Frail wizards of frail races will end up with single-digit potentials then.

I don't see a huge problem with this. Potentials are potentials, a troll of any class will always have the potential to be stronger than a grey elf. What they do for a living determines how strong they currently are, but not how strong they're capable of becoming.

anon123: That is already the case for almost everyone starting at 8 To or below. Obviously there is a minimum difference (1) and that wouldn't change (presumably), so if you start with 9 To, you can always get to 10, for example.

Mekran: Yes & yes. Consider, though, that comparing the least & most tough races doesn't really serve any point (at least, when they are so, so, so different). Sure, a Troll Wizard would be stronger than a Gray Elf Beastfighter (even if you took class into account), but that's not helpful when considering how the current system works. It's more instructive to look at races that are a bit closer, and the difference is quite striking. What you do for a living should help determine how tough you can become--certainly, it is the case in the real world, and training your body as a Beastfighter should be very different from being a Wizard in its impact on both your toughness and your potential toughness.

I think potentials depending on race makes good sense. Elves are frail beings, they are slim by nature, their bodies and metabolism have just not evolved to have bulking muscles. Deciding to be a barbarian doesn't change that. An elf will just have a worse time being a barbarian due to his natural limitations.

Of course, this makes some R/C combos (like a troll wizard or an elven barbarian) difficult to play, but that makes sense, doesn't it? Some species are just better suited to some professions.

I think you're missing the point a little--I bolded the statement about races in the suggestion for a reason. I'm not asking for a large change, I just think the current behavior doesn't make much sense. Can a mist elf beastfighter really not have a potential difference of 3-4 instead of 1-2 and a gnome wizard have a potential difference of 3-5 instead of up to/over 7 (haven't done much rolling with gnome wizard) for Toughness? Is that really so out of the ordinary or game-breaking? (#'s are averages not some sort of actual range that every roll should fall in to)

I'm definitely not saying that class should be the primary factor, just that it should be considered at least a little bit.

(underline mine)

But if the "limit" was increased by training, then how was it a true limit to begin with?

I'm not sure what you're underlining, but potential toughness (or some other stat) has never been, is not now, and never will be a true limit. Just because herbs (and to my knowledge, only herbs) now respect the limit doesn't mean there aren't other methods available that affect it (the natural training you get from leveling up definitely works, Garth supposedly works but I never use him).

from the manual:
-The potential maximum attribute scores are based on the initial attribute scores. (absolutely and totally false)

edit: also, in another response to Al-Khwarizmi: actually elf barbarians & beastfighters and such aren't that bad a fit. They're very doable.

also, note that I use toughness a lot because I am very, very familiar with it and it is an easy example. That doesn't mean that this shouldn't extend to other stats.

It makes perfect sense for the barbarian to have their Toughness near their potential maximum, and for the wizard to have their Toughness well below potential max. Think about it - the barbarian grew up training hard in physical pursuits, and grew to be very tough. They're almost at the epitomy of their natural level of toughness due to this training. The wizard, on the other hand, spent most of their time in the library, learning, and thus never really achieved their genetic potential for toughness.

Similarly, you would expect a thief to have dexterity very close to max, while a farmer probably wouldn't have particularly high dexterity, compared with their max.

The max itself should be based on race, with perhaps a one or two point modifier for class (because your potential by the time you enter the drakalor chain is probably lower than your potential would have been if you had trained that stat harder as a child/adolescent. Your actual stat should be set relative to the natural maximum, based on class.

If there was going to be a change to the system, I'd make it so that classes work based on percentage of potential max. A wizard is probably going to have up around 90% of their potential max for learning, but a relatively low strength (say, 50% of potential max). As I understand it, the current system uses basic number modifiers - that is, you get X points for race, and then Y points for class.

Sorry, Aielyn, I don't think you're thinking this through at all. Maybe my examples are giving you the wrong impression, but that is not how ADOM works--at all. Potential difference* is almost entirely determined by race from what I can tell--a Wizard has exactly the same potential difference as a Barbarian on a Gnome (accounting for slight variation). For Mist Elf, Wizard and Barb will almost always have the exact same potential difference (of 1). This situation is not at all what I would expect--I would expect a Barbarian to be able to train his toughness more than a Wizard for any given race, regardless of the initial physical training. In addition, this state of affairs completely contradicts the manual.

The potential difference should be based mostly on race, certainly, but your proposition is very weird. For the first part, setting stats relative to the maximum (i.e. potential) would be a lot of work for nothing--the entire potential system would have to be redone completely to maintain the current status quo of starting stats, and then the starting stats themselves would have to be changed so that they relied on the potential max. It would also introduce a lot more variation since you're basically rolling twice (unless starting stats are supposed to always be a certain percentage of the potential, which would be kind of boring and out of the ordinary for ADOM), and could be done a lot easier by simply making the max rely on the current if you wanted to do it that way (which is how the manual states it is done).

