Larian Studios Forums Divinity: Original Sin 2 Divinity - Original Sin 2 - General Initiative, how it works now?

You still need Ini so your team get to go first. IF you go first, the order is You-Enemy-You.

As it is normally impossible to break the shield alone without super strong gears and still, you need at least 2 people to help with the focus fire/attack.

Because you get to act twice before the enemy 2nd person get to act, you can easily focus fire the enemy 2nd-to-act and CC him. Any extra AP can go to the 3rd person. IF the 3rd person is strong enough, you just shut off 2 enemies action on the first turn and win the fight.

If you cannot view that as a massive advantage, you cannot discuss tactics. That method can still get you a legit 2-turn teamwipe like you can always do on EA, just with actual planning that involves thinking about the enemies.

This is not even counting 3-side battle where if you go 2nd, you go 3rd because the 3rd side count as enemies and it will go enemy side 1 - enemy side 2 - you. You get hit twice as much so if your team don't get wit, you better be pressing retreat.

And what opportunity cost? You already reach the cap at level 15 on those. What are you gonna invest in next? Mem? They also went and nerfed the slotted rune crit chance on amulet form 30-40% to 10-15% since Act 3 unique gears no longer have 3 slots for fire runes. Wit is now stronger to guarantee that moves like Arrow Storm will actually deal significant damage to bosses in Act 3 that don't have the size of an elephant.

If simply saying "Nah they're not useful cause I say they aren't" is the only arguement you can come up with to say a stat is weak, you're not being constructive and helpful. There's a reason why people around here keep trying to avoid bringing Con up. They just want the wombo combo abuse back in the game.

Please stop defending the existence of the Wits attribute in its current state. You're only embarrassing yourself.

When you can't even provide a proper rebuttal, the only one embarassing themselves are the only who just stick to whining instead of trying to think of a way to beat the game.

The amount of excuses people come up with ridiculous. Chanting "D1 EE D1 EE" like a holy bible is like people who just "MY LUCIAN MY LUCIAN" in game.

Get with the time and learn the game instead of being so stubborn and entitled.

Except you conveniently pick an ideal situation which hardly ever presents itself in-game.

- Enemies usually LoS you, which means they have to move before you can even target them.
- Enemies usually nuke one of your characters so hard that you need to blow APs on saving them.
- Your group may require quite a few actions to become effective in the first place. Summons, buffs etc. all eat up AP.

Now if your characters put points into WIT instead of STR, FIN, or INT then your tactic will be even weaker. Since they may not have the power required to CC anybody (assuming everything above aligns in your favour), the plan goes out the window. Which has been our point for the last 5+ pages.

I would also like to point out, once again, that the game is not only the final few hours when you have maxed all attributes and are all pimped out with legendary gear on all party members. You also have to account for the time during which people are levelling up -- those can easily be 30+ hours of gameplay! -- and still have greens and blues in their inventories.



A lot of people have tried different avenues to explain to you the shortcomings of the current WIT and initiative system in a clear and succinct manner. Calling them unconstructive and unhelpful is a rather ungraceful way of pulling out of the discussion.

I actually stomped through the game with 20 Wits in Act 1 using Ifan Crossbow, 30 Wits in Act 2 and 40 Wits in act 3 so you can't claim that Wit doesn't work as I never experience those situation unless my gears are heavily outdated which only happened once in Act 2 and that's at the Dwarven cave while I was still gathering information and figuring out how to destroy Act 2.

I mentioned this before that I can even make a list of who sells what and how to unlock them the moment you step into driftwood and turn act 2 into a joke, the same thing people can do to Act 1 once they know where to go in Fort joy to reach level 4 with no fighting from just tracing my steps.

You immediately lose every right to say "I deal no damage if I go first" or "Enemies are too tanky" or "We don't have enough armor" from playing with outdated gears If I give you the list that I discovered on the VERY FIRST PLAYTHROUGH.

When you have the weapon, you don't need ridiculous Fin to deal damage. You get ini and wit and kill half of the enemy team before they even move as long as they are not 2-3 levels above you. So if anything, the whole 5 pages of "Wit build has no damages" can be considered a bunch of people that are struggling trying to come up with excuses.

Want a list? Use it so everyone will say you exploit the game for knowing how to play. Use it so you can go Wit build and see why going 1st is still opasfk and I'm playing EA-ish with 2-3 enemies getting disabled just from range attack on the first turn.

