Jump to content

Six's random blatherings.


SixOfSpades

Recommended Posts

Boots of Stealth

I always found IR version to be a bit too powerful for BG1, and I prefer their vanilla version. Anyway, one pair of IR Boots alone isn't balance breaking.

Considering a RP player, I'd either revert the boots to their vanilla state or leave them as they are now, since one pair will be kept and one will be used for Zhurglong's quest.

I'm not sure about Nadarin, SixOfSpades. Are you sure about this? I've always done that quest with a charisma 21 rep 20 bard, and I never got a pair of boots of stealth.. Also, GameBanshee's BG1 guide list them on the two hobgoblins only:

Boots of Stealth

Location(s)

Outdoor Zone (AR3800) - Loot from hobgoblins

Ulcaster - Loot from hobgoblin

Source: http://gamebanshee.com/baldursgate/equipment/boots.php

I'm pretty sure the boots you get from Nadarin are added by some mod.

 

My preferred choice would be to revert them back to their vanilla state, as they are already pretty good for thieves characters, and leave them where they are.

The fact is, Web is a really strong spell. Not only being immune to it in BG1 would mean one character could engage the spiders (and be targeted by their webs) while the party shoot from outside web's area to take down the spiders, but it could also be used in conjunction with mages to web the enemy party and send the maybe dualwielding immune thief to slice the enemies without problem, still with the party supporting from outside.

Link to comment
Not only being immune to it in BG1 would mean one character could engage the spiders (and be targeted by their webs) while the party shoot from outside web's area to take down the spiders, but it could also be used in conjunction with mages to web the enemy party and send the maybe dualwielding immune thief to slice the enemies without problem, still with the party supporting from outside.

 

I do think we should not always reason in border-case terms. Here we are assuming that players exploit every single possibility, metagaming or not, to just maximize the effectiveness of an item or (with regards to SR) a spell.

 

Not everyone playing BGT with IR installed will keep the boots without completing Zurlog's quest or pickpocket him after giving back his boots (with reloads aplenty if things don't go well the first time) and not everyone will have dualwielding immune thieves in the party to hack enemies with while one Archer with Dexterity 19 is shooting arrows of death to all spiders in the woods.

 

I, for one, do not play like that and don't like to have IR items nerfed only because there are people that could do "wonders" with them.

 

As a matter of fact, I am against closing exploits because I said several times that if people like to take advantage of them, it's just another form of cheating. And try to stop that is a useless and futile battle that only ends up damaging all the others that do not cheat.

Link to comment

I don't play like that either, and what I described is indeed a border-case situation. That was an overview on what those boots could do in BG1, and I think it should be taken into consideration - but note that taking into consideration doesn't mean "take it and build the item in order to avoid that exploit". :)

Reverting the boots to their vanilla state is only my favorite choice, but I'm perfectly ok with keeping the IR version in BGT too - one pair only (considering one of the two pairs available will go to Zhulrglong) shouldn't make BG1 that much easier without exploiting them always and in every situation.

I'm sorry if I didn't explain myself good enough.. :grin: Will try to discuss my thoughts better next time.

Link to comment

Boots of Stealth

I'm pretty sure the boots you get from Nadarin are added by some mod.
Nope, in fact I've never even installed any BG1 mods except BG1 UB, and the boots were available waaaay before the mod was even being developed. Google (Nadarin boots stealth) and you'll see that GameBanshee is incomplete. Not that I blame them--like I said, the door is difficult to find, even when you're looking for it. It's probably the least known subquest in the whole game, except of course for the unmentionable one. And hey--I see that Dudleyville (http://www.forgottenwars.com/bg1/ar1300.htm) says that Nadarin only gives the boots to people with average Reaction scores. Guess he must be Lawful Neutral.

 

Not everyone playing BGT with IR installed will keep the boots without completing Zurlog's quest or pickpocket him after giving back his boots . . . As a matter of fact, I am against closing exploits because I said several times that if people like to take advantage of them, it's just another form of cheating.
Um--yeah, there may be as many as three people who think that Zhurlong deserves to have his boots back. And it's hardly a cheesy exploit to take advantage of an immunity that the item clearly states that it possesses . . . any cheese would be derived from the item, not the exploit, as the item is apparently intended to be used in this manner. The player hardly needs to roll a character with the "Boots-Web" exploit in mind, as Montaron, Kivan, Minsc and Coran already exist for that purpose.

