Not really, you can beat the game with one kineticist or with a party of six bards if you want. The game has some hard fights so it helps to have powerful builds.
There are builds and classes more powerful than others, of course; and that is what usually is discussed in forums, but it is not absolutely necessary.
Every build being viable is pretty ESSENTIAL for an RPG. It makes roleplaying easier if you don't have to worry about screwing yourself over becaue the concept you want to play simply doesn't work. Its one of the biggest reasons I have no interest in Pathfinder:Kingmaker. I've read dozens of pages in that thread, and the whole game seems balanced around being able to powergame your party.
You are incorrect. I went into the game with no prior knowledge, chose a build that happened to interest me at the time (a neutral two-handed-weapon-wielding female ranger) and just went on from there. I did just fine. My game difficulty was on Custom, meaning that it was basically set to "Normal" but changed so that all enemies had regular powers and did regular damage strictly according to the Pathfinder ruleset (instead of only 80% damage, as the game's "Normal" setting would ordinarily have it). Admittedly, my rather long experience with D&D and AD&D helped me there, but I have never been a powergamer or a min-maxer or what have you. I choose a character and class that happen to interest me at any given time, and then just wing it from there.
If you play on Hard or Unfair, you probably need to powergame, I'll happily grant you that. I have also noticed, by the way, that P:K threads seem to be populated by some rather intense power- and math-gamers whose approach seems completely alien to me, but please do not let them give you a completely erroneous impression.
Btw, in BG2, a beastmaster may not be non-viable, but it's pretty awful, don't you think?
Not really, you can beat the game with one kineticist or with a party of six bards if you want. The game has some hard fights so it helps to have powerful builds.
There are builds and classes more powerful than others, of course; and that is what usually is discussed in forums, but it is not absolutely necessary.
It also has difficulty levels. If you want some sub-optimal roleplay setup, play on a lower difficulty. This isn't an issue, imo. While I agree every build should be viable in an RPG, as in, able to beat the game's normal difficulty, I'm not sure every build should be equal. And I think this is an issue with Deadfire, where it seems the game balance was shooting to have virtually every kind of setup be viable even on PotD difficulty. And that leads to flavorless options.
Anyways, inspired by some back-and-forth in this thread, I revisited the game and can compare it to OS, will probably write some more thoughts on it later.
Not really, you can beat the game with one kineticist or with a party of six bards if you want. The game has some hard fights so it helps to have powerful builds.
There are builds and classes more powerful than others, of course; and that is what usually is discussed in forums, but it is not absolutely necessary.
It also has difficulty levels. If you want some sub-optimal roleplay setup, play on a lower difficulty. This isn't an issue, imo. While I agree every build should be viable in an RPG, as in, able to beat the game's normal difficulty, I'm not sure every build should be equal. And I think this is an issue with Deadfire, where it seems the game balance was shooting to have virtually every kind of setups be viable even on PotD difficulty. And that leads to flavorless options.
This is precisely it. And not only does it lead to flavorless options, it also leads to the fact that unique items lose their meaning, because everything works as well as everything else. So things become a bit bland.
Now, I enjoyed both Deadfire and P:K, and wouldn't actually want to choose between them, but I think it's painfully clear that Deadfire suffered from this "overly balanced" approach, quite a bit actually. P:K suffered from other things, such as overly cheesy writing and some frankly astonishing technical issues (walking speed too slow and non-adjustable, sprites being triggered way too easily when you press the mouse button anywhere near them, slow tactical combat mode activating apparently at random although I never ever wanted it to be activated even once, and so on).
Every build being viable is pretty ESSENTIAL for an RPG. It makes roleplaying easier if you don't have to worry about screwing yourself over becaue the concept you want to play simply doesn't work. Its one of the biggest reasons I have no interest in Pathfinder:Kingmaker. I've read dozens of pages in that thread, and the whole game seems balanced around being able to powergame your party.
Viable and optimal are two different things.
For eg, if i wanna create an sorcerer that only knows frost spells, i would have an hard time against white dragons, against undeads, etc and struggle against this enemies is an con that my build has to deal. Nosferatu on VtMB struggle in social encounters and it makes sense.