Difficulty in turn-based game come from lack of information.
If you're struggling, it's because you lack the information.
And if you lack information, your words carry less weight in a discussion.
And if you refuse to accept new information while continuing to whine, you become a part of the group called "Monkeys and typewriters" simply waiting for a miracle patch or some kind of keyboard smashing moment that actually beat the enemies.

Ellezard, I've had about enough of your toxic arguments.

Your position does not get any stronger by denying anybody who does not play the game the way you do the right to form and voice their opinions. Who do you think you are?

There certainly are people who do not wish to powergame at the expense of discovery and roleplaying, yet still want game mechanics to make sense. You cannot point at some guide, say 'just read this before playing, screw RP' and hope to squash all cricitism by calling people stupid whiners if they do not powerplay to compensate for weaknesses inherent in the game design.

This is just terribly toxic diatribe and I'll bow out at this point. A lot of people have said good things in here, it's up to Larian now to decide if they want to make use of it or not. I'll just conserve your best comments for posteriority.

If you're going to argue, at least know exactly what you're talking about. If you're going to roleplay, stay away from modes like Tactician. Stop trying to bring that up because tactician is no place for roleplaying. it's for challenges. The mode description outright say that it is for those looking for challenges. Look for classic and explorer instead where any build can work, including high wit slave build.

This is like going to a math class and review it horribly for not teaching how to art. Then you write complaints asking for the teacher to be changed without caring about the other students in the classroom that are actually doing well and trying their best.

I really don't find it surprising the one whining always back out or just scream "exploit" when tips and tricks are offered anymore. They're not there to listen and learn how to beat the game. They're just there to whine and scream "you're wrong".

Yeah, how dare we expect Larian to do the thing they literally promised they would do and took money from people to do.




I'm sorry, what was that?



Silly us!

Good grief, I should know better but... ugh.



I never did. Initiative is an issue everywhere. This thread is about initiative. Not tactician mode.



[citation needed]. I find it absurd that you claim 'roleplaying' and 'challenge' to be mutually exclusive.



You know, since you apparently keep making that observation: there's the old adage that if patterns keep repeating, it is advisable to search for the one common factor. To help you on that quest, I submit this for consideration as possibly not the best way to create a positive climate for productive discussion:



The only one screaming that 'you're playing it wrong' is you.

Aaaaand with that I'm really done in here, good night folks.

@Stabbey

The description isn't wrong though.

AI with higher stat makes different plays than AI with low stat because they can now make risky play and actually use stuff like Reactive armor to hurt the player.

And they always make the best play, go for your squishy back line and do whatever they can to kill them.

Some of the complaints are asking for the grunt AI to get dumber. Like, wat?

Try stacking leadership and you will see how AI begins to take ages to act. They are always calculating the best move that will hit.

People just can't get past the extra stat so they never notice the rest of the changes that follows. Most of them refuse to even play through act 1 on tactician and just stick to complaining.

The golden key to reviewing something is to make sure you go through it first. People that rage quit around the start shouldn't even be allowed to judge it.

@Terodil:

Initiative is an issue? Or is it just a thing people that play D1 EE and EA are complaining about because they refuse to adapt the changes.

Majority of the complaints come from the same group. People that start the game fresh and join the forum will actually spend look up for tips instead.

You don't see min-maxer going "Lol don't touch Tactician if you're a noob" right away.



Instead, it's the darn group that go "lol tactician is a crap mode. Also the stat suck. Also the build suck. Lol if you enjoy the game you're not a fun person."

IT's only when the other side is so dense the min-maxer will actually start trashing them.

If you still can't see the impact of going 1st and going 2nd in a turn-based game, you can't talk about the strength of initiative because it shows your lack of understanding. I already gave a good example of how ridiculously strong it is to stack wit and go 1st and lo and behold, it's the usual "WEll, we're not min-maxing or know everything about the game!" excuse.

If a person is doing something right and actually enjoying the game, you can't say they're wrong because they're having fun.

It's the one that are complaining that must defend their position or they're the one in the wrong for killing their own enjoyment with their standards and lack of skills.

I don't find the "It gets better if you just make it through the first 10-20 hours of frustration" argument that convincing. That's a lot of time sunk in, with no guarantee that the players will start to suddenly enjoy it.

