Age of Decadence Stat Calculator

[MicoSelva]

Maxing your INT means significant sacrifices elsewhere (i.e. you're very smart, but crippled).

INT is the only stat that becomes non-linear at higher values. Each point up until 8 gives You +1, 9th and 10th point give You +2. Meaning it's much more viable to invest in INT=10 than any other stat = 10. Maybe that's the point - so everybody plays with 10 INT? I don't know.

Underlined.

Gee, thanks for that, but Your underlining does not change the fact that maxing out INT is as much a sacrifice as maxing out CHA, but gives more benefits (from pure stat bonus point of view - I have no idea which of them will have more impact on other gameplay aspects and will be more used in stat checks), which is what I'm trying to point out from the start.

if you want to play a pure archer who does nothing but shoots at things, you'll be better off investing more in Dex and Per than in INT. Extra skill points help, but extra AP help even more, especially if you play a pure combat character who will resolve all quests through violence, which means that he'll be fighting against multiple opponents very often.

Fair enough. So the bookworm will have higher archery skill, but the circus performer will be the better archer overall because of more AP. I guess I can live with that.

Second, it's not a combat game and there are a lot of handy skills for jacks of all trades and non-combat characters. That's what the INT bonus is mostly for. Whereas a pure combat character can handle his challenges with 2 skills, non-combat characters will need to have more than 2 to be effective. Etc.

Well, from a game design point of view, this is the optimal way to go. Thank You for the answer.
Although I still think that high INT should not directly translate to capability to increase archery skills faster.

Bow grants 7 points synergy to crossbow (good), 4 points synergy to throwing (kind of ok) and 2 points synergy to dagger and sword (WHY?).

Throwing because you have skills at hitting targets, can estimate the distance, aim properly, etc.

True, I have no issue with that.

Dagger and sword because they are realistic back up weapons. You'd expect an archer to receive training with a dagger and sword.

True, but that's not how synergy works/is supposed to work. What You wrote is an crossbowman build putting 6 (of his assumed 10 - for example) skill points into crossbows, and 2 to both daggers and swords. Synergy is supposed to make You better at something a side effect of learning something else. i just don't see such correlation between crossbow and dagger/sword.

In the end though the main reason for the synergy is to give you some proficiency with other weapons.

Even though it doesn't make any sense (other than artificial gameplay balance)?

Hammer gives 8 point to axe (I agree), 2 points to both dagger and sword and 3 points to spear. How exactly is spear more similar in use to hammer than a sword? It isn't. But yes, the total is 15 again.

We do less than 15 points, people will say this weapon is better because it gives more points. So, yes, the number of points is the same for all weapons, the spread is different. As for why hammer gives bonuses to spear, it's because both are strength-based weapons. However, the bonus is relatively minor.

Well, You give 15 points synergy to each and (some other) people will say this is artifical gameplay balancing. :D Not the point. I'm more curious what You think about it, not what You think other people will think. As in, what game design "philosophy" is more important to You - balancing everything at the cost of (minor?) inconsistencies, or making a more realistic system that will not be balanced - because in real life some approaches are also more efficient that others (all the more reason for some people to try the non-optimal ones, for greater challenge).
From the information included in the skill calculator I'm guessing the former approach is true in case of AoD, which is not the one I would have gone through, but I can understand why You have decided to go this way.

As for spear also being a strength weapon, like the hammer, it's a rather poor explanation, as long bow is a strength-based (strength among others) weapon too and I don't see any synergies to bows in AoD's hammer skill.

Anyway, thanks for the answers.

 

[Esquilax]

I know it's too late and I think that the character system overall is great and well-balanced from the looks of things, if perhaps a little artificial (which, truth be told, I honestly don't mind because some abstraction is necessary), but I'd prefer it if skill point gains weren't so tied to intelligence too. Unlike MicroSelva, I don't think that Int is overpowered because from playing the combat demo, physical attributes are as important or even more important than skill points.

I like to think of it in terms of natural athletic abilities. A smart guy might be able to figure out the technique involved in swordfighting and become better to compensate for his meager physical skills, while an athletic freak of nature will be able to kick someone else's ass by virtue of simply being stronger and faster than them, even if they are only of average intelligence. The freak athlete will also eventually improve his technique throughout the game to the point where he's just as technically skilled as the smart guy, except he's also much more physically gifted too.

