OK, so attributes are out but everythng that they had an effect on is in. For those that want attributes and enjoy the role playing aspect that they provide, it should therefore be possible to mod them in.

I have always thought that Bethesda's implementation of attributes stank. Start off weak, stupid and clumsy and end up mighty, brilliant, and acrobatic. I have always preferred the D&D model where attributes define your character and are not infinitely mutable. You can get a bit stronger, more agile, more intelligent - but not that much. Strength is about your frame, agility about your natural athleticism, intelligence about your IQ. They don't define what your abilities, they define your potential.

With that in mind I can easily foresee a mod that creates an attribute system. IMHO a good system would create possibilities for a character but also define limitations - the latter being exactly the opposite of Bethseda's stated ideal. Nothing wrong with Bethesda's stated ideal except that I disagree with it . I want a character that is limited.

In a way I do not find Bethesda's implementation to be disconcerting provided that the ability to mod exists. IMHO the addition of perks offers way more in terms of modding than the elimination of attributes denies. I can see the possibility of all sorts of perk mods that could be directly hooked into attribute mods. We'll have to wait for the game before we know enough, but the more that i think about it the more positive I become.

I for one, would actually like to see something like that. Though I understand why they did away with attributes, I'm still sketchy on how the perks and all will play out in Skyrim until I see it.

I really hope that Modders will save the day of Skyrim, being able to mod Attribute in even if not able to kick weak dike perks off !!

Yeah, I can see an attribute mod after all, there were a lot of Morrowind like mods for Oblivion (for example, unarmored mod).

A quality, working mod won't come out before a year though...

It's amazing how much D&D has changed.... my main exposure to AD&D v3.5 was the D&D Online MMO. I was surprised to find out that you regularly gain a stat point every few levels, plus there are +stat enchantments on gear, from buff spells, from magic tomes of stat gain, etc.... a typical "focused" melee fighter, at lv20, will typically have 30+ Strength. Kind of crazy, if what you're used to is the older editions.




I've mentioned this before in a previous "hey, let's mod it back in!" thread, but.... if you really think about it, modding attributes into Skyrim is actually a monumental task - at least as long as you actually make it mean something. You need to define the attributes and what effects they have on the game; modify the character creation, character sheet, and level gain interfaces to show them; you need to modify enchantments and buff spells (if you want those to possibly effect stats); you need to define stat ranges for all the NPCs and monsters in the game (plus how they scale by level of enemy, if you're making it compatible with the world scaling system); you need to modify the combat and skill systems to take into account any bonuses or penalties of the stats; you need to modify the quests and dialogues if you want them to base any conditions off stats; and finally (the big part) you need to rebalance the entire game (defense, offense, weapon damage, armor protection, combat, spell power, etc) to take into account the things you've added.


So. Yeah.


(of course, you can make a simple "hey, we added attributes!" mod. But it won't really mean anything unless you do all that stuff I mentioned. And probably a number of other things I've forgotten.

The proof is in the pudding.
If Bethesda do their job properly, there would be no incentive to download an attribute mod.

We will see if Attributes are needed or not by the mod download demand. Someone, somewhere, would mod attributes. The question is, is anyone going to want to use them once they tried the vanilla game?

We will see. There is nothing wrong with what Bethesda want to do with Skyrim; the only question is the execution of the ideas they have.

while I hope what governed Attributes is still in there somewhere (because it was early in development) I'm a little iffy about it being possible, If Todd Stated that Raising Health gave you strenght/Resistances/More Endurance, that Stamina Rose your Speed/Jump height/how much fall damage you take/ etc etc etc, then fine.....but he didnt instead he said, we took out INT because it only effected Magicka so...all you need is magicka. instead of changing it like they are doing everything else :shrug:

If there is enough demand for attributes to be modded in, I suspect that there will be some mods that try to do it. How well the mods will work is something that we don't know yet, and it may have to wait until the script extender mods turn up.

I don't understand the reasoning behind removing attributes. The only expanation that I have read does not really hold water. Even if the attributes were not fully utilized in Oblivion, there is more to attributes that simply calculating three final values. Saying we can drop them because that is all that they do is wrong. They do more than thata great example is a Strength check in one of the DLCs. Attributes (Strength and Agility) are used for weapon damage calculation. They link together like skills in a way that can only be done crudely with perks alone. As for fixing the leveling system, that should not have been too difficult to do even with attributes still in (for example gained by default based on actions to fix the +5 issues).