When the most visible change in difficulty level is not new enemies, not new skills, but exactly the same kind of numbers game they said that they would NOT do, of course people are going to complain. They are not wrong to do so.




Yes, and do you know why? To actually give the sense that these enemies are behaving based on what they are, and not just following an identical script which goes "ignore the tank, run straight through several player characters, eating AoO's and go for the mage way in the back."

The AI being so smart actually can be a bad thing, because it means, for instance, that players cannot properly run tank characters, because the enemy ignores them. If there were some enemies who were smart and ignored your tanks, and some enemies who were less smart and did not, that would have a dramatic impact on the effectiveness and fun of the tank playstyle.

It also can't help but feel like cheating when they target your masked and disguised Undead character with healing spells, even though they shouldn't actually know that the character is undead.

Smart AI is good, but AI which feels more like it's blatantly cheating is less satisfying to fight.




When I see (many) Tactician players going essentially "Tactician is fine, and if you don't play on it, you don't need to think at all. Only losers who hate challenge do not play on Tactician", then yeah, I get offended at the barely-hidden arrogance.

It cannot have escaped your notice that not everyone enjoys the current Tactician difficulty. D:OS 2 Tactician is different than D:OS 1 Tactician. It is a fact that you cannot lower the difficulty in Tactician mode. Add on top of that the "just finish Act 1 before deciding" is a fairly decent time commitment.

If for some reason, those people are among the half or so of Tactician players who do not like it, well too bad, all that time was wasted and now they have to restart. That's going to sour the experience a lot more than starting out on Classic and later deciding to bump it up.




If Larian had to hardcode turn order like that, then they severely messed up somewhere along the line. Without Wits working on ALL teammates, then it simply doesn't do enough to justify its existence. No, 1% Critical Chance and treasure find isn't enough. Wits shouldn't exist. It's a remnant of a broken design.

It's telling that the players never saw any of this happening, it was all done by Larian after Early Access effectively ended in May (by that I mean players no longer got to give feedback on further changes to mechanics).




I'll thank you to not tell me what I am or am not enjoying. That is for ME to decide.

"Lack of skills". You're really earning your arrogance points. There is absolutely nothing wrong, at all, with people who first like to play on Normal difficulty. You do not get to presume that they MUST be unskilled loser idiots because they don't just jump into the hardest difficulty for their first playthrough.

Comments like that are why you're getting a lot of flak.

Yeah: I don't play D:OS as a strategy game, I play it as an RPG. I don't particularly enjoy strategy and have no interest in developing that skill as it's a bit close to the sort of thinking I do in my day job. If people want to play it as a stats-laden strategy game then good luck to them but it has no sort of special correctness about it.

I guess it's a bit like me as someone who can do 3D modelling (okay, I'm not great at it but bear with me) saying that anybody who can't or won't just gets to wear rags in the game because anybody serious about it would learn to do 3D modelling and create their own armour to enjoy things properly, which I suspect would not be a very convincing argument. I hope.

Anyway, the different difficulty levels are there for a reason and it's not so much to do with the skill of the player and more to do with their preferred style of gameplay. As someone who likes RPGing, exploring and dialogue I'm not going to change the gameplay mode to one that pretty much demands I spend most of my time carefully strategising. But I think for someone not familiar with the game, some are certainly more accessible than others.

Long post, beware.

To be honest, after reading every (almost every, skipped some at the end) post, I got quite discouraged. Hiver really shouldn't have used foul language, but I believe that TsunAmik and Ellezard think they're speaking for the majority when they, I would believe are the minority in all this. Or they truly believe they're right. If you believe you're right there's just no way about it, even if the proven smartest person in the world would tell you differently, you would say "No. My point is right, because of this." If you're disproved then you'll try to alter your point to take the lead of the conversation again and the smartest person in the world would have to tail around your every branch-argument until he gets tired of it.

(I'm not implying anyone's a genius or stupid here, just using an example of someone leading others on, doing their best not to be proven wrong, even if they just might could be.)

Either way, I only made an account to reply here because I noticed people evading the main issue here. I got in this thread in the first place when I noticed that my party is not going first despite how many points of initiative I invested in them. I usually like to game casually, if I feel like min-maxing, then I'll min-max the best solution, but I prefer a game with a lot of diversity. Ellezard keeps talking of the game as if there is only ONE, single solution. That is to read a guide and buff the **** out of your damage and follow procedures. I don't agree with this.

