--------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM THE OBSIDIAN FORUMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
- JediBob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this would be a good idea. Anyone else?
Change for Weapon Finesse
Change for Weapon Finesse
We ask, "Are you the enemy?" and if they say, "Yes" we shoot them.
Further Clarification has been added. Aparently someone didn't get it over there, so rather than risk the same over here, I'm including the further explanation provided.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
More From the Obsidian Forums
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
- JediBob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned, I like this setup. Moreso with the choosing between Melee and Ranged feats during creation - as opposed to selecting weapon finesse - in order to have a fighter who relies on Dexterity. Anyone else?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
More From the Obsidian Forums
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
- JediBob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned, I like this setup. Moreso with the choosing between Melee and Ranged feats during creation - as opposed to selecting weapon finesse - in order to have a fighter who relies on Dexterity. Anyone else?
We ask, "Are you the enemy?" and if they say, "Yes" we shoot them.
I totally and whole heartedly agree with you dude. Ever since I started the game for my first game. You know I'd balance out my characters with 14 str and 14 dex. Because in the first game that's how it was. You wanted a balanced guy at the beginning and throughout the rest of the game you'd either concentrate on wis, str. or dex. Very simple aspect.
But then in the 2nd one they get this whole idea of heck lets make it so they only have to concentrate on one from the very beginning. Never really understood the whole thing until you layed it out. GJ. This should be fixed. I hate the finesse thing. It just sounds lame. But the least they could do is even out the bonuses so no matter what you choose the overall bonuses will equal the same thing. Because right now all the characters that I've made are clearly underdogs.
The good thing that happens to consulars in this game though is that Handmaiden will teach you and you'll be able to apply your wisdom bonus to your defense bonus. So during my first game I was a consular/jedi master. And my defense rocked, because my wisdom was clear up in the 30's. Don't remember how big the bonus was. Anyways just wanted to mention that.
But then in the 2nd one they get this whole idea of heck lets make it so they only have to concentrate on one from the very beginning. Never really understood the whole thing until you layed it out. GJ. This should be fixed. I hate the finesse thing. It just sounds lame. But the least they could do is even out the bonuses so no matter what you choose the overall bonuses will equal the same thing. Because right now all the characters that I've made are clearly underdogs.
The good thing that happens to consulars in this game though is that Handmaiden will teach you and you'll be able to apply your wisdom bonus to your defense bonus. So during my first game I was a consular/jedi master. And my defense rocked, because my wisdom was clear up in the 30's. Don't remember how big the bonus was. Anyways just wanted to mention that.
Somebody from somethin somethin...
-
UserUnfriendly
- Posts: 4109
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Sluggy Zone
- Contact:
The only issue I have with the analysis is that bonuses to attack and defense are not really directly comparable with bonuses to damage. Personally, I feel that attack and defense bonuses are inherently better (my personal option), although in KotOR II I believe you can make a fairly convincing case they are definately better.
As a brief analysis, take damage for starters. Given that your average base damage in this game seems to be around 35-40 (at least it was for my Sentinel), you basically get a 2.5-3% increase in damage for every two points of strength (i.e. +1 to damage). On the other hand, for each +1 to defense (assuming your defense - their attack bonus is between 2 and 18) your opponent hits you 5% less of the time. If you want to compare straight numbers (rather than percentages), if your opponents do more than 20 points of damage on average (assuming critical hit chances are even), you're better off with the defense bonus. A similar analysis works for comparing attack bonuses with damage bonuses.
I'm not certain of the impact of this on the above analysis, but I'm tired and need to head home, so I'll have to leave that to others.
As a brief analysis, take damage for starters. Given that your average base damage in this game seems to be around 35-40 (at least it was for my Sentinel), you basically get a 2.5-3% increase in damage for every two points of strength (i.e. +1 to damage). On the other hand, for each +1 to defense (assuming your defense - their attack bonus is between 2 and 18) your opponent hits you 5% less of the time. If you want to compare straight numbers (rather than percentages), if your opponents do more than 20 points of damage on average (assuming critical hit chances are even), you're better off with the defense bonus. A similar analysis works for comparing attack bonuses with damage bonuses.
I'm not certain of the impact of this on the above analysis, but I'm tired and need to head home, so I'll have to leave that to others.