IR V3 - List of changes from V2 to V3

[Dakk]

..and not having +3 weapons here presents them with a problem.

I believe this has been refuted by Demi on positively scores of occasions.

[mikel123]

Anyway, the problem here is that I don't see any explanation to justify throwing daggers having 2x dmg, can you give me one? I don't even see much reasons behind the 2x apr (it was indeed within 2ed rules, 3ed removed it)

 

What?!

 

BG2 was designed with the only two throwing daggers doing 2x damage, as well as the only throwing war hammer doing 2x damage as well.

 

Do you think the game designers just happened to screw up, three times, in the exact same way? Or do you think it was intended? Given that it happens in all three instances, I'm going to guess it was intended.

 

I showed you there is some canonical origin to it, which is a pretty plausible explanation, but you seem to be dismissing that.

 

Also, as for reasons behind the 2 attacks per round... how do you not see reasons behind it? This is a 2e game and it's a 2e rule.

 

I'm new here, and admittedly I didn't read through the first 65 pages or so of this thread, so I didn't realize this is a mod governed by the frequent posters. I just saw a call for feedback and am offering it. If you want to make the mod precisely as you see fit, that's fine... you're doing the coding. But as I mentioned before, you're messing with some basic game mechanics and I think the reasoning behind some of the changes is illogical and ignores the intentions of the game.

 

As for Item Randomizer, it's very compatible with Revisions. Weapons are separated into tiers of approximate power, so it's not like you're going to find the Beastmaster in the Copper Coronet dropping Carsomyr. And in fact, Randomizer should be required of anyone using Revisions and looking for more of a challenge, or just "balance". Otherwise, you can just look at the list of revisions, pick the 6 best weapons, and go straight to them in the game.

[Shaitan]

Also, as for reasons behind the 2 attacks per round... how do you not see reasons behind it? This is a 2e game and it's a 2e rule.

No. It a relative mix. no a strict 2e rules game.

 

As for Item Randomizer, it's very compatible with Revisions. Weapons are separated into tiers of approximate power, so it's not like you're going to find the Beastmaster in the Copper Coronet dropping Carsomyr. And in fact, Randomizer should be required of anyone using Revisions and looking for more of a challenge, or just "balance".

Randomizer is to me fine in Bg1. In Bg2 I like IR and not Randomizer. Mainly because the background/history of the weapon fits (often) to a certain creature/villain/enemy.

 

Otherwise, you can just look at the list of revisions, pick the 6 best weapons, and go straight to them in the game.

Perhaps, but I don't think that will be the case. To me IR encourages role playing. So I guess this quote is excactly the opposite of what IR is trying to do.

 

As a whole I would like the enhancement levels to be in the manner Demi has put it so many times. I also like the replacement/redistribution of many items presented so far. To me this seems logical enough.

 

Cheers

[Ardanis]

Frankly, I'm getting the feeling that IR is running in circles with this. First, it nerfs some weapons while powering up others. Next, it moves the weapons around to compensate for this. Then, it readjusts weapon power again to account for the new locations. That just doesn't make much sense to me.

Not really. There was one huge 'circle' back in 2010 when we often wasted half a night looking for the best abilities/balance/placement solution for each item type, then it got posted and discussed, adjustments made, and afterwards any further changes were only applied if there's was a serious (not cosmetic or whimsical) reason to do so.

 

+3 weapons are not needed before Underdark

It's more like +3 weapons are not needed before Underdark if the player is following the "roleplaying" route, like they mostly likely would on the first run.

You still can get a handful of +3 items prior UD from optional powerful opponents or indeed from WK. The goal is only to remove such things from every odd chest.

 

As for Item Randomizer, it's very compatible with Revisions. Weapons are separated into tiers of approximate power, so it's not like you're going to find the Beastmaster in the Copper Coronet dropping Carsomyr. And in fact, Randomizer should be required of anyone using Revisions and looking for more of a challenge, or just "balance". Otherwise, you can just look at the list of revisions, pick the 6 best weapons, and go straight to them in the game.

Technically two mods can be compatible, as soon as Wisp is provided with the list of power and placement changes. I however admit guilt of still haven't finished the latter

[Demivrgvs]

Frankly, I'm getting the feeling that IR is running in circles with this. First, it nerfs some weapons while powering up others. Next, it moves the weapons around to compensate for this. Then, it readjusts weapon power again to account for the new locations. That just doesn't make much sense to me.

