FEXNA (Currently In Private Beta)

[lonelyVoxel]

A dedicated Spirit stat just doesn't make sense to me. Iron Will sounds like a pretty good idea, and that could help greatly when an Axe user needs to take out a General with a Hammer. However, I like having Constitution as a growable stat, though, so I probably wouldn't utilize that.

[Augestein]

Con as a stat that can be increased by leveling sounds cool. I can't remember, but didn't FE5 have that as well?

[lonelyVoxel]

Thracia did have a growing CON stat, and is the only game in the series to have it {unless you count STR-based weight as growing CON}. There's a patch for FE7 and FE8 that allows CON to grow, which is being used in a hack I'm beta testing.

[Anouleth]

STR/MAG split just makes a unit either OP because they can attack RES or DEF at will, or it makes their magic or physical attacks useless since one stat will likely lag far behind the other for 'balance' reasons. (Who cares if I have swords and anima if the magic damage is always so low due to a low MAG stat?)

I don't think that's really true. Firstly obviously being able to choose between attacking resistance and defense is "strong". That's not a problem, though. Being able to teleport allies is strong. Being able to ignore terrain is strong. Being tanky is strong. All of these things are potentially overpowered, but that doesn't mean we should remove flying units from the game or tanky units or Warp staves.

Secondly, we've been down this road. We've had units that could target both resistance and defense. Olwen and Helios in Thracia, to an extent Leif with his Light Brand, then FE9 Tanith with her Sonic Sword. You could even count Wendell from Shadow Dragon, since he frequently reclasses between Dracoknight, Swordmaster, and Sage depending on what the situation requires. None of these units are what I'd call overwhelmingly powerful, and they often find reasons to use both physical and magical attacks. Low magic stat? Leif's magic stat is terrible, but his Light Brand is still a very strong weapon because it lets him attack at range and ignore defenses.

I agree about luck, as do many people. Yeti's solution for making Resistance useful is tying it to staff power, which makes no sense, but does a great deal to make it more useful and differentiate Bishops from Sages. Constitution, however, is a great stat, allowing Rescuing and potentially Shoving (or, if you're Klok, Capturing) and being much, MUCH more mechanically sound for AS calculation than strength could ever dream of being. I'll leave out little things like Colossus calculation because that's not really a big deal, but it's still not extraneous in the least. (random fun fact, I intend to do away with both luck and resistance for my own game, doing exactly what you suggested, but I'm keeping constitution just as it is)

I do also agree about the triple anima magic types and aren't really sure why 7x has them other than visual variety. Affinities are in the same boat as the split, IMHO, but the difference is that every FEGBA has had those, and FEXNA was from the start based on FEGBA systems.

There are ways to implement rescuing without an underlying constitution system. You could make it straight class priority, where mounted units can always pick up foot units and divide foot units into heavy/medium/light categories. It would probably be better that way, in fact. And even if constitution has a purpose, AID certainly does not, and apparently we're willing to devote valuable screen real estate to that worthless stat.

I do actually like the idea of resistance pulling double duty for staff use and magic damage reduction, but in that case I'd almost certainly rename it to "Mind" or even "Piety".

[Dunal]

♥Klokinator♥, on 13 Sept 2015 - 04:32 AM, said:

STR/MAG split just makes a unit either OP because they can attack RES or DEF at will, or it makes their magic or physical attacks useless since one stat will likely lag far behind the other for 'balance' reasons. (Who cares if I have swords and anima if the magic damage is always so low due to a low MAG stat?)

I don't think that's true at all. Again, you're arguing "It hasn't been well balanced yet, so it never can be!". Okay, let's create a scenario:

Your 'magical' rogue (with both average STR and MAG) is in range of a Bishop (low DEF, high RES) and an Armor (High DEF, low RES). Your rogue has the option of doing damage to both but won't be doing extraordinary amounts to either -- but attacking either is viable.

Then you add an extra layer on that. The Rogue's magic has only 2 range (perhaps they have a penalty that only allows them to do this) and their melee weapon is 1 range, and that can also be a factor of which one to use in this situation (or any situation, really).

Then you add another layer of weapon availability. This rouge sharing weapons with other sword/dagger users but also your other mages. Your resources may be tight, so you may have to compromise on either one of them.

Furthermore, you get a couple of stat boosters: an energy drop and a spirit dust. Your rogue is only allowed only one (for the sake of sharing resources) you have the choice to slightly boost their ability to contribute in one type of damage. But not both.