As for PF:KM, you don't need to power game, i created an sorcerer with silver draconic bloodline and ZERO fire based spells, most cold/electricity and despite some problems on vordakai's tomb, i managed to beat the game in a custom difficulty much harder than normal. Unless you play on "unfair", most builds except few awful multiclassed ones are viable.
I liked P:K, PoS2 and DoS games well enough, but I do not really think it is a PRO for a game with MP to have classes like rangers in DoS2 that oneshots enemies with normal attacks made from stealth with guerrilla; and on the other hand classes like the single-class thieves, the shamans or the mage hunters of BG2.
When you are playing MP you cannot reduce the difficulty, and maybe I want to play a particular class but if the game is not balanced you are stalling the rest of the party because you do not want to play one of those OP classes.
Maybe you do not like to make another ranger in a party or 4 rangers in DoS2, play even another Weapon master in NWN or one of those monk-dragon disciple-Frenzied berserker builds in NWN2 (I do not know even how to RP this one o.O )
Its one of the biggest reasons I have no interest in Pathfinder:Kingmaker. I've read dozens of pages in that thread, and the whole game seems balanced around being able to powergame your party.
It doesn't seem that erroneous from what I've played, and I've heard that the devs addressed some of the issues with the endgame areas to make things fairer. But I am restarting the game at some point because my first run I felt was mainly a test run to get a feel for the game. I don't really know if I like it a lot, but its definitely at least not giving me the feeling the Original Sin games where it was like "I really don't like any of this" after a while.
The endgame design is plain bad, in my view, and it's such a small part of the whole game that I wouldn't talk about the need for powergaming on that basis alone. But yes, the endgame is badly designed and all in all a fairly awful move from the developers. There's something very unfair and even cruel-seeming about some of the decisions the developers have made. I'll put it like this: if my GM behaved like that towards his players, he'd be an ex-GM in an instant. So, I don't quite follow their thinking -- perhaps they just have a peculiar idea about "fun".
Btw, it took me about five minutes to realize that Original Sin is not for me. Luckily, that was quickly enough to get a full refund from Steam. It's just not interesting, to me. Ditto for Tyranny.
I liked P:K, PoS2 and DoS games well enough, but I do not really think it is a PRO for a game to have classes that can beat the game spawning deadly earth and watch enemies die while you read a book; or multiclass builds that reach 80 AC(basically no one hits you unless they roll a 20); or rangers in DoS2 that oneshots enemies with normal attacks made from stealth with guerrilla; and on the other hand classes like the single-class thieves, the shamans or the mage hunters of BG2.
When you are playing MP you cannot reduce the difficulty, and maybe I want to play a particular class but if the game is not balanced you are stalling the rest of the party because you do not want to play one of those OP classes.
Maybe you do not like to make another ranger in a party or 4 rangers in DoS2, play even another Weapon master in NWN or one of those monk-dragon disciple-Frenzied berserker builds in NWN2 (I do not know even how to RP this one o.O )
Deadly Earth is a lv 12 ability. And is broken much more because the lack of verticality. This ability that can kill dragons in few rounds would be useless against dragons if they can fly like on pnp. Cloud is a Kineticist effect that would be better against flying enemies and is very weak compared to deadly earth...
multiclassing is because the PC is expected to roleplay on pnp. No "sane" DM would allow an monk-dragon disciple-Frenzied berserker in pnp
Sneak attack is broken because is simplified from pnp.
IF the game was more pnp like and people role played their builds, those problems will not happens; Keep in mind that all D&D/Pathfinder adaptations with the minimum consistency had broken OP builds. This video is from VtM, but shows how an power gaming mindset can ruin an proper RPG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2vh2usRvIo
I don't see how someone can have fun power gaming in a SP game. Nor think that the game needs to take out variety and fun to fight power gamers.
The endgame design is plain bad, in my view, and it's such a small part of the whole game that I wouldn't talk about the need for powergaming on that basis alone. But yes, the endgame is badly designed and all in all a fairly awful move from the developers. There's something very unfair and even cruel-seeming about some of the decisions the developers have made. I'll put it like this: if my GM behaved like that towards his players, he'd be an ex-GM in an instant. So, I don't quite follow their thinking -- perhaps they just have a peculiar idea about "fun".
