PoE Main stats and role-playing

The stat system is driving me bonkers. I get that they wanted to make a game with no dump stats with lots of viable build options (e.g. fighter with high INT). And from what I've seen it even works well, more or less.

But it also feels very gamey and not very thematic. I wish they'd put at least some more sense into stats.

Let's take Might: It increases damage for all characters and means physical and mental strength. That just doesn't work IMO, from a role-playing perspective. It means if you want to make a wizard with a strong mind (high damage spells) you have to make him physically strong as well. Now if you have a fighter tank, he'd probably focus on defensive stats which don't include Might. So in the end you'd have a wizard who is physically stronger than a fighter with sword & shield. In situations which require feats of strength, like smashing in a stone wall, you would actually send a wizard forward.

This really messes with my concept of wizards & warriors. I'd prefer if there was a clear distinction between physical and mental strength.

I do, however, like that INT, for example, can be a useful stat for anyone in that it doesn't directly increase damage, but makes all abilities last longer and increases AoE sizes for everyone. A fighter with high INT gets more use out of their abilities, which essentially means they are better at tactics.

Arhu said:

This really messes with my concept of wizards & warriors.

Click to expand...

As it should That's one of the game's highlights for me: as much as it takes from D&D (and there's quite a lot...), it still manages to change things around enough so that it doesn't feel like some copy/paste game world.

Wizards in POE don't use mental strength to cast spells. Their grimoires do most of the works.

The game kind of breaks many pre-conceived notions from other fantasy settings.

Yes, sure, but my point was that it's not possible to create a mighty wizard who is physically weak, for example. It's great that there can be muscle wizards, but in this case there was no real gain at the cost of less immersion. It feels like some things work the way they do just for the sake of being different, not because they make sense.

The way I see it, Constitution is actually the stat representing overall physical conditioning in this game. "Might" is their skill at attacking something, whether it's a Ranger sniping a target, a Wizard casting a fireball or a Fighter hitting an enemy.

A classic "glass cannon" Wizard is essentially one with high Might and Int, but low Consitution, Perception etc. He or she will be super squishy and fragile, but will deal a ton of damage.

Haven't some casters thru "history" been referred to as "so and so is a MIGHTY wizard" - well, there ya go!

I don't see might as physical strength or bulging muscles - it's more a measure of that particular power with what they do, so for a fighter you may interpret it as muscles and bulk, but for a damage caster you could interpret it as inner/mental fortitude and presence.

I like their attribute system and really I like the "rules" they've built for this game in general - it's a really slick system. As I was describing to a friend who is interested in the game, they've made the attributes all valuable but it's more like it yields compelling choices and variety than some kind of MMORPG everybody can do everything generic balancing act.

The classes all feel well executed, interesting, and powerful. It's tougher than ever to pick 6 from the 11 since I could easily use any of them in a party.

I like how the spells are constructed too - tons of ae spells to make you ponder/consider/balance might vs int. Lots of variety in how spells work and more of them feel like things I would use than in most D&D style systems where I feel like a lot of the spells are filler I'm not interested in. Even for physical damage dealers there are considerations and variations.

I think you can even argue whether min/max style attributing is really worth it since attributes value weighting is linear and not wonky and every stat has a good amount of value to every class. Min/max doesn't have as much of an impact when stat gains are linear and there aren't the special thresholds that exist in some systems.

For ex, with WL2 I felt it was best to min/max to extremes since there were clearly stats not needed for many desirable character setups and with how that game does point spending while building and thresholds with useless in between stat degress. Kinda like D&D. You could have 3-18 but only certain values matter and being at in between values is pointless if you have a choice.

(as a side note I really like WL2 but if you compare the character/attribute/skills/talent/combat systems between WL2 and PoE it's no comparison - PoE completely blows WL2 away and makes WL2 look ultra simplistic, IMO, and I think WL2 is a very high quality and polished game but again PoE is even more so and I'm really impressed with how much they packed into the game given the time and budget)

I'm loving the game, but yeah I don't like the stat system. I understand they wanted to be different than D&D, but it doesn't work for me at all. I'm loving the game in spite of the stat system, not because of it.

So when there are "strength" checks in dialogs or scripted events, do they use Might or Constitution?
Or do they escape this dilemma and use athletics?

Morrandir said:

So when there are "strength" checks in dialogs or scripted events, do they use Might or Constitution?

Click to expand...

Might. Never seen yet a check for Constitution.

So then Arhu seems to be right. It's not possible to create a Wizard with high damage output and low physical strength.

But the real question is - Who cares?

For one, the game does not define strength like most of us are used to. The wizard could smash down a wall just as easily by passing a Might check and flinging a powerful fireball at it.