Anyway, enough of that. Min-Maxing is one way to play which people like Ellezard like to do, but they don't like it when Min-Maxing becomes too easy. Then why do you do it? They do it because it's there, the most optimal way to play it, if it's too easy, boring. If min-maxing is challening, then yes, awesome. But you forget to consider that not everyone likes min-maxing. While tactician mode should be more challenging and not allow willy-nilly builds of the most stupid things, it should not limit the whole game to a single play style. That's just... making everything else redundant. I'm not saying the game is limited to a single play style right now, I've beat the first chapter with various builds now. What I'm saying is, 'round-robin' is limiting a lot of options. Like many before me mentioned.

The whole notion of tactics... Okay... Let's think about this now... Tactics. You know every ambush location, every thing the enemy can do, just don't know how they'll come about doing it yet. You know how many of them will be, how to place your characters. Everything is calculated. While it is sort of tactics... Knowing everything about your enemy while your enemy cannot respond to any of it because you're practically god in this scenario... You know, your reason about this being tactical is lost here, what's the point of 'tactics' here? It's not tactics, it's just blatant manipulation of 'history' because you know what happens because you went through it, so you did the optimal solution.

The whole thing about tactics is that tactics happens in the moment. The first time you got into that scenario without any previous knowledge of what will happen, without save-loading, without having tested your tactics before. Maybe someone before that area told you it could happen, maybe a note, maybe something felt odd and you were careful. That's tactics, but knowing about it before-hand in some god-like out of area knowledge... I wouldn't call that tactics, though I'm not sure what word to put to it.

What I want from this game? Initiative to mean something other than party-placement. Heck, for some real tactical gameplay. I would love if they left initiative as it was in EA and implemented unpredictable systems such as in real life which if you're battling on shore, you might get hit by a tsunami wave due to a kraken off-shore sinking a ship. Everybody gets literally knocked off their socks. (I know this is unlikely to happen, and is very improbable, but I created this scenario for my next hypothesis) Everyone's knocked down, who gets up first? First guy for initiative to move? Or would it be someone who's stronger? Higher strength usually means you'd get knocked down for less time, or might even get only pushed somewhere.

How about initiative? How come the guy with higher initiative gets to go first, rather than the guy who backstabbed him from sneak? Makes sense? I don't think so.

If your whole party is sneaking and one initiates combat, should the other party members get to move freely all they want? Doesn't seem fair or real time tactical to me. Everyone's standing still while your guys are just moving everywhere. If anything, they should get limited movement, and if they come out of sneaking they should get a bonus to initiative within the round to get an earlier move, after all, no one expected them, right? Call it the surprise factor.

Armor bonuses, I must say that while binary 100% and 0% are really not my style, I still prefer this armor system over DOS:1/EE. RNG chances are good and all, but bodybuilding and willpower can only affect so many things, it should have its limits. Still, I would prefer to have the best of both worlds. For example, something has 100 armor. You get them down to like 40. The next strike like an ability that would cause someone to bleed gets the target armor down to 2... I think the bleed effect should have a chance to be applied by this point, their armor is practically non-existant, there should have been possible skin contact.

The whole armor thing in the first place... If you bash someone's armor with a mace, it'll damage their armor, but I got to tell you something important, the guy inside should not be much better. The armor should limit TRUE DAMAGE, but it should not negate all of it. Same with magic armor. A spell shield, generally a mana shield or whatever negates all CC spells... I think that too should be Intelligence versus target's magic armor at some specific rate, if the skill check passes then check the target's stats. If the remainder of the intelligence passes whatever innate defenses the target has, then by all rights they should be turned into a chicken. (Yes, I think poly should be a magic-shield skill, not physical)

Example of this. Target has 100 Magic Armor. They also have their own intelligence of 10. They have 0 Polymorph (mind against mind). For some unknown reason your mage didn't invest in intelligence and he has 10. You have 5 Polymorph. You cast (Chicken Claw). Your 10 intelligence counts for 10 magic armor a piece (just an example of a system) so 100 magic armor. You negate their magic armor but they still have their own intelligence for you to get through. Let's say their intelligence counts for half because they're on the receiving end. So, 5. You have a poly level of 5. It's a draw, nothing changes, they barely resist. Now you hit them with a fireball and chicken claw them again and they have 68 magic armor.
10-6.8 for magic armor, you have 3.2 int to spare.
5Poly + 3.2 Int - 5 Enemy Int = 3.2! Your spell succeeded, they are now a chicken. I would love to see this kind of system, and it's not impossible, just extra work.
It doesn't have to be RNG, though low level RNG of a dice roll which is 1-5, or even 1-3 is really not that bad. I don't see why the two mentioned above are so against it, it's beyond comprehension to me.

