jamoecw

there are few companies i will preorder from, obsidian is one of them. hopefully i can throw money at them before i deploy and end up incognito for about a year.

it would seem that more rpg games nowadays will throw a themed timed quest at you (come quick, we're about to die) and not actually have the game reflect this in any way. you can walk away and return when you've gotten 10 levels and 50k gp of gear and walk through the quest doing better or the same as if you rushed to do the quest. it is great to ride in and save everyone in the nick of time, but if the game just uses that as a narrative then the writing is lazy and disconnected. balancing things to ensure a challenge when this happens makes things worse, as you will be expected to take your time doing themed timed quests (not actual timed quests) instead of getting into the story and reacting appropriately. theming should match the mechanics, and the whole game shouldn't be just jumping from one timed quest to another, nor should there be no urgency to any quest in the game.

after thinking about it, the best way to do the 'timed' aspect of chapter 2 of BG2 (getting money to rescue imoen) should be to simply have the game track how much money you have gained vs. how much you need. if you get say double the amount needed before running off to save her then you have to deal with some consequences, triple the amount and things get pretty bad, so on and so forth.

don't sell them short, you get the manual and the game. wouldn't want it said that we were exaggerating the situation. i never played wastelands 1, so my expectations were based on fallout 1, 2, and tactics. i'd say the game was worth the $20 buck it was listed for. if they get around to balancing things to closer reflect the fallout games (the early ones, not 3+) it might be worth more.

That is true but then why are they part of the regular retail version? Digital Deluxe I understand, but regular? And then going back and actually removing the wallpapers from my crappy KS version after they were initially part of it? And that wasn't really the issue, I was prepared to pay for the digital deluxe upgrade and I did....only to find I don't actually have the digital deluxe....that I'm still missing chunks of content. Arguing technicalities is not the way to keep my loyalty. After they said GOG would fix the issue I pledged $50 more but now I'm losing my patience. so inxile told you they forked their problem off on GOG.com and you gave them more money? i understand that inxile probably paid the extra to upgrade your copy to the standard retail version, but it doesn't always work this way. they may have just told GOG.com that under contract they have to eat the cost. (most of the manufacturer's warranties are like this, but i hope that inxile is better than this)

or maybe a aumauan monk? the most unorthodox according to the poll.

one to wonderland, one to a perpetual action movie, one to a locker in a female orcish locker room, and the last to a glory hole in a giant's male bathroom. you confiscate it from a mad wizard in the first chapter, the big one leads to your new stronghold (the portal the wizard felt was useless).

i think it would be nice if at the beginning of each chapter something happens at your stronghold to kick off the chapter. the end of each chapter could be you doing something at your stronghold (preparing for something, or even just reaching your stronghold). that way you don't have silly stuff happening while you are out that needs a message to reach you (via butt nut, telepathy, highly skilled yet complacent messenger, palantir, etc.). it would make extra chapters via DLC, sequels, and mods far more seamless as well. that isn't to say random stuff shouldn't happen in the middle of the chapter, but i think it should only be rather minor stuff that really doesn't need your attention.

i think being able to control your companions back at the stronghold would be the best solution to any sort of random pressing issues (the huns invade, hulk rampages through our lands, the ferengi show up with a once in a life time offer). though i think any sort of issues like this should be worked into the storyline so you don't have timing conflicts.

that is realistic, but could get hilariously bad: at camp you look at your messages after a long and grueling dungeon crawl taking several months. "there is an army approaching, it looks like a tough fight, you should come home when you can." "the enemy is at the gates, things are worse than predicted. we need you NOW!" "we managed to hold them at the courtyard, but we are unable to reach our stores. we won't survive for much longer, where are you?" "your castle if mine, its people put to the sword. i await your return so that we may do battle, knowing that you were too late, HAHAHAHA." "i'm getting bored, waiting for you, and am running out of things to smash. are you scared?" "i've leveled your castle, and left for you. you must really hate your people, if you ever bother to return don't bother looking for me, i'm off sacking a castle that someone cares about." "merchant can't find trade stall, leaving." *6 now you think to yourself: "damn i left sword thing that i now know where to use it for the quest, and i bet the chest isn't there anymore. well that is 20 xp down the drain" okay, so i don't think it will be that bad.

