hello,
I think it is a little wierd that every race starts with 1 in all stats.
it would make more sense and be more true to differences between races - if halflings and scar are more dexterous than ogres, dwaves have more con, etc.
every stat could start between 7 and 10,
and stat points would still be important - even if it would mean a minor tweak to damage formulas or creature starting stats.
that is all - loving all the progress!
I also like racial stat bonuses. I expect them to be a thing.
I don't agree that stats should start between 7 and 10. We need to minimize stat bloat as much as possible.
There would be no difference in having starting stats range from 1-4, instead of 7-10, which is better for the long run. With the way they are saying +1 stat increase will be noticable it could even be that starting stats range from 1 to 2 with your race determining which stats start at 2.
Vandraad said:It isn't weird if you've followed this long enough. One of the main design tenents is that every stat should matter and starting with few stats and stats on gear being rare helps with that. Its hard to make every stat point count if you start with 100 in a given stat.
philo said:I also like racial stat bonuses. I expect them to be a thing.
I don't agree that stats should start between 7 and 10. We need to minimize stat bloat as much as possible.
There would be no difference in having starting stats range from 1-4, instead of 7-10, which is better for the long run. With the way they are saying +1 stat increase will be noticable it could even be that starting stats range from 1 to 2 with your race determining which stats start at 2.
It's immersion breaking to have all races start with the same stats. Minimalizing number bloat is fine, so I'm good with each race starting between 1 and 4 in each category. But Ogres should have a default of 4 strength and stamina, while Gnomes would be at 1 in both categories, but have a base of 4 in intelligence and wisdom. It's a minor thing, but has significant implications in character creation and racial uniqueness. I expect VR will apply common sense in this regard at some point down the road, it's certainly not very pressing now.
Gintoki88 said: C'mon guys all races are created equal and should have equal stats and class options.... and be in the same starting area (\sarcasm) At that point why do we even need other races if picking a race wouldn't affect gameplay at all then they might as well only allow humans as the only selection. I'm all for making the option of race matter.
Huh? There are still the racial passives and actives regardless. Not sure what this has to do with stat distribution?
philo said:I also like racial stat bonuses. I expect them to be a thing.
I don't agree that stats should start between 7 and 10. We need to minimize stat bloat as much as possible.
There would be no difference in having starting stats range from 1-4, instead of 7-10, which is better for the long run. With the way they are saying +1 stat increase will be noticable it could even be that starting stats range from 1 to 2 with your race determining which stats start at 2.
I absolutely agree with the OP, and I agree with philo, too. The impact stats have seems to be significant, which is good, and it alleviates stat bloat, which is also good. So, race choice determining which stats start at maybe 3, or 4, instead of 1, would also have a significant impact, and therefore, would make race choice even more important than it already is (when you take racial faction into consideration).
A Gnome starting with the same strength as an Ogre would be just, wrong!
You know, I didn't really think about this when I saw the attributes all starting at 1. However, you're absolutely right. Each race should have different modifiers based on their strengths and weaknesses. If everyone starts at 1 you really can't have this. I hope @joppa is watching this thread and takes it to heart.
I am pretty sure even with all stats being 1 the races still generally follow through with being "more" in different areas, just without tilting the scales as hard. I think it is perfectly fine that the racials are packed into the races passives/active abilities rather than by buffing stat points that ALSO (in most cases) gain further bonus effect from each of those points.
So even with all base stats being equal:
Dwarves have more HP from that 1 stamina.
Elves get more effect out of that 1 AGI as well as either DEX/WIS depending on which faction.
Gnome get more mana from their 1 intelligence.
Humans get more out of their 1 CHA.
Ogre get more out of their 1 STR.
Iksar said:I am pretty sure even with all stats being 1 the races still generally follow through with being "more" in different areas, just without tilting the scales as hard. I think it is perfectly fine that the racials are packed into the races passives/active abilities rather than by buffing stat points that ALSO (in most cases) gain further bonus effect from each of those points.
So even with all base stats being equal:
- Dwarves have more HP from that 1 stamina.
- Elves get more effect out of that 1 AGI as well as either DEX/WIS depending on which faction.
- Gnome get more mana from their 1 intelligence.