Finally, I don't understand the removal of character customization at the start. I thought that that was the entire point of playing through the game again. To try different starting combinations. Some people are stronger, others smarter and that should be reflected in character customization. I have tried quite a few combinations and I have found none of them truely broken. Some are harder than others (my best results are with fighters + restoration), but they all proved possible. Now, it appears that apart from race, everybody will be the same, great now my mage will be as strong as that guy in heavy armor. Defining characters at the beginning is a key feature, someting that should be bragged about instead of removed (no classes, attributes, or birthsigns counts as removing or at least greatly reducing). If you are worried, then add a default for each race that is reccomended for players new to this type of game or those not sure how they want to play.

Edit: Just because some attributes were not fully realized (Intelligence or Endurance), should not mean that all attributes should go (Strength, Agility, Speed, Personality). Fix the broken ones, don't break the ones that work!

There are some things that just can't be modded in. Its not like the Construction Set gives you a decompiled version of Bethesda's code.

Morrowind has modded in new skills.........and Oblivion....

Before the nannering "spreadsheety!, that's redundant!, bgs can do no wrong!" crowd steps all over this....I believe Arriere is speaking not about limiting potential character development, but in limiting ones ability, by choice, from the outset to send a character down a certain path where they won't be almighty in everything under the sun at the end. The same ultimate goal that BGS seems to be working for, just a different starting point.

I would like to be able to do both. Start with a flat character, or start with a certain path in mind. More options, better gameplay, imo.

While I vehemently disagree with attributes being gutted I do see potential in what you are looking with the system they seem to be creating. It would be with various options in the so-called hardcoe mode. (ie a warrior type character with no access to magicka, a mage with stunted warrior skills, etc) You can create various hardcoe options to enhance or stunt certain skills while still maintaining access to their perks. Maybe a hardcoe warrior would have enhanced warrior skills and stunted magic...where a warrior skill at 75 means more while a magicka skill at 75 is less powerful...



Personally, I see both systems by themselves as limiting. Having both a well developed attribute system working in conjunction with a well developed tech tree to unlock skills and abilities would be amazing. One just cannot fully work in place of the other. You'd need hundreds of perks to cover for 8 attributes in a perk centric game and you'd be limited in choices in unlocking abilities without perks and only attributes.

In the end you are probably right. It would be easier to mod attributes back in than it would be to mod in a whole perks system.

There probably are no good explanations out right now because, well, there are no good explanations that PR would allow them to admit to. I can think of a few that make more sense:

1. They tried doing something sweet with attributes and screwed up royally. So much so that it was easier to scrap it and move on.

2. One or two devs had a bug up their backsides with attributes and have, successfully, worked to cut them out.

3. Attributes were cut in order to spend time on and explore other avenues.

Number 1 is understandable. While it makes sense it does not fall in line with history. Attributes were treated like a red-headed step child in OB, there is no evidence to suggest they were given any more consideration this time around. Number 2 falls in line with how poorly they were treated in OB. But, this selection implies that the devs fail to understand how important character development is to many people that play games like this. Number 3 is probably the most likely. Rather than improve a good system they decided to try something new and now are forced to work backwards to fill in the gap that attributes once stood in.

You're right - the explanations given don't really hold water.

My conclusion is that the primary reason for the removal of attributes is that it would've been a difficult task, at best, to balance them with perks and their existence would potentially have made perks less significant.

Presume that the attribute of strength still existed and still affected melee damage. Then presume that there are a number of perks that also affect melee damage. If the additional damage granted by the perks was set to grant relatively low strength characters sufficient damage to get by, then it would make relatively high strength characters overpowered. If it was instead set to prevent high strength characters from being overpowered, it would have left low strength characters gimped. And if it was set with a fixed maximum, then the perks would be of less use, and potentially no use at all, to high strength characters. Additionally, the range between the damage done by low strength characters without the perks and high strength characters with the perks would be much greater than the range between characters of the same strength, with and without the perks, which would've made it much more difficult to balance the game world to accomodate different characters. All of that adds up to much more work to balance things, and to the possibility that perks would end up being less significant than they would otherwise be. So attributes were eliminated in order to avoid that work and in order to make the perks as significant as possible.

That makes sense to me, and seems to be a much more likely justification than those offered so far.


To the topic - it's all going to come down to what it will take to access and manipulate the numbers representing the things that were formerly affected by attributes. For the most part, it's either been confirmed or is safe to assume that those numbers will not be fixed - that there will be mechanisms in place to raise or lower them. So it will just be a matter of hooking into those existing mechanisms. Almost certainly not an easy task by any stretch, but at least possible. Some of them though (movement speed and jump height/distance, for example) haven't even been confirmed yet to be variable or alterable, so that remains to be seen. For the most part though, I'd count it as possible but difficult and time-consuming, so while I'd expect mods to address it somewhere along the way, I also expect that it'll be a while before we might see one that does anything significant well.

