213374U

No. That would mean that somebody naturally gifted with quicker reflexes and better hand-eye coordination would actually be more efficient with a certain weapon than other who had received intensive training, as the weapon specialization is supposed to represent. At least that would be the conclusion drawn from seeing what a 16 DEX (only moderately high), 14 STR and the modified weapon finesse would do when compared to the same stats and weapon specialization feat. Raw talent is important, but it's nowhere as useful as training. Weapon finesse is supposed to be a different, learnt fighting style which relies on fast, agile, well-aimed blows to overcome the enemy defenses, as opposed to the 'regular' style which probably involves piercing the defenses rather than circumventing them. I think you are confusing finesse with proficiency. The way I see it, some weapons can't be used with any degree of finesse at all, since they rely on raw strength to be operated. Such is the case of blunt weapons, halberds, and most of the longer mast weapons which require great momentum to inflict maximum damage. You're taking things out of proportion, and you know it. It's not like I go hurling insults around at every man and his dog, but the fact that I don't make conversation with strangers on the street may have something to do with it. When I hear someone do a stupid remark or an offensive comment toward me, I react accordingly. Still, I don't see how you might think that calling you a n00b undermines the validity of your arguments, but then again, it's not really my problem how you choose to interpret my comments. For starters they could have the enemy characters take advantage of their combat feats, the same way any player would. Using cover, flanking (not that they're implemented but still), area effects, group tactics, and retreat routines are just a bunch of things that come off the top of my head right now. From what I've read, enemies don't even use their Force powers anymore. It seems it would be hard to make the game any easier.

If you say so...

Well, you just missed the single best one. Get it NOW. :D

PS2 has more titles, and more variety, which IMO is the critical factor when deciding what system to buy. However I'm not such a big fan of consoles and I would recommend you spend the money in upgrading your PC or getting PC games...

And to think I registered here because I thought this was different from the LA boards...

Yup. That's exactly the case. In D&D there are no such heavy ranged weapons, but rest assured that if I'm the GM I'm not going to allow a STR 8 character use a composite long bow, no matter what the rules say, because logic and common sense dictate it's not possible. But all that isn't really relevant to the issue at hand. The fact is that acquiring weapon finesse means changing completely the way a character fights. Let's turn the argument around. If you allow the character to add its STR modifier to to hit rolls, then why don't add it to damage rolls too? After all, you are assuming that the character's STR has a role in wielding a weapon, so it makes sense that, the stronger the character, the harder they swing. The answer is obvious: because it would be too unbalancing, but it also points out a flaw in the logic of the original reasoning. Weapon competence and weapon specialization are the feats that represent a character's proficiency with a certain weapon. Adding weapon finesse on top of that they way you're proposing would mean counting the same character trait (that is, skill with a particular weapon) twice. Weapon finesse isn't supposed to do that, because it's a fundamentally different concept. That is as far as it goes following the rules to the letter. Now, if you ask me, weapon finesse works when you're talking about low weight weapons (weightless in the case of a lightsaber), but it really can't hold itself when you apply it to heavier/bulkier weapons. No matter how many years your character has spent studying under teh l33t n!nja master, there's no way in hell they're going to wield a halberd in a 'subtle' way. That's why I don't like weapon finesse at all, and that's the reason I'm so adamant about modifying it to be even more cheesy. Um, IIRC, you reacted badly when I called you a n00b. Well, sorry pal, but you're a n00b. We have all been, but still that doesn't change that fact. If you consider that an offense, this one's not going to be the last flamewar you're going to be involved in. Your call. Hypocritical? Naw. You haven't been around long enough, but if you had, you'd know that I just flame people for fun. And it gets even better when it's them who start the flamefest. I have admitted it on several occasions. If anything, that makes me a jerk, albeit a coherent, honest one. ) It's called debating.

I guess he taught that trick to his apprentice Bandon. " You're killing me there, man.

I suggest you re-read the description of the Strength characteristic. It's not supposed to be just raw physical power but also the ability to get the most out of one's muscles, including wielding weapons at peak efficiency. That's why Dexterity doesn't influence attack rolls and damage bonuses. You see, following your reasoning, you could have a high dexterity increase the critical range of every weapon since you could argue you can have your PC 'aim' for critical spots. DEX works for lockpicking, but it doesn't help you much when you need to wield a two-handed sword. What's that supposed to mean? That I wouldn't react the same way if you told that stuff in my face? You're making an awful lot of assumptions there, buddy. May I remind you it was you who started the flamewar? I just came along for the ride. Really, you aren't going to impress anyone by using that patronizing tone. Show some of that maturity you claim to have, just forget it and move on. That is not such a bad idea. However, the class would have to have huge drawbacks regarding either skills or Force powers, lest we go back to the imbalance problem.

