Six's random blatherings.

[Salk]

Monk's AC

does monk's innate AC count as 'base AC'?

It does Whether it's hardcoded or clab I know not.

Too bad...it means things like Spirit Armor and Bracers of Armor don't work well on them at all, and it doesn't make much sense to me. But this means it's not my fault if Band of Focus are great for monks, as the very Bracers of Armor serie is not good for them.

 

I am not sure I understand here.

 

Isn't SixOfSpades saying practically that the Band of Focus' current AC base sucks for monks (and therefore his suggestion to lower it to -3)?

 

If that's the case, how can they be great for monks?

[Demivrgvs]

Monk's AC

does monk's innate AC count as 'base AC'?

It does Whether it's hardcoded or clab I know not.

Too bad...it means things like Spirit Armor and Bracers of Armor don't work well on them at all, and it doesn't make much sense to me. But this means it's not my fault if Band of Focus are great for monks, as the very Bracers of Armor serie is not good for them.

I am not sure I understand here.

 

Isn't SixOfSpades saying practically that the Band of Focus' current AC base sucks for monks (and therefore his suggestion to lower it to -3)?

 

If that's the case, how can they be great for monks?

Because I'm dumb, I meant "it's not my fault if BoF aren't great for monks". Instead a cumulative bonus like Six suggests would work on monks.

[mercurier]

Gauntlets of Extraordinary Specialization

Why not to give them full +1 apr? You get those not somewhere, but at the very end of Watcher's keep, all too close to the end of game.

Mmm...it seems a little too much to me, isn't it?

Give them -1 THAC0 penalty will do. Let's assume with the gauntlets the wearer's apr changes from 4 to 5, and his/her chance to hit is x without the gauntlets. Then the net effective apr bonus is:

5(x-0.05) - 4x = x-0.25, which is close to 0.5 in that stage of game.

 

Gloves of Pick Pocketing / the Burglar

P.S X/day bonus to pickpocketing is the best way to make sure players won't equip this item ever. Why should I keep the gloves equipped after using the ability?

b) I had to find a way to make them appealing enough to remain equipped, thus I come up with the current solution. Again, we discussed it, as I almost never do something without consensus.

1. That may not be the case. If a char lacks pickpocket skill, he/she will try everything to enchance it when performing it: equip the glove, use its x/day ability, maybe plus a quaff of potion of masterthieving.

2. Actually you don't have to. Some items are designed for special use and you can't expect all adventure-oriented items to be combat-effective. Anyway the bonus to scoring critical hit is nice and reasonable.

[Salk]

Monk's AC

does monk's innate AC count as 'base AC'?

It does Whether it's hardcoded or clab I know not.

Too bad...it means things like Spirit Armor and Bracers of Armor don't work well on them at all, and it doesn't make much sense to me. But this means it's not my fault if Band of Focus are great for monks, as the very Bracers of Armor serie is not good for them.

I am not sure I understand here.

 

Isn't SixOfSpades saying practically that the Band of Focus' current AC base sucks for monks (and therefore his suggestion to lower it to -3)?

 

If that's the case, how can they be great for monks?

Because I'm dumb, I meant "it's not my fault if BoF aren't great for monks". Instead a cumulative bonus like Six suggests would work on monks.

 

Is it enough to just open the file with NI and change the "Bonus to" field from "Base AC" to "All weapons" to make it like Six suggested?

 

I am interested because well... I am playing with a monk...

 

You also mentioned Spirit Armor and Bracers of Armor not working well on them either. Since this class seems to be unfairly penalized, perhaps we could do something about it?

[Demivrgvs]

Gauntlets of Extraordinary Specialization

Why not to give them full +1 apr? You get those not somewhere, but at the very end of Watcher's keep, all too close to the end of game.

Mmm...it seems a little too much to me, isn't it?

Give them -1 THAC0 penalty will do. Let's assume with the gauntlets the wearer's apr changes from 4 to 5, and his/her chance to hit is x without the gauntlets. Then the net effective apr bonus is:

5(x-0.05) - 4x = x-0.25, which is close to 0.5 in that stage of game.

Perhaps I'm tired but I can't follow you...care to explain more clearly?

 

Gloves of Pick Pocketing / the Burglar

P.S X/day bonus to pickpocketing is the best way to make sure players won't equip this item ever. Why should I keep the gloves equipped after using the ability?

b) I had to find a way to make them appealing enough to remain equipped, thus I come up with the current solution. Again, we discussed it, as I almost never do something without consensus.

1. That may not be the case. If a char lacks pickpocket skill, he/she will try everything to enchance it when performing it: equip the glove, use its x/day ability, maybe plus a quaff of potion of masterthieving.

2. Actually you don't have to. Some items are designed for special use and you can't expect all adventure-oriented items to be combat-effective. Anyway the bonus to scoring critical hit is nice and reasonable.

