Change to Weapon Finesse

[JediBob]

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.

[envida]

I totally agree with what you are saying. But I

[213374U]

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.

[NeverwinterKnight]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

that was a good explanation. i was starting to see his point of view until i read this.

[Sorwen]

213374U is right in that you have a str(to hit/damage) and dex (to hit/def). To put it in a real world-esque perspective(as that is the basic idea behind the concepts) it that a strength fighter is using shear power or bullying through a persons defense. A dex fighter is relying more on speed/quickness/agility to get around a persons guard. Since the style of fighting it totally different a strength and dex fighter should be better at hitting. He is just going to do a little more damage than the dex fighter and be a little more defensive compared to the str fighter.

 

All that said in some of the advanced rules for d20 star wars they have a lightsaber form that lets a character get damage from dex. There is good and bad about that rule, but since you don't mention it I assume it wasn't put in the game.

[JediBob]

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.

[213374U]

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.

[JediBob]

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.

[Judge Hades]

Sorry, but Weapon FInesse doesn't work that way. Adding both strength and dexterity to a to hit would be nuts. Espcially if you have a character type that has both 18 strength and 18 Dexterity.

 

That would give a +4 damage, + 4 Defense, +8 to attack, for a total of +16. can we say MUNCHKIN! Keep it as it is.

[Darth Drabek]

My first character was DEX-based, with the lightsaber finesse feat. I got around the low damage output by installing only upgrades that add to my damage. That ended up balancing him pretty well.

 

In my opinion, low damage is a small tradeoff for high defense. With battle precognition adding my wisdom bonus to my defense, my character could sit there and swat at the Sith all day without fear of even getting hit.

 

It sometimes sucks having low strength in the early game, though. I never want to invest in the melee finesse feat, because I know once I get that lightsaber it's not leaving my hand. So, my DEX-based dude got to test out the ranged combat in TSL.

[Obireel Y Doncha]

Anymore I just leave STR at 8, and maybe take it up to 10 during level-ups.

 

Well-modified blasters seem far more potent than back in KOTOR, making STR even more obsolete.

 

The only bad part so far is I've got the Exile to Level 20 and the Handmaiden dominates him on the practice mat.

[213374U]

OK, Leet, you're just not listening. 

Don't mistake not listening with not agreeing, n00b.

 

 

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. 

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.

 

 

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.

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.

 

 

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. 

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.

 

 

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, [/b]or that have been changed[/b].

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.

[angshuman]

JediBob has a perfectly fair point. The math in his second post verified this.

 

Hades, if you had a character with 26 str and 10 dex, this would give:

 

+8 damage, +8 to-hit, +0 defense = +16 total

 

so that's as munchkin as as the 18 str, 18 dex character. Plus, as JediBob pointed out, munchkin-ness can perhaps be resolved by appropriate enemy-leveling, and need not be enforced by artificially weakening the player.

[JediBob]

Don't mistake not listening with not agreeing, n00b.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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:

 

... munchkin-ness can perhaps be resolved by appropriate enemy-leveling, and need not be enforced by artificially weakening the player.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[213374U]

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.

[kefka]

Characters aren't supposed to have everything, which is proven by the fact that the game is ridiculously easy as it is.

Why can't characters have a bit of everything? Jack of all trades, master of none? By that I mean balanced stats. At present it seems the best policy is just to dump one stat - STR or DEX - and focus on the other. Lame. They should complement each other better.

 

I think the main problem is allowing these ridiculous stats in the first place. When people are pushing 30 DEX with all manner of outlandish equipment there's little incentive to boost STR. So you end up with an unbalanced character.

[213374U]

Why can't characters have a bit of everything?

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.

[JediBob]

<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.

[KingofThieves]

This is potentially a really good idea. It just needs to be worked out a little more.

 

Some people like to play balanced str/dex fighters, and those of us who do get the short end of the stick on attack roll bonuses. That's a fact.

 

But I have a beef with this appearing as just a feat that anybody can take during a level up- this idea for balance could be too easily exploited.

 

Example.

 

You start your game with a melee fighter with 14 str and 14 dex, then you go on to raise nothing but strength for the rest of the game. Along the way, you take this feat because you've noticed that it will provide you with an additional +2 to attack, essentially being a more powerful weapon focus.