Btw, it took me about five minutes to realize that Original Sin is not for me. Luckily, that was quickly enough to get a full refund from Steam. It's just not interesting, to me. Ditto for Tyranny.
I think we have very different tastes.
IMHO Tyranny is in par with P:k and PoE in everything besides character creation. Also has more real "meaningful choices that change the world" than the other two combined, but I suppose that does not show until a few hours of gameplay.
Its one of the biggest reasons I have no interest in Pathfinder:Kingmaker. I've read dozens of pages in that thread, and the whole game seems balanced around being able to powergame your party.
It doesn't seem that erroneous from what I've played, and I've heard that the devs addressed some of the issues with the endgame areas to make things fairer. But I am restarting the game at some point because my first run I felt was mainly a test run to get a feel for the game. I don't really know if I like it a lot, but its definitely at least not giving me the feeling the Original Sin games where it was like "I really don't like any of this" after a while.
@ThacoBell, PKM today and PKM at release seem to be quite different. I bought it at release and played a bit then but didn't like it so much so stopped. Now a year later I play again and my experience is quite different. The patching during the year has changed the game to make it quite smooth for a casual ("powergamer", meaning I like the meta) player like myself. Whenever I don't find the answer for a spell or similar, I just ask it in the PKM thread here in this forum and generally I always get an explanation quickly.
There are many things about PKM I don't like, but there's a lot more that I really like. It's a really solid game nowadays and not very hard at all (though I am only in the mid-game). I've only reloaded a battle like 3-5 times, and two of those battles took 10 reloads each because I took a battle that was intended for higher levels which I was aware of but I wanted to try anyways (and did succeed in the end; wererats at level 3 and owlbears at level.. 7 IIRC).
I took a battle that was intended for higher levels which I was aware of but I wanted to try anyways (and did succeed in the end; wererats at level 3 and owlbears at level.. 7 IIRC).
Yeah, I know what you mean. Those and the Lindworm are the typical encounters of "We´re here to remind you that you are not immortal, kiddo"
I actually like those encounters, precisely because of their reminder-like quality (and because you can observe what's in front of you and make the decision not to engage). But I also came across a couple of random encounters that seemed just dumb; like being at level 5 and meeting a bunch of hydras that are right at melee range at the start of the encounter, and since you cannot flee from battle in P:K, you're basically as good as dead. Why do that?
Like Skatan says, there are many things about PKM I don't like, but there a lot more that I really like. I would go with that, too. And I would also stress that this contradictory aspect is quite pronounced in the game. I mean, obviously there are faults in BG2 or PoE or Deadfire, too, but they're a lot more manageable and not nearly as irritating. Some of the bad stuff in P:K is really, really bad. But it's a great game.
One thing that i hate on Deadfire. Attributes makes no sense. You can be an low INT wizard. It makes ZERO sense. IMO attributes should matters more in combat or outside combat. Eg, on earlier fallout games play with low int is insane hard due the dialog system. Other problem is that might is important for everything. By increasing your might, your crossbow, pistol, arquebus, magic, psion, etc damage is increased too.
"In order to be an stronger mage, you need to go to gym, so you can produce hotter fireballs and put more powder and throw an heavier projectile in your arquebuss" ~Deadfire's logic.
It is logical and does make sense. It's just different from what you're used to. Might is not important for everything; it is just important to damage, and damage is not everything. (However, I agree that it doesn't make sense that pistol, crossbow and arquebus damage increases with improved might.)
And might also affect % healing done. Do not forget that. It seems that you also need to train those biceps to wrap those bandages really well. Or is it because carry the will of your god requires heavy lifting?
"You, good for nothing priest, you only cure me to half, do you even lift, bro?"- Deadfire´s logic 2
like being at level 5 and meeting a bunch of hydras that are right at melee range at the start of the encounter, and since you cannot flee from battle in P:K, you're basically as good as dead. Why do that?