Can I have some more huge boobs? Please?

I'm here to kick ass and chew bubble gum. And I'm all out of gum... Sorry, couldn't resist... :">

Great post. There are two things I don't agree with, though. True, the d20 is not the perfect system, but it's being revised constantly and weapon finesse is not a feat exclusive to SW d20. It's in D&D as well, with all the playtesting that means. But I digress. My point is that changing weapon finesse would indeed create munchkins. That you can tell from simple observation of the game difficulty level at its present state. More power to PCs would mean even more mopping the floor with endbosses. There is no need to increase the PC's power simply because the present system allows for far more power than it's needed to beat the game. Well, yes. In theory you can reduce any phenomenon in the universe to a number of equations, too. But that's a bit far-fetched and is not what I meant before. I'm sure that advanced statistical analysis is used in the playtesting and game balance can be expressed in a number between 0 and 1. However I lack the mathematical background to undertake that kind of analysis, so I must make do with what I do have, that is, logic and common sense. And under these circumstances, math isn't necessarily equal to game balance.

Oh. You are right, I read it myself. This memory of mine... Then the conclusion is that the list isn't complete?

I wasn't able to find Malak's armor in that list. A hoax?

No, you haven't dealt with the imbalance such a character would create in combat when compared to an all-STR or an all-DEX char, because it would be next to impossible to. You made up some lame excuses for balance patches regarding character creation, but nothing more. You still don't get it, do you? Such a character would be at an advantage due to the way the rest of the characters are designed. I don't know why I bother to explain this to someone so utterly obtuse. Must be this thing I got for slow people. Okay, here I go again. Focused characters are unbalanced. That unbalance is a weakness, but a measured, controlled, and expected one. Rounded characters lack that imbalance, but in exchange for that they have lower total bonuses. Now, if you give the balanced character greater bonuses, you are not only giving it more power when compared to the all-DEX or all-STR builds, you are making it much more powerful than most enemies, PCs and NPCs that aren't built with the 'weapon finesse' development in mind. I'm tempted to make a puppet joke here, but I'll leave that to you, since that's what you do best. Agreed. The system is imbalanced enough as it is. We don't need your powerlaming lust. Go cheat yourself up to level 99 or something. I'm not going to argue the maths there, because I already admitted they are correct. However, and as I said before, maths alone don't make game balance. Can't you see past that? Now, your idea would not only restrict character creation due to the 'balance fixes' you would like to add, but because anyone who wanted to play an all-STR or all-DEX char would be at a disadvantage. Not a numerical one, but from a gameplay standpoint. You seem to have your head stuck up your ass a bit too deeply. When you pull it out some and read a bit of what I write, you might actually get a clue. For the nth time, maths alone don't make a game balanced. It's not the maths I'm arguing. It's your interpretation of those maths what doesn't hold water. Perhaps the difference between both concepts is a bit past beyond your grasp? True. A game in which every enemy was Darth Nihilus would be challenging alright. It would be a POS, too. You lose. You are twisting reality badly on this one. Where to begin? Well, to say that having an army of level 20 enemies it's fine just because it's a game is not only plain dumb, it's also a lie. The game is based on the D20 system, and in that system, you can count level 20 characters with the fingers of one hand. So, your point here basically is, 'since rules have already been modified, let's f*ck them up completely', right? Wrong. To begin with, having an army of level 20 enemies would not make sense, not only from a gameplay standpoint (since there are other ways of making combat challenging), but also from a story standpoint. I mean, why would a level 20 dark Jedi be apprentice and subordinate to another level 20? Getting to those levels would imply the baddies performing epic feats or cheating. I hate AI cheating on me. I'm not saying that the game needs to be absolutely true to the movies. After all, you need a ruleset and some balance to be able to play. What I'm saying is that it should stay absolutely, positively true to the ruleset it's adhering to. Giving XP like crazy to a ton of baddies just so you can have a mathematically perfect character isn't exactly the epitome of sensible thinking. You want them to have the advantages of the focused builds, without their disadvantages. If that's not the definition of getting all of everything, can you explain what is? Thanks to you and people like you, I have guaranteed fun. After all, there are dumbasses aplenty. )

The bolded words are the key there. Yep, you can have a bit of everything, but not as much as some people seem to want.