True, the player could employ the same tactic after getting the Ring of Free Action, but that's in Chapter 5 and guarded by 6 tough opponents, not in Chapter 1 and dropped by a roadkill enemy or pickpocketed from someone who shouldn't even have it.

 

Shadow Armor +3

You do realize, don't you, that this whole debate could be solved to pretty much everyone's satisfaction simply by not using the name "Shadow Armor?"
Your problem is the armor's name? Anyway, I really don't understand where's the issue with IR's Shadow Armor even in BG1. The only issue seems to be that the armor is available really too soon considering its the best light armor in the whole game.

Other than that, just by comparing this armor to Archmage's robes you can see it's not overpowered at all, its new feature is very appropriate for its background.

A point-by-point rebuttal, but in chronological order: In BG1, allowing spellcasting is a feature that the Shadow Armor does not need, and therefore should not have, as it's already the preeminent Leather armor in the game, and BG1 is better off without "artifact-level" items being commonplace.

As you say, the "new feature" is very appropriate for its "background" . . . a background that you essentially made up. The circular logic doesn't fly.

By comparing IR's Shadow Armor to the Archmagi Robes, I can in fact see that it is overpowered, as it provides better AC (you yourself said that the Robes' AC was too good for BG1), better AC Modifiers, provides a very useful Stealth bonus, can be worn by roughly triple the amount of characters, and is available at the same stage in the game and for roughly the same price. True, it provides no Saves or Magic Resistance bonus, but spellcasters in BG1 are hardly much of a threat in the first place.

I feel the armor should be moved to the Thieves' Guild, yes, but I don't agree that it's available "too soon"--true, Beregost is accessible very early on, but scraping together that much cash is not easy, and buying the Full Plate (and possibly a Large Shield+1) takes priority over the Shadow Armor anyway. Few parties are able to buy the Shadow Armor before they're in Chapter 5.

Cross to BG2. What's in a name? Quite a lot: If the item called "Shadow Armor" allows spellcasting, then you've got either continuity issues or a really overpowered item in BG1. But call Mae'Var's (and/or Aran Linvail's) armor "Casting Leathers" and don't pretend it's the same armor from BG1, and all problems will be solved.

 

Saving Grace +3

Well, this is the most higly enchanted medium shield until chapter 6, and is quite great against undead and especially against liches.
Chapter 5, really, but close enough. And I don't recall Liches casting a lot of Save-or-die spells, they usually just want to Invoke my ass. But SCS II probably changes this.

 

Shield of the Order+4

Actually if you ask me not even a large shield would be the right siza for a giant, it would cover him less than a buckler. This reminds me that I actually wouldn't mind to work on a tweak to make sure giants' equipment isn't dropped, because for me is quite immersion breaking.
Well, if the enchantments on it are good enough, I can see Yaga-Shura using a Buckler. Besides, if he's facing only a single, Human-sized opponent in melee, he doesn't even need to cover his body, he can just keep shoving his Buckler (Large Shield) in the Human's face. But yeah, I agree with not dropping equipment, or at least all equipment should be Giant-sized: They drop a Dagger, you pick up a 2-Handed Sword. And let's especially get rid of those big piles of every type of Normal weapons: Might as well post big signs that say "CAUTION! MAGIC GOLEMS DIRECTLY AHEAD!"

 

Gargoyle Boots

Equipped Abilities:

Immunity to Petrification and Knockback effects

Special Abilities:

Stone Form, 2x/day. Grants Sanctuary, a -4 bonus to AC, 5 Stoneskins, a -3 Dexterity penalty, and immunity to Backstab. All effects last a maximum of 11 rounds, although the wearer is Held for the first of those.

Sanctuary?! Anyway, I do thought about Stone Form, but I discarded it because the one I had in mind was much more similar to the original one used by gargoyles (held, high resistances or stoneskin, plus high regeneration) and I didn't know how to implement it.
Yeah, Sanctuary: One of the chief reasons for their "immobility" behavior was as a disguise. The Sanctuary can wear off simultaneously with the Hold if you prefer. The Knockback immunity is from the gargoyle's ability to become one with the surrounding stonework (even if it means perching in an awkward position on an outcropping for long periods).