How is this not interesting design?

Edited September 13, 2015 by DLuna

[electricwolf]

Then, add a new stat called SPI (Sprit, you can also use ENG for Energy but SPI works better for magic and physical) which is used for Skill effect calculation. Say you want to have a unit with Renewal that regains SPI% HP every turn, or you use SPI as the activation rate for a skill, or for some skills you divide SPI by 10 and the result is how many times in a row you can activate a skill, and heck you can even have like an energy bar based off SPI.

Either way, after hearing Yeti explain it, I think a split is useless and pointless entirely. A Spirit stat would be FAR more interesting to use.

You put skill activation on SPI and suddenly Skill seems like a complete dump stat. Sure, you can rebalance parts of games to make sure this isn't the case but all that's happened is that you've 'moved' any balance issues elsewhere.

In all seriousness though, if people are so desperate for a split, they can go ahead and implement it. But it won't be in standard 7x or FEXNA

I entirely understand that this project and the contributors to it can do pretty much whatever it wants because, well, they can, but if the plan is to distribute and support it at some point in the future, what is the reasoning behind leaving out a feature that has been in previous FE games?

Saying it can't be balanced is just wrong and it'll likely be much easier to implement by the creator now instead of somebody else at a later date.

Surely if you're considering features and whether to include them in these projects, FEXNA will (once released) produce very similar games to 7x? (at least until other people get other features working)

[NICKT™]

Fire Emblem, like any game that prides itself on unit diversity loses out in all cases once they start giving too many abilities and uses to a specific unit or class.

When you're in a situation that requires magic, you use your mage, strength and you use your soldier. If you have one unit that can do multiple things then it trivializes the need for multiple units which defeats the point of having the varying classes.

If I have a class that can attack using both magic and swords, then why should I bother bringing a mage and a soldier? If the class isn't as strong as either than why have that class? Just have the soldier and mage. Sure you could argue that it'd make you choose to manage numbers but beyond that it's absolutely 100% pointless.

And when it comes to FE7x and FEXNA, if Yeti doesn't want to do a certain mechanic then he doesn't have to, just because it was in the games isn't some sort of rule that he must now abide by, and the beauty is that you can add it yourself when it comes out if you really feel it's necessary.

[Dunal]

Fire Emblem, like any game that prides itself on unit diversity loses out in all cases once they start giving too many abilities and uses to a specific unit or class.

When you're in a situation that requires magic, you use your mage, strength and you use your soldier. If you have one unit that can do multiple things then it trivializes the need for multiple units which defeats the point of having the varying classes.

If I have a class that can attack using both magic and swords, then why should I bother bringing a mage and a soldier? If the class isn't as strong as either than why have that class? Just have the soldier and mage. Sure you could argue that it'd make you choose to manage numbers but beyond that it's absolutely 100% pointless.

You could quite easily say the same thing about something like the magic triangle.

It's pointless since A) Both player and enemy units tend to have less magic units in general. And B) Resistance values are often inflated for them, making it useless.

So you could argue that due to FE history, it's a pointless mechanic because it hasn't been done well (which isn't true because it certainly can be made important). In 7x, the anima triangle certainly adds nothing to the game if it was supposed to. Aside from thematics, perhaps.

A hybrid damage unit doesn't 'invalidate' other units. That unit could have poor durability, or speed. Or movement. It's just another way to make a unit interesting, especially if it's the main lord / forced unit or something.

Being able to attack both DEF/RES resistance at say, 75% of the efficiency of other units with singular damage -- doesn't make them 'useless' either. Units are balanced around their own merits. Perhaps this unit can take hits more, perhaps this unit inflicts a debuff like FE14 (for your "stronger" units to take advantage of), perhaps this unit is limited to magic damage on player phase but physical on enemy phase (requiring a lot of thought in how you use them).

It isn't as black or white as you make it seem. There's certainly a way to make it work.

By the way, I don't care either way if a split is added or not (It's not necessary at all) -- I could just take the time to add that myself. The argument against a STR/MAG split interests me though.

Edited September 13, 2015 by DLuna

[Anouleth]

Fire Emblem, like any game that prides itself on unit diversity loses out in all cases once they start giving too many abilities and uses to a specific unit or class.

When you're in a situation that requires magic, you use your mage, strength and you use your soldier. If you have one unit that can do multiple things then it trivializes the need for multiple units which defeats the point of having the varying classes.