If you have high Dex/Str, then that should translate into a bonus for skill points, but only for physical skills. Being that you're more coordinated and stronger, you should be able to learn how to dodge attacks, strike with a sword, or sneak around without being heard by virtue of those abilities.

Likewise, a guy who's intelligent will gain skill points, but only for abilities like Lore, Crafting, Traps, Alchemy, Trading, etc.

I'm aware that this can cause problems, however, and I'm certain that you have already considered this and taken this into account. Someone playing as a fighter might treat Int and Cha as dump stats because they'll just get as many skill points regardless since they'll just be focusing on physical skills anyways. So if combat skills are tied only to Str/Dex, then there's not as much reason for a fighter character to invest in being smarter and there's not as much of a trade-off. It's a lame exploit.

Though the current system is perhaps "artificially balanced" and maybe something a bit more organic would be better, I much prefer a game where vastly different playstyles, builds and weapon types are all potentially good ones.

As loved as Arcanum is around here, the fact that a harm-spamming mage was more powerful than all but a high level technologist could really get on my nerves.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Maxing your INT means significant sacrifices elsewhere (i.e. you're very smart, but crippled).

INT is the only stat that becomes non-linear at higher values. Each point up until 8 gives You +1, 9th and 10th point give You +2. Meaning it's much more viable to invest in INT=10 than any other stat = 10. Maybe that's the point - so everybody plays with 10 INT? I don't know.

Underlined.

Gee, thanks for that, but Your underlining does not change the fact that maxing out INT is as much a sacrifice as maxing out CHA, but gives more benefits (from pure stat bonus point of view - I have no idea which of them will have more impact on other gameplay aspects and will be more used in stat checks), which is what I'm trying to point out from the start.

So, what is it that you're trying to point out? You say it looks like INT is a better stat, but you don't know how CHA affects gameplay, so it mighty be a handy stat too. I agree.

Fair enough. So the bookworm will have higher archery skill, but the circus performer will be the better archer overall because of more AP. I guess I can live with that.

The bookworm might be able to spend more points on archery, which may or may not make him a better archer. Combat is challenging. A non-combat character with high INT to put all points into a weapon skill will not be an affective fighter and most likely will die too often to be a viable choice. Many quests (the combat side) involve fighting against multiple opponents and you know how easy it is from the demo.

For non-combat characters, INT is one of the primary stats.

For combat characters, INT is a good supportive stat for jacks of all trade.

Dagger and sword because they are realistic back up weapons. You'd expect an archer to receive training with a dagger and sword.

True, but that's not how synergy works/is supposed to work. What You wrote is an crossbowman build putting 6 (of his assumed 10 - for example) skill points into crossbows, and 2 to both daggers and swords. Synergy is supposed to make You better at something a side effect of learning something else. i just don't see such correlation between crossbow and dagger/sword.

The purpose of synergy (any synergy) is to boost weaker/obsolete/less used/secondary skills and make them more useful. From this point of view, does it really matter why one skill gives boost to another?

If crossbow synergy would make you better only at archery (as it logically should), then the player doesn't really get much variety.

In the end though the main reason for the synergy is to give you some proficiency with other weapons.

Even though it doesn't make any sense (other than artificial gameplay balance)?

Most RPG mechanics are abstract, why should this one be different? Does getting hit in the head with a two handed axe or shot in the face with a shotgun and continue fighting like nothing happened make a lot of sense? Being able to wipe out entire towns? Carrying 250lb of weapons and armor on your back and jumping like a spring chicken? Rapidly healing while traveling with the above mentioned general store on your back? Learning and mastering the art of magic not in years at some university but in a few weeks while looting and pillaging? +5 swords that increase your vitality?

Not the point. I'm more curious what You think about it, not what You think other people will think. As in, what game design "philosophy" is more important to You - balancing everything at the cost of (minor?) inconsistencies, or making a more realistic system that will not be balanced - because in real life some approaches are also more efficient that others (all the more reason for some people to try the non-optimal ones, for greater challenge).

Both. When it comes to the overall flow/balance, I prefer a more realistic approach. When it comes to the character system, more abstract.

 

[GarfunkeL]

 

[MicoSelva]

Again thanks for the answers, VD. I don't have any further comments right now. Looking forward to the actual game.

 

[Raghar]

A small hint. Release it before it stinks out.