JediBob

Yeah, Anakin is portrayed in Ep. 1 and Ep. 2 as a whiney little b****. A far cry from the angry, dark character of immense power and evil that was James Earl Jones in the original series. Choosing to give Anakin a short temper, making him a control freak, or making him a regular - even noble - guy who's experiences have turned him into an angry cynic (my personal favorite) would have been far preferable than the spoiled brat Lucas has served us. The old and new visions of Anakin just don't mesh well.

I've gotten robes. Never any of the good ones, but robes nonetheless. The highest so far has been Dark Jedi knight. You'd think that since they decided to go with random loot, that they would have increased the probability of certain items. Or at least made a FEW set occurances of them. You're a jedi, it's a jedi game, what's a jedi without his robes. I feel naked...

True, Strength and Stamina aren't the same thing, just as Constitution and Stamina aren't, but then again, they are all related. When lifting a heavy object, such as a weight, or a weapon, only a strong person is going to be able to lift it for any prolonged period of time. Now, they're not going to be able to do so nearly as long as someone who has good Strength and Constitution, but the strength is required. Take a professional weightlifter as an example. No, they're never going to win a marathon (in fact I think it would be quite humorous to see one try - all that excess body weight from the muscles not in use, the same reason they wouldn't be able to win a pullup competition), but they would be able to throw weights around all day that would make a regular person tired after a few minutes. Quite true, whereas a person wielding a two handed battle axe won't get nearly the same benefit from their dexterity. They'll still get something, but it will be minimal. It's too bad the game doesn't take weapon type into account. Then again, maybe that would be too complex a system for a game. An intersting idea, but one should never ignore the physical characteristics of the individual. Think Bill Gates vs. well... any heavyweight fighter, professional football player, hell a 12 year old schoolgirl would suffice. Yes, technique would matter, and yes training would matter, but physically, Gates is screwed. True, physical characteristics shouldn't overshadow a lifetime of training. Although, physical characteristics should not be underestimated either. Not everyone can become a professional athlete. No matter how much time or training the average citizen puts in, no matter how much heart they have, or love of the game, they're not physically capable. "Rudy" was an inspiration, but the guy couldn't play football. He didn't have the physical capability. Now, that said, if physical stats are overshadowing the training feats, then perhaps the overall bonuses from stats should be lessened, or the bonuses from training increased. Perhaps a little of both. With the inclusion of fighting styles into the game, which this game has done, I think this definition of Weapon Finesse has become obsolete. Despite the name of the feat, Dexterity is about more than just finesse. It's about coordination and reflexes (even the game says this). You're right, someone with a halberd will not be able to fight with subtlety, but they will still benefit from coordination and quick reflexes, and as such will still benefit from their dexterity. Oh? It's all about intent and context. I ask you, to what purpose did you make the remark? If I was mistaken in how I took the comment, then what was your intent? In what way did saying it contribute to the conversation? I couldn't agree with this statement more.

Fear the Jawas... FEAR THEM!!!

Cool. Um... I'm pretty certain I'm misreading this, because the Strength modifier does in fact add onto damage rolls, which I'm sure you know. So... yeah. As you've said many times. I don't argue that if this system were simply cut and pasted onto things as they are now, there would be balance issues. I guess the point I've failed to express properly is that I would hope the developers to be intelligent enough to adapt to the new situation. Whether by simply creating smarter enemies, a wider range of setups in the enemies, fixing some of the balance issues that already exist in the game that would contribute, whatever. I don't think that just because the developers haven't really been able to create a balanced game, doesn't mean that it can't be done. At least I hope not. Ah, I think here's where we run into our fundamental differences. I don't see the Dexterity bonus to attack as having anything to do with one's skill with a weapon. It's one's inherent ability to move with coordination, and react quickly, and as such is separate from skill achieved through training. Weapon Finesse just represents a character's ability to apply their innate ability. Perhaps this isn't the written definition, I can't remember, but since the whole idea is to rewrite part of the game setup, I don't really see a problem with that. Very, very true. However, when someone with high dexterity wields that halberd, while by no means being able to do so subtley, they will at least be able to so to a greater degree of subtlety than someone who is less coordinated/has slower reflexes. Ah, I thought so. Your argument makes a little bit more sense now. I have to admit, without the changes that I've been pushing (with proper balances mind you), I would probably prefer if the feat weren't there at all either. If you're not going to do something right, don't do it at all and whatnot. I don't deny that I'm a noob, my post count screams it. This fact doesn't bother me. However, when someone uses it as you did - in an attempt to undercut and invalidate anything I have to say - that's going to piss me off. It's all about context. You used it as a slur, so what did you expect? You knew what you were doing when you wrote it. Well, perhaps you're straightforward after all. As you said, I haven't seen you on enough posts to really know yet. Still, such behavior is a perfect example of what I was referring to with, "the protection of distance and anonymity." Let's face it, if someone were to behave in the same manner towards strangers on the street, they would be lucky to keep all of their teeth. That's the real test of someone's character I suppose; how they treat others when they're safe from repurcussions. It's called debating. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Damn straight.