If I have a class that can attack using both magic and swords, then why should I bother bringing a mage and a soldier? If the class isn't as strong as either than why have that class? Just have the soldier and mage. Sure you could argue that it'd make you choose to manage numbers but beyond that it's absolutely 100% pointless.

Whether or not something is "overpowered" or "underpowered" usually depends entirely on the context. It's easy to say that there's no way that a unit that uses both magic and physical weapons could be reasonably balanced, but in my last post, I pointed out Wendell, Tanith, Olwen, Helios, and Leif. All of these units have opportunities to make use of both physical and magical weapons, none of them render other units totally obsolete, and none of them are totally obsolete themselves. So there's no need for us to speculate on how to balance physical and magical combat within one unit when IS has already shown that it works.

And when it comes to FE7x and FEXNA, if Yeti doesn't want to do a certain mechanic then he doesn't have to, just because it was in the games isn't some sort of rule that he must now abide by, and the beauty is that you can add it yourself when it comes out if you really feel it's necessary.

Of course, I'm not trying to suggest that BwdYeti has an obligation to implement it. But it's a popular feature, and one that, to my limited understanding of how this stuff works, seems relatively challenging to add in after the fact since you have to find screen space to display and room in the databases.

[Primefusion]

And when it comes to FE7x and FEXNA, if Yeti doesn't want to do a certain mechanic then he doesn't have to, just because it was in the games isn't some sort of rule that he must now abide by, and the beauty is that you can add it yourself when it comes out if you really feel it's necessary.

After all this debating back and forth over stat systems, I feel like this is the only point that matters.

If Yeti doesn't want to put it in, it's not going in.

[Crazy Li]

Fire Emblem, like any game that prides itself on unit diversity loses out in all cases once they start giving too many abilities and uses to a specific unit or class.

When you're in a situation that requires magic, you use your mage, strength and you use your soldier. If you have one unit that can do multiple things then it trivializes the need for multiple units which defeats the point of having the varying classes.

If I have a class that can attack using both magic and swords, then why should I bother bringing a mage and a soldier? If the class isn't as strong as either than why have that class? Just have the soldier and mage. Sure you could argue that it'd make you choose to manage numbers but beyond that it's absolutely 100% pointless.

And when it comes to FE7x and FEXNA, if Yeti doesn't want to do a certain mechanic then he doesn't have to, just because it was in the games isn't some sort of rule that he must now abide by, and the beauty is that you can add it yourself when it comes out if you really feel it's necessary.

I really don't agree with this point of view. Again, not trying to tell Yeti what to do. He's free to make the editor however he wants of course... and as long as it's flexible enough that adding it myself in a way that's reasonable to manage is possible, I have no problems.

But still I don't get the arguments against this so much. It's up to the game maker to make the game good. If you don't need the mechanic, you wouldn't have to use it anyway. If it existed, it would be an option, thus being optional. It only becomes bad design if the person using it implements it poorly... but if the person using it isn't good at game design in general, they'll likely use other features poorly anyway. Excluding this isn't saving anything... it's just making it harder on people who may have good ideas.

To say having a character that can do both magic and melee devalues all characters that can only do one is silly. What are the chances that a single unit that's average at both things can take out everything by themselves? No, they still need other units. Yeah, if I made a unit that could get 20 STR and 20 MAG, that would be obviously OP... but the same could be said about any unit that has too many high stats. A paladin in GBA games can use Swords, Spears, and Axes, right? Why does this not devalue other units by your logic? I don't need Swordsmasters, Heroes, Bersekers, Generals, ect... because I have one unit that can do all 3 melee weapons. No, that's not how Fire Emblem works. Units are more complex than what weapon they use. A Mercenary and a Myrmidon both use swords... but they are fundamentally different units. One tends to be more powerful and the other tends to be swifter and better at crits. Units can be unique and have their own values beyond what weapon type(s) they use.

And really a unit that say uses Magic and Swords can attack DEF or RES, sure... but attacking DEF doesn't give them an edge over every piece of the triangle like my Paladin example. They might slash a mage good, but then a Halberdier comes in skewers them on the enemy turn.