I think we just have to let go of our preconceptions and just enjoy what Josh has done with the system. He has tried to create a system that allows for a ton of unique and clever builds that probably wouldn't have worked too well in a Baldur's Gate D&D setting. And he's greatly succeeded at doing it.

Fluent said:

But the real question is - Who cares?

Click to expand...

I do, if only for RP purposes. From a pure game-play perspective the system is fantastic. And I love what they have done with Intelligence — making it more of a tactical stat that's useful for all characters. It's just that Might checks in this game all seem to describe physical strength stuff.

Here's the description of the wall from the first dungeon:

- ".. Despite the damage, the stone looks heavy and solid."
- [Push on it yourself.]
- "You push the wall with all your might, but it does not give."
- [Send Calisca.]
- "Calisca pushes with all her might, and the crack begins to spread. Finally, the ancient masonry gives way. The wall crashes down, revealing a circular room ahead. [Might 16]"

Click to expand...

Now imagine: A defensive fighter (with recommended stats CON, RES and PER), who theoretically has the strength to wear heavy armor, sword and a big shield could not push the wall, because he's too weak (= not mighty enough)? A mighty wizard, on the other hand, has no such problem, because he's got muscle?

This really breaks immersion for me.

The wizard could smash down a wall just as easily by passing a Might check and flinging a powerful fireball at it.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. It would be great if the descriptions of might checks were class-based: a wizard could use telekinetic spells instead. Actually, that may very well solve the RP problem partly, because then Might would at least literally mean different things for different classes. But as it is, Might checks rather clearly describe physical brute-force feats.


By the way, I found some threads on reddit that have some insightful comments:
- PoE's interesting take on avoiding stat min-maxing
- Does anyone else have a RP problem with the stats?


Ah well, back to enjoying the game (because I do ).

Isn't it possible that Magic actually requires strength? For me I see this as a complete non-issue and perfectly RP. Who says magic has to be ONLY mental?

I have seen many forms of magic in fantasy books and I have seen a few that put a HUGE drain on the body and the mages are actually very strong - very physically fit as they needed to be to handle the magical forces.

So in this case it is very RP friendly if you get past the idea that the only way to use magic is mental. Perhaps in this world one needs to be extremely hardy and fit to yeild magic because it is so taxing. So MIGHT + INT works. Consequently they are also strong and able to bust down a wall BUT they can't yield weapons like a fighter as they lack the skill.

To me this sounds more like being stuck in the decades of stereotypes that magic is all mental.

I never understood why mages should be "weak" physically, but I do partly understand Arhu's concern. Maybe the might stat description should be worded slighty differently. I personally don't have any problem with it, because I've always pictured my mage characters to be physically fit

wolfgrimdark said:

To me this sounds more like being stuck in the decades of stereotypes that magic is all mental.

Click to expand...

That's a bit like saying, "being stuck in the decades of stereotypes that Vampires all drink blood." That's not a stereotype, it's part of the definition.

Corporeal and incorporeal, body and mind, physical world and metaphysical or spiritual world, real and magical. They are not the same.

I'd even say that Might isn't a main attribute at all: it's two very different ones, conveniently grouped in one. It's equivalent to having a main stat called "Defense" that increases all defensive strength. That wouldn't make much sense either. Why? Because "Defense" as such would, in truth, be a derived stat: in this case from secondary stats like Fortitude, Reflex and Will, which are in turn increased by actual main attributes like Constitution, Dexterity and Intelligence or Resolve. Likewise, Might is actually a secondary stat that is derived from main attributes, but is for some reason treated the same as a primary attribute (you can put stat points into it). A strong fighter can be mighty as can a strong wizard, sure, but they do it very differently.

Isn't it possible that Magic actually requires strength?

Click to expand...

I'd say yes, it's possible. Magic could require all kinds of things or stats, even strength in some cases, the same as physical feats could require mental attributes. What I object to, however, is that physical strength and magical/spiritual strength are one and the same.

wolfgrimdark said:

Isn't it possible that Magic actually requires strength? For me I see this as a complete non-issue and perfectly RP. Who says magic has to be ONLY mental?

Click to expand...

Well, I'd say the manual does:

Wizard
Wizards are gifted individuals who, through rigorous study, are able
to channel soul fragments around them through their books, called
grimoires, to produce magical effects.

Cipher
Ciphers are the psychic fi ghters whose talent descends from
Glanfathan “soul hunters.” They use mental powers to affect the minds
and souls of their enemies.

Click to expand...

For chanters and druids there's no hint of a requirement of phsyical strength as well.