OK, I'm going to try to respond, but you'll have to forgive me if my brain wanders a little. I've been up for over 30 hours and my thoughts aren't quite as lucid as they should be. Quite true, a heavy weapon would prove more difficult to apply finesse to, whereas a light weapon would prove a less effective tool for applying strength. Still, the game doesn't differentiate between heavy and light weapons when applying bonuses for all Strength and all Dexterity characters, so I don't think it's really fair to do so for characters with both attributes. You're also right when you say that it takes Strength to hold a ranged weapon and Stamina to keep it there. Of course, even Stamina is dependant upon Strength. Have two people hold a dumbell in front of them in their outstretched hands and you'll notice the stronger one will last longer. And that's assuming the target remains stationary. Otherwise you're going to need some strength to move that thing. And then there's the recoil to worry about. The larger the weapon, the stronger you have to be to handle that recoil. Although I've always been curious as to why so many ranged weapons in Star Wars even have recoil, seeing as how they're energy based as opposed to being true projectile weapons. I suppose recoil just looks cool and provides a sense of power. That being said, both are bad examples. They get way too far into specifics than what is practicle for creating a game and as such should be ignored when considering game mechanics. Which was sort of my point. Bad examples, baaaaaaaaaad. For starters, what you're saying here sounds more appropriately applied to weapon fighting styles than attribute bonuses. Consider this possibility. You have your aggressive and defensive melee/lightsaber styles (which the game does). Aggressive is where you're going as hard as you can and defensive where you hang back, dodge, and jab in some light hits. Now, here's where the added attribute bonuses come in. A stronger person, even when holding back, is still going to benefit from the fact that they are indeed stronger. "Light" is a subjective term. What would be a light punch for a professional boxer would probably be somewhat heavy for the rest of us. As such, a "light", defensive attack from a strong fighter is going to have a better chance of getting through defenses than a similar hit from a weak fighter. Likewise, someone who is incredibly coordinated and has fast reflexes is going to be more accurate and succesful even when going all out than someone who has trouble tying their own shoes or takes three seconds to react to enemies defensive maneuvers. Going all out or holding back are fighting techniques, and as such are applied after physical attributes. At least that's what makes the most sense to me.