Well, afaik there's no such circle. I can easily second what Ardanis just said and then add the following.

 

If you look closely to all weapons you should be able to notice that despite so many changes the vast majority of weapons still have a power lvl relatively close to the one they had in vanilla. Most of the times I traded enhancement's lvl with unique or semi-unique effects, or I've "simply" refined the pre-existing effects. I never intentionally "nerfed" an early item to the point of having to move it later on, nor I have powered up another one to the point of making it too powerful for its current location.

 

IMHO, item randomization should be left to other mods which are better suited for it. Instead, IR should just try to make the items as balanced as possible for their vanilla locations. Just my 2 cents.

That's exactly what has been done till V2 and the first huge "circle" Ardanis was talking about, but during those endless nights discussing each and every item we realized that quite a few times it wasn't enough, and/or we could do better by adding a re-allocating component.

 

The item re-allocating component does quite a lot more things than many may think, and I don't have time to describe it in details (e.g. the whole revision which will differentiate smiths, fletchers, libraries, temples and so on) but I'll try to reassume the initial reasons behind its birth:

 

- Every weapon/armor type should be appealing and available throughout the entire game. A weapon type shouldn't be almost unusable because you can't find any decent specimen before mid-game, nor should a weapon type be uber appealing because all of its best specimens are easily found as free loot.

 

- Every weapon/armor type should be distribuited between free loots, stores and opponents. The latter in particular is something vanilla game almost never cared about, when it didn't screwed it big time. It hurts to see that so many times boss-like characters in vanilla just sit on powerful equipment (e.g. lying in the inventory, or in the room) and have no intention of using it, don't benefit much from it, or worse, it cannot use it at all!

 

- Whenever it's possible an item's allocation should take into account its background, and/or its user.

 

I could go on, but I'll spare you a huge wall of text.

 

Also, lowering the base weapon enchantment (the +x which determines whether it can hit a creature or not) just because of some arbitrary rule that +3 weapons are not needed before Underdark is utter nonsense. Many players like to tackle dangerous quests like thr Planar Sphere and Watcher's Keep before going to Spellhold, and not having +3 weapons here presents them with a problem.

Ardanis already replied for me.

 

Regarding the "Planar Sphere' golems need +3 weapons" issue we'll actually handle it better than vanilla did imo. I agreed on placing there a +3 weapon (vanilla didn't offered any - I suggested a Staff of Striking which is almost an anti-golem weapom, but feel free to suggest a better candidate) and a scroll of Enchanted Weapon. SR's version of this spell pratically nullifies the whole "damn I need a +3 weapon!" thing, granting a +3 weapon of each and every weapon type for a full day.

 

Regarding Watcher's Keep instead, it shouldn't be done before ToB imo, but assuming a player wants to go there even before UD he/she'll still find +3 weapons there because the encounters are leveled for those weapons (e.g. powerful demons). It's not like IR is messing anything here.

 

Anyway, the problem here is that I don't see any explanation to justify throwing daggers having 2x dmg, can you give me one? I don't even see much reasons behind the 2x apr (it was indeed within 2ed rules, 3ed removed it)

What?!

 

BG2 was designed with the only two throwing daggers doing 2x damage, as well as the only throwing war hammer doing 2x damage as well.

 

Do you think the game designers just happened to screw up, three times, in the exact same way? Or do you think it was intended? Given that it happens in all three instances, I'm going to guess it was intended.

 

I showed you there is some canonical origin to it, which is a pretty plausible explanation, but you seem to be dismissing that.

I didn't dismissed anything, I just told you that what you showed me wasn't a base rule for throwing daggers, but a specific dagger with extraordinary dmg and range. PnP Dwarven Thrower deals 2x dmg indeed, but it's again a semi-unique unique weapon, it doesn't imply that all thrown hammers should work like that.

 

Now, assuming we all know how many times developers did various mistakes (e.g. fixpack is a living monument to that) or screwed up something (be it PnP rules ignored, a class/item being utterly unbalanced, etc.), do you really think we shouldn't touch something just because it was intended to be like that by designers? Then we wouldn't be modders!

 

Also, as for reasons behind the 2 attacks per round... how do you not see reasons behind it? This is a 2e game and it's a 2e rule.