 

Stat bonuses

Well, the real "advantage" of % system for me is that multiple effects don't stack, but I'm not sure I can guarantee it because of mod added items. Than there's the issue mentioned by Ardanis about dexterity penalty in heavy armor (which means I cannot do this for dexterity), and I have to test how set to a % value would work with effects which reduces the value.
Well, there are going to be slighty-odd tweaks in the implementation pretty much no matter what we do.

If your armor set your DEX to 85% of its original value, and the Gauntlets of Dexterity set your DEX to 115% of its original value, everything depends on the order in which you equip them, just like, say, the Girdle of Stone Giant STR vs. the Mauler's Arm.

If your armor sets your DEX to 85% of its original value, and the Gauntlets of Dexterity give a flat +2 bonus to DEX, then equipping order doesn't matter . . . but if the more "+X to stat" items there are, the easier it will be to reach 25 in any stat, which will probably be undesirable for balance purposes.

 

Belt of Inertial Barrier

I do thought about making it work against cloud spells, but I feared it would be too powerful (immunity to Stinking Cloud, Cloudkill, Acid Fog and Incendiary Cloud is far from trivial).
I agree--it makes all the sense in the world, and as I said I'd like to retain its usability for Wizard Slayers, but outright immunity would likely be overpowered. I'll have to think about it some more.
Link to comment
Shadow Armor +3
You do realize, don't you, that this whole debate could be solved to pretty much everyone's satisfaction simply by not using the name "Shadow Armor?"
Your problem is the armor's name? Anyway, I really don't understand where's the issue with IR's Shadow Armor even in BG1. The only issue seems to be that the armor is available really too soon considering its the best light armor in the whole game.

Other than that, just by comparing this armor to Archmage's robes you can see it's not overpowered at all, its new feature is very appropriate for its background.

A point-by-point rebuttal, but in chronological order: In BG1, allowing spellcasting is a feature that the Shadow Armor does not need, and therefore should not have, as it's already the preeminent Leather armor in the game, and BG1 is better off without "artifact-level" items being commonplace.

As you say, the "new feature" is very appropriate for its "background" . . . a background that you essentially made up. The circular logic doesn't fly.

By comparing IR's Shadow Armor to the Archmagi Robes, I can in fact see that it is overpowered, as it provides better AC (you yourself said that the Robes' AC was too good for BG1), better AC Modifiers, provides a very useful Stealth bonus, can be worn by roughly triple the amount of characters, and is available at the same stage in the game and for roughly the same price. True, it provides no Saves or Magic Resistance bonus, but spellcasters in BG1 are hardly much of a threat in the first place.

I feel the armor should be moved to the Thieves' Guild, yes, but I don't agree that it's available "too soon"--true, Beregost is accessible very early on, but scraping together that much cash is not easy, and buying the Full Plate (and possibly a Large Shield+1) takes priority over the Shadow Armor anyway. Few parties are able to buy the Shadow Armor before they're in Chapter 5.

Cross to BG2. What's in a name? Quite a lot: If the item called "Shadow Armor" allows spellcasting, then you've got either continuity issues or a really overpowered item in BG1. But call Mae'Var's (and/or Aran Linvail's) armor "Casting Leathers" and don't pretend it's the same armor from BG1, and all problems will be solved.

I really prefer that this item remain as-is in BG2. I don't think that the BG1 item should allow spellcasting, because the armour is already a great choice. I do think with minor description tweaks, the BG1 version could retain its Shadow Thief background but as a different item given to less high-ranking members.

Link to comment

Shadow Armor +3

 

I say, keep or remove the spellcasting ability as you like but please do not make the same item be any different in BG1 and BG2. The only conceivable way to support this would be to make it an upgradable item (and I don't think that's the case really).

Link to comment

Boots of Stealth

Oh, well if Nadalin requires average reaction then I understand why I never got them. :) 2 pairs of boots, 3 if not doing Zhurglong's quest is a bit too much imho. Since leaving a pair of boots of stealth available early is a good thing (for the reasons someone wrote before) I'd change Nadalin's reward.