You're blowing what I'm saying a little out of proportion. I know, you're just trying to prove a point, but still. Such extreme cases could be brought up for lots of things. For example, one could say that strength should affect ranged attacks, as weapons can be heavy (in particular heavy rifles - think of a SAW or portable gatling in modern terms). In such a situation, strength would affect how well a character could aim due to the fact that the stronger they were, the easier it would be to hold the weapon up to aim. What you're doing is the same as saying that because this argument could be made, then item weight shouldn't be included in the game. That doesn't seem to be the strongest platform to argue from to me. Dexterity doesn't help much when you need to wield a two-handed sword? Um... ok. If that's the case, please explain to me how Weapon Finesse exists then. What is the Weapon Finesse feat if not a concession of the fact that Dexterity does affect accuracy with melee weapons (like a two-handed sword)? What you say would make a fine argument as to why Weapon Finesse shouldn't exist at all, but it doesn't really support why it should stay as it is. The current Weapon Finesse doesn't argue that Dexterity can't increase one's accuracy with melee weapons, just that it can't do so in tandem with Strength. It says that you're either accurate because you are strong, or because you're dextrous. The two are wholly separate, and one cannot assist the other. Come on man, you and I both know that's just crazy talk. If the point is that Dexterity doesn't affect the accuracy of melee weapons, then the feat should not exist at all. However, if it's elected that Weapon Finesse should stay, then people are admitting that Dexterity does indeed affect the accuracy of melee weapons, and as such the system should be implemented properly. Listen Leet, I admitted that I flamed you, and that I shouldn't have. But lets not confuse things. My actions were a response to yours, not an initiation of hostilities. I posted; you responded to things I hadn't said. I pointed this out, and you became hostile. I then responded in kind. If you want to drop it, then sure, I'll drop it. If you haven't noticed, I grew tired of the whole thing several posts ago. Hence the relatively small amount of effort that I've been putting into it. Yes, I should let it go completely, but you're being hypocritical when you tell me that I should be mature and drop it, while all the while acting childish by continuing with it yourself. You said before that this was a waste of your time. Then, by all means, stop wasting it. We both should.

I think it would probably be Palpatine. In addition to DarthIsildur's points, he was the only Sith Lord who was actually successful in his goals (if I'm mistaken, please let me know). Granted, he did it from the inside out, but a win's a win. Just think, he turned the Jedi's baby into another Sith Empire. Corruption is oh so sweet. Not only that, but he managed to do it in a time when there was just him and his apprentice, as opposed to the legions of followers at the disposal of previous Lords. As for power, just think of how fast the Empire crumbled once he was dead. The thing was held together by his will made manifest through the force. Of the list though, I suppose I'd have to go with Vader. I mean, he was the child of prophecy after all. He was a swoop racer at what, 8 (even though I do think they had the character waaaaaay to young in that movie)? He even had an immaculate conception - although don't get me started on how retarded I think that little addition was, born of the force my a**. Wasn't one of the reasons the council chose to train him (not to mention the reason behind that crappy metichlorian horse**** in Episode I) the fact that he was supposed to have more potential power than Yoda? Of course, that was potential power, so it can be argued that he never achieved it. Finally, dude, you gotta love the suit. Oh, and the voice. James Earl Jones is awesome. In the end though, everyone on the list is pretty bada**. Such chaos and discord, so pretty. I know if I were to run into them I'd be piss... er, I mean, I would destroy them with my uber skills. Yeah. That.