I agree with that reasoning. It does seem quite possible that they got rid of them to avoid balaincing issues (perhaps early expiriments/planning did not turn out well).


I agree with your thoughts on 1 and 3. As for 2, the best way to check this is to see if there is anyone newly appointed to a leadership position. I have seen many examples where someone has a pet project/idea that they have always wanted to try and when they get the chance they do with without actually paying attention to the side effects of what they are doing. If there isn't anyone new, then option 2 is off the board. If there is someone new, espically in a related area, then there is a good chance that option 2 is the problem

I had thought about it... but all that they effect is not [likely] present in the game... so such a mod would require additional scripting for each and every quest, and additional dialog for every significant NPC.

[As well as changes to the combat system & skill systems; and ideally (though by no means required)... changes to the appearance and animation of the PC.]

This kind of thing has to have been in from first concept.

Its the exact same situation with Fallout 3 and no turn based combat... Turns are not merely a delay and one thing acting before or after another ~that's just how it may appear with a cursory glance, but there is a lot more to it than that; as it is with including meaningful PC attributes.

That would make sense if you looked at this issue assuming that a tech tree could be used to govern what, imo, attributes can do better.

Let's pretend for a second we end up with a well-developed character system in SR:

We have the attributes characters in SR still have this obscure esoteric spreadsheety thing called strength. Among other things, strength governs to some degree melee damage in all of the 40 weapon-type skills (give me a break, I'm pretending here!). You get stronger when you use those skills, you get weaker when you don't use them or you are attacked in a manner that impacts your strength. You spend your days clubbing baby seals so you are both very strong and skilled at clubbing the seals. Since you are strong you crack lambs skulls with a staff with some competence. But since you are unskilled with the staff you are not as good at it as one who is both skilled and strong. Makes sense.

Lame SR version: We have no attributes. Your character has no strength and is nothing more than a collection of unlinked skills and perks. He has all the baby seal clubbing perks so he is still skilled at that. He then picks up a staff to crack lambs skullls, and.....the lambs baaa! back in laughter.... because he has no strength in his unskilled/unperked swing.

Getting back to your comment, yes, perks can make up for attributes. You could even have perk trees not linked to skills that would suffice as an attributes system. What does not work is no attributes and no system in place that can be used to govern the interactions between linked skills/abilities. This is the rub that I have not seen addressed.

You appear to have mistaken my intent. I don't agree with the reasoning I outlined in my post and have absolutely no interest in attempting to defend it. I merely believe that that's the reasoning that was used.

I wish they had thought of another name for 'perks'. Perks mean 'added bonus' or privilege.

In Fallout they were intended as a customization that bent the rule a bit for the player.

In Skyrim... They are seemingly become the rule, and PC 'development' is hinged upon them ~which is sad IMO.

**Also "Perk" in this context is an 1800's word, and has no place in a fantasy epic with knights and mages.

Neither is attributes, stats and intelligence are very "archaic" words...

Point ?

(Meaning... you focus on a minor aside at the end of the post, to discount the entire argument on semantics?)

My point is stop complaining how it is called Perks... it's pointless.

No... Its silly, I call it as I see it. And the term has connotations for Fallout series players.

2 and 3 are kind of interlinked. If this is a leadership issue it would go back all the way to the time between MW and OB because that is where the major break in attributes occurred. Either way, I wrote it as if there would be just one jerk behind the scenes ruining gameplay for so many of us. This likely is not the case. More likely that they thought they had a better way to handle it and worked to see their vision made into reality.

From my limited perspective, if the game came out tomorrow with nothing more than what we have heard: 3 stat bars, 18 skills, perk trees attached to those skills....

We would have some gaping holes in the characters.

We are stuck with no attributes like it or not, and if you play on console, or on pc before a working mod comes out, you have 4 options :
1. Don't buy the game
2. Give them the benefit of the doubt, realise it is dumbed down, and lament the missed opportunity.
3. Give them the benefit of the doubt, realise you can make a game without attributes, and fully enjoy TES V.
4. Pay good money, but spend the whole time you play looking for level scaling, and moaning about the lack of attributes, so you don't enjoy the game you paid for out of your own pocket.

Only option 4. makes you a guaranteed loser.

My apologies... I thought I had seen you posting and being openly critical of the attributes changes....I just like to crow about this whenever I get a chance.

:turned: