3rd edition bonuses for ability points

[Tonton Fred]

Hello,

 

in the process of refining my BWP install, I've come across this component in the bigg's tweak pack, which implements 3rd ed. style bonuses. Looks interesting, however, I wonder if it might not interfere with the careful balancing that took place for Item Revisions... What is your take on a combination of this component with IR ?

 

Another point : I have been watching both IR and SR's forums for over three months and was initially under the impression that new versions were right around the corner. Silly me

I am now mulling starting a game with the current versions, but would like to make sure that there are indeed no releases planned in the next few weeks. That would be... frustrating.

 

Thanks,

Fred

[Shaitan]

Some have been waiting half a year

 

If I'm correct, a new version is imminent, but when is hard to say.

 

Cheers

[Demivrgvs]

Hello,

 

in the process of refining my BWP install, I've come across this component in the bigg's tweak pack, which implements 3rd ed. style bonuses. Looks interesting, however, I wonder if it might not interfere with the careful balancing that took place for Item Revisions... What is your take on a combination of this component with IR ?

Mmm...I think it will mainly affect the following things:

1) stat enhancing items would be slightly altered (sometimes for the better, other times for the worse)

2) Revised Armors component may not be balanced anymore (DEX penalties are designed with vanilla's table)

3) summoned creatures won't match the descriptions anymore, and their effectiveness is slightly altered because of the different STR, DEX and CON tables

 

Mike suggested me to implement similar tables ages ago, but I put it aside because of "technical issues". The aforementioned issues can only be fixed by changing items/creatures/spells to take into account the new tables, which means we should either make such tables mandatory, or have a huge patching code to alter all those files in case the tables are changed.

 

I do prefer more linear 3ed-like tables over AD&D/vanilla ones (actually, I hate those silly tables!), but unless we solve the above mentioned issues I have to live with vanilla's ones.

 

P.S Note that altering the tables also affect ALL game creatures. It shouldn't drastically change the balance, but having different hit, damage, AC, and hit points values may sometimes improve or lessen a creature effectiveness.

 

 

Another point : I have been watching both IR and SR's forums for over three months and was initially under the impression that new versions were right around the corner. Silly me

I am now mulling starting a game with the current versions, but would like to make sure that there are indeed no releases planned in the next few weeks. That would be... frustrating.

Eh, in theory IR V3 should have been out since the second half of January, but right before ending my work on it I was stuck with RL issues and pratically never worked on it again until June. Furthermore, while the initial plan was to have V3 as a rather simple update (that's why it was almost finished in January) I then started to add more and more refinements, and the current version contains hundreds of changes.

 

Long story short, as Shaitan says V3 shouldn't be too far because now I'm working on it again, but I prefer to not give a release date because I don't want to fail again the expectations. I'm truly sorry for all the delays.

 

If you want to get an idea on how close V3 is I may suggest you to look at the relative topic. I'm updating and discussing all items in alphabetical order (for file names though, thus blunxy.itms were almost all blunt weapons) and I'm currently working on hammxy.itms (hammers) and helmxy.itms (helmets). I actually have already worked on much more things (e.g. some swords) but the one listed there have been done, tested, and re-discussed with players, making them "definitive changes".

[Tonton Fred]

Ok... so if I don't want to risk screwing up balancing, I'll have to skip 3rd-ed tables, or wait for IRv4 (please don't start implementing it for v3 now )

 

I am also waiting for SRv4, for which I also have a question, so I'll see you over there,

 

Cheers,

Fred

[Demivrgvs]

Ok... so if I don't want to risk screwing up balancing, I'll have to skip 3rd-ed tables, or wait for IRv4 (please don't start implementing it for v3 now )

I couldn't resist the temptation to think about these tables...and I have to say that implementing them would actually be much much better than I thought. There are countless of advantages, and I previously missed many of them somehow (sorry Mike).