The random encounter charts in PnP are also strange indeed. I remember fighting dire bats in a beach once. At noon.
Guys, please do note that it is Might. It is not Strength.
You use might in scripted encounters to lift the dawstar´s wagon from the mud, or intimidate someone flexing the muscles in your arms; so I am pretty sure it is related to strength.
Of course it is. Strength is an aspect of might, but might is a much larger concept. A "mighty wizard", for instance, a common enough pair of words, does not refer to wizard with large biceps.
Yep. Honestly i have the impression that Deadfire devs dint liked attributes in the first place and added by "tradition". IMO unless the mage is summoning weapons, might should not be an important stat.
Other thing about pfkm. If i remember correctly, they follow the same pnp random encounters table as the module that they are adapting. And old games have it(deadly randomness) and i like it. It makes the world more dangerous. Not only on ToEE, but even on action games. On diablo 2, I lost my first hardcore necro against souls with auras that ohkilled me...
This is one of many reasons that i dont agree that deadfire is a conservative game. Compared to dos2? Of course. But not if compared to pfkm. I an not saying that the game is bad. Is one of the best modern games and most changes made from the first game was amazing. Even the ship combat i liked. Is not amazing but is imo better than the stronghold management on the first game who is far weaker than nwn2 keep management.
Btw, this is from the Pillars of Eternity wiki -- Might: "Might represents a character's physical and spiritual strength, brute force as well as their ability to channel powerful magic. During interactions, it can be useful for intimidating displays and acts of brute force. In combat, it contributes to both Damage and Healing as well as the Fortitude defense."
So, it is quite clearly defined as a much more all-encompassing concept of prowess than just "strength". It is all entirely logical, with the exception of firearms.
As for the random encounters in P:K -- the problem is that unlike in PnP, you cannot run away from a battle that has already started. So it's an example of adaptation that didn't quite work.
That is ok, that explains why might works with mages or priest, but my point is that there is no distinction between them. All is might.
So a character with 18 might is considered in-game as a character that has both spiritual power and physical power. He/she is going to be strong, period; be a fighter, a wizard or a priest; be orlan or aumaua. That is why he/she is able to lift mudded wagons and cast hotter fireballs. So if you can swing a greataxe dealing high damage you also are able to heal a high quantity of wounds. Because those are two actions that require the same expertise and are ultimately related? ... yeeeeeah, sure.
I can find certain logic in constitution, dexterity or perception definitions, but The thing I fail to understand is why they made a stat that includes all that. I mean, how exactly is it related spiritual prowess with brute force? Do you use the same measurement to both dimensions? Based on what similarities?
And why a wizard or a priest do not need a minimum of intellect if they have plenty of manuals and books to learn? How is that a fighter that goes toe to toe with monsters daily and charges fearlessly through enemy´s columns, holding the line despite the stabs and cuts; and anyway he/she could have a marginal resolve, a low force of will?
I can't really argue that there isn't really some role playing issues with how they use the might stat. I kinda just accept that if my mage does something using the might stat they didn't use physical strength to do it, but some form of magic, be it a blast or even telekinesis of some form.
That's just making the best of a very wonky situation though, its probably the one thing I wish they'd done differently.
That is ok, that explains why might works with mages or priest, but my point is that there is no distinction between them. All is might.
So a character with 18 might is considered in-game as a character that has both spiritual power and physical power. He/she is going to be strong, period; be a fighter, a wizard or a priest; be orlan or aumaua. That is why he/she is able to lift mudded wagons and cast hotter fireballs. So if you can swing a greataxe dealing high damage you also are able to heal a high quantity of wounds. Because those are two actions that require the same expertise and are ultimately related? ... yeeeeeah, sure.
I strongly agree but look to D&D CHARISMA. Is not only appearance, is not only capacity to lead/manipulate and not only an personal magnetism. IS an combination of all of then. This is why aberrations can have high CHA.