Very true, angshuman, we really do have no way of knowing which would be more imbalanced, short of a thorough examination of the entire system in combination with playtesting. Without that, all we have is speculation. Personally, I think while the balanced character would indeed be stronger against certain enemies, it would prove weaker against others. For example, while a character with balance would probably do quite well against enemies of similar level, they might suffer against enemies of considerably higher level. Not only would they lack enough strength to do substantial damage fast enough, but they wouldn't have an armor bonus high enough to significantly protect them from the stronger character's attacks. Of course, this would also depend on the enemy's stats. Herein lies what I believe to be the real problem with the idea: it would require noticeable rethinking by game designers. They would have a whole other type of character that they would have to plan for when they designed enemies. Could they do this? Yes. Would it add more depth to the game? I think so. But since all this time and effort has been placed into getting the system to work well as it is (whether they learn from the info or not), would it really be worth throwing out all the accumulated data about what proved successful in previous games just to add this small change? No, probably not. The next time there is a major overhall to the ruleset, perhaps this is something that could be considered, but before then it might not be practical. As to why WotC hasn't implemented these changes before now, it could very well be that they tested it, found it to be far too imbalanced and/or complicated and consequently dismissed the idea. I don't work for WotC, so I wouldn't know. However, let's not ignore the possibility that the reason for the current build is due instead to the evolutionary path D&D has followed. The original D&D ruleset was founded with the principle that Dexterity and Strength were fundamentally distinct. Strength added to melee, and Dexterity added to ranged. A melee character only added to Dexterity if they wanted a little bonus to defense (for lighter armor perhaps). A ranged character only added to Strength if they wanted to be able to carry anything other than their equipment (it's rediculous how there's no weight limit in KOTOR or TSL, this removes a whole dimension from the game where people were forced to decide what they brought with them on missions, what they sold, and what they left collecting dust on the dungeon floor). The current edition of D&D still follows this divide. It merely has the Weapon Finesse feat as a cheap shortcut to allow one to circumvent it. Now, I agree with this divide in the case of ranged combat. Strength has nothing to do with proficiency with ranged attacks past the ability to lift one's weapon (which brings us back to the omission of weight limits). Someone with treetrunks for arms may be the only one able to lift that detached ship cannon, but once they are able to do so it's not like additional strength is going to make the thing shoot any harder or closer to target. Thrown weapons are of course a different case, and as such are excluded from the scenario. Melee however, is another situation entirely. In melee fighting, one's ability to hit a target is dependant on both the fighter's ability to power through opponents defenses and whether or not they're coordinated enough to swing where they aim. The two attributes compliment each other. Thus, I think it would be more realistic if the attack bonus was determned by a combination of the two. However, this would represent a fundamental shift from the original structure of the game, and as such has probably been either overlooked, ignored, or deemed unnecessary. I'm not attempting to powerlame, far from it. While I'm playing I actually put effort into making certain that my character doesn't become too powerful, even though in the end I shouldn't have to. That's the developer's job. Like I said, I just see Weapon Finesse as a quick tool to circumvent the divide and I believe that in the long run it would be more beneficial to actually fix the discrepency. Granted, it's not overly important, but it would be nice. It would at least cut down on clutter by removing the need for an exception. As for levelling enemies, well, people may think that it would lead to a poor game (or some more colorful description), and I suppose if done incorrectly it could. No one wants every battle to be huge. That would get old real fast, not to mention that it would sort of destroy the beautiful feeling of power imbued through the aquisition of experience. There must always be peons to crush. That doesn't mean that you can't level some characters to extend the life of a game. An example of this would be Morrowind - more specifically its expansions. With Tribunal, and subsequently with Bloodmoon, the average npc level was raised. This afforded higher level players a chance to experience challenges which they no longer found in the main game (which did not level). Are we to believe that this was only done because the areas included in the expansions simply had higher level people living there? Of course not. The island in the main story rests - for all intensive purposes - upon the doorstep of hell. Like any area of conflict, this would increase the average level of characters as the weak were systematically annihilated. Whatever you may think of that game (I for one enjoyed it quite thoroughly), the expansions are a successful example of how levelling can extend both the challenge and entertainment value of a product. Just don't do it to every character in the game. Of course, the idea would have to be adapted to the D20 system, but the potential is there. I realize some people would argue with my reasoning. They're entitled. Once again, this is all speculation. I wouldn't have posted this if I didn't want to hear other viewpoints. Still, I think I'll stick with my guns for the most part. Rest assured, though, that while my stance may show little change, I do understand what people are saying (it's not like any of this can be considered deep). I simply disagree with it. Some more than others, particularly if they chose a poor means of presentation. It's a shame that the discussion has to descend so quickly into profanity and infantile raving - behavior which I have been guilty of responding to in kind. I suppose such is inevitable in situations where people are blessed with the protection of distance and anonymity. Without the fear of repurcussions, the a**hole principle is in full affect.