1. My point is that you'll do what you say only for those few instants when you need to pickpocket something, and then you'll put the gloves in the backpack. Having the x/day bonus on top of a equipped bonus doesn't change anything in terms of "while equipped" appeal, and it actually makes the item a rather cheap way to boost your pickpocketing skill (for pickpocketing purposes a x/day ability is as useful as a permanent effect, because you don't need it more than once per day).

2. within BG I almost do, because BG is not PnP, and combat is 90% of your game time. Conceptually you're right, but as long as I can make an item at least slightly appealing as a permanent part of a character's equipment I'd go for that rather than having an item you would use 5 minutes in a 60 hours game.

 

 

Monk's AC & Bands of Focus

Is it enough to just open the file with NI and change the "Bonus to" field from "Base AC" to "All weapons" to make it like Six suggested?

Yes.

 

I am interested because well... I am playing with a monk...

 

You also mentioned Spirit Armor and Bracers of Armor not working well on them either. Since this class seems to be unfairly penalized, perhaps we could do something about it?

I'm not sure we're facing unfairness here. It's not handled well yes, and it's misleading imo because I don't think it's so clear why Bracers of Armor shouldn't work on monks just like on any other character. Vanilla's description says such AC is the "natural AC" of the monk, which implies it's a sort of tough skin or something like that, but that's as silly as it sounds imo. It should have been instead an innate deflection bonus based on reflexes/dexterity/martial training.

 

On the other hand, the current behaviour is probably "intended" because at the same time vanilla's monk get a huge amount of AC bonuses: base 9, then +1 every 2 levels instead of PNP's +1 every 5 levels and no bonus at first level (though in PnP monks would also get AC bonuses from a high wisdom score).

 

If you ask me, I'd probably give them +1 at 1st lvl and then +1 every 4-5 levels but as additional deflection bonus, making them able to use Bracers of Armor. Anyway this is not something I can do within IR.

 

P.S You may take a look at Sword and Fist mod here at G3. Its revision of the monk may actually already fix the AC bonus to use additional bonuses instead of base AC.

[mercurier]

Gauntlets of Extraordinary Specialization

Why not to give them full +1 apr? You get those not somewhere, but at the very end of Watcher's keep, all too close to the end of game.

Mmm...it seems a little too much to me, isn't it?

Give them -1 THAC0 penalty will do. Let's assume with the gauntlets the wearer's apr changes from 4 to 5, and his/her chance to hit is x without the gauntlets. Then the net effective apr bonus is:

5(x-0.05) - 4x = x-0.25, which is close to 0.5 in that stage of game.

Perhaps I'm tired but I can't follow you...care to explain more clearly?

OK, let me say this way:

1. A char has a average chance of x (0 <= x <= 1) to hit most opponents, and her/his apr is 4. The average hits (s)he can score in a round is 4x.

 

2. With the Gauntlets which grants +1 apr and -1 THAC0, her/his chance to hit is (x-1/20), and now the apr is 5, and the average hits per round is 5(x-1/20)

 

3. Now we do the subtraction to see how many more hits this guy get from the Gauntlet:

5(x-1/20) - 4x = x - 0.25

 

For x around 0.75 (which should be sensible at that stage of game), the net hit-per-round bonus should be around 0.5, which is balanced imo.

 

PS: Your character does have to rest, and remember that YOU do as well. We don't want to lose any dedicated modders.

 

Gloves of Pick Pocketing / the Burglar

P.S X/day bonus to pickpocketing is the best way to make sure players won't equip this item ever. Why should I keep the gloves equipped after using the ability?

b) I had to find a way to make them appealing enough to remain equipped, thus I come up with the current solution. Again, we discussed it, as I almost never do something without consensus.

1. That may not be the case. If a char lacks pickpocket skill, he/she will try everything to enchance it when performing it: equip the glove, use its x/day ability, maybe plus a quaff of potion of masterthieving.

2. Actually you don't have to. Some items are designed for special use and you can't expect all adventure-oriented items to be combat-effective. Anyway the bonus to scoring critical hit is nice and reasonable.

1. My point is that you'll do what you say only for those few instants when you need to pickpocket something, and then you'll put the gloves in the backpack. Having the x/day bonus on top of a equipped bonus doesn't change anything in terms of "while equipped" appeal, and it actually makes the item a rather cheap way to boost your pickpocketing skill (for pickpocketing purposes a x/day ability is as useful as a permanent effect, because you don't need it more than once per day).

2. within BG I almost do, because BG is not PnP, and combat is 90% of your game time. Conceptually you're right, but as long as I can make an item at least slightly appealing as a permanent part of a character's equipment I'd go for that rather than having an item you would use 5 minutes in a 60 hours game.

OK, I got it: this the very essence of IR: making things more intersting without losing balance and sense

[Ardanis]

Monk's AC

P.S You may take a look at Sword and Fist mod here at G3. Its revision of the monk may actually already fix the AC bonus to use additional bonuses instead of base AC.