But there are an huge difference between attributes on D&D and on Deadfire. On Deadfire, Might affects damage/healing on everything, INT area on everything, on dnd, have an low CHA sorcerer is an awful idea, have an low INT wizard is an awful idea, have an Cleric with low WIS is an awful idea <...> And you can damage enemy attributes and make then unable to cast their top tier spells, lower their saves and DC's from their spells and IMO attribute damage is far more deadlier than normal damage.
Then think of this way, instead of changing the prominant stat for a class say for a sorc it's CHA and for a fighter it's STR, they change stats for the class so for a sorc CHA is now Might, and for a fighter STR is now Might. Hmm.. that sounded more logically explained in my head than it does now that I write it out, point being, we're so used that the stats are fixed and classes use the same stats differently. Perhaps it's the other way around in PoE, that stats are dynamic and change depending on class.
I dunno, I just don't feel it's such a big deal. It's just a mechanic and when you know about you can meta around it. You can still adjust the stats to impact the way a Mage plays out, focus on duration and radius, or focus on more damage for example. The stats is there to help you define your character if you stop fixating on the actual name for the stat.
On a side note though, Perception is still too mandatory. If you don't hit anything, it doesn't matter how much damage you can do in theory.
That is ok, that explains why might works with mages or priest, but my point is that there is no distinction between them. All is might.
So a character with 18 might is considered in-game as a character that has both spiritual power and physical power. He/she is going to be strong, period; be a fighter, a wizard or a priest; be orlan or aumaua. That is why he/she is able to lift mudded wagons and cast hotter fireballs. So if you can swing a greataxe dealing high damage you also are able to heal a high quantity of wounds. Because those are two actions that require the same expertise and are ultimately related? ... yeeeeeah, sure.
Ok, fair enough, looking at it that way, I agree that you do indeed have a good point there. There is indeed a lack of distinction where there should be some.
I can't really argue that there isn't really some role playing issues with how they use the might stat. I kinda just accept that if my mage does something using the might stat they didn't use physical strength to do it, but some form of magic, be it a blast or even telekinesis of some form.
That's just making the best of a very wonky situation though, its probably the one thing I wish they'd done differently.
The might stat makes sense from a mechanics and game balance standpoint: It ensures that priests could heal and deal damage or multiclass caster characters can use both weapons and spells with high damage output; all with the same stat. "One stat to rule damage all". You have to build up your perception anyway if you want to hit something and, depending on your build, your intellect or dexterity too, I think they made it to avoid too much stat spread in multiclass or priests.
That said, RP-wise, you have to be really creative when you use the might stat.
I know its a very small thing. But I absolutely LOVE that multiclasses have their own special calss names. It just adds flavor to the world. Paladin/Ranger tells you mechanically what the class is, but "Shepherd" jsut imples so much more from an rp standpoint.
Comments
There are builds and classes more powerful than others, of course; and that is what usually is discussed in forums, but it is not absolutely necessary.
You are incorrect. I went into the game with no prior knowledge, chose a build that happened to interest me at the time (a neutral two-handed-weapon-wielding female ranger) and just went on from there. I did just fine. My game difficulty was on Custom, meaning that it was basically set to "Normal" but changed so that all enemies had regular powers and did regular damage strictly according to the Pathfinder ruleset (instead of only 80% damage, as the game's "Normal" setting would ordinarily have it). Admittedly, my rather long experience with D&D and AD&D helped me there, but I have never been a powergamer or a min-maxer or what have you. I choose a character and class that happen to interest me at any given time, and then just wing it from there.
If you play on Hard or Unfair, you probably need to powergame, I'll happily grant you that. I have also noticed, by the way, that P:K threads seem to be populated by some rather intense power- and math-gamers whose approach seems completely alien to me, but please do not let them give you a completely erroneous impression.
Btw, in BG2, a beastmaster may not be non-viable, but it's pretty awful, don't you think?
It also has difficulty levels. If you want some sub-optimal roleplay setup, play on a lower difficulty. This isn't an issue, imo. While I agree every build should be viable in an RPG, as in, able to beat the game's normal difficulty, I'm not sure every build should be equal. And I think this is an issue with Deadfire, where it seems the game balance was shooting to have virtually every kind of setup be viable even on PotD difficulty. And that leads to flavorless options.