the problem with this is that they are changing the typical reward structure already. you don't go executing every defenseless monster you see, and the random animals too just in case they give something useful. if they stuck to the typical method where you get exp for killing monsters, and generally the harder to monster to kill the more you got (though maybe you get more for side quests than plot quests or less, you don't know), then it would be fine to not have it displayed anywhere (and then you'd go to the wiki or game faq or whatever to find out what is the optimal path), as long as it is similar exp in the end. but they aren't doing that, they are changing how they are rewarding us, so it might not be intuitive everytime. it also won't fix any bad habits that they purposefully worked on making unnecessary. think of it like someone depositing money into your account, without you being able to know when they do so, nor being able to know how much is in your account. people would do stuff they normally do to earn money, even if they don't like it, in order to earn money, which wouldn't earn them money because no one is telling them it doesn't work like that anymore. if the government managed to change the economy so that no one got paid for doing jobs they hate, and strippers tipped the patrons, but one got to know when they were getting paid, or how much they have been paid, and their bills and such get paid automatically when they have enough money, those that found that they got paid by strippers and not for working will keep quiet thinking they found an exploit in the system, and most people will get kicked out of their homes and starve while working themselves to the bone. it would be horrible, and everyone will want the economy returned back to the way it was, when they were forced to do things they didn't want to do, and lost all their money to strippers.

that's a good system except it encourages min-maxing a lot, so I would make it so picking a detrimental perk unlocks less points than picking the opposite positive perk costs points not if it is done right let me use fallout as an example if you take the smart, you get +1 to your intelligence and 1 point bonus to all int based skills, but you may not have less than 8 int so 2 stat points at character creation go to int even if you dont want to if you take dumb, your max int is locked at 4 with all the resulting consequences in the game (not even implants can get it higher and the fact that the initial int is 4 and not 5, does not mean you get the lost point to use on something else... it is lost and that applies to all perks that cap a stat) if you take military training, you get 10 point bonus at all weapon skills, but your str, per and end cant be less than 6 if you take unfit for combat, str and end are capped at 4 and you start with 20% less hp than normal given that the penalties are worse than the opposing perks, the point stands. the efficiency to penalties needs to be worse, as the player will avoid using things that are penalized, and try to use things that are boosted. as a result any penalty that directly inverts a strength (+1 to str vs. -1 to strength for example) will in fact favor the bonus. last page i broke it down to a mathematical formula to take into account different variables (such as how often the penalty comes into play when you try to avoid using it vs. how often a strength will come into play if you try to use it at every opportunity).