- Humans get more out of their 1 CHA.
- Ogre get more out of their 1 STR.
This sounds more plausible. A 1 for one race doesn't equal 1 for another. You just have 1 point in the stat for your race. It would be the same with HP based on Class. A Human Mage with a STA of 5 will likely have less HP then a Warrior with the same STA.
Or since we are still in PA5, they haven't bothered with adjusting it yet until they get more data on how the races play.
Just wait until they get in to the tuning phase.
I understand where the OP is coming from and many of the replies here.
Somehow it feels like boxed and stereotypical thinking. We as gamers expect certain obvious starting differences in stats.
However, you need to remind yourself about the bigger picture here. Take into consideration; class distribution, racial passive and actives,... As @Iksar rightfully explained; certain races already have benefits all be it, not as obvious as a increased stat from the start, but more indirectly from other feats that influence that race. You'll find plenty of gamers that will crunch those more complex numbers when creating a character (looks at Pantheonplus).
Aside of this, what's wrong with an ogre that is not as strong as they could be or a halfling that is not as agile. Again, don't forget the bigger picture. You're not boxed in by the devs to min max a character into 1class&1race. Your choices will matter and that commences from the start.
As @stellarmind replied: the flavour of the character is defined by other means but your stats will matter. If you don't mind having less str as an ogre, you can go for it.
It's one of those things, you can more readily accept as you've experienced it. We need to get our minds off the railroad tracks which games have presented us for decades.
No, there is no definition that states Ogres should start with higher stats on this or that. THIS IS A NEW GAME WITH NEW RACES, they did not pick an ogre race from another game and dropped it into Pantheon. We are just so accostumed to it, that we have difficulty accepting that it can also work differently.
Stats will matter but they are not the only cogwheel that drives characters in THIS world.
The devs have designed similarities with comparable races from other games, that is true. But it's only that, a similarity. Pantheon races and thus their starting stats have their own identity and reason to be as they are now.
It is a bit weird for, potentially, a gnome to be 500% stronger than an ogre at level 1, etc.
Also, having stats start at 1 means, initially, a buff that adds 1 is possibly doubling your ability, but at level 10 maybe it only increasing it by 10%.
I can only imagine that VR are taking that into account and it isn't such a simple scaling as it appears? Perhaps the effect of the stats isn't what we traditionally think of?
Looking at the skill descriptions, you tend to see calculations like "This does 20 damage + 1 per point of strength", so actually, the difference between 1 strength and 5 is 21 to 25, which is nowhere near the apparent 500% difference.
If you want to rationalise the apparent racial stat disparity, maybe think of it like a gnome with strength 5 simply knows better how to apply his strength to his combat skills than an ogre with strength 1.
Even Dungeons & Dragons is getting rid of racial stat modifiers and going with class modifiers instead.
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/03/dd-moving-past-racial-ability-scores-using-class.html
I entirely agree that stats should start very low and should be meaningful.
I entirely agree that racial choices should make a difference. Races should matter for more than appearance and starting location.
These goals are in no way inconsistant and I suspect that by the time we get to alpha we will see changes. Having everything at 1 is as likely as not to be a placeholder.
We could do far worse than a system based on Dungeons & Dragons or Advanced Dungeons & Dragons back in the day. Not random rolling of attributes - I remember when computer games did that but that ship has long since sailed. So no need to go to the 3-18 system which, of course, was the roll of three six-sided dice. But assign a starting number as "normal" and then adjust for race and maybe class.
Thus, 5 before adjustments but some races would get +1 or even +2 in some attributes balanced carefully by some minuses.
Some classes might or might not get adjustments too. If I spent my youth practicing with weapons I would be stronger than the smart kid that spent her youth finger wiggling. But maybe not as smart. In terms of knowledge and development - we might have the same innate IQ.
All of this ignoring the question of whether players should get a choice - e.g. after attributes were determined factoring in class and race the ability to raise one or more by a point by taking a point from one or more other attributes.
Beefcake - I much preferred the original D&D and then AD&D to what it is now. It has been simplified (some would say nerfed) out of much of its original fascination in order to have a broader appeal. Perhaps not entirely dissimilar to how EQ and earlier MMOs led to WoW and later MMOs.