Nope. It was exactly this mod when I've discovered I couldn't use bracers despite my actual AC being higher than bracers' base. IIRC S&F only imposes penalty to AC, while the base is all the same.

 

Ok, I've check the clab and there's no hint of AC being changed. Guess we'll need Taimon.

[SixOfSpades]

UAI HLA

I definitely see where you're coming from, kthxbye, about it not making sense that an item would have certain properties for one character and different properties for another. For the most part, I agree with you, but I still think that the items (and therefore, the game) would be more interesting if some items were basically semi-sentient in that they can reject the user, or at least decide that he is not "worthy" to employ certain aspects of their power. True, in a PnP game this would all be controlled, on the fly, by a DM who would (hopefully) prevent things from getting out of control--but since we lack that happy power, we have to DM from afar, in advance, and try to rectify imbalances whenever possible. Take, for instance, a hypothetical pair of Bard-only Gloves vs. a hypothetical pair of Warrior-only Gauntlets. Combat-wise, Bards need a lot more help than Warriors do, so one is tempted to give the Gloves better combat bonuses than the Gauntlets--except that then all Multiclassed Thieves will use the Gloves as the better of the two, when as DMs we would naturally prefer to have them use the Gauntlets, and have the Gloves remain reserved for Bards. If I were a DM running a PnP game, I would decree that the Mage/Thief may use some, but not all, of the Gloves' enchantments, which is precisely the kind of thing I've been suggesting here. I understand your misgivings about an item doing different things in different hands, but I still see it as explainable (within each specific item's description, for instance), and an interesting wrinkle, which is almost always a benefit. For one thing, I'm hardly the first to suggest, or even implement this: When aVENGER tweaked the Short Sword of Backstabbing so that it raised the Backstab multiplier--but only for Thieves--the change drew nothing but praise.

 

Yes, as Demi said, it will become difficult to draw the line between which enchantments on which items will be UAI-locked and which will remain accessible, but weighing the strengths of specific effects on specific items is precisely what Item Revisions is all about. So far, I know at least some of us have been wanting to "sneak in" anti-UAI measures (I for one gave Carsomyr a chance to Holy Smite because it would deliver a stinging reminder to Evil Rogues every now & then), but a way to actually control it would be even better.

 

But that was before I knew about Refinements' "Use Scrolls & Wands" ability, that sounds quite intriguing. I always thought that the "Use Any Item" opcode was the only way to override restrictions, and it appears to have no parameters for item selection. I wonder how Refinements did it?

 

Although I must mention one thing: Bards shouldn't be the only ones to get the full-power Use Any Item, as Fighter/Thief/Mages deserve it too . . . although to be frank I'm not sure that there are too many items that they wouldn't already be able to use anyway. Hm--better file this under "maybe."

 

Increased ApR of Weapon (Styles)

Another possible maybe . . . I got to thinking that (as you'll see later on) the only way to implement a +1/2 ApR bonus would be to never stack two (or more) of those enchantments together, and the only way to enforce that is to make sure that the only items that have that are all Gauntlets, or Helmets, or Belts, etc. . . . or 2-Handed Weapons. That got me to thinking that in real life, you can wield a 2-Handed Sword a lot faster than you can a 1-Handed Bastard Sword, because you've got double the strength and a lot more leverage. That got me to thinking, "All 2-handed weapons except Crossbows get a +1 ApR bonus, stealing some of Dual-Wielding's thunder," and then "People use both hands to hold the weapon in Single Weapon Style, too, so they should get an ApR boost as well," which quickly became "That means putting an ApR bonus on 1-handed weapons, so we're right back to overpowered Dual-Wielding again."

So, an open request to Taimon, if you have the time, ability, and of course the inclination:

Single Weapon Style: At Specialization (**), the user gets +1 ApR when using this Style. To be fair, remove the AC bonuses.

Two-Handed Weapon Style: Move the increased chance of Critical Hit from the 2nd star to the 1st, just like Single Weapon, and Specialization also gives +1 ApR.

Sword & Shield Style: The style now gives bonuses to your overall AC, instead of mostly-useless AC vs. Missile.

The possibility of making these 3 Styles have as many as 3 proficiency points, instead of 2, might be worth looking into. Yeah, I know aspects of this, like AC and Critical Hit manipulation, can be changed by simple 2DA files, but I don't think ApR can. And yes, I'm a bad person, I'm posting something that doesn't belong in IR, SR, or KR.

 

User's choice

Yeah, commenting out changes to specific items is really easy to do if the player has the slightest hint of programming ability and the .tp2 is thoroughly commented (as I assume it is), but it's still a somewhat sloppy way to operate--I'd discourage it. True, it's not like we need to worry about professionalism because--obviously--we're not professionals . . . but separate components is a lot more user-friendly. And some users have trouble just figuring out how to install mods in the first place; if we asked them to go diving into subdirectories and start reading & hacking someone else's code, we'd probably lose them entirely.