My implementation of the idea involves a character that uses Knives and Tomes. They have tactical options, but don't excel at damage in either capacity. The knives are outside the triangle, so they don't beat anything and are fairly weak weapons to begin with. The character doesn't have exceptional STR either. MAG can be a little more promising if I keep a triangle around, since the Anima will at least have a strength... but I haven't decided how I'll handle magic yet. Still, the MAG isn't on the level of an actual Mage, so they won't have comparable damage output. On top of this, attacking a Mage with a knife to hit DEF can still be risky since this character doesn't have super high RES or anything (also doesn't have high DEF). The character avoids being too OP by having very balanced/average stats despite two types of attacks that target different defenses. The end goal is to make the character situationally useful while not universally outshining other units.

Also I find it weird that people argue both ways against STR/MAG splits... I've seen posts where someone will say it makes the character too OP while also noting that magic attacks are pointless on chars without good MAG in the same post xP Which way is it? Useless or OP? It seems some are so against it that every possible scenario makes it bad. If it's strong, it's bad. If it's weak, it's bad. If it's average, it's bad. I don't understand that.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Crazy Li

[Klokinator]

The knives are outside the triangle [...] and are fairly weak

The character doesn't have exceptional STR either

Ie: Useless. Should just give the unit another magic type or staves. At least then they'll have good options.

P.S. In my own hack, I'm giving one single unit swords and light magic on promotion. There will not be a split, they will simply share the POW stat for both. This would be overpowered, except the unit also has no redeeming skills. The split IS their skill. So while Bishops kill monsters, Warriors kill everything in general, swordmasters crit like crazy, and Heroes are economical weapon use saving machines, my dual-wielding unit gets no skill in exchange for this awesome power.

That's the only way I can see to make a dual-wielding weapon/tome unit balanced, and that's the only way I will do it.

Edited September 13, 2015 by ♥Klokinator♥

[47948201]

I'm not sure if anyone is saying it's "useless" (ignore the first line of klok's post *shot*) or "can't be balanced" so much as "it's not beneficial enough for the average user to warrant redoing the GBA stat system the engine was based on in the first place".

I guess you could say then that Resistance for Staves shouldn't be included, but the difference with that is that there's a boolean variable sitting in config that can turn it on or off without impacting anything else in the entire engine, whereas the split requires a bunch of changes here and there.

Like NICKT said, if there's a feature you want that doesn't exist, you have every right and ability to add it yourself. Yeti recently said that, in addition to the full engine source, the editor source code will be made available, so there's literally nothing you can't do through normal channels. Besides, the split is the perfect system to help introduce people to the FEXNA source code, since it requires so many little changes to so many things, it can give people a lot of insight into how Yeti put everything together without being some ridiculous thing.

[Crazy Li]

Ie: Useless. Should just give the unit another magic type or staves. At least then they'll have good options.

P.S. In my own hack, I'm giving one single unit swords and light magic on promotion. There will not be a split, they will simply share the POW stat for both. This would be overpowered, except the unit also has no redeeming skills. The split IS their skill. So while Bishops kill monsters, Warriors kill everything in general, swordmasters crit like crazy, and Heroes are economical weapon use saving machines, my dual-wielding unit gets no skill in exchange for this awesome power.

That's the only way I can see to make a dual-wielding weapon/tome unit balanced, and that's the only way I will do it.

No, I shouldn't do that because that doesn't make any sense. You're basically telling me I should give a thief more magic or staves instead of the knives they're supposed to have to begin with. I don't really believe your method is more balanced than mine. You're basically saying you have a garbage character that can hit two different stats in their attack for their one redeeming quality. The end result of my character will be similar (though not garbage all around since this character has good speed, being a thief-type).

Really balance is about making a conscious effort to balance stuff... play-testing everything. I plan to test every map to make sure things make sense and characters aren't becoming too strong... adjusting and tweaking as I need.

I'm not sure if anyone is saying it's "useless" (ignore the first line of klok's post *shot*) or "can't be balanced" so much as "it's not beneficial enough for the average user to warrant redoing the GBA stat system the engine was based on in the first place".

I guess you could say then that Resistance for Staves shouldn't be included, but the difference with that is that there's a boolean variable sitting in config that can turn it on or off without impacting anything else in the entire engine, whereas the split requires a bunch of changes here and there.

Like NICKT said, if there's a feature you want that doesn't exist, you have every right and ability to add it yourself. Yeti recently said that, in addition to the full engine source, the editor source code will be made available, so there's literally nothing you can't do through normal channels. Besides, the split is the perfect system to help introduce people to the FEXNA source code, since it requires so many little changes to so many things, it can give people a lot of insight into how Yeti put everything together without being some ridiculous thing.