<Sigh> I try to explain things rationally, and in simple terms. I give numerical values to make the concept clearer. I even repeat and attempt to clarify when people don't understand. Some people get things, and some never will. Such is life. The game is already out? No way... So that's what I've been playing. I knew it looked familiar. Explaining the obvious does get tedious, but why not. Of course this isn't going to be implemented in TSL. However, it is an aspect of TSL that could be implemented differently in future products. Perhaps in KOTOR3 for example. I haven't dealt with balance? Funny, I seem to remember listing a few ideas. I'm surprised you don't remember Leet, you did argue against/sputter inanely about some of them after all. Selective memory I suppose. As for why I didn't actually select one of the options I listed, that's probably because I don't see my proposal as that harmful to game balance. Sorry, but I don't. I merely provided options to show people who do think the system would be imbalanced that something could be done. As for restricting character creation, I'm baffled by how you can't seem to grasp that keeping the total bonuses even would open up more options, not restrict people to less. Just think, players would be able to shift their stats between the two attributes till they found the balance of offense and defense that best suited their play style. They could still go with all offense (Str. and damage), just as they could still go with all defense (Dex. and armor). However, unlike the current system, they wouldn't have to. As it is now, anything other than all Str. or all Dex. forces you to sacrifice total bonuses. I'm really getting tired of having to explain this to you Leet. Oh, and if you want to talk about lack of argument, try the fact that while I've layed out numbers and logically explained my thinking, all you do is say that it would be imbalanced without any real structure or numbers as to why. But I suppose that can work too. People can't argue with, or find flaws in logic that doesn't exist. So you're against levelling because it would introduce too many powerful challenges to face, and because the number of such challenges wouldn't be true to the universe? For starters, I was under the impression that this was a game, and that people played games specifically for challenges. That said, being a game it's entitled to certain liberties in order to ensure said challenges. For starters, having more upper level characters than what you would see in, say, a Star Wars novel is perfectly acceptable. After all, it's the general story arc that's added to the Star Wars universe, not every little detail of the game. Staying true to the feel of the universe does not mean everything in the game has to be just as it would be in a book or movie. I mean, if that were the case, then there would be no hitpoints, as getting hit would mean instant death or incapacitation. Not to mention the fact that Jedi characters would simply walk up to non-jedi (after deflecting all of their ranged attacks), slice them in half with their lightsabers and continue on their merry way. Different mediums, different requirements. Hey, I'm one of the first to admit that WotC did a great job. They've put a lot of time and effort into the system, and should be applauded for their creation. Still, in the end nothing's perfect. These are still people we're talking about here, not the gaming gods. Not even WotC thinks of everything. There's always room for improvement. And you're right, characters aren't meant to have everything. At least, not all of everything. As has been said several times (a couple by you), a balanced character gets some of everything, yet all of nothing. Yes, they get some defense and some offense, but they don't get as much of either as would a character who specialized in one of the attributes. They never will either. There are only so many attribute points, just like there are only so many skill points, and you can't become a master of everything (well, if the game designers had raised the skill requirements anyway). I'm just trying to ensure that they get as much as everyone else - which they don't currently receive. Nothing more. At this point Leet, I really don't care what you have to say. You've more than proven your inability to formulate an intelligent thought. I actually feel kind of sorry for you. Feel free to rant, call me a noob, pout like a petulant child, whatever. You are of no further use to me and I will waste no more time responding to you. Have fun on the forums. That said, does anyone else have any thoughts? Constructive criticism is always welcome.