 

Oh, that wacky numbering system

Sometimes my descriptions of enchantments can get confusing if they deal with AC, THAC0, or Saving Throws: When I say a "-3 bonus to AC," I mean what Demi refers to as a "+3 bonus to AC." Demi uses the way that makes more sense, I use the way that the end user actually sees on his screen. Yes, I want to bitchslap Wizards of the Coast for putting us through all this. But unless there's a total conversion that puts BG in 4th Edition where higher numbers are actually good, I'm stuck having to state whether any kind of modifier is a bonus or a penalty.

 

Demivrgvs's Rules

1. All items with unique names must have unique properties.

2. Whenever possible, all unique items must have an Equipped Effect that justifies leaving them on all day.

3. Whenever possible, a unique item must never be trumped by another that duplicates all of their properties, plus additional benefits, and occupies the same slot.

Not an actual quote, of course, but this forum doesn't have "paraphrase" tags.

For the most part, I'm in agreement, and would add two more:

4. Whenever possible, all items that say they are unique must BE unique.

5. Whenever the vanilla description indicates significant developer intent to create a fun/interesting item, all attempts should be made to stay true to that original idea.

Absolutely no arguments on #1: Cutthroat being a plain Shortsword+4 was just a joke. Personally, my version of #2 is "For the most part, Equipped Effects and on-hit effects are more interesting and flavorful than x/day abilities," and my #3 is "If any item completely overlaps another unique item (regardless of equipping slot), there must be a good reason for it, such as the better one being usable/useful to a smaller number of characters or being obtained much later or with much greater difficulty."

The combination of #2 and #5 is what's causing most of the friction. I feel that your insistence on putting additional Equipped Effects on already-good items makes the items both cluttered and overpowered, sometimes with effects that don't even make much sense. I understand that, when one is designing a mod and making lists of what can be done and should be done, one can frequently overlook making a list of what should be left well enough alone.

 

 

Boots of Stealth

Since when those web traps are only reason to have a good find trap skill?!

Sorry, I certainly didn't mean to imply that, I just meant that a Thief who'd invested in Stealth and Locks (both very tempting skills) at the expense of Traps wouldn't be the least bit inconvenienced by these map areas. True, I'd forgotten that Tutu grants experience for disarming Traps. I haven't read your description of the Spider Boots, it might be very good indeed, but all I can say is that the "Worn Whispers" was already decent . . . maybe the Spider Boots would work better in some other mod that actually introduces new items instead of rebalancing existing ones.

 

Gloves of Pickpocketing / the Burglar

P.S X/day bonus to pickpocketing is the best way to make sure players won't equip this item ever. Why should I keep the gloves equipped after using the ability?

You shouldn't. Because nobody pickpockets all day. Because pickpocketing is a skill used very rarely, if ever, and items that enhance it are whipped out for that specific use and then put away again--and there's nothing wrong with that. Perhaps back when you discussed all items having an Equipping Effect that's useful 24/7 and "we all agreed to this" (in my absence, of course), perhaps the agreement was that it was a good idea for MOST items, not that it was an absolute requirement for ALL items.

Actually the concept is almost unchanged imo: the gloves grants improved swiftness and precision of hand, is it so strange?

Yes, actually, it's quite strange that enhanced subtlety in cutting purse-strings or slipping a ring off someone's finger also translates into increased lethality when I'm cleaving somebody in half with my greatsword. That's like the difference between being a smooth talker with the ladies and being able to hypnotize anyone at will.

 

Gloves of Missile Snaring

I don't understand [why you think it's overpowered]...there's a shield which reflects missiles back to the source (much like a permanent 6th lvl spell, Physical Mirror), and this item only blocks them

For the Buckler of Reflection, my original plan was that it could cast Physical Mirror 2x/day, but then I remembered your dislike of x/day abilities, so I let it stand--under the assumption that because it's got such a powerful effect constantly running, you would quite naturally make Ribald charge an obscenely high price for it. But the Gloves of Missile Snaring are available for free (although not everyone knows how to obtain them). So yeah, I think the Gloves are likely to be overpowered, but (in this case) that doesn't really worry me as much as a clunky implementation to ensure that the wearer's using Single Weapon Style.

 

There's no way to lower a proficiency.

Does the opcode Proficiency[233] not work with "Amount" set to 0?

 

Gauntlets of Parrying, Power Attack, etc.

The goal here is pretty simple, instead of having a lesser-normal-greater version of the very same item I've tried to make the three gauntlets of weapon skill a little different: a defensive oriented one, a power oriented one and a speed oriented one. This way none of them will become completely obsolete when a more powerful one is found.

That's certainly a valid setup, and a good counterpoint to vanilla's hierarchy of Good, Better, and Best-with-class-restrictions. But given the placement of the Gauntlets of Extraordinary Specialization, it certainly deserves to be extremely powerful--yes, even to the point of making other combat Gauntlets obsolete. Even if there's 110% overlap and the "low-level" Gauntlets get run over, oh well . . . besides, they can always be handed out to other party members, so I fail to see how item overlap is this world-crushing dilemma.