I know C#, so as long as that's the core behind FEXNA, I should be fine on making it myself. My only concern was whether or not new stats would show up in the management area for character/class initial stats/growths. Since it sounds like stuff actually adds easily, it doesn't sound like it'll be problematic from the GUI management end so I should be perfectly fine to make this change.

There's a lot of other system changes I need to make anyway since I have a lot of ideas that deviate from GBA style of doing things (some from other FE games, and some my own original methods). I'm not afraid to get my hands dirty in the code at all.

[Augestein]

Ie: Useless. Should just give the unit another magic type or staves. At least then they'll have good options.

P.S. In my own hack, I'm giving one single unit swords and light magic on promotion. There will not be a split, they will simply share the POW stat for both. This would be overpowered, except the unit also has no redeeming skills. The split IS their skill. So while Bishops kill monsters, Warriors kill everything in general, swordmasters crit like crazy, and Heroes are economical weapon use saving machines, my dual-wielding unit gets no skill in exchange for this awesome power.

That's the only way I can see to make a dual-wielding weapon/tome unit balanced, and that's the only way I will do it.

Or it's a way to make the thief not OP and reinforce the idea that they are a utility unit while giving them a unique way of handling combat against a variety of units without making them some amazingly effective unit in combat. A thief can only carry a finite amount of items around, so their strength is there.

P.S. In my own hack, I'm giving one single unit swords and light magic on promotion. There will not be a split, they will simply share the POW stat for both. This would be overpowered, except the unit also has no redeeming skills. The split IS their skill. So while Bishops kill monsters, Warriors kill everything in general, swordmasters crit like crazy, and Heroes are economical weapon use saving machines, my dual-wielding unit gets no skill in exchange for this awesome power.

And that's one form of balance. How different would it be if this unit with swords and light magic had 10 strength and 10 magic for their stats by promotion with 45% strength growth and 45% magic growth? For the most part? Not a huge difference outside of some minor variation on damage. But it still serves a purpose though, if a person wanted to have magical weapons, then a person could use say a magical bow to attack res against wyvern while still uses the might bonus from a bow because it's a flier. It just depends on how the maker wants to design their units and what they do with them.

There's no real wrong way outside of having poor balance.

[Klokinator]

I actually misread and thought he said 'Sage', not 'Thief'. I guess that would make more sense. Thieves are supposed to be weak so giving them magic they can't use effectively is fine.

[Crazy Li]

And that's one form of balance. How different would it be if this unit with swords and light magic had 10 strength and 10 magic for their stats by promotion with 45% strength growth and 45% magic growth? For the most part? Not a huge difference outside of some minor variation on damage. But it still serves a purpose though, if a person wanted to have magical weapons, then a person could use say a magical bow to attack res against wyvern while still uses the might bonus from a bow because it's a flier. It just depends on how the maker wants to design their units and what they do with them.

There's no real wrong way outside of having poor balance.

I would argue that having the same base stats for MAG and STR while also having the same growths would make the tomes thing pointless. Aside from RGN luck, you're not going to see any practical reason to do this over making weapons that hit RES. At the same time, differing the stats could make thing dicey.

In my current idea, there are two factors that come into play. The reason the character acquires magic use is plot-related so the result is more story first and practical second. Added to that, since they get magic later, the character is planned to start out with better STR intially but with a slightly greater MAG growth so it can potentially catch up and balance out.

But yeah... there's no wrong way in theory... it's up to how you put it into practice.

[Augestein]

I would argue that having the same base stats for MAG and STR while also having the same growths would make the tomes thing pointless. Aside from RGN luck, you're not going to see any practical reason to do this over making weapons that hit RES. At the same time, differing the stats could make thing dicey.

Not at all. You can use the more useful weapon against the right type of unit. Fighting a mage? Use your strength weapon. Fighting a higher defense unit? Use a spell. There's nothing that says you have to follow the stand Fire Emblem usage and go "on pretty much every unit sans mages and maybe a pegasus knight have terrible res." Not to mention, there's also other aspects that you can do. Say the unit that has access to light spells and swords. Say when they first get access to spells they have a B rank in swords versus an E rank in magic. Even with a decent magic stat, they'd still have plenty of reason to use B rank swords over magic. Sort of how most would say spears > swords in Fire Emblem 7, but you won't see a ton of people S ranking spears in a timely manner -- if at all.

In my current idea, there are two factors that come into play. The reason the character acquires magic use is plot-related so the result is more story first and practical second. Added to that, since they get magic later, the character is planned to start out with better STR intially but with a slightly greater MAG growth so it can potentially catch up and balance out.

