dialogue or decisive situations (so progress is not based on level/XP but on constant improvement based on usage). You could have certain talents from the beginning and even special skills for better social interaction.

If someone created a character like that, it's their choice... and they would have to deal with that choice in combat situations. If you don't like that sort of character, don't create it, if you don't want to play with someone who is that sort of character, don't.

There is more to having good social skills than beating your mate at virtually scripted dialogue arguments
They should provide alternative ways to complete quests for example.

Also, there is a good chance that you'll end up losing all the dialogue talk off's anyway if your mate is wearing the "super mega personality amulet"




Urgh! that makes no sense at all. Hearing and sight has nothing to do with constitution. If you just want to make stats more attractive you might as well just give them arbitrary names and apply perfect game balancing effects to them.


As long as it's possible to create different character builds that can interact in the game world in different and interesting ways - that's the main thing for me.


With regard to equipping stuff based on stats. I'm generally in favour of it but you could always allow everything equip-able and have penalties if the character doesn't meet certain criteria:

For example: a weak wizard could wield the "mighty waraxe of impending doom" which normally requires strength of 75 but he suffers a massive speed penalty as a result. It may be worth it given a certain situation if all he needs is one big hit to finish something off.

I'm hoping that a lot more than daggers get a dex bonus. Fencing weapons for sure (rapier,estoc, etc) Basically if its an edged weapon dex should play a part. Weighted by mass. So a small punch dagger might get the biggest dex bonus, while a 2h flamberge greatsword would only see a very small one.


On the damage bonus part, I'm thinking mainly in relationship to the stats, not a innate bonus. IE an arming sword might take 8 strength to wield. do 1d8 slashing damage. Crit on 19-20 x2. That's innate stats. That's typical.

I'm thinking that you might say the arming sword is 8str to wield and gains a strength bonus of +1 per 2 points up to strength 16. It also get a dex bonus of +1 per 3 points up to dex 14. Its rate of attack could also be modified by this. Thats a fairly average weapon however. Say you have a rapier. It might be str 6-12 +1 per 3 Dex 8-16 +1 per 2

It would allow a much large range of weapons to be effective depending on how you balance your stats, rather than the normal min/max thing you need to dump all your points into one stat to be effective.

Sure, but with a couple buts...
-You can wear armor if you have the appropriate minimum strength/dex for it.
-There should be a another cap at which you're not encumbered by it. (So a mage might be able to wear that plate, but he'd be slow and awkward)
-Armor should cap different skill and abilities based on composition and mass. (So metal armor would have a negative effect on magic, You'll have a dex bonus cap in certain armor types, etc, etc)

Against any hard limits, but there should be realistic consequences that mean there are optimum types of armor for different builds. Also having various caps allows for alot of interesting variants on the same armor model from masterwork variants, special materials, etc,etc.

I REALLY don't like that critical hit chance is now completely depends on weapon. I don't understand what lead to such decision but it is still bad, imho.

On the point of showing stats, I WANT IT in dialogues. I spec into int and have no clue when I had an unique int answer. I just don't feel rewarded when I never know that my build has an impact on the outcome. Just add an (int) at the end for that answer. Replaying Planescape:Torment, made me really realize that. I mean, some answers were pretty obvious, but by far not many. I feel like my 19Wisdom are wasted, if you get where I am coming from, even tho that is not the case.


Clarity is vitally important do judge things. An attack that does "severe damage" is just not telling me how useful it is. It's pretty subjective how much damage "severe" is and how much "medium", "light" etc is. Having "1000 damage" or "150% weapon damage" means so much more to me, and is important to me to compare and choose my skills.

Well to be fair it was a complete supposition on my part, we can't possibly say whether the system is balanced or not at this stage, that depends entirely on the numbers. If it is balanced then a Strength 55 Perception 5 Warrior will still hit often enough and heavily enough to outdamage a Strength 30 Perception 30 Warrior. That's because all other factors being equal reliability is a desirable trait. (Unless the game is brutally difficult to the extent that no strategy is reliable and victory outright relies on luck)

Similarly a Warrior should be able to get by on significantly less Strength than a Wizard's Intelligence. That's because he will be much more reliant on Speed and Constitution.

I'm making assumptions here and you're quite right to call out that I really don't know which stat will be most important, but in the same vein it's impossible to say the system is unbalanced until we see the numbers.

Do you mean that you don't like critical hit chance to be determined just by the weapon?

If so, i agree. For two reasons:
1) it makes no sense (although of course the critical damage is related to the weapon)
2) More critical hits should be rewarded to more skilful fighters. Big brutes get more damage by design they don't need the criticals as well!



It's already there... here's a screen from the latest update:


I think there were some comments earlier about having even more information... like the skill points required or something like that.



Actually, it would be kinda cool if there were skills relating to this sort of information. So early on you just get generic "a bit of damage" , "severe damage" and then as you increase the relevant skill you can see how much damage it is actually doing. Likewise the stats for the weapon are only revealed once you put points into the relevant skill.