Kit Revisions (Fighters)

[Demivrgvs]

True Fighter BGT

I recently discovered an issue for TuTu and BGT players which may actually be very unbalancing, and I don't know how to "fix" it. In BG2 the engine doesn't prevent a level 1 fighter from putting all his 4 proficiency points into a single weapon (instead of 2 like in BG1), and a fighter can reach grandmastery at 3rd level (instead of at 9th level). I'd like to know if TuTu/BGT players found this too unbalancing or not, because in my opinion it is, but I haven't tested it in-game.

In my opinion it is a bug and Grandmastery at 3rd level is very cheesy. If you have not the possibility to do it in BG1, so it should be in BGT, too. And if you have fixed it, it would be nice if we let Ascension64 know it. I think that should be fixed in BGT, too.

Actually I haven't found a way to fix it, that's why I'm proposing a workaround.

 

The problem is that BG2 engine completely ignores PROFSMAX.2DA which is where this cap was placed in BG1. Is there any ninja coder who knows a way to fix this?

 

The only way to somewhat restore the rule is to limit the starting proficiency points (at least I don't know any other solution). I may agree on letting fighters get mastery (+++) at 1st level though, because else they would be on par with paladins and rangers which also get other bonuses at 1st level. Else I may simply ignore the problem and let players decide for themselves. Let me know what do you think about it.

For BGT only (++) and for your Kit Revisions... hmmm. If a true fighter can normally get the grandmastery at 9th level, what get the other classes around 9th level? Like you see, I'm not really sure about to give 1. level fighters (+++).

I proposed it for only two reasons:

 

1) because the only way I know to partially "fix" the abovementioned issue is to reduce fighters proficiency points at 1st level, and reducing them to only two seemed too harsh. At least Grandmastery would be delayed to 6th level.

 

2) because any warrior class receives something at 1st level except True Fighters (kitted fighters are a different matter). For example: True Paladins at 1st level have everything a Fighter has plus +2 to saves, Lay on Hands and protection from evil (kitted paladins are even better but they are clearly unbalanced in terms of advantages), Rangers have Stealth, Racial Enemy and Charm Animal on top of exactly the same features granted to Fighters (though KR will at least reduce their armor proficiency).

 

 

Kensai

A thought struck me yesterday as I was heading to my bed - why not to impose a combat penalty on those kensai who want to wear robes?

 

-1 (thaco, damage) for lesser ones

-2 (thaco, damage, AC) for archmage's - kensages only, I guess

 

Robes are IR's, of course. Penalties seem balanced to me, and even offer extra possibilities - we can play 'vanilla' kensage, who buffs up and slices them all, or a wizard who trades his combat prowess for more wizardry.

While I find it reasonable (the damage penalty doesn't make sense imo but you probably suggested it to offset kensai's advantages, right?), my point is that Kensai in BG are explicitly described as warriors who fight without any encumberance, and except lesser robes (that may be considered simpler vests), archmage's robes are long robes with mantles and hood.

 

From a gameplay point of view your suggestion is probably fine, but I could implement it only modifying the items, (whereas mine is doable directly in the clab file relative to the kit) and it wouldn't be "justified" within the class description.

 

I fear the only reason to want Kensage wearing robes is called "-2/-4 casting speed factor", am I wrong? If most players are really against this restriction I'll give up. It just seemed a very appropriate way to slightly nerf what is probably one of the most overpowered class combinations (together with Kensai-Thief and Ranger/Cleric). Note that bracers still offer better protection (AC3) than a vanilla's kensage using Vecna (AC5), I'm simply allowing a pure mage to be at least a better mage than a kensage, who already has more hp, better thac0, and better AC! What's the point in having a pure mage if the kensage has exactly everything he has plus tons of bonuses?!

[Ardanis]

True Fighter

I guess having three stars is fine. It may hurt a bit those who want to have melee, ranged and style all at once, but likely not too much.

 

Kensage

What's the point in having a pure mage if the kensage has exactly everything he has plus tons of bonuses?!

First of all, it's not only kensai - same happens with thieves and generic fighters. I suggested the penalty exactly to reduce the overpowerness of that combo.

 

I fear the only reason to want Kensage wearing robes is called "-2/-4 casting speed factor", am I wrong?