 

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?

Two effects of this type when used together may cause apr rate to goes up to 5 regardless of the base value.

Scary. I must test to see whether that only happens with items, or if it'll also screw up things like ApR bonuses gained through a CLAB file, or a Wish spell, or something.

 

Gauntlets of Crushing

I've played a Monk only once, but I found this class incredibly powerful later on . . .

I've never played one at all, not because I dislike their Magic Resistance (although I do) or I think they're overpowered, but because they're all the same. Anyway, adjusting the Monk's power level is something to look into in Kit Revisions--for Item Revisions I'm operating on the assumption that KR (and/or Sword & Fist) will balance Monks, so it'll be best for them to get goodies on a level roughly similar to that enjoyed by other fighting-types.

 

Bracers of Blinding Strike

This is like saying you don't like a unique Leather Armor +2 making a plain Leather Armor +1 obsolete.

With the key difference being that the adjustments made to the Protector of the Second were immunities to a couple of low-level, rarely-used effects, while the change you made to the BoBS affected one of the most fundamental stats in the entire genre, and to a powergaming extreme to boot: Did you actually think to yourself, "No, it's not overpowered if it's one AC point behind the best Bracers of Defense in the entire saga?" Besides, AC is an enchantment that the Leather Armor needs, but the BoBS do not, as they were quite useful in vanilla--even if they functioned merely as a Wand of Improved Haste, a usability that you disdain.

 

Blessed Bracers

Good, but the Resurrection still looks misplaced on it.

Misplaced? Why? Champion's Strength or Divine Power surely make sense yes, but resurrection too imo.

Resurrection is too Clericky--it makes more roleplaying sense for the Paladin to avenge the wrongfully slain, not restore 1 of them per day back to full health. If you want to emphasize the idea that Paladins save the lives of innocents, do it with (the otherwise completely useless) Mass Raise Dead instead. Besides, there are enough Rods of Resurrection flying around already . . . it's almost like BioWare's saying, "Go ahead, use your NPCs like sacrificial lambs! It's okay, they don't mind!"

[DavidW]

Oh, that wacky numbering system

Sometimes my descriptions of enchantments can get confusing if they deal with AC, THAC0, or Saving Throws: When I say a "-3 bonus to AC," I mean what Demi refers to as a "+3 bonus to AC." Demi uses the way that makes more sense, I use the way that the end user actually sees on his screen. Yes, I want to bitchslap Wizards of the Coast for putting us through all this.

 

They got us out of it, didn't they? In 3rd ed, high is good. 2nd ed is TSR's fault.

[Daulmakan]

+3 bonus to AC means AC is improved by 3. Since lower AC is better, AC is lowered by 3. It isn't really that complicated.

[devSin]

Seriously. Bonus = better, penalty = worse, y'all!

 

Thems some learnin's for yas, enough for to play 2E.

[Ardanis]

Use scrolls

I wonder how Refinements did it?

Not in a particularily nice way. Can't wage on it - it was almost 3 years ago - but I think it was a bit buggy as well.

 

Increased ApR of Weapon (Styles)

You do realize that by adding+1 apr to 2-handers you totally devastate the entire point of dual-wielding? As for swinging two-handed sword faster, well... maybe, if we talk about claymores of staves, but keep in mind that 1h things already do inferior damage.

Yeah, I know aspects of this, like AC and Critical Hit manipulation, can be changed by simple 2DA files

Which?! How?! I'm confident none of the like were to be found when I tried to do what you're suggesting now.

 

 

it's not like we need to worry about professionalism because--obviously--we're not professionals . . .

Hey, dude, speak for yourself

 

 

Even if there's 110% overlap and the "low-level" Gauntlets get run over, oh well . . . besides, they can always be handed out to other party members, so I fail to see how item overlap is this world-crushing dilemma.

I kinda agree. As long as such cases are about 10-15% of the overall item amount, I see no big issue when two chars wear similar items, one being better than another.

[kthxbye]

UAI HLA

@SixOfSpades: I agree that UAI in some cases allows combos a DM would've prevented - for example, a kensai->thief in plate mail. I disagree about items being sentient but that's only a RP point of view. What troubles me is that all the options we have to do this, either weaken a "proper" combo (like the mage/thief with bard's gloves, at least in my eyes) or leave holes somewhere.

If we decide to choose items on a power-related topic: Wondrous Gloves may be too powerful along with Larloch's Robes, then we tweak that, but how do we explain that the Wondrous Gloves choose their owners better than a way more powerful Carsormyr, or Magi's Staff, or Purifier (and so on)? It breaks immersion, as if the Wondrous Gloves are "sentient" enough to choose their owners, then their background should be way more extended than the one of the mentioned artifacts - and all in all immersion in a game like BG is the thing that keeps me playing.