Indeed I wouldn't have a problem with a fantasy setting where casting magic required physical strength and thus a single attribute could be used for calculation for both magical and physical damage from profane weapons.
But appareantly this isn't the case in PoE. There's cognitive skills involved, not physical ones.
So as long as it's not defined otherwise, I assume that in PoE's setting casting magic involves mental strength, resulting in the Might attribute representing both mental and physical strength, making it difficult to precisely model certain character types.

By the way it's the same with the Dexterity attribute in PoE, D&D and many other rulesets, where dexterity represents both agility (for dodging, acrobatics etc.) and sleight of hand (manual dexterity).
It's not possible to e. g. create a dwarven mechanic, who is generally sluggish, but has an extraordinary manual dexterity. Well, of course you could create one, having a mediocre dexterity value, but this value doesn't represent the actual character very well. So it's not a special "Might" problem. Persons just can't be precisely described by six attributes, so there are attributes that cover more than a single aspect.

Arhu said:

That's a bit like saying, "being stuck in the decades of stereotypes that Vampires all drink blood." That's not a stereotype, it's part of the definition.

Click to expand...

I am not sure that is the best comparison though. If I had said "being stuck in the decades of stereotypes that mages all use magic" then I could agree as that is closer to vampires and blood. I am merely saying that mages do use magic but how they access doesn't have to be solely mental. In other words, yes you probably need some intelligence to use magic but you could also need strength of body as well. Also possible magic is more innate in some people and require nothing more than concentration and will ... or just a strong body that can survive channeling powerful magic. I am pretty sure I have read some fantasy books with magic users that weren't overly intellectual or spiritual.

It really doesn't matter though. If needed I just twist it in my own head as I play. I try not to get to hung up text or mechanics in that sense.

What I object to, however, is that physical strength and magical/spiritual strength are one and the same.

Click to expand...

Well I can certainly see that as understandable. I certainly don't think there is anything wrong in your opinion. Everyone views things in their own way after all. I know I have all my preferences for things in games. Although, for me, if the game doesn't match exactly I just ignore it and pretend it does.

Anyhow I was merely expressing my own opinion in regards to the idea that magic doesn't have to be solely a mental thing and that it is quiet possible that to be a mage in a certain world (not necc. POE) that physical strength might be a requirement. Or if magic is more innate that it would not require lengthy study or intellect - could be more intuitive.

In regards to Morrindirs post, which I will quote next, I stand corrected as far as POE as he pointed out. I read something somewhere that gave me the impression mages are more "might" focused in POE so thought the game backed that up. That is not the case as I did more research - in POE mages are meant to be mental focused - although one quote did say they tend to be physically fit if not high in strength and that might have been the one I read too quickly and got the wrong impression.

Morrandir said:

Well, I'd say the manual does:


For chanters and druids there's no hint of a requirement of phsyical strength as well.

Indeed I wouldn't have a problem with a fantasy setting where casting magic required physical strength and thus a single attribute could be used for calculation for both magical and physical damage from profane weapons.
But appareantly this isn't the case in PoE. There's cognitive skills involved, not physical ones.
So as long as it's not defined otherwise, I assume that in PoE's setting casting magic involves mental strength, resulting in the Might attribute representing both mental and physical strength, making it difficult to precisely model certain character types.

By the way it's the same with the Dexterity attribute in PoE, D&D and many other rulesets, where dexterity represents both agility (for dodging, acrobatics etc.) and sleight of hand (manual dexterity).
It's not possible to e. g. create a dwarven mechanic, who is generally sluggish, but has an extraordinary manual dexterity. Well, of course you could create one, having a mediocre dexterity value, but this value doesn't represent the actual character very well. So it's not a special "Might" problem. Persons just can't be precisely described by six attributes, so there are attributes that cover more than a single aspect.

Click to expand...

Sorry - I misunderstood something I read in the manual on Mages that gave me the wrong impression.

Your post expressed things far better than I had - especially your last paragraph which is really how I view it. I guess I never even gave it any real thought prior to see this thread. In my mind I just automatically split the two. When playing a mage the stat meant one thing and when playing a fighter it meant something else.

When it comes to might breaking down a wall I just assumed a mage was applying magical might (not a spell but raw energy) and a warrior was applying physical might.

When it comes to intimidation then either you are intimidating with physical force or magical force - it all seems to work fine to me.

I guess I thought it was a non-issue But then reading the thread I tried to think how it could work if the mage had to be strong. I still think in some world of fantasy that would be viable but clearly not in POE based on your quotes (and I did more research that only backs yours up).

Regardless I am just going with might is either magical might (force blast to knock down a wall) or physical might (break the wall down with your shoulder).