Ehm...again, you're not giving me any reason, you're just saying "it has to be so because the gods of BG decided so". That being said, I'm keeping it, and I do told you the reasons behind my decision, even if they don't include "designers wanted it".

 

I'm new here, and admittedly I didn't read through the first 65 pages or so of this thread, so I didn't realize this is a mod governed by the frequent posters. I just saw a call for feedback and am offering it. If you want to make the mod precisely as you see fit, that's fine... you're doing the coding. But as I mentioned before, you're messing with some basic game mechanics and I think the reasoning behind some of the changes is illogical and ignores the intentions of the game.

You make it sound like bad thing that the mod is designed discussing everything between various people instead of being ruled by me, Ardanis and Mike alone. Anyway, you're indeed welcome between us if you want to help us, but I need facts and reasons to make a decision or change one. Sorry if I stress this up, but you states a change is illogical without giving any argumentation to prove that (e.g. do you think 2x dmg is actually needed for balance reasons? for conceptual ones?) or help your point of view to prevail.

 

As for Item Randomizer, it's very compatible with Revisions. Weapons are separated into tiers of approximate power, so it's not like you're going to find the Beastmaster in the Copper Coronet dropping Carsomyr. And in fact, Randomizer should be required of anyone using Revisions and looking for more of a challenge, or just "balance". Otherwise, you can just look at the list of revisions, pick the 6 best weapons, and go straight to them in the game.

Only if you can skip SoA and teleport to the late game, because you're not going to get the best weapons till then within IR. Jokes aside, I don't get your point, every weapon type has many good specimens and they get increasingly better proceeding with the game...what's wrong about that?

 

Item Randomizer may indeed work fine from a technical point of view, I'm just saying IR has its own "philosophy" behind items allocations and like Shaitan I prefer it (which by the way isn't going to be mandatory but highly recommended) over the randomization.

[J Beau]

You can get both Lilarcor and Carsomyr before the underdark and lets not forget celestial fury which you said you made more powerful. They are all +3 weapons minimum and 2 are 2-handed swords. And i don't have a problem with that. No one is talking about +10 weapons. All I ever wanted was to see some of the off weapons get some better representation, spears, staffs, daggers, clubs. I asked for one +3 spear in the Planar Sphere and I gave good reasons for it that other people agreed with. You've done wonders for the +2 weapons but the 2-handed swords and katanas are still much better. And there are plenty of mods that will make the game harder. Across the board nerfing is not necessary to balance the weapons. Play on insane with all the SCS components and an xp cap mod and it doesn't matter what weapon you have, you will suffer. I don't like to play that way, my life is hard enough. Anyway, I haven't heard anyone asking for +10 weapons or even +5s. 1 or 2 +3 weapons that are traditionally under-used placed pre-underdark. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. Its your right to ignore me, but please don't make it sound like I want you to turn this into a clone of Improved Anvil.

[Dermit]

Tell Demi the balance is beautiful or whatever it takes to get V3 out quicker.

[mikel123]

I didn't dismissed anything, I just told you that what you showed me wasn't a base rule for throwing daggers, but a specific dagger with extraordinary dmg and range. PnP Dwarven Thrower deals 2x dmg indeed, but it's again a semi-unique unique weapon, it doesn't imply that all thrown hammers should work like that.

 

It's clearly a base rule in the BG universe. 100% of the magic throwing daggers in BG deal double damage. 100% of the magic throwing hammers in BG deal double damage. 100% of the throwing daggers get 2 apr.

 

Is any of this unbalanced? I don't see how anyone could say that. They're marginally better than slings, maybe, though I'm not sure. They're significantly worse than any main hand weapon since they can't be Belm-ed and they can't have any other weapon at all in the offhand.

 

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Or perhaps more fitting... "striving to make better, oft we mar what's well." Dwarven Thrower was unchanged in V2. Was there really outcry to nerf it? Did anyone really think it was overpowered?

 

On a side note, I think you underestimate the amount of concurrent usage that Randomizer gets with Revisions. Both of them, along with SCS, seem to be aimed at those who have beaten the game countless times, know what every enemy and weapon does, and knows where every weapon is.

 

You're vastly underestimating the power of randomization in terms of toning down effective weapon power to a party. I would have a far easier time getting overpowered weapons, despite your best efforts, under Randomizer. Within Revisions, it's still too easy to know where everything is, put your proficiencies immediately in the proper categories, and go straight to the most powerful weapons.