 

Stat enhancing items/spells would behave in a much better way instead of being semi-unpredictable:

- effects that raise stats (e.g. Girdle of Strength) would ALWAYS work with a FIXED effectiveness

- effects that drain stats (e.g. Chill Touch's -1 STR) would ALWAYS work with a FIXED effectiveness

This means that dozens of existing spells and items would be improved (e.g. Draw Upon Divine Might would finally be a balanced spell), and that I could rely on 'stat modifying' effects (e.g. Ray of Enfeeblement could be restored to be a STR affecting spell).

 

A modified CON table would allow me to re-introduce items with CON bonuses! I'd be able to handle the "infinite heal on equip" glitch (almost flawlessly) because the number of hp gained wouldn't be unpredictable anymore, and I would eliminate the silly (at least imo) 16 CON cap for rogues, clerics and mages (removing the cap would also actually help making a single class thief, mage, or cleric less unappealing compared to the easily exploitable fighter dualled to those classes).

 

The new tables would also improve the overall balance of the game imo:

- power-player characters (e.g. with 18 in every stat) wouldn't be insanely more powerful than "good but not great" characters (with 15-17 stats)

- most opponents have average or worse stats (whereas most player's characters generally have outstandingly good stats or can achieve them), which means they'd be considerably improved compared to the current system which grants huge bonuses for sky high stats and no bonuses at all for average stats

 

There are many other things I could say, but I'd prefer to discuss this a little with Mike for the technical issues, before spending ages discussing it.

[Dermit]

Wouldn't mind that one bit, Demi. While I was always more of a fan of AD&D, 3rd. Edition stats are much better suited for a CRPG. Course it would be a lot to work on.

[Tonton Fred]

V3 shouldn't be too far

...

I couldn't resist the temptation to think about these tables

 

Noooooooooooooo !!

[Ardanis]

I'm kinda neutral about 3E abilities. Might as well remove the HP cap after 10th level. I mean, both are great on their own, but I fear that to balance things out it might take more than merely whacking a patch for spell descriptions.

 

You'll have to redo few STR spells as well.

 

Noooooooooooooo !!

1) and 2) should be easy to tweak, and afaik Demi leaves dirty coding to others, so it won't be his headache anyway

[Demivrgvs]

I'm kinda neutral about 3E abilities. Might as well remove the HP cap after 10th level. I mean, both are great on their own, but I fear that to balance things out it might take more than merely whacking a patch for spell descriptions.

 

You'll have to redo few STR spells as well.

Indeed it's not super-easy as it might seem, but I think I've become quite accustomed to plan this sort of things by now.

 

Noooooooooooooo !!

1) and 2) should be easy to tweak, and afaik Demi leaves dirty coding to others, so it won't be his headache anyway

Indeed! I love to be "the mind" and leave the dirty work to you and Mike. Unfortunately it's my headache anyway because I've spent a couple of hours just to write down STR , DEX and CON tables and thinking all the possible implications (e.g. removing the 10th lvl cap is not a good idea imo).

 

I may open a topic on this matter sooner or later...

[Tonton Fred]

1) and 2) should be easy to tweak, and afaik Demi leaves dirty coding to others, so it won't be his headache anyway

 

easy for the party maybe, but if they start revising the whole stat bonuses system, shouldn't there be a Revised Creatures to rebalance enemies affected by the changes ?

 

Besides, where would this bonus changes be included ? It seems that this is outside the scope of Item Revisions (even if related to item balance)...

[Demivrgvs]

1) and 2) should be easy to tweak, and afaik Demi leaves dirty coding to others, so it won't be his headache anyway

easy for the party maybe, but if they start revising the whole stat bonuses system, shouldn't there be a Revised Creatures to rebalance enemies affected by the changes ?

After studying it a little it shouldn't be necessary imo (though a CR mod would be great). Sky high stats would grant almost identical bonuses, whereas average stats would get small improvements. Overall I'd say boss-like creatures would be almost unchanged, while grunts would be slightly improved.

 

Besides, where would this bonus changes be included ? It seems that this is outside the scope of Item Revisions (even if related to item balance)...