i think primejunta stepped into the flaw with the perk/penalty system, that simply self balancing won't help. in fact it the core issue with them being balanced. regardless of separate or combined you have to have penalties that are always penalties, and perks simply have to be 'not OP' in order to have the system be balanced. if you do that, then the amount you pick don't matter, nor if they are separate or combined. example: good natured - 15 pts. - gain 5 pts to 4 non combat skills. thus you lose 15 pts. you would be spending on some skill you would be normally spending points on (like that one combat skill), in order to get 20 points spread across 4 skills, a net gain, but not a cheap one. now it would only be a non choice if you wanted to build up all 4 skills, rather than just have a good baseline incase you needed them. having a good baseline would be nice, but is it worth 15 points? maybe, if you wanted to keep your non combat options open, especially if you decided to specialize in a non combat skill, and thus it would only be a 10 point penalty to boost 3 skills by 5, the same net gain (5 points). like lephys said though simply gaining points in all situations don't make the best perks, so it isn't that great of a perk. swordsman - + - gain a 1 point boost to your swordsmanship thaco, you need to pick a penalty. finesse - - - you have trouble smashing non living opponents, you just aren't wired that way, they gain 10 DR against any attacks you make, be they magical or otherwise. now as long as their are plenty of non living opponents the penalty hurts, and the swordsman skill is not that great, so a minor overall buff, for a significant situational penalty. the penalty isn't tied to something you can just not use (or avoid, hopefully). overall situational bonuses and penalties should be weighted by how common they are, penalties by the smallest number you can encounter (in the mace vs. sword example maces could be avoided entirely), and bonuses by how much you can encounter at most (in the sword vs. mace example was for all fights against non sword immune enemies). in this way you can come up with a mathematical method to achieve how effect a bonus or penalty is based on the content of the game, giving the proper amount of points it is due (bonuses and penalties need to be looked at individually so no bonus is gained by combining them). thus as lephys said, there is a way to balance swords and no maces. 1000 total fights 400 avoidable 500 sword immune enemies 0 enemies immune to something other than sword 0 required mace useage thus the sword bonus is applied to 500 fights, or half the enemies, given that it isn't normal for a weapon to be ineffective, the sword bonus (and skill for that matter) is worth half the points it gives. there is 0 required mace usage across 600 mandatory fights (in other words a non penalty). so as both sides should balance: ((1000-500)/1000)*(x/((1000-0)/1000)=(x/((600-0)/600)*(0/(600-0)) or 1/2*x=0 thus the value of this trade off is not equal and needs a change, either by making the bonus equal zero (to match the penalty) or make the penalty equal half of x (x being what ever the point value the boost gives). given that all benefits can be boiled down to some numerical value for balance purposes, one can decouple them from each other and allow the player to mix and match the benefits and penalties to their hearts content without limit (thus one could pick no maces, which has a value zero, and then pick a 'real' penalty in order to afford the bonus to swords), though you would have to be careful that some perks or penalties don't change the numbers in the formula (unless these numbers were calculated during the selection process and thus changed as one picked them). something that simply changed that people called you 'lord poofy pants' or something like that and no other effect, would have a value of zero and wouldn't cost you anything (unless you were limited by the amount of perks you could pick, then it wouldn't be a zero cost exactly). thus the order of simplicity of how to do perks is: none 'flavor' perks that have no real effects unbalanced perks (non choices) mathematically balanced ones with no extra restrictions (like pairing them up, or limiting how many you can pick) that need extra balancing balanced perks and penalties paired up that didn't use a formula to balance them, but instead hours and hours of repetitive playtesting mathematically balanced ones with extra restrictions that needed extra balancing balanced perks and penalties with no extra restrictions that didn't use a formula to balance them the question is really where the 'sweet' spot is for the devs and payer base (devs have to do the work, and payers have to like it, otherwise it is wasted work).

i'll start companion, then do adventurer's hall, then i'll probably mix and match. though the first playthrough will be a putting the game through its paces sort of thing, the second one will be to see what kind of range it has (replayability, non typical stuff, etc.), after that i'll play with a theme or something like that, personalizing the experience.

i like dwarves, and i like monks, i generally don't play a dwarven monk, as they tend to be unviable. so i am going to put the diversity to the test, as not only is that combination weak usually, but agile combatants that win by smarts will put the tactical aspect of the combat system through its paces as well.

