Making the GTU not suck

[CamDawg]

The GTU was based on Kevin Dorner's Baldurdash GTU, went through a round of corrections from Macready, and then we've added corrections of whatever other errors we've found along the way. I've started an in-depth review of the GTU with these goals:

• Remove any superfluous changes (i.e. focus more on true typo and grammar errors)
  
• Move all fixes from the GTU to the core fixes
  
• Make item and spell descriptions consistent and clarify any ambiguities
  

I've gotten to about string 1000, and already about half of the changes have been dumped. In the first pass I'm concentrating on the first two points; once that's done I'll be looking into the descriptions. Wherever there's some ambiguity, I'll be posting here for community feedback. So, our first two issues:

 

Dorner (and by extension, now Fixpack) added the STATISTICS sections to the Illithid control circlets and brine solutions. Previously they were just the descriptions. Keep these changes or drop them?

 

Next question is looking ahead to variable damage weapons, such as the Bastard Sword +1/+3 vs. Shapeshifters and Foebane. Foebane describes its damage as:

 

Damage:  2D4 + 3, +6 damage vs. undead, shapeshifters, and all extra-planar beings (demons, planetars, etc.)

Here, the +6 is meant to supplement the base damage, i.e. it does 2d4+3+6 (2d4+9 total) against its special foes.

 

For the Bastard Sword +1/+3 vs. Shapeshifters, the damage is described more or less the same way as

 

Damage:  2D4 +1, +3 vs. Shapeshifters

Here, though, the +3 is meant to replace the +1, so it actually does 2d4+3 to shapeshifters (not 2d4+1+3).

 

What's the preference here? We can use one of these two as standard (the Bastard Sword +1/+3 vs. Shapeshifters description is more common) or we can try to be more explicit with something like

 

Base Damage: 2d4+3
 Modifiers: +6 aditional damage vs. undead, shapeshifters, and all extra-planar beings (demons, planetars, etc.)
THAC0: +3
 Modifiers: +6 additional THAC0 vs. undead, shapeshifters, and all extra-planar beings (demons, planetars, etc.)

Base Damage: 2d4+1
 Modifiers: +2 additional damage vs. Shapeshifters
THAC0: +1
 Modifiers: +2 additional THAC0 vs. Shapeshifters

 

Thoughts, opinions, thinly veiled scorn?

[DavidW]

Depends on your methodology. The last form is clearest (though I'd drop the word "modifiers", which isn't really needed). But if you need to stay inside the existing text to justify being a "fixpack" (I've never been sure of the rules here) then the +1/+3 vs shapeshifters is clearest.

[berelinde]

Dorner (and by extension, now Fixpack) added the STATISTICS sections to the Illithid control circlets and brine solutions. Previously they were just the descriptions. Keep these changes or drop them?

Don't think they matter all that much, do they?

 

 

For the +x, +y vs. thing, I never had a problem understanding the existing explanations, but I don't have any objections to clarifying them further.

[Kulyok]

I've gotten to about string 1000, and already about half of the changes have been dumped.

 

Thoughts, opinions, thinly veiled scorn?

 

Actually, I'm beginning to like you.

 

(standard, concise, is my preference)

[devSin]

I'm against the whole "Modifiers" thing; it's too alien given the default text. I'd prefer a solution that might clarify it for the majority of the people without deviating too much from the default structure for the stat lists.

 

Unless he added STATISTICS to all potions (most of which are without IIRC), I'd drop the brine potion. The control circlet is a coin toss. I'd look and see how other usable MISC* items are handled and try to keep it consistent.

[cmorgan]

Agreed. Matching MISC* .itm usage is good for guidelines; standardized to

"+1/+3 vs shapeshifters" works well (the BG2 Tweaks already does this, doesn't it? I always install it).

 

I would also like to ask that you keep the existing "Improved Baldurdash" version of the GTU installable. Some folks enjoy the Baldurdash GTU additions to content. While it should be classified as a "Tweak", we really can't do that (not a last in install order kind of thing, y'know) so I would appreciate allowing the choice for Baldurdash-based vs Fixpacked as part of the install.

[Mike1072]

I'll admit that the default descriptions have confused me a number of times.

 

Damage: 2d4+1, additional +2 vs. Shapeshifters

 

Would be most clear (and concise) to me.

