Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 5976340" data-attributes="member: 32536">There are a few important reasons for this.The most important is opportunity cost. Do you go for the attack that has a 45% chance of succeeding or the attack that has a 65% chance of succeeding? Do you go for the attack that does 7 damage or the one that does 14 damage? A choice between a 45% chance to do 7 damage and a 65% chance to do 14 damage isn't a choice at all. Only a fool would pick the weaker and less accurate attack. A weaker option may as well not exist so long as the player actually has the freedom to make a choice.The other issue is a matter of game assumptions. Does the game's math assume that the fighter is making attacks with or without the specialization bonus? If it is with, then the non-specialized attacks will be weaker than acceptable and the fighter will only be able to use specialized attacks to stay on par with his allies. If it is without, then the fighter will be more powerful than his allies whenever he uses a specialized weapon. If there is no coherent game math this argument breaks down, but that is in of itself a bad situation, so...Also, if weapon specialization is the core mechanic for fighters, then the fighters essentially stops being a fighter when he switches to a different weapon. It is the same thing as a wizard getting caught in an anti-magic field: deprivation of central class features. Not exactly ideal.Basically, if you want a fighter to ever pick up a weapon other than the weapon he is specialized in, you must never give him even a +1 bonus to a specialized weapon.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwinBahamut, post: 5976340, member: 32536"] There are a few important reasons for this. The most important is opportunity cost. Do you go for the attack that has a 45% chance of succeeding or the attack that has a 65% chance of succeeding? Do you go for the attack that does 7 damage or the one that does 14 damage? A choice between a 45% chance to do 7 damage and a 65% chance to do 14 damage isn't a choice at all. Only a fool would pick the weaker and less accurate attack. A weaker option may as well not exist so long as the player actually has the freedom to make a choice. The other issue is a matter of game assumptions. Does the game's math assume that the fighter is making attacks with or without the specialization bonus? If it is with, then the non-specialized attacks will be weaker than acceptable and the fighter will only be able to use specialized attacks to stay on par with his allies. If it is without, then the fighter will be more powerful than his allies whenever he uses a specialized weapon. If there is no coherent game math this argument breaks down, but that is in of itself a bad situation, so... Also, if weapon specialization is the core mechanic for fighters, then the fighters essentially stops being a fighter when he switches to a different weapon. It is the same thing as a wizard getting caught in an anti-magic field: deprivation of central class features. Not exactly ideal. Basically, if you want a fighter to [i]ever[/i] pick up a weapon other than the weapon he is specialized in, you must never give him even a +1 bonus to a specialized weapon. [/QUOTE]

Verification