Which could result in some mage hunters coming after him/her making them still have a reason to use their standard weapon.

[GamerX51]

I've been closely following this latest back and forth about the STR/MAG split, and I've considered all the pros and cons of it. But even if Yeti isn't planning to use it in FE7X, there are plenty of people who are going to be using it in their own projects (myself included). And I would much rather have a tested and stable system in place to accomodate my needs right out of the box, rather than having to potentially wait months for someone else to develop and test one.

I understand that Yeti is doing this entirely in his free time and thus has to set certain priorities in terms of features, but it would be nice if he could see this issue from our perspective and at least try to accomodate the needs of the people who are going to be using his editor. I don't know C#, and I don't have the money to take classes on it. I don't think Yeti really understands how incredibly rare coding skills like his are.

I'm not trying to sound like an ungrateful ass here, but dismissing our needs by saying "you can code it yourself!" isn't the least bit helpful, and it isn't going to earn Yeti any goodwill.

Edited September 16, 2015 by GamerX51

[Klokinator]

"Thanks for making an entire engine in one of the most commonly used languages yeti, but seriously not coding this one thing isn't earning you any goodwill here"

[47948201]

It feels like it's been long enough, so I'm going to let everyone in on a little secret~

[spoiler=LITTLE SECRET][spoiler=it's pretty secret][spoiler=it's also a pretty secret, depending on your perspective][spoiler=HERE'S THE SECRET]FEXNA is currently, and has been for a while, just FE7x with the chapter maps taken out. Every feature FE7x has, FEXNA has, and every feature FE7x doesn't, FEXNA doesn't. And that will probably be the case until FE7x is finished--but at that point, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of extended official support for FEXNA. I wouldn't count on it either, but I've seen no information to the contrary. And that's just the official line.

[Tryhard]

I'm not trying to sound like an ungrateful ass here, but dismissing our needs by saying "you can code it yourself!" isn't the least bit helpful, and it isn't going to earn Yeti any goodwill.

I'm unsure what you're expecting - he is not really obligated to give you anything. If it bothered you so much, then perhaps consider reaching in your own pockets to "motivate" him if he's willing to do so. But you've said you don't want to for C# classes, so I expect you won't want to do that either.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Tryhard

[Augestein]

I've been closely following this latest back and forth about the STR/MAG split, and I've considered all the pros and cons of it. But even if Yeti isn't planning to use it in FE7X, there are plenty of people who are going to be using it in their own projects (myself included). And I would much rather have a tested and stable system in place to accomodate my needs right out of the box, rather than having to potentially wait months for someone else to develop and test one.

I understand that Yeti is doing this entirely in his free time and thus has to set certain priorities in terms of features, but it would be nice if he could see this issue from our perspective and at least try to accomodate the needs of the people who are going to be using his editor. I don't know C#, and I don't have the money to take classes on it. I don't think Yeti really understands how incredibly rare coding skills like his are.

I'm not trying to sound like an ungrateful ass here, but dismissing our needs by saying "you can code it yourself!" isn't the least bit helpful, and it is on't going to earn Yeti any goodwill.

And FE7x takes priority over FEXNA. It's a small team of people. Yeti thinks that str/mag split isn't important, so in terms of things that can be done, it's probably on a very low priority-- as it should be. There are plenty of other things to be worried about that are more useful than a str/mag split. If this is coded like most programs are, adding str/mag will probably be as simple as adding it to the data base so there's some script/procedure that accepts characters that use both a strength and magic stat. That's it. Fitting it on the UI seemed to be the bigger issue TBH.

It shouldn't even be particularly difficult to edit if the source is decently documented. And considering that there is a person that is creating it, asking where to look shouldn't be particularly hard.

It's not a priority because it's a bells and whistles sort of feature. Hell, someone else might do it for you so you don't even have to do it yourself.

Just... Calm down.

[Augestein]

I'm unsure what you're expecting - he is not really obligated to give you anything. If it bothered you so much, then perhaps consider reaching in your own pockets to "motivate" him if he's willing to do so. But you've said you don't want to for C# classes, so I expect you won't want to do that either.

And that's literally the fastest way to get this hit by a C&D.

[Tryhard]

And that's literally the fastest way to get this hit by a C&D.

Why? The whole reason FEXNA is going to be public in the first place is because Yeti has received donations.