Link to comment
Boots of Stealth in BG1

Cloakwood 2: A large map filled with many small engagements with Ettercaps and Spiders of many types, including Sword and Phase. The key to the difficulty of the area is that, as you explore the map, there is a Web trap exactly 1 sight-range prior to each group of enemies, meaning they have very good odds of attacking just when the party is most vulnerable. A character with immunity to Web and enhanced Stealth could easily run through the whole map, deliberately springing every trap and then returning to the party. Without their Traps, the Ettercaps and Spiders stand almost no chance.

Yeah, and with a good thief, you can disable all the traps before the enemies launch their attacks on the thief... easy as a pie.
Link to comment
Boots of Stealth

Oh, well if Nadalin requires average reaction then I understand why I never got them. ;) 2 pairs of boots, 3 if not doing Zhurglong's quest is a bit too much imho. Since leaving a pair of boots of stealth available early is a good thing (for the reasons someone wrote before) I'd change Nadalin's reward.

 

Never got it either... :) And I agree with you! The reward could as well be something entirely different.

 

Speaking of reputation, my main character has an extremely low charisma (I liked to build a background for it in the biography) and I know it affects the reputation and interactions with NPCs (you should see the crap I get in Candlekeep! :grin: ).

 

But I wonder: how does this factor really come into play? If I send forth one NPC with high charisma when shopping, is my transaction still burdened by the protagonist negative modifier?

 

While I suspect this is the case, I think it doesn't apply when it gets to get a reward for a quest instead, when I'd think that the reaction is based on the interacting character.

 

Can you guys confirm this? (sorry for the OT)

Link to comment

I usually get the boots from Naralin. I remember these boots from back before TotSC came out.

 

BTW does anyone beside me use Macready's Hard Time mod. Which randomizes items and removes others. Among them the boots from Ulcaster Ruins. Not those from that pesky thief (I allways kill him off after delievering his boots back - just to get those boots back and even without a rep loss).

Link to comment
Bard's spellcasting in light armor
Alternatively, you could give Bards a permanent positive modifier to his chance of Spellcasting Failure, so that even after equipping heavy Chain applies a penalty to it, his chance of success is still 100%.
It doesn't seem a great solution.

 

Actually, to implement this I think it's necessary a lot of work, like applying disable spellcasting/spell failure/casting speed penalty via EFF files on light armors for non bards. Anyway, I still have serious doubts about balancing issues within BG1.

Well, it will be a lot of work but it depends on which solution is actually in use... It takes a lot of work if we use the IR's casting time delay component, and a somewhat less if we use the IR's spell failure component, the easiest is perhaps the disabled casting, but all those solutions might have holes in them, like the last one having a bard in full plate armor casting fireballs just like if he was in a robe...

But the one I could see for the Bard's, is a level based bonus against the casting failure, but that's the Kit Revisions problem, perhaps.

 

Of course this can all be a voided by making a balanced HLA that, but it's not that easy either.

Link to comment

@Salk: I think that the reaction is based upon reputation and the talking party member's charisma. If the main character doesn't speak, he can as well has a charisma of 3 and get the best rewards anyway. At least, it works like that in shops, so I guess it works like that everywhere.

 

@Shaitan: I was very tempted to try that mod, but as far as I know, it's for tutu/easytutu only. There was a topic on the SHS boards asking for a BGT maintainer for the mod, but since it has to be converted first nobody took the task yet. As soon as it will come out for BGT I will try it.

 

Bard's spellcasting in light armor

I think that bards should be allowed casting in light armors only - up to chain mails? - and receive penalties from all other types of armors, with or without the UAI HLA. That would mean quite some work with .eff files on all the armors which have to allow bard spellcasting, so that custom items installed before IR will be affected too.

I still think, anyway, that such a component would be troublesome for BG1 balance, making bards too powerful in that part of the game, while leaving them unaffected in BG2, since in BG2 there are a lot of spells and items bards can use to lower their AC.