 

Anyways, I think Revisions does a great job at making every weapon interesting and useful; I don't think anyone would state otherwise. But I think when you get into playing with the power levels and prescribing the way in which the game "should" be played, that's when I think you'll have a very difficult time pleasing more than a small minority of people.

[Ardanis]

It's clearly a base rule in the BG universe. 100% of the magic throwing daggers in BG deal double damage. 100% of the magic throwing hammers in BG deal double damage.

I think, for it to be a rule all thrown daggers/hammers have to be dealing double damage, not only magical.

 

On a side note, I think you underestimate the amount of concurrent usage that Randomizer gets with Revisions. Both of them, along with SCS, seem to be aimed at those who have beaten the game countless times, know what every enemy and weapon does, and knows where every weapon is.

The fact is that randomization will break the roleplaying part of IR (i.e. items found in appropriate to their qualities places), but if you're fine with that then it's not like anybody says not to use both mods together. This is not Improved Anvil, with it's strict rules on which mods to install and which order to play the game. Like I've said, the work towards compatibility is being made.

 

But I think when you get into playing with the power levels and prescribing the way in which the game "should" be played, that's when I think you'll have a very difficult time pleasing more than a small minority of people.

I'd rather call it finishing what game developers have left imcomplete... Because games generally tend to have the power of equipment found to be scaled to the power of enemies encountered, and several candies are left here and there. Which is about what IR does.

 

Am I correct that the main complaint is about too low base enchantment level? If so, then making it separate looks to be just right.

[Thailog]

Every weapon/armor type should be distribuited between free loots, stores and opponents. The latter in particular is something vanilla game almost never cared about, when it didn't screwed it big time. It hurts to see that so many times boss-like characters in vanilla just sit on powerful equipment (e.g. lying in the inventory, or in the room) and have no intention of using it, don't benefit much from it, or worse, it cannot use it at all!

 

Not really. There was one huge 'circle' back in 2010 when we often wasted half a night looking for the best abilities/balance/placement solution for each item type, then it got posted and discussed, adjustments made, and afterwards any further changes were only applied if there's was a serious (not cosmetic or whimsical) reason to do so.

 

I don't know about that. Moving a weapon to a certain shop or a certain boss just because "it fits there better" looks pretty whimsical to me. Again, just my opinion.

 

It's more like +3 weapons are not needed before Underdark if the player is following the "roleplaying" route, like they mostly likely would on the first run

 

Two things. First, people who play the game for the first time probably aren't going to use any mods. Second, enforcing "the right way to play the game" on people is silly because there's simply no such thing. The beauty of BG2 is that everyone can play it as they like. Try no to ruin that please.

 

P.S.

 

As with SCS, I really like this mod a lot and I appreciate what it's trying to do. However, similarly to some of my experiences with SCS, I think IR occasionally takes things too far and I feel the need to voice my concerns when I notice such behavior.

[Guest Disgruntled fan]

All of this is going no ware as IR3 is a load of rubbish. People have been waiting for this for over a year since the author said it was “just around the corner.†Just keep playing IR2 and enjoy it for the next couple of years till they get it sorted.

[Demivrgvs]

Wow, what a heated discussion! Nice.

 

Enchantment lvl

You can get both Lilarcor and Carsomyr before the underdark and lets not forget celestial fury which you said you made more powerful. They are all +3 weapons minimum and 2 are 2-handed swords. And i don't have a problem with that. No one is talking about +10 weapons. All I ever wanted was to see some of the off weapons get some better representation, spears, staffs, daggers, clubs. I asked for one +3 spear in the Planar Sphere and I gave good reasons for it that other people agreed with. You've done wonders for the +2 weapons but the 2-handed swords and katanas are still much better.

I and Dakk were clearly exaggerating using IA's "+10 Swords of Megadeath" example. Anyway, straight to the point, you do gave me a very good reason to ask for a +3 weapon within Planar Sphere, and in fact I readily agreed with you, to the point I suggested to put there both a +3 weapon and a scroll of Enchanted Weapons.