You probably aren't, but myself I always give the best robe to Edwin/Imoen, PC can be just as happy with the Fire Resistance one. He uses spells only to support himself in melee, not to torrent MMs, MAAs and FAs.

[Kalindor]

I'm late to the discussion, but I thought I'd throw my 2cents in. I prefer the approach to the true-classes taken in the vanilla game: they can essentially make use of all options available to said class. The kits, as I saw them, were supposed to be variations on the true-class possessing both profound strengths over the true-class accompanied by profound restrictions that prevent them from being as versatile. It seems that modifying the true-class fighter in such a way as to bestow it with abilities unique to itself is contrary to the intent of the developers (whatever that is worth) and basically turns the true-class fighter into a kit of itself. Instead, perhaps the restrictions placed on the kits should be tightened so as to make the versatility of the true-class appealing during comparisons.

The kensai as it is implemented in the vanilla game is a good example of this: there are substantial bonuses to choosing this kit but you lose a vital aspect of the vanilla fighter: the tankiness. A bad example would be the vanilla cleric kits: they essentially possess the same abilities as the true-class cleric but with bonus abilities on top. Kits that are "specialized" but do not detract much from the versatility of the true-class generally just turn out to be "better" and not "more specialized" in comparison.

[Demivrgvs]

Kensage

What's the point in having a pure mage if the kensage has exactly everything he has plus tons of bonuses?!

First of all, it's not only kensai - same happens with thieves and generic fighters. I suggested the penalty exactly to reduce the overpowerness of that combo.

Good point, but why using a bad example/model as template? As I said your penalty seems balanced, but it creates a "singularity", because I would have to put in kensai's description something like "they can wear mage robes if they dual, but they suffer x, y, z penalties when they do".

 

I planned to prevent kensai from dual-classing to block the cheesy kensage, but I gave up at players request...and it's fine for me (I'm not the police after all). But now we have a kensai class that starting from 10th level is actually slightly better than vanilla's one, thus if you don't let me implement this feature, which imo is actually a "sort of fix", we'll end up making the dreaded kensage even more powerful than it was (though only for those who dual at 10th+ level).

 

True Classes

I'm late to the discussion, but I thought I'd throw my 2cents in. I prefer the approach to the true-classes taken in the vanilla game: they can essentially make use of all options available to said class. The kits, as I saw them, were supposed to be variations on the true-class possessing both profound strengths over the true-class accompanied by profound restrictions that prevent them from being as versatile. It seems that modifying the true-class fighter in such a way as to bestow it with abilities unique to itself is contrary to the intent of the developers (whatever that is worth) and basically turns the true-class fighter into a kit of itself. Instead, perhaps the restrictions placed on the kits should be tightened so as to make the versatility of the true-class appealing during comparisons.

I'm not sure I get your point. "True Classes" aren't going to have any disadvantage at all, and what you may consider a new "unique feat" for a true class can just as easily be considered a "disadvantage" for a respective kit which doesn't get it (which is how I see it). True Classes are and will remain the most versatile, whereas kits should remain specialized versions of the base classes, with benefits and hindrances based on the respective base classes.

 

I'm improving the True Fighter because imo nerfing the "almost balanced" Berserker would have been a much worse solution. Spellcasting classes simply rule BG2 and the pure Fighter was an objectively weak choice compared to almost any other good class/kit.

 

Anyway I do agree with you that kit's disadvantages should be consistent, as most (actually I'd say all) vanilla's True Classes were really bad options compared to their kits, and the reason was that huge advantages weren't tied to sensible disadvantages (e.g. Cavalier, Undead Hunter, ...), but also because some base classes weren't appealing at all (e.g. Druid, Ranger, Bard, ...)

 

A bad example would be the vanilla cleric kits: they essentially possess the same abilities as the true-class cleric but with bonus abilities on top. Kits that are "specialized" but do not detract much from the versatility of the true-class generally just turn out to be "better" and not "more specialized" in comparison.

Don't worry, I already have in mind how to revise this.