Whatever. Keep yelling, n00b. A pity you're not as good reasoning game mechanics as you are making puppet jokes. No doubt you're the soul of all parties, but that isn't going to be enough to prove right something that's wrong. You are out of luck. Do some more jokes, however. They're somewhat amusing and we can never get enough message board buffoons. Those changes aren't going to be implemented anytime soon, among other things because the game is already out. You still haven't been able to deal with the greatest issue of your modifications, that is, balance. However you keep charging ahead even though you are aware of that. Talk about being retarded. You have skilfully evaded what I said about restricting character creation freedom and destroying NPC usefulness by flaming, however that only proves you have no real argument to counter it. Again, you lose. And after that you say you support the idea of enemy leveling to make up for the munchkin-ness you are proposing. Yeah that's a real bright idea, after all, the galaxy is full of level 20 Sith lords. Your math appears to be flawless, however math != game balance. Perhaps you should go to WotC and tell them of their error, it seems they don't playtest and think through their rulesets thoroughly enough. Characters aren't supposed to have everything, which is proven by the fact that the game is ridiculously easy as it is. If you have characters with insanely high attack bonuses, DEF scores, that on top of all that deal extra damage, there would be no reason at all to go for an all-DEX or all-STR build, due to the advantages of a rounded up char. No, no amount of flames or math is going to change the fact that what you're proposing is powerlaming.

Don't mistake not listening with not agreeing, n00b. No. The percentage of people who actually use blasters with Jedi characters is marginal. Therefore the feat cost would mean nothing. There is no balancing for what you're asking. A Jedi with 24 strength doesn't add anything to its DEF. A Jedi with 24 DEX deals no extra damage. It's that simple. A Jedi with 18 STR and 16 DEX has a little of both. Yeah, real cheap modifications to the core ruleset that would actually decrease the players' freedom in character creation and that would destroy any use the NPCs may have just so you could have your powerlamer feat implemented. Sorry, not gonna happen. Huh? Perhaps you should clear your ideas before posting? You are suggesting some deep changes to the ruleset and you still don't know exactly what you want? Stop wasting my time.

That sucks man. I mean, it's good for OE and stuff, but it only encourages those twits at LA to keep treating KotOR like crap. If they sold so much without giving a f*ck about the game, why change? <_<

As kirottu said, that's what they thought 50 years ago, too.

Wouldn't you be lacking the characters?

As I said, I would like to see every guy and his dog to drop their stuff when they die AND have realistic inventory management. That however would result in players leaving behind huge loads of useless garbage. So, you want them to drop their things just so you can *look* at them and then go on about your business?

No. Weapon finesse is supposed to be a special case in which the character is able to use its DEX OR STR modifier for attack roll purposes. Not both. Its original purpose was to offer defensive/high DEX characters a chance in melee combat. It was never meant to be an automatic feat, so it was a cause for unbalance in K1. It was not meant to buff the characters up even further, either. It's not supposed to be a 'must have' feat. If that issue has been fixed, then there's even less reason to have the characters add both bonuses. Jedi classes already have huge class and SQ defense bonuses. If you allow the feat to add both bonuses to attack rolls, you will have Jedi juggernauts with 16 STR and 18 DEX stomping all opposition even easier (in case you thought that's impossible), with natural attack bonuses of +7, +3 to damage rolls, and +4 to DEF, effectively making it the most unbalanced feat EVER.

No. You are building your whole reasoning upon false premises. An 'all-STR' fighter isn't more effective than an 'all-DEX' fighter, or vice versa. And none of those two are more or less efficient than a balanced character. They are just different ways of playing your character. You see, if you sacrifice STR, you are closing the door to greater damage, in exchange for higher DEF. The attack bonuses will be the same. If you do the opposite, you will have a more vulnerable character which deals greater damage. And if you put points into both STR and DEX, you will have a character which has both advantages, but to a lesser extent. Implementing your idea would not only be detrimental to 'all-DEX' and 'all-STR' type characters, but also it would incline the game balance even more towards the player. We don't want that. We already have the 'weapon finesse' feat for free, I think that's lame enough.

I played the original HL and I still think HL2 had no story at all. You may consider 'go there, kill things, go somewhere else, kill some more things' a story, but I don't.