As for the last paragraph--should we now drop the potential max for Le for Wizards, making it much harder to train? That does seem to make a lot of sense, especially given that Wizards are in a lifelong pursuit of knowledge, and I would expect a Wizard entering the Drakalor Chain to be able to absorb much more in that regard. It also doesn't make much sense to me that they would have some sort of sky-high strength potential. In addition, such a scheme seems pretty complicated to me, but then again so does my proposed scheme.

*in case this is not clear, the potential difference is the max minus the current. Potential is the same as Max.

I think one or two (three at most) extra potential points in a few key class stats would be good. It needn't be dramatic.

If the potential difference is controlled by race, then I agree, that's poor design. Do you have data to back up the claim that this is how it works?

But I don't see why my proposition would either be difficult to implement, or overly impacting the status quo. It's also worth noting that my suggestion was that that would be the starting values, before the rolling begins. There would then be randomisation on top of those values, because one wizard might have neared the top of their field, training their Learning to the max, while another might be much more mediocre, having only trained it part of the way.

The system is fairly straightforward - You choose a race, it sets the initial potential maximum. You choose a class, it sets the initial value based on the potential max (and possibly modifies the potential max before doing this - just to influence the values a little more). It then rolls the modifications as a random change to the values. And then, of course, it would apply the changes made by the question system (irrespective of whether you do it manually or let it work randomly).

If you choose a troll, you would expect to have a high potential strength, even if you're a wizard. On the other hand, a trollish wizard shouldn't start with strength anywhere near that of a trollish beastfighter. Similarly, if you choose a grey elf, you would expect to have a high potential learning, even if you're a barbarian... but a grey elven barbarian wouldn't have a very high learning score, despite the potential. After all, they never really trained it while growing up.

I have not gathered any data, and certainly don't plan to since it would be quite tedious and exhausting, but you can see this for yourself pretty readily for toughness by rolling a couple of, say, Gnome Wizards, then a couple Gnome Barbarians, then a couple Grey Elf Wizards, then a couple Grey Elf Barbarians. What immediately becomes apparently is that potential is almost certainly solely determined by race (for example, Gnome is almost always 7-8 potential, regardless of class), with the exception that your potential will never(?) be below 10.

Well, here's my problem (aside from just disliking the suggestion wrt how you are modifying potentials): currently, when you choose an r/c, it rolls to determine your starting stats and *then* sets the potential maximum. Completely changing the way this works is a lot of work for nothing (since they would presumably be technically equivalent). If one wanted to implement your suggestion, it would be a lot easier to just randomize the potential value, according to your scheme, after determining it. However, I dislike your scheme because it penalizes classes that are actually good at what they do wrt stats. Certainly, in the case of melee characters, they already have enough trouble without suddenly losing the ability to get their toughness to 25 on pretty tough races (possibly including such notable r/c's as drake barbarian--plenty of times I've started with To from 20-22 and a potential less than 30...not being able to get it to 25 would be absolutely criminal).

But... isn't that the whole point of making potentials more difficult to move? I was of the understanding that people disliked the fact that every character could get to around the same set of stats, that choice of race doesn't make a whole lot of difference by the end of the game (except perhaps the drakeling spit ability, the troll healing ability, etc).

Playing, say, a High Elven Barbarian shouldn't be easy - you're choosing a class that is quite a mismatch for the race. Part of the challenge should be overcoming the weaknesses of the race.

I don't think we got anywhere with this last time, but I want to bring this up for consideration again. I'd like to see some more nuance between classes of the same race, and I think this helps provide it - I've done a lot more rolling at this point, and this still holds up. I see no reason why a gnome wizard can train their toughness by 5,6,7,etc. points, but an elf beastfighter gets like 3. Class has a significant effect on the starting value of stats because certain classes have a lot more training in some stats compared to other stats/classes. It stands to reason that class should also affect potential to some extent.

I mostly agree with your view, SirTheta.
I have always felt that a race shouldn't be as crucial in determining the initial attributes as it is right now.
Anybody has the potential to train - trolls can get high learning by reading LOTS of books, grey elves can get really tough by constantly regenerating health, beating sickness or eating morgia.
My problem was always that starting race/class combinations were too widespread stat-wise - you could get a GE wiz with 13 To and 16 potential or one with 2 (3).
I'd like some day to see less variation in this regard and this RFE works somewhat in the same area - it does take the impact of class on starting attributes into consideration, which is good.

Corpses also now respect potential limits, as does encumbrance training. If there's other methods that don't, well, we can submit bug reports to get those fixed as well.

Potentials should be a hard cap. Otherwise they should just be eliminated entirely. Having a potential that you can increase using the same methods that you can increase the base score with is utterly pointless.