Anyways, inspired by some back-and-forth in this thread, I revisited the game and can compare it to OS, will probably write some more thoughts on it later.
This is precisely it. And not only does it lead to flavorless options, it also leads to the fact that unique items lose their meaning, because everything works as well as everything else. So things become a bit bland.
Now, I enjoyed both Deadfire and P:K, and wouldn't actually want to choose between them, but I think it's painfully clear that Deadfire suffered from this "overly balanced" approach, quite a bit actually. P:K suffered from other things, such as overly cheesy writing and some frankly astonishing technical issues (walking speed too slow and non-adjustable, sprites being triggered way too easily when you press the mouse button anywhere near them, slow tactical combat mode activating apparently at random although I never ever wanted it to be activated even once, and so on).
Viable and optimal are two different things.
For eg, if i wanna create an sorcerer that only knows frost spells, i would have an hard time against white dragons, against undeads, etc and struggle against this enemies is an con that my build has to deal. Nosferatu on VtMB struggle in social encounters and it makes sense.
As for PF:KM, you don't need to power game, i created an sorcerer with silver draconic bloodline and ZERO fire based spells, most cold/electricity and despite some problems on vordakai's tomb, i managed to beat the game in a custom difficulty much harder than normal. Unless you play on "unfair", most builds except few awful multiclassed ones are viable.
When you are playing MP you cannot reduce the difficulty, and maybe I want to play a particular class but if the game is not balanced you are stalling the rest of the party because you do not want to play one of those OP classes.
Maybe you do not like to make another ranger in a party or 4 rangers in DoS2, play even another Weapon master in NWN or one of those monk-dragon disciple-Frenzied berserker builds in NWN2 (I do not know even how to RP this one o.O )
It doesn't seem that erroneous from what I've played, and I've heard that the devs addressed some of the issues with the endgame areas to make things fairer. But I am restarting the game at some point because my first run I felt was mainly a test run to get a feel for the game. I don't really know if I like it a lot, but its definitely at least not giving me the feeling the Original Sin games where it was like "I really don't like any of this" after a while.
Btw, it took me about five minutes to realize that Original Sin is not for me. Luckily, that was quickly enough to get a full refund from Steam. It's just not interesting, to me. Ditto for Tyranny.
IF the game was more pnp like and people role played their builds, those problems will not happens; Keep in mind that all D&D/Pathfinder adaptations with the minimum consistency had broken OP builds. This video is from VtM, but shows how an power gaming mindset can ruin an proper RPG
I don't see how someone can have fun power gaming in a SP game. Nor think that the game needs to take out variety and fun to fight power gamers.
Nope. I actually like the Beastmaster.
The archer, btw, is rather hopelessly overpowered in BG2. Corwin in SoD was just nasty, because the kit is so überstrong.
IMHO Tyranny is in par with P:k and PoE in everything besides character creation. Also has more real "meaningful choices that change the world" than the other two combined, but I suppose that does not show until a few hours of gameplay.
@ThacoBell, PKM today and PKM at release seem to be quite different. I bought it at release and played a bit then but didn't like it so much so stopped. Now a year later I play again and my experience is quite different. The patching during the year has changed the game to make it quite smooth for a casual ("powergamer", meaning I like the meta) player like myself. Whenever I don't find the answer for a spell or similar, I just ask it in the PKM thread here in this forum and generally I always get an explanation quickly.
There are many things about PKM I don't like, but there's a lot more that I really like. It's a really solid game nowadays and not very hard at all (though I am only in the mid-game). I've only reloaded a battle like 3-5 times, and two of those battles took 10 reloads each because I took a battle that was intended for higher levels which I was aware of but I wanted to try anyways (and did succeed in the end; wererats at level 3 and owlbears at level.. 7 IIRC).
Like Skatan says, there are many things about PKM I don't like, but there a lot more that I really like. I would go with that, too. And I would also stress that this contradictory aspect is quite pronounced in the game. I mean, obviously there are faults in BG2 or PoE or Deadfire, too, but they're a lot more manageable and not nearly as irritating. Some of the bad stuff in P:K is really, really bad. But it's a great game.