 

That's no good.

 

If it were made so that this feat nullified itself if the character surpassed strength and dex balance in one attribute by any more than two points/one attribute score (i.e. strength 17, dex 14 would mean you no longer gain any bonuses from this feat) then I could see this as being a benefit offered maybe by a new prestige class that promoted a balanced str/dex melee fighter.

 

But, even then, I still definately would not offer the feat as something just anybody could take during a level up.

[213374U]

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.

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.

 

 

I merely provided options to show people who do think the system would be imbalanced that something could be done.

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.

 

 

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 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.

 

 

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. 

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?

 

 

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.

True. A game in which every enemy was Darth Nihilus would be challenging alright. It would be a POS, too. You lose.

 

 

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.

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.

 

 

I'm just trying to ensure that they get as much as everyone else - which they don't currently receive. Nothing more.

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?

 

 

Have fun on the forums. 

Thanks to you and people like you, I have guaranteed fun. After all, there are dumbasses aplenty. )

[draakh_kimera]

Well, I agree with the 1337's perspective on balance issue. Besides, if you had a mix of STR and DEX instead of all out in one or the other you'd end up with a really poor character anyway, as both defense would be lower, and the damage from STR would be reduced.

[angshuman]

math != game balance.

 

Hmm... although I disagree with the above statement in principle, that comment got me thinking. Perhaps the way we have been doing the math for this puzzle is not entirely appropriate.

 

Let me explain. Let's get back to our old example of the (18 STR, 18 DEX) character (P1) vs. the (26 STR, 10 DEX) character (P2). What I felt earlier (and I'm guessing JediBob did, as well), according to the following analysis

 

P1: +4 dmg, +4 def, +8 atck = +16

P2: +8 dmg, +0 def, +8 atck = +16

 

was that both characters should be equally powerful. But 213374U's comment of "math != balance" led me to ask myself the following question:

 

Is ADDING UP the total stat bonuses representative of how effective a character is going to be in combat? Probably not. In other words, that +16 does not necessarily give a clear indication of which of the two characters would be a more efficient killing machine. Obviously, it would depend a lot on the enemy's stats, and one character would be more powerful than the other in certain scenarios. An accurate estimation of the average effectiveness of each would probably require detailed combat simulations across the entire range of enemy stats the player is likely to some up against during the course of the entire game.

 

Now, I do not know much about the d20 ruleset, but I would assume that the fellows carry out extensive simulations and probabilistic analysis in order to make the system balanced. If they have defined Weapon Finesse as it stands today based on these simulations, I have no qualms.

 

HOWEVER, as I mentioned above, the results are also dependent on the range of enemy stats the player is likely to encounter. Therefore, any game developer, say Obsidian, would have to re-evaluate a lot of things based on how they've structured their game.

 

 

 

 

 

In summary, this is what I feel:

 

1. We do not know which one is more munchkin, P1 or P2, and how things would change had there been a different definition of Weapon Finesse. The game developers are the only ones capable of giving that answer.

 

2. At the same time, the d20 is not holy writ. You cannot just say that Weapon Finesse in its new form will create munchkin characters. Developers may have to introduce their own re-balancing factors into the combat equations, and this *may* imply changing the definitions of different feats.

 

3. Math = Game Balance True, the simplistic additive math we were using earlier is quite inappropriate, but stochastic analysis and/or simulation runs are REQUIRED in order to come up with a basic balanced framework, after which the ruleset may be fine-tuned according to actual gameplay experiences and feedback.

 

Tschuss!

[213374U]

Great post. There are two things I don't agree with, though.

2. At the same time, the d20 is not holy writ. You cannot just say that Weapon Finesse in its new form will create munchkin characters. Developers may have to introduce their own re-balancing factors into the combat equations, and this *may* imply changing the definitions of different feats.

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.

 

 

3. Math = Game Balance True, the simplistic additive math we were using earlier is quite inappropriate, but stochastic analysis and/or simulation runs are REQUIRED in order to come up with a basic balanced framework, after which the ruleset may be fine-tuned according to actual gameplay experiences and feedback.

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.

[JediBob]

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.

[Judge Hades]

Weapon FInesse is fine the way it is.