Ah, so there it is, I'm a noob <shudder>. Well, I'm a noob, and you're retarded, so we all have our problems. I, however, can make more posts... And no, I'm not mistaking just not agreeing with not listening. Hades disagreed with me. You didn't listen. The difference? Hades disagreed with what I had actually written about. You were arguing with points I had never made. The content of your posts showed that you had no clue what was going on. So all melee characters are Jedi then? Interesting. Besides, once again, if you had actually paid attention - or had the ability to comprehend - my post, you would have realized that I don't think high Dex. characters that only use melee weapons need to have anything balanced in regards to high Str. characters. Their bonuses and penalties (between damage and armor) already balance out between the two. Exactly, you have proven my point. The balanced Jedi does indeed have a little of both, yet not as much as either. In the end, however, the total bonus received by balanced players under the current system for the same number of stat points is lower than for all Strength and all Dexterity characters. I thought I had shown this rather well in my second post. Apparently you can't do basic math. Or read well. Or something. What do I have to do, draw you a picture? Maybe pull out some puppet animals? I'm sorry, are you under the false impression that the game doesn't already utilize modification to the core ruleset? I bet you believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny too, don't you? You're so cute! Besides those were just a few ideas. You know what an idea is don't you? Well, maybe the concept hurts your brain too badly. I threw a few things out there, some would be better than others. There are a lot of possibilities that I didn't mention. In the the end, however, I think angshuman said it best with: If a game is done well, such artificial weakening should not only be unnecessary, but unwise. Actually, if you read that entire post, it's a pretty good summation of my basic points. What, I'm not allowed to think about my ideas and correct parts where I feel I was mistaken? Oh, that's right, think. That's a no-no word for you, isn't it? It's ok, such things make your head hurt. We all understand. Here's a ball of yarn, go play. Oh, and I'm sorry, I had no idea that I was wasting your time by forcing you to respond to my posts. Here's a thought: If it's such a waste of time, then feel free to not reply. However, if you choose to fill your time by posting here, you're welcome to. Just, please at least try to have some semblance of a clue as to what's being said first. Finally, Hades, you have a valid point when you worry that with high Dex. and high Str. could be overpowered. However, one of the points I was trying to make in my posts was that while this could in fact be munchkin, it would be no moreso than an all Strength or all Dexterity character with the same number of stat points distributed. The total bonus would remain equal between the two. This particular aspect can't be debated, as it's math, and as such beyond the scope of opinion. Once again, angshuman sums it up fairly well. Still, you can choose to dislike the idea on other grounds. Thanks for the replies, everyone.

OK, Leet, you're just not listening. First off, I never said that Weapon Finesse is defined as using both Dexterity and Strength to determine attack bonuses. It does, as was intended during its creation, use either Dexterity or Strength to determine attack bonuses. I'm not debating its original purpose. The whole point of my posting is that I think a better system should be used. Specifically, the one I listed above. Second, if you actually read my second post, you would see that I admitted that there should be a feat cost. On this we agree. However, I think that the cost should be moved from "buying" the Weapon Finesse feat to buying proficiencies in whatever weapon types you didn't select during character creation (if you chose the melee weapons package, you have to use a feat to gain ranged proficiencies, if you chose the ranged package, you have to use a feat to gain melee proficiencies). Thus, in order to use Both Ranged and Melee, you would still have to spend at least one feat. In fact, this would make the game more balanced, as in order to get all proficiencies for the opposite group, you would have to use several feats (say, 1 for pistols, 1 for rifles, and 1 for heavy weapons), rather than just the one weapon finesse feat that grants High Dex. characters both proficiency and stat bonus for all (or at least most) melee and ranged weapons. As for your jugguarnaut Jedi with 16 Strength and 18 Dexterity, how is that more unbalanced than some of the Jedi's we see now with 24 Strength (or 24 Dexterity for that matter)? These Jedi have +7 damage and +7 attack, which - wouldn't you know it - adds up to be the same total bonus numbers as what you just mentioned. Or you could compare them to 18 Str, 16 Const characters (especially since now implants are based on Const scores). Let's also not forget that in order to get such numbers in two categories right from the beginning they would have to sacrifice so many stat points (due to the 2 and 3 point rule once over 14) as to be both mentally and physically challenged in all other statistics. All programmers have to do is include situations in games that truly force the player to utilize their own ability with the other stat categories and this shouldn't be a problem (this is something they're supposed to be doing already). However, if you're still worried, one could try making the penalty for high stats at creation steeper (just one possibility) - maybe something like 2 points after 14 and 4 points after 16, or 2 points after 14, 3 after 15, or somesuch. Here's another option, just don't give so many base attack bonuses. I suppose you could also break up the points at character creation into 'points for physical attributes' and 'points for mental attributes' so that no one can just go completely psycho on the physical stats. Anyway, there are lots of possibilities. Now, it's fine to have a different opinion than I do. I fully expect some people to disagree with my idea. That's fine. However, I would ask that you at least pay attention to what's been posted so that you don't argue with points that haven't been made, or that have been changed.