[Salk]

In the GTU for Baldur's Gate I have adopted this for - example - the sword "Kondar":

 

Damage: 2D4 + 1, +3 vs. Shapeshifters

 

Also for the Armor Class, I solved an ambiguity that might confuse people.

 

Example, in the description of the Leather Armor, it becomes:

 

Armor Class: 8

 

while for a buckler, it would be:

 

Armor Class: +1, None vs. Missiles/Piercing Weapons

[devSin]

I would also like to ask that you keep the existing "Improved Baldurdash" version of the GTU installable. Some folks enjoy the Baldurdash GTU additions to content. While it should be classified as a "Tweak", we really can't do that (not a last in install order kind of thing, y'know) so I would appreciate allowing the choice for Baldurdash-based vs Fixpacked as part of the install.

I'm actually against this. It seems to me like a waste of space to have The Real GTU and then the Baldurdash GTU; people can just download Dorner's talk table before installing any mods if they like the spurious changes, no?

[Miloch]

Damage: 2D4 + 1, +3 vs. Shapeshifters

Wasn't this the original description (minus the space in 'Shape Shifters')?

Also for the Armor Class, I solved an ambiguity that might confuse people.

 

Example, in the description of the Leather Armor, it becomes:

Armor Class: 7

But... it's AC8?

while for a buckler, it would be:

Armor Class: +1, None vs. Missiles/Piercing Weapons

What was ambiguous about the original description?

 

I think simpler is better for this kind of stuff, as long as it's not too ambiguous.

[cmorgan]

That depends -

 

Dorner's stuff has had the benefit of Macready's and G3's fixes.

 

the GTU fixes in the BG2 Fixpack are a separately installed component, which leaves folks with two choices - Dorner's GTU dialog.tlk, or our fixed/standardized one.

 

But currently we have an available "Improved BD GTU", which is not available anywhere else. Dropping this removes an improved baldurdash, leaving just the two choices. I like stuff (conceptually) that opens up player freedoms rather than shutting them down, so I like the idea of allowing that middle ground.

 

For me, this is similar to the EasyTutu thing. Macready starts with a Baldurdash GTU Tutu version, and then improves on it. I am a big fan of it; but there is currently no way for Tutu v4 users to access those fixes.

[Gort]

For the Bastard Sword +1/+3 vs. Shapeshifters, the damage is described more or less the same way as

 

Damage:  2D4 +1, +3 vs. Shapeshifters

Here, though, the +3 is meant to replace the +1, so it actually does 2d4+3 to shapeshifters (not 2d4+1+3).

maybe it is a bug, and it should really be doing additional 3 damage to shapeshifters?

[Azazello]

I like the second option

Base Damage: 2d4+1
Modifiers: +2 additional damage vs. Shapeshifters
 THAC0: +1
Modifiers: +2 additional THAC0 vs. Shapeshifters

Am I guessing correctly that "Modifiers" is used more for formatting purposes? It could be any word, or none, as long as the formatting is maintained. Yes?

 

Finally, as with most things, I agree with cmorgan.

[Salk]

@Miloch:

 

For the sword "Kondar", I didn't change the original description. I was just confirming that I considered it good the way it was.

 

About the leather armor, you're right: the value in the GTU is 8, do not worry ( ).

 

The ambiguity laid in the fact that the original text used Armor Class and Armor Class Bonus.

 

For a pratical reason, I thought best to use only Armor Class followed by a positive number for protection setting the Armor Class to a specific level while a + or - would mean a modification to the actual armor class level would occur.

 

The redundancy of the word Bonus has also been removed after THAC0 as well as a positive number after it already indicates it's a bonus.

[Miloch]

For the sword "Kondar", I didn't change the original description. I was just confirming that I considered it good the way it was.

Ok. I'd agree. I don't see why it's ambiguous. The format "Sword +1, +3 vs. [whatever]" has been used in PnP for ages - most people should be familiar with what it means. And if not, they'll figure it out in the game quickly enough. For an example, here's a random magic item generation table of the type you see in the PHB etc. Do people actually think the sword +1, +3 vs. lycanthropes is supposed to do +4 vs. lycanthropes? It does +3, as it says.

 

As for the Baldurdash additions, we are making those an OBC in the BG1 Fixpack (aren't we, Salk ).