well i can see the familiar getting focused due to hurling cone of cold (obviously a threat), the rogue getting swarmed right after killing the captain, and the animal companion i doubt can hold his own when the familiar dies. so it would come down to the controlled guards+the barbarian+the priest fighting those that aren't poisoned towards the back of the camp, a tough battle, but i think they could win. a good plan, though had the controlled started fires in order to burn down the camp, the rogue waiting until the barbarian and priest join battle at the back of camp to strike at the captain he may have lived, the controlled would have taken much higher casualties, but with the camp burning there would be more disruption to offset the captain living longer, and i'd have the familiar back up the fight at the back of the camp, and then have the druid and wizard help the animal companion escape at the gates after striking. they would have 'only done a feint' but should the guards give chase then the druid and co can turn the tables once in the wilderness, if not they can't exactly abandon their posts, nor can they ignore the fire that needs to be fought to save those that are too sick to fend for themselves. the majority of the work would be done by the barbarian and co, so it wouldn't be an equal split of power for the encounter, but each would help out in their own way. conversely a party of 3 barbarians, 2 druids, and 1 cypher would do better. the cypher could cause disruption by having those she controlled start fires, the druids could put more pressure on the gates (again fleeing after the initial strike due to more reinforcements coming. 3 barbarians at the back would probably offset the increase of non sick personnel, as well as the captain's influence. as things settle down and the element of surprise wears off that combo of characters would have better combat capability than the other with similar advantages. the downside would be in more discreet encounters and more traditional dungeons and such (so long as they use a fair amount of puzzles, instead of kill everything type). as for the animations thing, there could be text 'scenes' and generic icons to represent certain things happening, reducing the animation load on the devs (they already have much more scripting to do with stuff like this). i think that instead of bosses (or sub bosses) they had situations like this that could be handled in an asymmetric fashion would be a good compromise, especially since they are making most 'non essential' encounters bypassable without losing out on the reward, so neat thinking like this could be the normal way of handling situations, without having to script stuff like this for every little thing. so if you have a party of asymmetrical fighters (not fighter class), you wouldn't be hemmed in by having to deal with 500 non asymmetric fights for each asymmetric one (resulting in a much harder game than intended due to a 'bad' party comp).

no, though more attributes helps to fine tune and to allow more diverse builds, that being said making them balanced and useful gets harder the more you have. well the exact wording you use makes it pretty obvious that one would want to have offense balanced with defense, though the choosing part in parenthesis is confusing, unless you are suggesting that you have offensive attributes with their own pool of points and defense attributes with their own pool of points, which would be fine. it would allow decoupling of offense and defense, allowing someone to have good reflexes without being accurate or what have you. doing so gives more control over building your character, which is a plus. well this is a tough one, generally you want more offense, because that is how games are usually balanced towards. so having only one stat affect how well you take hits means more points for attack. that being said taking hits is inevitable and you always want to boost that stat, no matter what, so splitting it in two helps to balance it. also splitting it allows you to fine tune your character, which is always good. you could have it be one stat but that you end up getting to fine tune the mix later on, so making you really tough to drop in a fight makes you easier to kill, and making you harder to kill makes you easier to drop in a fight. while you can't have both, but you can have neither. not a bad way to make it, though you still have the constitution problem, so hardly ideal. currently it is now tied to level and class, which is fine. if a class emphasizes melee then they should have higher deflection, if not then they should have less. of course ranged non magical attacks become stronger against the back lines then. i guess if shields are really good at deflection, scaling up quite a bit with size, at the expense of offense then you can still protect your back lines when you have to. you could also separate offensive and defensive attributes, and make the attribute that governs deflection less good than the others, and then have it scale off of level could work. it would be the simplest method to give some combat ability to strength (having it mitigate armor penalties to attack speed or something like that), but as it has been said, 'should' is a tad strong of a word. inventory size was affected by attributes in IE? i thought it was carry weight in IE. any way, being able to have more stuff, means that your pack mule will need it, but not so much for everyone else. of course if low carry capacity affected your ability to have rings and such then everyone would need some strength, but then this just becomes required attributes for equipping things, which sawyer said he didn't like. so i guess i don't see how this fits for 'penalty for dumping' criteria. of course i don't see the full picture, so there might be something i am missing. i had suggested moving AoE from resolve to strength, and health to resolve from strength. that way cleave, bullrush, whirlwind, etc. abilities for a fighter become better at crowd control, which fits for a big lumbering oaf. health gets paired up with duration, so that health is mixed in with something that is useful for immediate combat, and it fits that someone who has a strong will would overcome injury better. i think that is the simplest way to fix the strength issue in sawyer's model causing the smallest change in how it works. as far as getting all archetypes i think armor encumbrance mitigation for strength fits and would give a slight bonus that helps both tanks (by making them more mobile), and people who want a 'hulk smash now' kind of guy (with higher DPS for slow weapons while wearing armor). small changes with small effects so as to not mess with anything we don't know anything about (like how strength affects text encounters, or if their are strength requirements for something in the game) seems like the way to go.