If we decide to choose items on a RP-related topic, then the list is simply long: Wondrous Gloves, Magi's Staff, Carsormyr, Purifier, Larloch's Robes are the obvious ones that came to my mind, but there are tons others. Doing this simply breaks the UAI HLA, and if we leave out an item we'll have 10 players requesting we add it in, 10 others requesting we leave out an already tweaked one.

Being this a video-game, we can't obviously DM for the player but I think this isn't the aim of IR either: from what I've seen, its aim is to makes the game more interesting, more balanced when a single item is way too powerful, and give the game more depth thanks to the extended backgrounds given to the items. The player will have to DM itself - you, me and probably a lot of other players using IR will not use a full plated kensai->thief. You most probably won't use a thief/mage with Wondrous Gloves, while I'd use it (and, as a DM, I'd let it be in a PnP session too). A lot of other players will want to exploit the system instead, and tweaking the UAI HLA will most probably cause them to stop using IR. Starting to tweak items to work differently on UAI characters can't possibly satisfy all IR players, and even among ones who agree that UAI can make some exploits available, the chance of pleasing them all is extremely low - for example you and I both agree that UAI can lead to unwanted exploits, but here we are discussing about how, where and when apply the tweak.

I think the best thing to do would be to change the UAI HLA, but this doesn't belong to IR. Personally I'm way interested in making it like a Use Any Scroll/Wand, and look forward to KR. I've even written a PM to Demi asking if I can anticipate that component, giving proper credits and all.

On an end note, what aVENGER did with the SSoB is different from what you're suggesting with the UAI HLA: he in fact powered up an item, giving it thieves only enhancements making it so that a non-thief character wouldn't be granted the backstab option using that sword (all characters have backstab x1 as long as I know, raising it to x2 would mean a fighter could backstab) without touching any ability, while tweaking items would mean, in the end, modifying the UAI HLA in a non-linear, specific way.

[Demivrgvs]

Increased ApR of Weapon (Styles)

Another possible maybe . . . I got to thinking that (as you'll see later on) the only way to implement a +1/2 ApR bonus would be to never stack two (or more) of those enchantments together, and the only way to enforce that is to make sure that the only items that have that are all Gauntlets, or Helmets, or Belts, etc. . . . or 2-Handed Weapons.

Actually using 'set apr to 6' may do the trick as it means setting the base apr rate to 3/2. Party member should always have a base apr set to 1 unless they are equipping a bow. This solution wouldn't work well on non playable characters though, as thet do use different base apr values, thus items such as Belm would have to be equipped by a creature with base apr 1.

 

Regarding weapon styles I think 2handed weapons surely don't deserve a +1pr, and it's actually the only decent style after 2weapons one. Single Weapon Style is the worst, and it's almost pathetic, while S+S style gives trivial bonuses, but at least it's viable as equipping a shield itself is surely way better than not having anything in the off hand and getting +2 to AC.

 

 

Demivrgvs's Rules

1. All items with unique names must have unique properties.

2. Whenever possible, all unique items must have an Equipped Effect that justifies leaving them on all day.

3. Whenever possible, a unique item must never be trumped by another that duplicates all of their properties, plus additional benefits, and occupies the same slot.

Not an actual quote, of course, but this forum doesn't have "paraphrase" tags.

For the most part, I'm in agreement, and would add two more:

4. Whenever possible, all items that say they are unique must BE unique.

5. Whenever the vanilla description indicates significant developer intent to create a fun/interesting item, all attempts should be made to stay true to that original idea.

Absolutely no arguments on #1: Cutthroat being a plain Shortsword+4 was just a joke. Personally, my version of #2 is "For the most part, Equipped Effects and on-hit effects are more interesting and flavorful than x/day abilities," and my #3 is "If any item completely overlaps another unique item (regardless of equipping slot), there must be a good reason for it, such as the better one being usable/useful to a smaller number of characters or being obtained much later or with much greater difficulty."

I can agree for the most part, even with your interpretation of #3, especially when it comes to items restricted to class. The weak point imo is #5, because I generally try to follow it, but it surely isn't mandatory for me. Gameplay is much more important than a supposed developer intent.

 

 

Gloves of Missile Snaring

I don't understand [why you think it's overpowered]...there's a shield which reflects missiles back to the source (much like a permanent 6th lvl spell, Physical Mirror), and this item only blocks them

For the Buckler of Reflection, my original plan was that it could cast Physical Mirror 2x/day, but then I remembered your dislike of x/day abilities....

Yeah, because that would allow to cast Physical Mirror and then equip Fortress Shield ending up with a Fortress-Reflection Shield in one.

 

But the Gloves of Missile Snaring are available for free (although not everyone knows how to obtain them). So yeah, I think the Gloves are likely to be overpowered, but (in this case) that doesn't really worry me as much as a clunky implementation to ensure that the wearer's using Single Weapon Style.

I agree with the implementation part being the real issue, while I surely can't agree on considering the concept overpowered only because you don't pay 10000 gp for it.

 

There's no way to lower a proficiency.

