Talk:Attributes
Is there a reason for displaying the costs for stats in this fashion? It seems like it makes it more complicated than it needs to be. Wouldn't it make more sense to just list the cost per point? Something like:
| Dwarf | Elf | Elothean | Gor'Tog | … | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strength | 3 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 1.5 | … |
| Reflex | 3.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 3.5 | … |
| … | |||||
And the equation simply becomes current attribute × racial cost
Da Next Pope (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
- Firstly, I've been playing for *years* and have only ever seen it referred to as it is here, I forget the initial reasoning, but anyway... for why I think current is better.
- It makes it *easy* to see where each race has a bonus or a negative in which stats, you can see at a glance, that Elves don't do well with strength for example! --Callek 22:42, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
Attribute, Stat, or Statistic?
Calling Charisma, Agility, Wisdom etc. 'statistics' seems a little odd IMO. Based on my 10 years playing DR, in my experience I can't ever recall hearing someone refer to them with the full word 'statistics'. I've just done a quick survey of IG documentation and this is how it seems to go:
Statistics refers to all the info obtained as a group when you type the INFO command, as well as the non-attribute qualities Concentration, TDP's, Age, Encumbrance, etc.
Stats or Attributes are the commonly used words for the bodily qualities Agility, Charisma, Intelligence, Wisdom, Discipline, Strength, Reflex, and Stamina.
I think it would be better to rename this article and the corresponding references and categories either 'Stats' or 'Attributes' to agree with common usage. My main point, in a nutshell, is that statistics =/= stats --Farman 19:48, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
- Fair enough. Really I just wanted to unabbreviate "stats" when I created the page to be more proper but I can see where there could be some confusion. Created a little placeholder here but it needs some work. --Grindinghalt 20:34, 26 April 2007 (CDT)