swashbuckler would get deflection mainly from class and level. i think the issue is that when you look at the effects that the stats do, you can shift around some stuff, but health really doesn't fit with stuff that should have other stuff more so than health. if we move 'damage and healing' from intellect, and move it to strength, then we move 'health and inventory slots' to intellect and it is not very intuitive for health to be with intellect, in fact strength kinda makes sense. intellect kinda makes sense with damage (damage is mostly derived from skill, which intelligence helps, so it kinda fits). personally i think the best solution without changing what effects the attributes affect is to move AoE from resolve and move it to strength, then move health to resolve. that way a dumb brute can cleave better, flail better (whirlwind), bull rush better, etc. which fits, and a dumb strong wizard couldn't focus their spells very well, but can still channel lots of energy. a good tank would be tough and determined, which fits for a tank. if you rename intellect to discipline then damage wouldn't be as unintuitive (able to focus ones attacks, no matter what they use, having better discipline to strike well under pressure, etc.).

maybe attributes only pertain to abilities? so the super smart wizard can't use a greatsword better than the dumb fighter (they use it equally well, but the dumb brute can survive long enough to do damage with it). not the best outcome, but better than the wizard killing everything with everything. maybe their is some aspect of strength that we aren't seeing, like how it boosts weapon proficiencies, mitigates encumbrance so weapons are more effective, or even some sort of relation regarding the weight of weapons a strength requirement. point is the designers of the game aren't idiots, so their must be something we aren't seeing, mainly due to that a raging beserker is pretty common adventurer trope (dumb brute can mean he takes hits well, it is rather nonspecific in non dnd inspired rpgs), hell they even had a whole dnd class for the trope.

Defining values should always be the case, from level 1 to X. Most systems I've played seem to have an underwhelming definition between one score to another. I remember early D&D having nice percentile caveats regarding a stat that hits 18, and the difference between 18 to 19 was dramatic. I'm not advocating this incorporation of the percentile qualifiers, neccessarily, but I am advocating the idea that attributes should have the same exponential stairstep, with incremental bonuses from skills or gear filling in - between each value. i'd say exponential returns for direct benefit stuff, diminishing for indirect stuff. so as you get stronger you can carry an exponentially heavier load, and your derived defense from the stat increases quite a bit. though indirect stuff (like my suggestion for strength and encumbrance mitigation) wouldn't be very much better between average and top of the charts, though dumping it would matter still. that way with power curves that go in both directions for a stat, dumping a stat hurts in certain ways, and maxing it is great in other ways, without making middle of the road builds useless. i like to play around with math and numbers, so i notice trends that other people don't (though the renaming thing didn't occur to me, and i would be pretty crappy at coming up with such stuff). @lephys: attributes are qualities one has. one can be weak and strong at the same time. one can use skills and such which draw upon their attributes. an engine that is strong might not be able to use that strength. therefore in RPGs attributes aren't in fact attributes, but properties of the whole, which is neither skills or attributes but a combination of the two. i guess the real question is that given that this game is about combat (you can minimize the amount of it you do, but you are still going to have to do it), should any attribute stat not be useful in combat? and if they are all to be useful should they all be equally helpful? should they all be equally harmful if dumped? if a stat is not useful in combat should it make a big impact on the game?