"In order to be an stronger mage, you need to go to gym, so you can produce hotter fireballs and put more powder and throw an heavier projectile in your arquebuss" ~Deadfire's logic.
"You, good for nothing priest, you only cure me to half, do you even lift, bro?"- Deadfire´s logic 2
The random encounter charts in PnP are also strange indeed. I remember fighting dire bats in a beach once. At noon.
You use might in scripted encounters to lift the dawstar´s wagon from the mud, or intimidate someone flexing the muscles in your arms; so I am pretty sure it is related to strength.
Other thing about pfkm. If i remember correctly, they follow the same pnp random encounters table as the module that they are adapting. And old games have it(deadly randomness) and i like it. It makes the world more dangerous. Not only on ToEE, but even on action games. On diablo 2, I lost my first hardcore necro against souls with auras that ohkilled me...
This is one of many reasons that i dont agree that deadfire is a conservative game. Compared to dos2? Of course. But not if compared to pfkm. I an not saying that the game is bad. Is one of the best modern games and most changes made from the first game was amazing. Even the ship combat i liked. Is not amazing but is imo better than the stronghold management on the first game who is far weaker than nwn2 keep management.
So, it is quite clearly defined as a much more all-encompassing concept of prowess than just "strength". It is all entirely logical, with the exception of firearms.
As for the random encounters in P:K -- the problem is that unlike in PnP, you cannot run away from a battle that has already started. So it's an example of adaptation that didn't quite work.
So a character with 18 might is considered in-game as a character that has both spiritual power and physical power. He/she is going to be strong, period; be a fighter, a wizard or a priest; be orlan or aumaua. That is why he/she is able to lift mudded wagons and cast hotter fireballs. So if you can swing a greataxe dealing high damage you also are able to heal a high quantity of wounds. Because those are two actions that require the same expertise and are ultimately related? ... yeeeeeah, sure.
I can find certain logic in constitution, dexterity or perception definitions, but The thing I fail to understand is why they made a stat that includes all that. I mean, how exactly is it related spiritual prowess with brute force? Do you use the same measurement to both dimensions? Based on what similarities?
And why a wizard or a priest do not need a minimum of intellect if they have plenty of manuals and books to learn? How is that a fighter that goes toe to toe with monsters daily and charges fearlessly through enemy´s columns, holding the line despite the stabs and cuts; and anyway he/she could have a marginal resolve, a low force of will?
That's just making the best of a very wonky situation though, its probably the one thing I wish they'd done differently.
I strongly agree but look to D&D CHARISMA. Is not only appearance, is not only capacity to lead/manipulate and not only an personal magnetism. IS an combination of all of then. This is why aberrations can have high CHA.
But there are an huge difference between attributes on D&D and on Deadfire. On Deadfire, Might affects damage/healing on everything, INT area on everything, on dnd, have an low CHA sorcerer is an awful idea, have an low INT wizard is an awful idea, have an Cleric with low WIS is an awful idea <...> And you can damage enemy attributes and make then unable to cast their top tier spells, lower their saves and DC's from their spells and IMO attribute damage is far more deadlier than normal damage.
I dunno, I just don't feel it's such a big deal. It's just a mechanic and when you know about you can meta around it. You can still adjust the stats to impact the way a Mage plays out, focus on duration and radius, or focus on more damage for example. The stats is there to help you define your character if you stop fixating on the actual name for the stat.
On a side note though, Perception is still too mandatory. If you don't hit anything, it doesn't matter how much damage you can do in theory.
Ok, fair enough, looking at it that way, I agree that you do indeed have a good point there. There is indeed a lack of distinction where there should be some.
The might stat makes sense from a mechanics and game balance standpoint: It ensures that priests could heal and deal damage or multiclass caster characters can use both weapons and spells with high damage output; all with the same stat. "One stat to rule damage all". You have to build up your perception anyway if you want to hit something and, depending on your build, your intellect or dexterity too, I think they made it to avoid too much stat spread in multiclass or priests.
That said, RP-wise, you have to be really creative when you use the might stat.