[Kalindor]

I'm not sure I get your point. "True Classes" aren't going to have any disadvantage at all, and what you may consider a new "unique feat" for a true class can just as easily be considered a "disadvantage" for a respective kit which doesn't get it (which is how I see it). True Classes are and will remain the most versatile, whereas kits should remain specialized versions of the base classes, with benefits and hindrances based on the respective base classes.

 

At least make sure to add "-Doesn't have this or that added ability" to each fighter kit's description if they lack a feature you give to the true-class.

[Demivrgvs]

True Fighter - Combat Styles

I've thinked a lot about combat styles/maneuvers, and at the moment only few of them seem interesting enough and implementable. I've discarded Parry because I can't implement it as I'd like to (stoneskin-like protection to simulate a parried attack). One really cool combat maneuver would be Disarm, but the AI wouldn't be able to handle it. PnP Trip has been somewhat implemented as the HLA Smite, and a few other possibilities are already used as HLAs like Whirlwind Attack, Power Attack and Critical Strike (though obviously most HLAs are extremely beefed up versions of the original feat). Called Shot will be used by Archer and Cleave by True Ranger.

 

I'll try to better explain how I imagine these maneuvers so that we can more easily decide how to implement them.

 

* Combat Expertise : as per PnP, a defensive stance which sacrifice a more offensive attitude in favor of a more tight defence. My current solution is -2 penalty to thac0 for +2 bonus to AC. Note that the AC bonus should be applied only against melee attacks imo. Should we make it grow up to -x/+x at higher levels?

 

* Mighty Blow : it's actually PnP Power Attack, but the HLA stole the name and thus I have to use another one, I'm open to suggestions if the current one doesn't seem ok. If the ability is gained early on even a small bonus to damage may be quite noticeable, whereas I may have to make the ability scale with fighter's level to make it appealing at higher levels. For BG1 I'd go with -2 penalty to thac0 for +2 bonus to damage (if scaled it may go up to -4/+4). Damage bonus may become too powerful for a dual-wielder, especially with vanilla's Belm/Kundane, thus the off-hand thac0 will suffer 2 points more of penalty.

 

* Retaliation : I previously called it Counter Attack but Ardanis correctly asked for a better name (he suggested Attack of Opportunity) and I think Retaliation makes quite clear what the feat does. The fighter holds backs and waits to spot the opportunity to deliver counter attacks against his foes. In PnP the feat makes the fighter unable to move for the round and lose all but one attacks in that round, anyway any opponents who hit the fighter in that round can be immediately counter attacked by the fighter. Within BG I cannot set the number of attacks per round to 1, and thus we have two options, either set apr to 0 with a huge boost when hit, or reduce apr by 1/2 with a less noticeable bonus when hit. This stance will probably last something like 4 rounds, thus movement rate on't be reduced to 0 but to 50%.

 

* Sure Strike : the fighter deliver fewer but more precise strikes. Something like -1/2 apr for +4 thac0 bonus.

 

If you think I'm missing a possible cool Combat Maneuver let me know.

 

Last but not least, we have to decide a few things:

- how long should a stance last? In PnP you could change it each round but in BG it would be a pain. I'd go with 4 rounds just like Blade's Spins.

- how many times per day should be usable? Ideally they should be usable at will imo, as long as their disadvantages somewhat compensate for their advantages.

[Icendoan]

Sure strike needs to have slightly higher damage. If you are going to hit them precisely, you will probably hit them in the most devastating areas possible.

 

Would it be possible to lower physical resistances for a while, to simulate literally tearing apart the opponents armour?

 

Retaliation is fine, imho, would it be something like a slashing/blunt Fireshield, at the cost of 1/2-1 APR?

 

Mighty Blow: higher damage but have a slower attack speed? (Larger, more powerful swing, ect)

 

Combat Expertise: again, it looks good, could it grant 2 temporary proficiency points in Swords and Shields, so as to gain the conditional missile AC?

 

Icen

[Ardanis]

Kensage

Good point, but why using a bad example/model as template? As I said your penalty seems balanced, but it creates a "singularity", because I would have to put in kensai's description something like "they can wear mage robes if they dual, but they suffer x, y, z penalties when they do".