i can get behind not having civ style research at all in the game. investigative type of researching would be fun though. as far as researching how to make steel from iron or some such, that would be civ style research, though acquiring that knowledge from an existing source i think would be fine (as long as you can't make use of it in the middle of a dungeon crawl).

well for a dumb brute character, what weapon does he use? A. a rusty dagger B. an oversized claymore most likely you imagine him using the bigger heavier weapon, which fits for doing more damage, and it relates to strength. however in a system that gives a flat bonus to damage based on strength he can use the rusty dagger and end up splitting people in two, which is just plain silly. i have said it before, i think that a bonus to strength should come from being able to use more damaging weapons. the fact that intellect boosts damage regardless of your weapon makes sense, that dexterity makes you more accurate, and con makes you able to take more before going down also make perfect sense. i am not so sure about the others, but they do decentralize stats and make it so that you don't have single attribute super characters, so it seems good. strength being tied to health seems odd, but okay, and having more carrying capacity seems logical. i could see health getting moved to resolve and AoE moved to strength, with more damaging weapons needing more strength, or reducing attack speed penalties from encumbrance. that way strength isn't directly tied to damage, but indirectly, and a non magical bruiser wouldn't use much in the way of AoE (unless he is trying to plow through people or something like that), so he would gain damage from using heavy weapons (or using weapons better while in heavy armor). i don't see archetypes with loads of AoE gaining their damage from their weapons, so it would fit well i think without overloading a single stat. as sawyer said that str requirements on weapons are tough to balance, having str mitigate armor encumbrance could be done by a percentage: armour attack delay penalty/(str/2 rounded up) full plate - +100% attack delay chain shirt - +40% attack delay dagger - attack delay of 1 2 handed maul - attack delay of 10 full plate with dagger and 1 str = attack delay of 2 full plate with dagger and 10 str = attack delay of 1.2 full plate with dagger and 18 str = attack delay of 1.1 full plate with 2 handed maul and 1 str = attack delay of 20 full plate with 2 handed maul and 10 str = attack delay of 12 full plate with 2 handed maul and 18 str = attack delay of 11.1 chain shirt with dagger and 1 str = attack delay of 1.4 chain shirt with dagger and 18 str = attack delay of 1.0 chain shirt with 2 handed maul and 1 str = attack delay of 14 chain shirt with 2 handed maul and 18 str = attack delay of 10.4 if we assume that the avg damage of the maul is 10 times the dagger, then the avg dps for the maul exceeds the dagger if one dumps strength, even when wearing somewhat light armor. the numbers and formula can be played with, but you see my point (hopefully).

Riiiiiiggghhht. You need more practical experience with swinging a weapon or a tool and less blind faith in your equations. And if you keep throwing numbers at us, at least let us see those equations. this has to do with newton's laws of physics about an object resisting change. applying force will only boost the velocity by the root of the force applied, not the same as the force applied. thus the speed of an object is the root of the force applied (approximately), so 2* the force equals 1.4142...* speed, or ~40% more speed. the rest is just dividing the force up to fill the new area, very quick and dirty, but it does drive home the point. feel free to show me up by using more precise formulae. I'm not really here to argue the details of simulation. My "4x stronger, 4x more force" example was very generalized. You realize that they've used force measurements to measure the impact of adept martial artists, and the amount of force they can generate is WAYYYYYYY beyond what I can generate, even though I'm a fully grown 6'1" male at 200lbs. So, yeah, I'd wager that, whatever the exact numbers are, they're pretty consistent in the sheer output department. The human body is just a machine made of flesh. If you can double the force of a hydraulic piston, you can double the force of a human arm. Also, you're assuming that extra force with the katana is applied in a chopping fashion ("at" the target), which doesn't have to be the case. If you swung the katana that hard AT someone in armor, it'd just break, probably. OR they'd get knocked to the ground or stagger backwards. The force doesn't just cancel out or evaporate just because the blade can't transfer it directly into a deeper slice. Which is kind of precisely my point. Which is kind of why I didn't stress that you'd generate more resulting damage, but that you'd simply generate more force. Hence, your mace-on-armor example... Armor is going to do what armor is going to do. That's why, in a game, it typically does something like reduces damage. Meaning, your Strength typically makes you do additional damage, and that damage gets reduced by the armor. Not "Well, he's wearing armor, so your Strength literally stops affecting how hard you can hit him." Also, we're not going to be fighting JUST armored humanoids in this entire game, so it's not like an armored person is the only example we need to look at. the key difference between you and a martial artist is skill. anytime novices attempt to do strength tests by measuring velocity they end up with far less force than think due to the difference in how to do something (just look at early mythbuster robots mimicking human actions, before they bring in experts). knowledge (skill) is a huge factor. i didn't say that strength isn't a factor, just not as big of one as we think (or as much as other factors). another misleading thing is how we perceive damage and force, it skews it towards the limit, so half feels less than half, and double feels more than double.

