Is it possible to vary the thickness of a stroke like in Anime Studio Pro?

Question

I'm new to Illustrator and vector drawing in general, but I've used Anime Studio Pro years ago when it was still Moho, one feature I really liked about it was how you could vary your stroke's thickness from point to point or even hide certain parts of a stroke, that feature was perfect for cartoony drawings and stuff.
Now I went over the lynda.com basics videos which gave me a fairly good idea of how Illustrator works, but this particular feature wasn't covered and I haven't been able to find it on my own.
Is this even possible to do in Illustrator?

Answer 1

I don't see any particular new feature being asked for here. Jack basically asked if Illustrator included any so-called "variable stroke" features. Those have been described to him. Jack has not yet sufficiently described the behavior in Anime Studio Pro to which he alludes, to discern whether it is significantly different from Illustrator's treatment.
(And thanks, but no thanks; if I want to "formalize" my feature ideas, I'm quite capable of doing that myself, rather than delegating it to someone who probably doesn't understand what I'm saying. I'd say most others have communication skills sufficient to do the same.)
Other users in this forum have often asked for an elaboration of a variable stroke weight feature that they could deliberately modify after-the-fact. Think about this: They want to more accurately control the results of "variable stroke" features. (More about this below.) They have suggested (sometimes with elaborate mockups) such things as special on-object handles or (egads, no!) additional modal dialogs to controllably alter the positions of thicks and thins. Such suggestions:
Are seldom very thoroughly thought-out. In practice, they would be every bit as tedious as just drawing the path the way you want it to begin with.
Usually overlook the existing functionality. The yet-another-dialog suggestors fail to understand that the current implementation of ArtBrushes already provides that.
Universally overshoot the real-world practicality of such ideas. They all result in too-complicated interfaces with too much tedium to use them.
Almost always stem from a beginner's fear of using the primary tool of a Bezier path drawing program: The Bezier path drawing tool.
As explained at length, Illustrator already provides tools for both the "as-you-draw" (limited by the real-world inaccuracy of current stylus hardware and [I suspect] Illustrator's 1/12 second redraw response) and the "applied shape" (hindered by a few interface and option problems) methods.
In all drawing programs I've used, I invariably find the "applied shape" method superior for both loose, sketchy, cartooney work and for painstakingly accurate work. That's why I consider stylus hardware in vector programs to largely be an "emperor with no clothes." People who swear by it go to absurd stretches of "logic" to defend it, grossly--often laughably--overstating their supposed "advantages."
Fact is, when you really LISTEN to what people are saying, it boils down to this: Users (usually newcomers) think they want a vector drawing program to act like a raster painting progam, because they think that's more intuitive, and they think that the only difference between vector and raster artwork is that one is scaleable and the other isn't. But vector artwork by its nature seeks accuracy and whether they think it or or not, accuracy is what such requestors seek.
Why else does that stylus-enamored user engage in that ever-tighter re-shaping of the path dozens of times? Because he WANTS that loosey-goosey hardware/software combination to accurately match his mental image of what that raster "stroke" is supposed to look like. He is SEEKING vector-like accuracy and smoothness. But he's doggedly determined to do it with a hardware/software combination that is inherently inaccurate (i.e.; "painterly" features like Blob, Pencil, Brush, Eraser, Smooth tools; "automatic drawing" commands like LiveTrace, Smooth; "painterly" pointing devices).
All these things strive against the inherent nature of vector drawing. It's like vector drawing being ashamed of its own advantages. He does this purely to avoid the direct-drawing methods which are designed for accuracy--i.e.; those which are commesurate with the advantages inherent in vector drawing. (It's not just about resolution independence.)
So newcomer user-demand drives development to concentrate on such dubious "painterly" features, trying to make vector programs "more approachable" by forcing them to act like what they are not, while neglecting year-after-year, version-after-version, interface improvements of the features which reflect what vector programs really are. As a result, much-needed advancement of vector-appropriate features and interface elegance goes unaddressed. The net result is vector software that doesn't even feel serious anymore.
Illustrator's Brushes are best-of-class, but they all fall short because of this misdirected focus on their being loosey-goosey "painterly" and inaccuate. Here are the fairly modest improvements they despirately need, which I have stated many times over the years, and which just fall into the black-hole abyss of Adobe's feature-requests:
Art Brushes
Need ENDINGS. Art Brushes should completely obviate Illustrators' hideously outdated Arrowheads feature. But they don't, because you can't apply a non-distorting END to the paths.
Need a set of sensible default presets that demonstrate to newcomers that Art Brushes can be employed for far more commonly useful things than strained and always-disappointing attempts to emulate "natural media" like chalk or watercolor. The most useful Art Brushes are those made from extremely simple geometric shapes.
Pattern Brushes
Need an option to DISALLOW scaling/distortion of the END TILES and CORNER TILES.
Need a set of sensible default presets that demonstrate to newcomers that Pattern Brushes (provided the other improvements mentioned herein) can be employed for far more things than mere frame borders.
Ends & Corners
Alternatively, separate ENDS & CORNERS as a distinct kind of "brush" that can be optionally applied in combination with all other Brushes.
Include options for non-exclusive occurances at: Path Ends, Path Corners, All AnchorPoints, Segment Centers.
With careful thought, this feature could probably encompass, and thereby obviate the functionality of Scatter Brushes.
Art Brushes and Pattern Brushes
Need to support use of Symbols as Ends and Corners.
Need improved interface for controlling their position boxes. The crude rearmost-invisible-rectangle thing is half-baked and grossly unintuitive.
Need a double-click interface to edit their base artwork commensurate and consistent with Isolation Mode and editing Symbols. One should not have to drag the Brush artwork to the page, Ungroup it multiple times, and AltDrag it back into the Brush palette to edit its artwork.
Art Brushes, Pattern Brushes, and Symbols
Need an option to DISALLOW scaling of STROKE WEIGHTS in the base artwork.
Graphic Styles
Need a set of default presets that leverage the above-mentioned uses of ArtBrush/PatternBrush combinations that demonstrate to newcomers the range of practical things possible through such combinations, instead of just yet-another-worn-out-attempt at "gel buttons."
All Brushes, Styles, and Symbols
A better treatment for managing Libraries.
ABOVE ALL:
Illustrator's horrible interface for drawing paths and making selections needs a complete, from-the-ground-up, rework, so newcomers will stop fearing direct Bezier drawing in the first place. This is the root cause of the vast majority of Illustrator's learning curve pain for newcomers.
Illustrator's horribly scattered interface needs a complete consolidation and reorganization, NOT just yet-another window dressing pasted over the existing [dis]organization scheme.
Illustrator's horribly outdated feature set needs to be brought at least fully up-to-date with other mainstream vector drawing programs. It is simply missing too many bare-bones basic functions that should be standard-fare, and have long been standard fare in other programs (user defined drawing scales, joining of paths, proper cutting tools, path combinations without ridiculous caveats, and much more.)
If doing any of the above means breaking backward-compatibility with previous versions, SO BE IT. Stop development of this buggy, sluggish, outdated application where it is, and call the above a new product.
JET