 

I planned to prevent kensai from dual-classing to block the cheesy kensage, but I gave up at players request...and it's fine for me (I'm not the police after all). But now we have a kensai class that starting from 10th level is actually slightly better than vanilla's one, thus if you don't let me implement this feature, which imo is actually a "sort of fix", we'll end up making the dreaded kensage even more powerful than it was (though only for those who dual at 10th+ level).

Indeed. Your logic wins over mine then.

 

Combat Expertise

I'm inclined to agree with increasing X at higher levels. 4?

 

Mighty Blow

Imo it would better to simply rename the HLA whose name doesn't reflect it's nature anyway.

 

Retaliation

An enemy receiving a fixed amount of damage like from Fireshield? Not really balanced, but I guess augmenting fighter's capabilities is not much different.

PS while I've been thinking on the matter Icen has said the same thought.

 

 

- how long should a stance last? In PnP you could change it each round but in BG it would be a pain. I'd go with 4 rounds just like Blade's Spins.

- how many times per day should be usable? Ideally they should be usable at will imo, as long as their disadvantages somewhat compensate for their advantages.

Agreed on both.

[Demivrgvs]

Combat Expertise

I'm inclined to agree with increasing X at higher levels. 4?

Fine with me.

 

...it looks good, could it grant 2 temporary proficiency points in Swords and Shields, so as to gain the conditional missile AC?

Actually I was intentionally avoiding missile AC, as the fighter is fighting defensively but still in melee. Anyway, if your goal instead is not granting AC vs. missile but point up that a fighter with a shield should get additional bonuses while using this feat than I think it would be cool. Problem is that your suggested solution would make those two proficiency point into sword and shield even less appealing than they already are imo, am I wrong?

 

Perhaps something could be done via script, but I don't think it would be reliable.

 

Mighty Blow

...higher damage but have a slower attack speed? (Larger, more powerful swing, ect)

Well, I opted for copying and pasting the PnP version, but lower apr instead of thac0 penalty makes sense as well imo. Either one or the other though, and I suppose most players would go for the more common solution.

 

Imo it would better to simply rename the HLA whose name doesn't reflect it's nature anyway.

You may be right, I'll think about it.

 

Retaliation

Retaliation is fine, imho, would it be something like a slashing/blunt Fireshield, at the cost of 1/2-1 APR?

An enemy receiving a fixed amount of damage like from Fireshield? Not really balanced, but I guess augmenting fighter's capabilities is not much different.

PS while I've been thinking on the matter Icen has said the same thought.

In PnP the feat grants an extra attack each time the fighter is hit, but your proposed solution may be interesting as well. What would you prefer?

 

Sure Strike

Sure strike needs to have slightly higher damage. If you are going to hit them precisely, you will probably hit them in the most devastating areas possible.

I think we're talking about two different things. With Sure Strike you're not aiming at a particular point with precision (that would be Called Shot, and would require a penalty to thac0 to implicate that hitting the weak spot is difficult) but you're trying to strike an enemy which is extremely difficult to hit without wasting attacks.

 

Would it be possible to lower physical resistances for a while, to simulate literally tearing apart the opponents armour?

That could be usable somewhere, though I don't know where. Anyway such a feat would have to be accurately studied because it could be potentially "balance-breaking" (e.g. lowering golem's resistances).

 

 

Kensage

Indeed. Your logic wins over mine then.

Great!

[yarpen]

I've found 4th edition's Power Attack. Maybe you can use this? (and 2H bonuses via EFF files) ;-)

 

Power Attack

Prerequisite: Str 15

Benefit: When making a melee attack, you can

take a –2 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits,

you gain a +2 bonus to the damage roll (or a +3 bonus

to the damage roll with a two-handed weapon).

This extra damage increases by level, as shown on

the table below, but the attack penalty remains the

same.

Level Extra Damage (Two-Handed Weapon)

1st–10th +2 (+3)

11th–20th +4 (+6)

21st–30th +6 (+9)

[Demivrgvs]

Power Attack

I've found 4th edition's Power Attack. Maybe you can use this? (and 2H bonuses via EFF files) ;-)

 

Power Attack

Prerequisite: Str 15

Benefit: When making a melee attack, you can take a –2 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you gain a +2 bonus to the damage roll (or a +3 bonus to the damage roll with a two-handed weapon). This extra damage increases by level, as shown on the table below, but the attack penalty remains the same.