For example this.. 3.2 to hit them with the chicken claw in your favor... But in real life your character is unable to control his/her bodily function and sneezes, losing his concentration (example of a die roll of 1) and you end up with a 4.2. While your enemy, full of fear and adrenaline of his impending doom is concentrated and ready to fight back and survive the impact. He rolls a 5. Because of your lack of concentration this ended up with a 4.2-5 = -0.8 in the enemy's favor, they barely resisted it. I mean, you tactics fanatics, can you control your sneeze and concentration 100% of the time, really? Factor that in your tactics, please.

The skill called Tentacle Lash that gives enemies atrophy if they have no more armor. All it does is make the enemy not able to use their weapons... I mean, I kind of understand the atrophy thing (not really, since once you have it, you don't lose it in one turn, per say), but a tentacle slap across your hands should have a probability to knock a weapon out of your hand, despite the heavy armor on your torso/arms/legs. Unless you literally have your glove glued to the thing.

Moving onto the point made about 4 player teleport and nuke... RNG doesn't have to be the thing to fix it... And this is the reason to turn this game into round-robin... really? Are you kidding me? This is the easiest solution ever. Someone said 4ap is an option. Yeah, why not. I think they should have it stat based. Like in the first game, if you're a weak shit with 5 strength, you can't throw a barrel at all. Same with this. If your intelligence is low, you should be able to lift a thing from only so or so far, and it being only so or so heavy. Or just one of them could change the dynamic drastically. Removing of things thereof is not necessary, it can be changed.

Now the topic of groups being AOE nuked, or boss nuked in 1-2 turns. Well... If you're a higher level than them it's only natural, but if we're talking about higher level enemies or same level, if you want to get around that, initiative groups can be avoided easy victory if the stats were configured as such. If the enemy have low initiative, they should either have higher damage, or higher health, or both depending if they're supposed elites or something. The easiest way to avoid this is by adding numbers to amount of enemies, sure, you can one hit them, or crowd 4 with teleport and nuke them. But having a variety of them spread out, you can't kill them all in one turn, though having that initiative did let you kill half of them, which is a bonus. But now your skills are on CD and you're on the defensive. If you're a DPS/TANK build, you could tank their attacks and kill them at your leisure. If you're a willy-nilly build, then you use your noggen for what spell to use to react to what they do here and there.

Of course, now and then you will always run into groups of 4 of them or so... But these should be (not always) more, elite, no? The fact that people are saying that you can spam AoE death on everything should be looked at and say, hm. Maybe we didn't give them enough health? Maybe we didn't add a higher AP requirement for stronger spells?

In Ellezard's case he min-maxes damage, he can only have so many CC spells, if he uses any in the first place. This means that after he uses his first wave of spells/abilities and damage, either the enemy's dead, or he should suffer some set-backs as everything he has should be on CD except base attacks. Because the enemy is not strong to get back up is not the fault of initiative, it's just that they're too squishy, or your items/levels make you too strong. Round-robin only limits other players of their own play style. After you nuked some heavy armored enemies, they should be able to heal and return the favor to make the battle last longer. Everything should be accounted for.

Now returning to bosses. If you can nuke a boss in 1 turn, then that's not even a boss. How could you even consider that to be a boss? That's just something stronger than other human/elf/dwarf/thing, but really, don't blame initiative on something you can CC in one turn and kill in the next. It should have higher resistances to CC, or have helpers, I mean who's stupid enough to fight a group on their own, even if they have a god-complex. And if they're not caught off guard (which is a tactic of its own, catching someone unprepared in an environment not to their liking), they should be buffed as it's their home base. They should have some kind of leverage.

