213374U

One of the funniest things I've read in my time on these forums. S P A M <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pot... Meet Kettle. S P A M

One of the funniest things I've read in my time on these forums. S P A M

Yeah, so going from having nice games at nice prices to having mediocre games at ridiculously high prices is indeed winning. Like it or not, that's what a monopoly means. Higher prices, lower overall product quality. And no, I could care less if you buy games or not. After all, if I don't feel like paying what a game's worth, I can just rent it, even PC titles. Can you say the same? )

Yet you're here discussing the finer points of a SW duel. Yeah right, you're not hardcore. You just like SW so very much. A defensive maneuver, yes. But performing a defensive maneuver to avoid being chopped in half is not being on the defensive. You might need to perform defensive maneuvers to counter an enemy's retaliation, which implies you're on the offensive. Exactly.

I think you mean Civ IV?

So, going backwards = being on the deffensive? Whoa, and here I thought that being on the defensive meant to concentrate on a defensive strategy rather than falling back a few steps. I thought that there was more to being on the defensive than parrying a few blows, that it involved a whole different fighting style. Obviously you would make a GREAT fencing master if you just stood your ground and only tried to stab the other guy without worrying about his weapon(s) when you were 'on the offensive'. Man, what a great fencer the world is missing. So says the Anakin fanboi. LMFAO

I'm going to enjoy seeing you pay twice what those games cost today. To each his own...

No. This topic needs to be locked and forgotten.

What's this BS? LA's adventure games just owned. DOTT, S&M, Full Throttle, and the Indy series were all excellent games.

It's incredible the extent to which some people will twist the truth to make a point.

I thought you weren't going to get the game?

You have no idea.

The pieces begin to fall into place now... "

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.