Well, recall that most of that was posted over a year ago :) This isn't about potentials being a hard cap, really (they still aren't, though - there are plenty of means to raise them throughout the game..). The point of this RFE is that race is pretty much the sole determining factor for your potentials - across the board - and class factors into it not-at-all (or very little). This means gnome wizards and gnome beastfighters have, on average, the same [or extremely close] different between potential and starting value of, say, toughness. Likewise, this means gnome wizards potential minus starting is much larger than mist elf, or gray elf wizard, or gray elf beastfighter, etc. - none of which is really right. This isn't to say that class should be the sole determining factor of potential (though it would be much better than just race, imo), but rather that your class SHOULD affect your potential. Mist elf beastfighters should have a higher toughness potential and lower learning potential than mist elf wizards; gnome wizards should be about half as tough, etc.

I think it makes the most sense for race to be the determining factor. It's a physical limitation based on the characteristics of your species. While there's going to be variations between members, which can be quite large, I'll grant, it's quite likely that an average orc--regardless of their profession--is always going to be stronger than an even the strongest hurthling.

Your actual attribute score, I agree, should be mostly dependent on class--a person who has spent much more time training is going to be much closer to their potential than someone who hasn't--but there is no reason that their potentials should be that different, or even that a wizard couldn't have a higher potential strength than a barbarian.

But it doesn't have to be one or the other (although, I definitely think having class be the sole determiner would be superior to race). Why can't class have some effect on potentials? I'm not really asking for mist elf beastfighters to outperform drake wizards wrt potential, but a little more differentiation besides "every elf class gets +1-2 toughness over starting for potential" or "every gnome gets the same potential - starting differential" would sure be nice. I believe I originally asked for some scale like mist elf beastfighter has potential - starting = 3-4 instead of 1-2 every time - this could easily be on par with a scaled back gnome wiz. Race would still have a large effect, but class would also do something (because you can TRAIN your stats higher very easily [just not with herbs]). This provides a lot of subtle differentiation of RCs (currently there isn't huge difference in like Gnome Thief and Wiz, this would accentuate diff.), which is something people always seem to be pushing for.

I stand by what I said before - potentials should represent the ability of the race to train a particular stat, and then classes should come pre-trained to certain levels in those stats. So a Trollish Beastfighter and a Trollish Wizard should have nearly identical potential Toughness, but the Trollish Beastfighter should be much closer to their maximum. On the other hand, a Trollish Wizard should have a much lower potential Learning than a High Elf Wizard.

Some variation due to class should certainly occur - a Trollish Wizard should have lower potential Toughness than a Trollish Beastfighter. So this is what I think should happen:

1. Race determines the base potential. Call this P0.
2. Random factor alters the base potential (representing genetic variation within a race). Let this factor be K, where 0.8<K<1.2.
3. Class adjusts potential from the altered base potential by multiplier C. So, for instance, a Wizard would have a multiplier of, say, 1.1 for Learning, but 0.8 for Strength. This determines the PC's starting potentials.
4. Starting stats would then be adjusted based on class, with classes naturally starting closer to potential max if it's an important to the class. For instance, a Wizard would start at 90% of potential for Learning, but 50% of potential for Strength. A Beastfighter would probably be the other way around.
5. Random variation (not multiplier) would then be applied to both stats and potentials, and then the opening question system would adjust both stats and potentials.

So for instance, consider a dwarvish wizard. The game would start with P0 at, say, 18 for Learning and 25 for Toughness (just chosen at semi-random, may not actually represent the usual biases for dwarves). The random factor, K, would then be chosen for each - say, 0.98 for Learning and 1.13 for Toughness. Being a wizard, Learning would be scaled by 1.1 and Toughness by, say, 0.75. From these, we can calculate the potentials. Learning is 18*0.98*1.1 = 19.4, which is rounded to 19. Toughness is 25*1.13*0.75 = 21.2, which is rounded to 21. So our dwarvish wizard's potentials would start at Le 19 and To 21.

Then the game would alter the stats themselves based on class. A wizard would be highly trained in Learning, so I'd expect Learning to be at about 90-95% of maximum. Let's call it 92%. Always rounded down for this calculation. So the starting Learning would be 17. A wizard's toughness would be low, so let's say 55%. So the starting Toughness would be 11. These numbers represent the fact that our dwarvish wizard is already highly trained in Learning, and thus is nearly at their potential max already, while they haven't been exposed to things that would toughen them up, so they have a lot more room to improve in Toughness.

Finally, some random variation would be applied, say up to 2 in either direction. This random variation might move Learning down 1 and Toughness up 2. So our Dwarvish Wizard, prior to the question system, would have Le 16 and pot Le 18, To 13 and pot To 23.

If we switched out the Wizard with a Beastfighter, with To and Le modifiers switched around, and keep the other modifications the same, then this is how it works out: Start at 18 and 25. Random factor still 0.98 and 1.13. Beastfighter scaling would be 0.75 for Learning and 1.1 for Toughness. So dwarvish beastfighter's potentials would start at Le 13 and To 31. Class modification for actual stats would use 55% for Le and 92% for To, so the starting Learning would be 7 and starting Toughness would be 28. Then we shift Le down 1 and To up 2, to give Le 6 and pot Le 12, To 30 and pot To 33.

Anyway, that's what I think should be done about all of the stats and potentials. With careful choice of values, we should be able to get some nice variations.