It doesn't matter much as long as it's a separate component. Both IR and SR are affected by it, the former slightly more than the latter (e.g. it seriously affect the revised armors). In theory it also affect all creatures, but as I said it's less noticeable there imo, and shouldn't cause balance issues (except the one shared by IR for armor DEX penalties). The more we work on the Revisions serie the more it seems we are going toward a Revised BG.

[Kalindor]

The more we work on the Revisions serie the more it seems we are going toward a Revised BG.

It seems like this is almost inevitable as the Kit Revisions will require significant interplay with Spell Revisions and also with creatures. It seems like a lot of extra effort to make sure that KR will work with or without SR. Ditto for a theoretical Creature Revisions working with or without Kit Revisions...

[Jarno Mikkola]

I'm kinda neutral about 3E abilities. Might as well remove the HP cap after 10th level.

e.g. removing the 10th lvl cap is not a good idea imo).

Sorry, but there's no 10th level cap, it's 9-10th level cap... because the Warriors(Fighter, Paladin&Ranger) and Clerics(+Monks&Druids *Sub-Kits) stop at level 9, while the others still get the full HD at 10th level. It's unfair as is already, darn it.

 

I have been thinking of making the tables to be full effect HD up to level 10, then the HD/2 up to the 15th level and then appropriate bonus there after.

 

I think that the Con bonus should be double for the Warriors than for the other classes, and it's implementable with the current double Constitution system.

[Demivrgvs]

I'm kinda neutral about 3E abilities. Might as well remove the HP cap after 10th level.

e.g. removing the 10th lvl cap is not a good idea imo).

Sorry, but there's no 10th level cap, it's 9-10th level cap... because the Warriors(Fighter, Paladin&Ranger) and Clerics(+Monks&Druids *Sub-Kits) stop at level 9, while the others still get the full HD at 10th level. It's unfair as is already, darn it.

I said I was not going to discuss it before talking to Mike but I see you can't restrain yourself from doing your imp job. I said "removing the 10th lvl cap is not a good idea" to be short, and because altering those caps isn't done via CON table. Anyway, I already thought about this matter too, and I think all characters should have full hp up to 10th lvl. It wouldn't change much, but at least rules would be "fair".

 

I have been thinking of making the tables to be full effect HD up to level 10, then the HD/2 up to the 15th level and then appropriate bonus there after.

If you don't patch all in-game creatures (they don't get those hp imo) you'll be granting players a huge unfair advantage, and even if you do that I think such a drastic increase of hit point may alter the game balance (e.g. damage dealing spells would be much weaker).

 

Long story short, what's the benefit of changing this rule?

 

I think that the Con bonus should be double for the Warriors than for the other classes, and it's implementable with the current double Constitution system.

No, because than those damn dual classes would be even more overpowered than they already are with all those hit points (1d10 + double CON per lvl instead of 1d4 + CON). We all know that BG's absurd amount of xp allow you to easily dual at 7th or 9th lvl making the single class mage or cleric extremely unappealing because the fighter class is almost "free". I don't want to make that system worse than it already is, but the opposite, and that's why I would allow all classes to get hp bonuses for CON higher than 16.

 

And why would warriors need that? They already get the best HD (second only to barbarians), and after the cap they get twice or thrice more hp than the other classes.

[Ardanis]

The more we work on the Revisions serie the more it seems we are going toward a Revised BG.

Coupled with SCS and Fixpack it should indeed result in a well balanced game. What IS a problem is lots of mods who clearly aren't obliged to take it into account. So, in order to rectify that, it would require an equally large amount of compatibility research, probably worth about few kb of code. Ugh...

 

If you don't patch all in-game creatures (they don't get those hp imo) you'll be granting players a huge unfair advantage, and even if you do that I think such a drastic increase of hit point may alter the game balance (e.g. damage dealing spells would be much weaker).

I've been thinking about damage values before. They're near the same as 3E, where it's common case to have over 100hp for wizards and over 300 for warriors. Moreover, Disintegrate and Harm use 3E values, SR's elementals use 3E hp values, SCS beefs fiends, celestials and dragons. And still, it's quite balanced yet, no?