LEET, while you have a point about the fact that the game balance is shifted towards the player, from your comments it really doesn't sound like you actually understood what I was talking about. Perhaps I was unclear. I will attempt to clarify. For starters, I never said anywhere in my post that an all Strength fighter was better than an all Dexterity fighter, or visa-versa. I did say that those two options were stronger than a fighter with balanced Str. and Dex., which statistically is true due to the fact that the attack bonus for strength and dexterity would overlap in a balanced character. In the very least this causes such attribute selection to be... inefficient. Due to this reality, an all Dex character and an all Str. character balance each other quite well, as they have the same attack bonus. They merely transfer damage to defense (or visa-versa). However, a balanced character makes the same exchange between damage and defense, but in addition is forced to sacrifice some of it's attack bonus. The moral of this story? As has been pointed out in countless game guides and faqs, it is better to choose one attribute or the other to level rather than work on both. Here's an illustration of the current system: CASE 1: Strength Character Str 18 +4 Dex 10 +0 Damage Bonus: +4 (Str.) Armor Bonus: +0 Attack Bonus: +4 (Str.) Total Bonuses: +8 CASE 2: Dexterity Character Str 10 +0 Dex 18 +4 Damage Bonus: +0 Armor Bonus: +4 (Dex) Attack Bonus: +4 (Dex) Total Bonuses: +8 CASE 3: Balanced Character Str 14 +2 Dex 14 +2 Damage Bonus: +2 (Str.) Armor Bonus: +2 (Dex.) Attack Bonus: +2 (Either Str. or Dex., take your pick) Total Bonuses: +6 *********See how this isn't equal?********* Now, the system I mentioned would merely balance things out: Case 4: New Balanced Character Str 14 +2 Dex 14 +2 Damage Bonus: +2 (Str.) Armor Bonus: +2 (Dex.) Attack Bonus: +4 (Both Str. and Dex. added together) Total Bonuses: +8 *********Now it's even.********* This new system wouldn't be detrimental to all Str. and all Dex. Characters. In fact, it wouldn't affect them at all. It would merely offer a third option of equal melee ability. As for the balance being shifted towards the player, that's a problem with AI implementation and enemy levelling. The change I'm promoting would have no affect on this slant. As I just said, this makes a balanced player equal to it's melee counterparts, not stronger. Finally, just so you know, in TSL you don't get finesse for free. You did in KOTOR for lightsabers, but in TSL you have to use a feat. So you're mistaken on that point. I would like to make one alteration from my original post, however. I said in it that I thought the new Weapon Finesse should be automatic, and I would like to modify this statement. This is due to the fact that while Dex. and balanced characters will have at least some proficiency with ranged weapons (the balanced character not getting quite as good a trade off as the Dex.), a Strength character with a ranged weapon would be like skeet shooting at the special olympics. There's just no way it could end well. Forcing balanced and Dex. melee characters to sacrifice a feat is a fair trade off for the ability to use ranged weapons without shooting your teammates in the head. Although, rather than having a weapon finesse feat, why not just make characters choose between getting the melee proficienies or the ranged proficiencies during character creation? This way those who want to use both melee and ranged weapons would still have to use feats to obtain both, yet melee characters who wanted high Dexterity or balance and had no intention of switching weapon types wouldn't be penalized for it. I hope that helps.

