Replying to Rack:
Since the attribute cap (that we know at this time) is probably 20 (5 fixed, 5 starting, 10 level-ups), I'll pedantically rephrase that example:
A STR 20, PER 5 warrior versus a STR 13, PER 12 warrior. That many stat points means you're probably fighting level 10 enemies or higher.
You think that the warrior with PER 5 - the same as a level 1 warrior - fighting level 10 enemies, should be able hit enemies often enough to out-damage the 13/12 guy. And you call that balanced.
No, that is not balance. If the 20/5 guy with the huge accuracy penalty can outdamage the 13/12 guy, that would mean that PER is not actually a useful stat to invest in. (That's another form of imbalance.)EDIT: Well, I can see your point. Yes, individual hits would do much more damage for 20 STR vs 13, but I think a 13/12 should still do more damage because there should be many more hits than with a 20/5. If PER is going to stay, it has to have a big enough impact on fighting to make an actual difference. If you can ignore it and still end up doing more damage overall, that's a sign that PER is not being as useful as it needs to be.
Intelligence as a Wizard's only necessary attributeFor the record, I don't mind that wizards only have the one stat. Given the large focus on using elemental magic, I think having magic only be one stat will make hybrid characters much more viable than if they needed 2 attributes to use for magic. My concern is that it seems like warriors will have a much harder time because they have to use the solitary attribute point they get per level to keep three stats at reasonable levels and stay effective. It's the
Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards problem.