Granting it via HLA would be useless imho, since it would come too late in time, when the bard effectively has some other means of lowering AC - and possibly already has some spellcasting armor. Making it work in other ways, for example giving the bard a positive modifier to his % casting failure, would leave it open to a huge amount of exploits (bards in heavy armor fireballing enemies) and would also, in my opinion, make little sense: why would a bard be unaffected by Miscast Magic (and other spells)?

I think the best solution would be the .eff file approach, granting it to all bards since the very beginning, but I'd leave them as they are since even in BG1, bracers and spells may do the trick (and I always play a bard, always starting from BG1, I know it's hard in the beginning, but.. It can be done).

What I'd really do is to create some robes with base AC 9, 8, 7 and so on, according to their enchantment level, usable by anyone: just some enchanted everyday dresses. I'd also make mage robes wearable by everyone, but I can see why it hasn't been done so far.

Link to comment

Bard's spellcasting in light armor

Using .eff is what I had in mind, yes, so that whatever penatly leather might impose, it is applied to everyone but bards. As for a lot of work to do, well, it's really doable with ease.

 

What I'd really do is to create some robes with base AC 9, 8, 7 and so on, according to their enchantment level, usable by anyone: just some enchanted everyday dresses.
Padded armor? Not a bad idea, I think.
Link to comment

Boots of Stealth in BG1

Cloakwood 2: . . . A character with immunity to Web and enhanced Stealth could easily run through the whole map, deliberately springing every trap and then returning to the party. Without their Traps, the Ettercaps and Spiders stand almost no chance.
Yeah, and with a good thief, you can disable all the traps before the enemies launch their attacks on the thief... easy as a pie.

That would be the desired way to do it, yes. Slow. Careful. Methodical. But why disarm boring traps when you have Super Spiffy Item to beat nearly the whole the map area for you? And this isn't the only one: There's also the wooded area east of Peldvale, and the caverns beneath Candlekeep that use this same trick. All neatly trumped by an enchantment that the Boots of Stealth have been doing just fine without for, oh, 10 years now.

 

Bards' spellcasting in light armor

First, I have to smack myself for not thinking of the Bard-specific EFF files myself. Now that that's done, again I ask: If Bards suffer no kind of Spellcasting Failure for any kind of armor up to Chain, who's going to care about Elven Chain any more? Just people like Thief/Mages and Fighter/Mages?

 

* * *

 

Gloves of Pick Pocketing / the Burglar

There's not really much point in precisely duplicating Jan's gloves, if you ask me. Better to remove the Lockpicking bonus, and give the Gloves a 2x/day ability (duration 1 turn, perhaps?) that raises Pickpocketing by an additional 15%, and grants Luck--I forget the specifics, but Luck might prevent the permanent 1% chance of rolling a "Critical Fail." They'd be balanced for BG1 too.

 

Gauntlets of Healing

Sigh--this was the only pair of Gauntlets the Wizard Slayer could use. Oh, well. Still, shouldn't all Gloves and Gauntlets have a small penalty to Wizard spellcasting, based on how much they would appear to encumber the fingers? Those that actually increase manual dexterity (like the Gloves of Pickpocketing, or the Gauntlets of Dexterity) should be exempt from this, or even grant a bonus to spellcasting.

 

Gauntlets of Ogre Power

Exceptional STR only has an effect if regular STR is 18, yes? If so, then the +2 to STR sounds better than +1.

 

Gloves of Missile Snaring

Wait--so the intent is to be a permanent Protection from Missiles, available only to Monks and those using Single Weapon? The effect would be too strong, even if you could perfect the implementation--which might not be feasible. You could add the effect that, when the Gloves are put on, they put an invisible item into the Shield slot (bouncing any Shield down into Inventory) and all 4 Weapon slots (to knock down any possible 2-handed weapons) with a duration of 0 seconds. The 0-second thing might cause the effect not to fire at all, but even 1 second would probably crash the game when you leave the Inventory screen and the game tries to show a Monk with something in his Shield slot. The Gloves would also have to have Cannot Use Item for every 2-handed weapon in the game, and the player would have to re-equip their weapons, possibly picking them up off the ground first . . . and even with the offhand THAC0 penalty, they could still use offhand weapons with mainly passive enchantments, like Crom Faeyr. And all this for permanent Protection from Missiles? I don't think it's worth it. Better to go back to the AC vs. Missiles (however banal it might be) and simply set all Weapon Styles except Single Weapon at 0 stars while equipped.