Didn't even think of that. Scratch that whole "Maybe Strength helps you steady your aim of a heavy crossbow" thing I said, as Dex already covers that. I'm glad you pointed that out. twitch muscles don't steady your aim, what steadies your aim is the fact that you don't need to use as much of your muscles to use your weapon. the more you use your muscles, the more little movements occur in your muscles. in effect your muscles twitch, which is a function of your twitch muscles. dexterity covers twitch muscles, but also the control over your muscles via your nervous system, which means being able to draw a better circle (or line), which is still different than holding an object steady. a big burly man with 4 times the strength will have an impact force ~40% greater than the weaker person, not 4 times. this is all assuming that all that matters is applied force, not type of muscles being used, or wind resistance, or the fact that as you press the weapon into something the resistance will increase. that last part is pretty important. a katana deals damage based on the weapon moving through an object (cutting it), the mace by transferring the force of impact (which isn't exactly true). so if the width katana is double the width of its impact zone (the impact zone is actually far less) that means that the ~40% better impact force translates to ~10% more damage potential (ability to cut) by force alone. so if a super lightweight katana that takes 6 strength to use is used by an 18 strength character they would get a 10% damage bonus, which is to say it does make a difference, just not a worthwhile one. the mace (assuming transfer of force for damage) distributes its force across the area of the armour. so ~40% extra force transferred from a 4 square inch area (way oversized) to a 12 square inch area (way undersized), results in a ~1.6% increase in force. even worth less than the katana. now if one were to be smart and hit say an eye socket, not only is the resistance vastly less than steel, but the organs hit are much more vital than muscle and bone. thus instead of dealing with a fraction of 1 (100% is 1) for a bonus, you end up with double digit multipliers at the very least. if you have 4 times the strength i would recommend using a weapon 4 times the weight, sense that will make a bigger difference (but still not nearly the same as hitting good spots). strength as a damage booster is intuitive, but far from realistic.

the problem with this logic is the assumption that you need to use force in your swing for the power it provides. this is false. just like with hammers it is more the weight of the weapon/tool than the muscle behind it that delivers the force of impact. generally when muscling a hammer you mess up the strike and end up bending the nail, rather than driving it into the wood. when using a sledge hammer one needs strength to bring the hammer back up before releasing it and guiding it to its mark. muscling a sledge hammer results in little extra force and a lot of extra energy expended. that being said using muscle to gain speed results in better results for force of impact, and if you can prevent yourself from messing with your strike by adding the speed then you end up delivering more force without messing things up, in addition to getting more swings per minute. as for using a crossbow, i can't say, but using i rifle i can. one of the things marksmen do to steady their aim is to weight their rifle barrels and to hold a firing position. this builds up the muscles needed to keep the rifle steady, and results in a much steadier aim over a longer period of time. in real life more strength means using a weapon with more ease, resulting in steadier aim and faster swings. some how people think that more muscle means more damage, which though intuitive is in fact false (like cars exploding).