 

Now, when it comes to three +3 specimens you mentioned:

- Lilarcor is still +3, but it has been planned to make it a sort of Minsc only weapon (you know what, I wanted to leave it for V4 but I can easily add that within V3 if we want to test it)

- Carsomyr is indeed OP early on, but it's paladin-only and we assumed SCS dragons are so powerful that only high lvl parties can manage to get it (aka post UD most of the times)

- Celestial Fury is identical to vanilla, actually I could say it's slightly weaker because within V3 its stunning effect no longer affects elementals, golems, oozes, incorporeal creatures and illusions. When I said I made it more powerful I was probably talking about Batto replacing 1xday Mass Blindness. That being said, we again assumed SCS made the encounter to obtain it almost impossible to mid lvl parties, but in this case I could be wrong (am I?) and in fact I asked back then if slightly nerfing this weapon was necessary (e.g. making its stunning effect trigger 50% of time)

 

Now, back to the main argument, the need of +3 weapons, within V3 I'm actually giving you quite a few +3 specimens "early" on, and most of them belongs to underrepresent weapon types. Specifically:

- Backbiter, though we haven't decided its allocation

- Cleric's Staff, which allows you to crush those damn greater mummies if SCS is really spamming them as some of you claim

- Vampire's Revenge within the blood pool (I truly love this change)

- Kiel's Morningstar, though this too still hasn't an established allocation afaik

I know three of them are cursed, but it makes things more interesting imo, doesn't it?

 

That is on top of pre-existing ones:

- Azuredge

- Mace of Disruption, a classic, though you finally have to pay a big deal (10-15k) to get your hands on it

- Root of the Problem, I know it's druid-only, but who else is gonna take club proficiency? (just kidding)

- Hammer of Thunderbolts

- Wyrmcleaver

- Dragonslayer

- Flail of Ages, THE weapon back in vanilla

- Berserking Greatsword

 

Now, how many times +3 is really needed before adventuring in the Underdark? Almost any weapon type seem to have at least one +3 specimen even before UD, and considering you need +3 enchantment lvl no more than 2-3 times I really don't see the problem.

 

Furthermore, what's the point of those immunities if by the time you face such monsters you have tons of items to bypass it? Having to rely on a limited amount of them (many of which are cursed), and a particular spell (Enchanted Weapon) which almost never got used back then, seems to be just fine, no?

 

Thrown Weapons

It's clearly a base rule in the BG universe. 100% of the magic throwing daggers in BG deal double damage. 100% of the magic throwing hammers in BG deal double damage.

I think, for it to be a rule all thrown daggers/hammers have to be dealing double damage, not only magical.

I second Ardanis, not to mention axes seems to prove the contrary considering neither common nor magical specimens has 2x dmg. As you state yourself, 100% of the throwing daggers get 2 apr (both magical and non-magical), because that was indeed a PnP rule.

 

Is any of this unbalanced? I don't see how anyone could say that. They're marginally better than slings, maybe, though I'm not sure. They're significantly worse than any main hand weapon since they can't be Belm-ed and they can't have any other weapon at all in the offhand.

Well, having a throwing dagger deal more damage than a composite longbow seems incredibly illogical.

 

It's indeed unbalanced, and it's quite evident! We're speaking of having a thrown dagger/hammers deal as much dmg as a crossbow, but the latter doesn't allow you to wield a shield and doesn't have +1 apr or +STR bonus!

 

P.S I hope you weren't also claiming throwing daggers should keep the +1apr in melee, because that would be beyond silly considering it would be like having daggers work as pocket-sized trowing bastard swords with 2x apr.

 

Item Randomization vs Item Re-allocation

On a side note, I think you underestimate the amount of concurrent usage that Randomizer gets with Revisions. Both of them, along with SCS, seem to be aimed at those who have beaten the game countless times, know what every enemy and weapon does, and knows where every weapon is.

The fact is that randomization will break the roleplaying part of IR (i.e. items found in appropriate to their qualities places), but if you're fine with that then it's not like anybody says not to use both mods together. This is not Improved Anvil, with it's strict rules on which mods to install and which order to play the game. Like I've said, the work towards compatibility is being made.

I second this. We're not forcing anyone to "play our way", one of the main goals of IR is actually the opposite, to let players pick whatever class and proficiency they wish, knowing that you'll find good equipment whichever choice you made, and that such equipment isn't concentrated in a single place but scatter around the quests and scaled throughout the entire game.

 

Every weapon/armor type should be distribuited between free loots, stores and opponents. The latter in particular is something vanilla game almost never cared about, when it didn't screwed it big time. It hurts to see that so many times boss-like characters in vanilla just sit on powerful equipment (e.g. lying in the inventory, or in the room) and have no intention of using it, don't benefit much from it, or worse, it cannot use it at all!