Does the opcode Proficiency[233] not work with "Amount" set to 0?

I don't rememebr if it works with 0, but for example a "set to 1" on a character with 2 points don't do nothing.

 

Gauntlets of Parrying, Power Attack, etc.

The goal here is pretty simple, instead of having a lesser-normal-greater version of the very same item I've tried to make the three gauntlets of weapon skill a little different: a defensive oriented one, a power oriented one and a speed oriented one. This way none of them will become completely obsolete when a more powerful one is found.

That's certainly a valid setup, and a good counterpoint to vanilla's hierarchy of Good, Better, and Best-with-class-restrictions. But given the placement of the Gauntlets of Extraordinary Specialization, it certainly deserves to be extremely powerful--yes, even to the point of making other combat Gauntlets obsolete. Even if there's 110% overlap and the "low-level" Gauntlets get run over, oh well . . . besides, they can always be handed out to other party members, so I fail to see how item overlap is this world-crushing dilemma.

Yeah, I can agree, but only when a better solution can't be found. In this case my solution is much more interesting imo, and I don't see a single reason to restore the lesser-greater-superior system, where's the advantage?

 

Anyway, if players think Gauntlets of Extraordinary Specialization deserve to be more powerful we can work on it without making the other two gauntlets obsolete.

 

 

Bracers of Blinding Strike

This is like saying you don't like a unique Leather Armor +2 making a plain Leather Armor +1 obsolete.

With the key difference being that the adjustments made to the Protector of the Second were immunities to a couple of low-level, rarely-used effects, while the change you made to the BoBS affected one of the most fundamental stats in the entire genre. Besides, AC is an enchantment that the Leather Armor needs, but the BoBS do not, as they were quite useful in vanilla--even if they functioned merely as a Wand of Improved Haste, a usability that you disdain.

Yeah, I don't like a pair of bracers to actually work as a Wand of Improved Haste. If developers intent was that they should have created a wand instead of a pair of bracers.

 

I wasn't talking about Protector of the Second and I don't understand the comparison. What I'm saying instead is that within IR these bracers are a unique version of the Bracers of Armor 4, just like there are unique versions of almost any type of item.

 

Did you actually think to yourself, "No, it's not overpowered if it's one AC point behind the best Bracers of Defense in the entire saga?

Wait...are you saying that base AC 4 makes this bracers overpowered? Are you kidding? Bracers of Armor 4, and even Bracers of Armor 3 can be purchased in the very first chapters if you wish, while these are found at the mid-end of chapter 5 in the underdark. Wasn't you the one who said "overlapping another item is not a problem if the more powerful one is found much later on and is more difficult to obtain"?

 

Blessed Bracers

Good, but the Resurrection still looks misplaced on it.

Misplaced? Why? Champion's Strength or Divine Power surely make sense yes, but resurrection too imo.

Resurrection is too Clericky--it makes more roleplaying sense for the Paladin to avenge the wrongfully slain, not restore 1 of them per day back to full health. If you want to emphasize the idea that Paladins save the lives of innocents, do it with (the otherwise completely useless) Mass Raise Dead instead.

As I said, I more or less agree with you.

[SixOfSpades]

Use Scrolls/Wands

I wonder how Refinements did it?

Not in a particularily nice way. Can't wage on it - it was almost 3 years ago - but I think it was a bit buggy as well.

Hm. That doesn't bode too well. What was it, a Use Any Item followed by a buttload of Cannot Use [specific item]s?

Even so, I concur with kthxbye that UAS/W is vastly preferable to UAI, at least for Thieves. I think being the only class that gets the full UAI might be just the thing Bards need to finally hold their collective heads up high in terms of comparative power.

 

As for items that "resist" UAI, I think if UAI is restricted to Bards I don't think I'll implement them at all: Class-specific abilities will occur only in cases where one does not need UAI to equip the item, such as the SSoB adding to the Backstab multiplier only for Thieves (and not Stalkers), or the Flametoe Boots adding Fire damage to hits only for Monks (and not classes that don't kick when they fight).

But if it turns out that Use Wands/Scrolls is not really feasible (at least for our purposes), I think I'll continue to design some items whose highest enchantments will function only for those classes for whom they were originally intended, and then offer optional components to enable the user to choose whether he wants UAI Thieves to be allowed to use the full-power items, or the nerfed ones.

 

(On a semi-related note, kthxbye, all characters can have a Backstab multiplier, but the engine won't recognize it unless the character is a Thief or a Stalker. I once made another Ranger kit, gave him a x2 Backstab, put him in Stealth, and tried it--just a normal hit. Weird.)

 

Increased ApR of Weapon (Styles)

You do realize that by adding+1 apr to 2-handers you totally devastate the entire point of dual-wielding?