Level Extra Damage (Two-Handed Weapon)

1st–10th +2 (+3)

11th–20th +4 (+6)

21st–30th +6 (+9)

It's not possible to detect which type of weapon you're using thus I cannot implement different bonuses depending on weapon type (or weapon style).

 

Regarding Power Attack's scalability I think that making the damage increase without having a higher penalty to thac0 would imply each and every fighter would have the feat permanently activated. Who wouldn't trade 2 points of thac0 for +4/+6 points of damage? It would be a different thing if we opt for a x/day ability instead of a combat ability usable at will.

[Demivrgvs]

I'm working again on KR (yes, SR V3 seems really finished ) thus I'd like to catch up what has been already done/discussed and see if we can finish fighters classes and release them on their own mini-mod in case someone want to try/test them out.

 

 

True Fighter

I'd say the only things here to refine are some combat style abilities:

 

Power Attack: -x penalty to thac0 and +x bonus to damage. Personally I'd also add a penalty to speed factor (if doable), which also make it slightly more appealing for 2handed slower weapons. Other than that this is fine too imo, and I have no doubt it can make it into the class.

 

Retaliation: on this I really need player's feedback. Do you prefer to make it work as a fireshield-like effect (which type of damage? ) or as a +1 apr for 1 round when hit? I'm not certain about introducing this ability, as it's a little tricky to balance.

 

Sharpshoot: I think a ranged combat style may be needed. A small damage bonus while forcing the character to not move for 4 rounds?

 

 

Barbarian

I've moved the improved rage at 10th level as Ardanis suggested for various reson. I was thinking about granting physical resistance a little earlier but they may stay like they are in my beta too.

 

 

Berserker

If for some reason most of you don't like the "tireless rage" feature I'd need another mid-high level ability.

 

Other than that I'd probably prefer to find an additional drawback. A simple -2 to charisma may be appropriate though surely it doesn't affect in-game effectiveness. I also thought about a small chance to go berserker when hit, but also letting the berserker able to resist such effect with a save. I fear it's too unreliable to be appealing though.

 

 

Kensai

I think this class is fine now.

 

 

Wizard Slayer

This is the only kit that may still require considerable discussion.

 

Magic resistance: after thinking about it I think a total of 20% plus 20% at epic levels is more than enough considering it can be easily raised via spells and items too now. Furthermore the kit now don't have such huge restrictions thus I can't grant it huge advantages. The problem is how to set the progression.

 

Spell Disruption: is this ability really worth it? A 10% spell failure on hit doesn't seem so great to me when you think that a mage is generally killed in two hits. At the same time increasing the % may instead make it too powerful

 

Detect Illusion: I consider it a must have for this class. It should simulate the thief's ability imo, and thus it shouldn't be considered a Divination spell, but rather an innate ability (yeah, a perfect anti-SI:Div ability).

 

Mind Over Magic (Spell Turning): I'd make it work quite differently than the common ST. Casting time should be 0 imo (to make it usable after the opponent's spell is already been cast), but the effect should last only single round and reflect a single spell.

 

Breach-like effect: I still don't know how to implement this (on-hit? spell-like ability?), but this ability is probably a must for this class. Anyway, due to balancing issues I?m quite sure I'll grant it only via HLA.

 

 

My next post will be on HLAs.

[Dakk]

Berserker

If for some reason most of you don't like the "tireless rage" feature I'd need another mid-high level ability.

I like "tireless rage".

 

Other than that I'd probably prefer to find an additional drawback. A simple -2 to charisma

I don't like -2 charisma.

 

[DrAzTiK]

If I am not wrong (?), True Fighter are the most commun class of ennemy warrior , don't you think it could be better to give bonus to true fighters witch ennemy could also benefit.

 

I mean that IA don't care about free slots in profeciency, use all types of armor or new ability. (instead maybe with new complicated script).

[Jarno Mikkola]

If I am not wrong (?), True Fighter are the most common class of enemy warrior, don't you think it could be better to give bonus to true fighters witch enemy could also benefit.

Well, what you forget is that the monsters are already pre-leveled, so the game doesn't re-calculate them every time they are summoned, so what ever you change, only the player's chars are changed if you change the Fighter class.