Though I'll be honest right now. The people complaining that it's too easy, they're the same people who are doing their best to make it as easy as possible for themselves. They are playing the game in a min-maxing way, abusing (taking advantage of) every possible mechanic in the game, even if it's not intended to be done that way. That's why we have patches in the first place, give Larian some space to do their thing. However, if they don't like it, it should not limit the rest of us who like to relax and be nooby, going "Oh shit, my party almost wiped with one guy surviving with 30 health."

Another fact I've noticed, even in school, is that a lot of people just go with the flow, they may notice it, they may not, they may like it, they may not, but only the most extreme of the two ends will speak their mind (mostly). You never know which is the true majority/minority. I personally think that not even 70% of people who play reply on threads, they may read, but not always reply. Prove me wrong! Dare ya.

Oh, I almost forgot, it's my first post, hi all. This has been my rant.

TL:DR

Too many redundant arguments. To find out who's truly correct, LARIAN should put a poll up within their game that even the majority/minority would notice, they'd easily vote from in-game main menu if it's up there. They could look into what people truly like and don't.
(If there's been polls, sorry, I don't normally go looking so I didn't know)

That's what I get for not proof-reading my own sentences... Sorry folks for making you read that garbled mess if you read it before the edit, I just hope you got my point.

To add to the point of nuking enemies in one turn. There should be a clear line of AoE damage to direct damage. AoE spells should not do the same amount of damage to a single unit compared to a single target spell. It's meant to chip away at them, if you focused all four of your champions to do AoE, it should not win you the whole game as easily as playing by situation. Some fights should require you to use direct damage spells, some AoE, some both. If you focus on one, you should feel weaker in other fights because the enemies are more plentiful, or the enemies are stronger. Which again should not be blamed on getting first move of the turn.

In the end they sshould change like this:
1 wit = 1 crit + 0.5 dodge
1 memory = 1 slot + 1 initiative
1 vitality = 7% health + 2% armour
Order of useless stat right now :memory « wit « vitality.
Why create a stat (dodge) that player has no way of influence except through loot?

Or they could just combine "wits" with "finesse" and "memory" with "intelligence". It thematically makes sense, and it allows to have each basic stat with several effects (power + utility) and we get rid of useless ones.

To be honest, the WIT stat should never existed in anyway. It's a cut and dry stat when it has initiative bonus.

Initiative can be combined from str + fit + int + cons (every 2 points add 1 init) so that any built that doesn't focus on wit still good enough. Right now except for 2h and physical ranger, there is no point in putting point into wit onto anyone.

Wit can give crit + dodge bonus while initiative can be combined from str + fit + int + cons. Enemies also has those stat so late game is will not be just 4-man turn. So there won't be a reason for a shitty zombie with 10 wit move before my 20 wit mage.

Memory also, another super useless stat. Super duper useless. But the game is out already so i hope they can change wit like what i suggest, other stat (memory) is almost unchangeable if not required a whole game mechanic overhaul.

Whoever the heck has these idea of 6 AP max should not working on next title.
Don't fix what's not broken. More is sometimes better, not worse.

So will this be fixed in the foreseeable future?
It was a bad decision made probably under the pressure of time.
It doesn't make sense for the initiative system to work as it does as it even contradicts the game's existing systems.

I don´t really think so. Maybe in some enhanced edition overhaul for console release

Here's an argument about why this is clearly broken that I think most people could get. This game is about freedom to play as you like. So if you wanted, you could just roll up a party of four identical Fighters.

Now, I'm not even talking about Tactician difficulty, these four fighters are playing on Classic difficulty, and they are built pretty much identically, same attribute distribution, same ability distribution, same Talent distribution. (Maybe different civil abilities and slightly different skills, it doesn't matter.) With one exception: One of these fighters put an extra point into WIT, the others did not, putting it into something else.

Let's say that these fighters are pumping STR and WIT pretty hard, the majority of their points are going into STR and WIT. Because of this round-robin system, three of those fighters are getting exactly dick-all* value out of nearly the exact same point investment. The guy with +1 WIT is going to go first, then enemy/ally the rest of the way regardless of how much more WIT the rest of the party has compared to the enemy.

All those other points the three other fighters spent on WIT effectively give them no benefit compared to someone who never invested a point into WIT. And that's not right.

---

*(You'll notice that I didn't mention Critical Chance. That's because a mere +1% Critical Chance is not good enough for a primary attribute. That could easily be moved to be some combination of every two points into STR/INT/FIN (possibly not counting bonuses from items).)