The longer answer is: some people hate RNG to the point that they'd prefer a mostly broken and tedious binary system that's full of issues because they hate the classic gaming sense of rolling some dice with modifiers.
The problem with that line of thought is that chanced based or deterministic all-or-nothing aren't the only options.
You could also scale the magnitude of the effect(and that scaling could also be fully deterministic, fully random or random with some kind of scaling base).
An example I've used earlier:
Hard disables always work but duration can be reduced a lot with some kind of armor/stat/resistance system. They could last for <1 turn, by removing some AP from the target and bumping its initiative down(for the next turn if it already finished its move).An example based on the current armor system, fully deterministic
- target has totally intact 50 armor, hard CC only has 20% base effectivenes so a 2 turn disable only takes away ~2 action points(from 8) and reduces initiative to 60%
- after doing 30 damage target has 20 armor, effectiveness goes from 20 to 68% so a 2 turn disable works for 1 turn and takes away ~1 action point/reduces initiative to 64% in the secondOther way would be making CON reduce physical effect duration, INT magical, attacker uses WIT to counter those
(not fully without an extreme difference)
Randomize the final effect between 50% and 100% of the modified strength to add some variance.
This would also make the currently weak CON/WIT a bit more attractive choices.
Also, I'm having the sneaking suspisicion that where they originally seemed to have taken ques from D&D for game one, the stat inflation and loot priority and lack of focus on special effects imply inspiration from things like Diablo, Grim Dawn, or Path of Exile.
The system reminded me of Diablo 3, too.
That game was designed with online only multiplayer and an auction house in mind, really feels out of place here.