We all know weapon finesse. It's that great feat that allows one to choose between using their Dexterity or Strength modifier towards their attack bonus. Before it's inception, role playing lived in a stringent world where Strength was for Melee and Dexterity was for Ranged. Weapon Finesse has allowed people to create melee fighters that survive on coordination and reflexes as opposed to brute force. While this has been a positive change, I think it could have been done better. Let me explain. My issue with the current system lies in the fact that it requires (or at least encourages) one to choose Strength or Dexterity. If you don't select finesse, you put stats into Strength, and basically ignore Dexterity. If you do select finesse you do the exact opposite, pumping up Dexterity while turning a blind eye to Strength. Putting stats into both is wasteful, as you end up losing out on attack bonus points (the modifiers overlap). Are we really supposed to believe that fighters with a balanced combination of Strength and Dexterity are less effective than hypercoordinated wimps or stumbling brutes? Such thoughts are beyond foolish. To this end I have one simple change to Weapon Finesse: Make the attack bonus be the sum of a character's Strength and Dexterity modifiers. For example: Str. 14 +2 Dex. 16 +3 Under this new system a melee character would gain a +5 to their attack bonus - the same as if they had placed all their points into either just Strength or just Dexterity. Their damage modifier would still be +2, and their armor class bonus would still be +3, only the attack bonus would be affected. Also, those using ranged weapons would still only receive the Dexterity bonus to attack, and would thus have a +3. In the end this would be far more realistic, as someone who is both dextrous and strong is going to get more hits in than someone of equal Dexterity who lacks the Strength to lift their weapon, or to blow through their enemy's defense. The same goes for the opposite scenario, where the balanced character is compared to someone strong enough to blow through defense, yet is too uncoordinated to hit the spot required to do so. This would make a character with both attributes just as viable an option as characters which specialize in one or the other (which is basically any decent character under the current system). What's more, with balanced characters showing some validity, medium armor will finally serve a purpose (oh come on, except for bonus abilities, who really uses medium armor?). Personally, I think we should forget about making people select a feat; this new system should be the rule for melee fighting. Still, if for some reason people think a feat should still be selected (I don't know why, but just say), this is the system it should employ. I'm actually amazed that it isn't used already. It's not exactly a difficult concept; other people have to have thought of this idea as well. Now, I realize that this isn't exactly a ground breaking aspect of game mechanics. It's just a small change that I have always thought people would figure out, and have always been bugged by when they didn't. Anyway, that's my two cents. Who knows, maybe if enough people read this and agree with it we'll find it implemented in KOTOR III.

Ah, more answers. Very nice. Epiphany, you are a veritable stockpile of information. Thanks again. Now all I have is the one question left: 1) Does the Jedi Watchman receive any benefits to counterbalance the fact that the class only receives level 7 backstab as apposed to the level 10 aquired by Sith Assassins? This basically will decide whether I go light or dark, so it's at least important in my own mind. If there's anyone out there who has played as a watchman and can answer this, I would greatly appreciate it.

Hey, thanks for the responses so far. I really appreciate it. I have a few questions left though, if anyone can answer them. 1) So since Energy Resistance still effect lightsabers and blasters does increased damage balance things out so that it isn't quite as imbalanced as in the first game (although it was fun to stand there laughing like a madman as sith soldiers and dark jedi found their weapons useless)? 2) I'm still curious as to whether the Jedi Watchman receives any benefits to counterbalance the fact that the class only progresses to backstab 7 as apposed to the assassin reaching backstab 10. I suppose there would have to be as it would make absolutely no sense to weaken one class in regard to the other. Still, I would like to know for sure. 3) Are lightsabers still unbalanced? I'm still wondering how a lightsaber - being a massless weapon - wasn't considered balanced in the first game (I thought the fact that it was massless was one of the reasons that most people would have trouble using it). 4) I've heard mention of "secret force powers" (oooooh, aaaaaah) that you can pick up over the course of the story. A) What are the powers? B) Are they automatic, or do you have to do something special to get them? C) How do you get them (the type A personality in me wants to know)? Thanks again for any info you can provide me with.

Alright, I have a few questions, and I appologize if they've been answered many times before, but I've been searching in several forums and now it's late and I'm tired. I appreciate any info people can give me. 1) The Sith Assassin gets 3 more levels of backstab; does the Jedi Watchman aquire anything to balance this (if so, what is it?), or is this just a way for developers to say, "if you're going around sneaking up on people and poking them in the back, you should be evil"? 2) Does Energy resistance surreptitiously protect from lightsaber and blaster damage at higher levels as it did in KOTOR 1? 3) Does the selection of a lightside/darkside Revan effect the plot in KOTOR 2 in a significant way, or is it mainly cosmetic? 4) When breaking down items for components at a workstation, I've heard that the game uses only the main character's (or whomever is the primary character at the time during moments where the story is focused on other party members) repair skill, is this true? 5) Is it true that the force storm ability has had it's damage cap removed? 6) Does anyone know of a listing of the levelling increases/abilities of the different classes?