If we're talking about basic weapons like Longswords+1, yeah . . . the guy with the 2-Hander has the same ApR, does more damage per hit, rolls a Crit on a 19 or 20, and doesn't have a +2 THAC0 penalty for the last attack in each round. But as the weapons get more and more enchanted, the edge goes back to the Dual-Wielder, because weapons have so many passive enchantments on them (CFaeyr's STR bonus, MoD's Negative Plane Protection, SSofArvoreen's immunity to Stun, etc), and he can get the benefit from 2 weapons' enchantments at once. To say nothing of Belm + Kundane.

 

Yeah, I know aspects of this, like AC and Critical Hit manipulation, can be changed by simple 2DA files

Which?! How?! I'm confident none of the like were to be found when I tried to do what you're suggesting now.

That's funny, I thought I'd seen those files lying around someplace, but I just checked with NI and InfExp and they're nowhere to be found. Maybe I was just reading WSPECIAL.2DA (the weapon proficiency 2da) and "projecting" that onto finding the weapon-style 2das as well. Or maybe the weapon styles use invisible 2das, which almost certainly do exist: Kitlist.2da says that Enchanters use CLABMA09--except that there is no CLABMA09 listed. But if you make one and slap it in the Override, Enchanters will use it.

 

it's not like we need to worry about professionalism because--obviously--we're not professionals . . .

Hey, dude, speak for yourself

What? You're getting paid for modding? How? I want some!

 

Actually using 'set apr to 6' may do the trick as it means setting the base apr rate to 3/2.

Wait, what? How does that math work? I swear, the more I learn about this engine . . .

 

Single Weapon Style, even in its vanilla form, is good for Rogues, especially Thieves, as that doubled chance of a Critical Hit is a great supplement to their poor THAC0, and well worth a single proficiency point. It's Sword & Shield that's the worst--sure, go ahead and wear a Shield, but only an idiot would actually spend proficiency points on it.

 

Buckler of Reflection

Yeah, because that [having the Buckler cast Physical Mirror 2x/day] would allow to cast Physical Mirror and then equip Fortress Shield ending up with a Fortress-Reflection Shield in one.

Actually, I'd consider that a very minor exploit compared to, say, casting PM and then Dual-Wielding, or even worse whipping out a good Bow and using the Boots of Speed to keep out of melee range, forcing the enemies to shoot you/themselves. But why not have the Buckler cast a Physical Mirror that, at the same time, puts an undroppable Buckler of Reflection in the Shield slot for the same length of time? It'll be a bit awkward to explain, but at least it'll be balanced.

 

Gauntlets of Parrying, Power Attack, Extraordinary Specialization

In this case my solution is much more interesting imo, and I don't see a single reason to restore the lesser-greater-superior system, where's the advantage?

Anyway, if players think Gauntlets of Extraordinary Specialization deserve to be more powerful we can work on it without making the other two gauntlets obsolete.

Yes, a Defense/Power/Speed trinity is definitely more interesting than a Good/Better/Best . . . but, I think, not as good as a Defense/Power/Speed where each of those 3 has Greater and Lesser versions. Moving up to better equipment (when you finally obtain it) should be as natural as getting rid of your old Longsword+1 when everyone in the party has +2 or +3 weapons. I say this not because I actually approve of unique items being made obsolete, but because an item only obtainable by defeating the Heart Key group fully deserves to better, in every respect, than a similar item obtained in BG1 simply by opening an unlocked chest out in the street.

 

Bracers of Blinding Strike

I wasn't talking about Protector of the Second and I don't understand the comparison. What I'm saying instead is that within IR these bracers are a unique version of the Bracers of Armor 4, just like there are unique versions of almost any type of item.

The Protector of the Second is a unique Leather+2, isn't it? (It might be Studded, I forget.) So it fit your analogy. I'm not objecting to Bracers of AC with additional enchantments at all, I'm just calling into question your decision to combine effects that have so little to do with each other. Bracers of Defense are used almost exclusively by Wizards, the very characters who would care the least about being Improved Hasted. So unless you were trying to cater specifically to the tastes of Fighter/Mages, I can't see where you were going with this.

Did you actually think to yourself, "No, it's not overpowered if it's one AC point behind the best Bracers of Defense in the entire saga?

Wait...are you saying that base AC 4 makes this bracers overpowered? . . . Wasn't you the one who said "overlapping another item is not a problem if the more powerful one is found much later on and is more difficult to obtain"?

My use of the word "overpowered' referred not to the BoBS as a whole, but to the AC setting; I was criticizing your decision to set AC to 4 instead of a more restrained value like 5 or even 6. To my eyes, having an item suddenly jump from no hint of AC at all to the second-best in the whole game smacks of powergaming, the sort of thing Weimer would do frequently ("Why shouldn't this Dagger do the same damage as a 2-Handed Sword?").

Yes, all 3 copies of the Bracers of AC 4 can be obtained sooner and (to varying degrees) with less difficulty, so the BoBS are justified in being more powerful. But, please, not with AC. Having a chance of Haste on hit, and Improved Haste x/day, is enough, and fits the spirit of the item much better.