I don't know about that. Moving a weapon to a certain shop or a certain boss just because "it fits there better" looks pretty whimsical to me. Again, just my opinion.

Moving a very powerful shield from a character who cannot use it to one who can really benefit from it is whimsical? Removing a heavy armor from a barbarian who shouldn't be able to wear it, to replace it with a better and lighter armor is a bad idea? Having opponents keep powerful and unique items in the backpack, unused, instead of using them against you seems better? Do you think that trying to give opponents items that better suit their class, qualities or abilities to exploit their sinergy (e.g. barbarians getting the most from their innate physical res and an item increasing it) is a waste of time?

 

I don't know about you, but I find all of that pretty great. That being said, if you prefer randomization above it, go for it. Item Randomizer should work just as well as it does on a vanilla game once compatibility work is done, actually even better imo because IR allows such mod to scatter much more useful items instead of having to rely on vanilla items which more often than not were outclassed by a few selected ones. We were just saying randomization clash with our re-allocation philosophy, and we designed the mod to work best with the latter because we prefer it. That's all.

 

 

Edit:

All of this is going no ware as IR3 is a load of rubbish. People have been waiting for this for over a year since the author said it was “just around the corner.” Just keep playing IR2 and enjoy it for the next couple of years till they get it sorted.

I second this too!!! It's not like I mod for hobby after all, I do it for money, and I have nothing to do with the incredible amount of spare time I have! Sorry if RL takes precedence!

[Daulmakan]

EDIT: Oh, and having the balancing and redistribution of weapons as a component, what would that accomplish? Some weapons would be no-brainers still, and others would, likewise still, be crap. Possibly not crap in and of itself, but if a weapon is outdone in all aspects by another weapon, it wouldn't be used right? As far as I see it, IR is the sum of it's parts, and removing such central features as have been discussed would render the entire mod moot.

Funny, that too is the optic of Improved Anvil.

 

Also, as for reasons behind the 2 attacks per round... how do you not see reasons behind it? This is a 2e game and it's a 2e rule.

No. It a relative mix. no a strict 2e rules game.

No, it's more like 85% 2E, 15% mix. That still sound as 2E to me. In my years of P&P, I never met aynone who didn't make SOME modifications to the ruleset. BG2 as a videogame can do no less.

[Shaitan]

Also, as for reasons behind the 2 attacks per round... how do you not see reasons behind it? This is a 2e game and it's a 2e rule.

No. It a relative mix. no a strict 2e rules game.

No, it's more like 85% 2E, 15% mix. That still sound as 2E to me. In my years of P&P, I never met aynone who didn't make SOME modifications to the ruleset. BG2 as a videogame can do no less.

Yes houserules are good. 85/15 still is a mix. I never played with 15 % houserules and never met anybody who did. I do agree with you, that BG2 is a videogame and can do no other than vanilla, I still feel BG2 is more like 2,25 edition.

 

Cheers

[Thailog]

Now, how many times +3 is really needed before adventuring in the Underdark? Almost any weapon type seem to have at least one +3 specimen even before UD, and considering you need +3 enchantment lvl no more than 2-3 times I really don't see the problem.

 

It's not just about not having +3 weapons. There's also the issue of dramatically lowering the base enchantment of some weapons to the point of making them near useless for the mid-late game. Take Frostreaver for example. It was a pretty cool +3 axe in the original game. Now, it's a puny +1 weapon which can't even hit a Fire Elemental or a Stone Golem and will probably get discarded very early on.

 

Moving a very powerful shield from a character who cannot use it to one who can really benefit from it is whimsical? Removing a heavy armor from a barbarian who shouldn't be able to wear it, to replace it with a better and lighter armor is a bad idea? Having opponents keep powerful and unique items in the backpack, unused, instead of using them against you seems better? Do you think that trying to give opponents items that better suit their class, qualities or abilities to exploit their sinergy (e.g. barbarians getting the most from their innate physical res and an item increasing it) is a waste of time?

 

Those changes sound reasonable in their own right. However, I don't see them within the scope of an Item Revisions mod. To be more precise, I don't see why a mod which revises items should care whether enemies use them or simply keep them in their inventories. IMHO, that should be done as a separate mod or an optional component at best.