 

Gauntlets of Parrying

Decent, but I think it's wrong to remove the Gauntlets of Weapon Skill, which many players might prefer. If Gauntlets of Parrying & Power Attack are to appear in-game, they should do so as alternatives, not direct replacements. Which doesn't really fall into IR's job description.

 

Gauntlets of Power Attack

How far is the victim knocked back? I for one don't see the appeal of moving my opponent out of my melee range (at least, as an HLA, I have the option of choosing when to shove the bad guy out of my face), especially if it's at the cost of softening all my other hits.

 

Gauntlets of Extraordinary Specialization

Vanilla's version is usable only by fighters, paladins and rangers, should I allow more classes to use them?
Yes. Open them up to everyone but single-class Wizards. The "Warriors" vs. "Everybody Else" in combat prowess needs a lot of evening out.

 

About the 1/2 ApR bonus: I heard that there was an issue in trying to stack effects adding 1/2 ApR--it caused strangeness. What kind of strangeness? Can you describe the ruckus, sir?

 

Gauntlets of Crushing

I've only though about adding a +X damage vs. golems, but I think they are ok.
Instead of anti-Golem stuff, they should also grant a -2 AC bonus and 10% Physical Resistances. Why? Well, with Item Revisions, regular Warriors get Large and Medium shields that grant significantly larger AC bonuses, the ability to wear Full Plate+5 in conjunction with items of Protection, and every magical Helmet grants an AC bonus now. Monks need to be able to compete.

 

Bracers of Blinding Strike

I don't like making all but a single pair of Bracers of Defense obsolete at one stroke. I would lose the AC setting, and replace it with each melee hit having a 5% chance to Haste the user for 1 round (no Fatigue modifier).

 

Paladin's Bracer

Some players suggest to make them usable by good clerics too, I think it's reasonable and I may do it for V2.
I don't care for it myself, but we should at least give players that option. Although I'd like to keep Ranger/Clerics and Cleric/Thieves unable to use them.

 

Blessed Bracers

Good, but the Resurrection still looks misplaced on it. I'd replace it with either Champion's Strength (cast simultaneously with Righteous Magic?) or a weaker version of Holy Word.

 

Wondrous Gloves

Notes: I've "only" replaced +1 to THAC0 with +1 to Casting Speed, I know it's a pretty powerful effect but I think a little incentive to an underused class like the Bard won't hurt, am I wrong?
I see the Gloves being used by Mage/Thieves to supplement the Robe of Larloch and the Metaspell Influence. Guess it's time for another EFF file to circumvent UAI: Only Bards get the faster casting time--and extra spellslots in Levels 5 & 6, too.

 

Bands of Focus

Armor Class: 3
That's good for the Kensai, but absolutely useless for the Monk. I would do something like this: -3 bonus to AC, +20% Physical Resistances, +15 max. hp, and -2 THAC0 and +2 Damage when attacking with fists. Only usable by Monks and Kensai . . . although the Physical Resistances should be locked behind an EFF file.

I realize it's lame to have these bracers almost completely override the Gauntlets of Crushing, but the pitiful amount of Monk-useful equipment is BioWare's fault, not mine. They deserve a greater selection, but that belongs in some other mod, not IR.

Link to comment
Boots of Stealth in BG1
Cloakwood 2: . . . A character with immunity to Web and enhanced Stealth could easily run through the whole map, deliberately springing every trap and then returning to the party. Without their Traps, the Ettercaps and Spiders stand almost no chance.
Yeah, and with a good thief, you can disable all the traps before the enemies launch their attacks on the thief... easy as a pie.

That would be the desired way to do it, yes. Slow. Careful. Methodical. But why disarm boring traps when you have Super Spiffy Item to beat nearly the whole the map area for you? And this isn't the only one: There's also the wooded area east of Peldvale, and the caverns beneath Candlekeep that use this same trick. All neatly trumped by an enchantment that the Boots of Stealth have been doing just fine without for, oh, 10 years now.

 

IIRC it is not possible for a thief to detect and those traps in Spider Wood. Am I wrong?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...