IR's Large Shields

[Salk]

Hello Demi!

 

The revised shield component should change the Large Shield's AC to +3 and introduce a THAC0 malus of -2.

 

I see differently about the THAC0 malus so I was wondering if you could help me understand how to manually change it to -1 instead of -2. If I am not mistaken I need to change this part in the revised_shield_tpa:

 

 

  // add -2 penalty to attack rolls
  SET opcode = 54 // thac0 modifier
  SET param1 = (0 - 2)
  LAUNCH_PATCH_MACRO ~ADD_ITM_OR_SPL_EFFECT~

 

to

 

 

  // add -1 penalty to attack rolls
  SET opcode = 54 // thac0 modifier
  SET param1 = (0 - 1)
  LAUNCH_PATCH_MACRO ~ADD_ITM_OR_SPL_EFFECT~

 

Is it correct? If yes, is it also enough? Or do I need to change also some descriptions so that they would report the new THAC0 malus value? If so, which ones?

 

Thanks a lot!

[Dakk]

The revised shield component should change the Large Shield's AC to +3 and introduce a THAC0 malus of -2.

I actually think the Large Shield gives AC -4 (and that's what -2 THAC0 is there to balance).

 

IR Readme

[Ardanis]

If I am not mistaken I need to change this part in the revised_shield_tpa:

Yes.

 

Or do I need to change also some descriptions so that they would report the new THAC0 malus value? If so, which ones?

In "description_updates.tra", change it to -1

// add thaco line to @100319
@100320 = ~\1
THAC0: -2 Penalty~

 

I actually think the Large Shield gives AC -4 (and that's what -2 THAC0 is there to balance).

It was 4 in v2, for v3 they instead grant +2 vs missiles (+1 compared to vanilla).

[Salk]

To make Medium Shields consistent with the above mentioned custom modification for Large Shields I also need to remove the -1 to THAC0 for Medium Shields.

 

Am I correct to assume that I need to change as follow:

 

in revised_shield.tpa:

 

 

from

 

// add -1 penalty to attack rolls
  SET opcode = 54 // thac0 modifier
   SET param1 = (0 - 1)
   LAUNCH_PATCH_MACRO ~ADD_ITM_OR_SPL_EFFECT~

 

to

 

// add -1 penalty to attack rolls
//   SET opcode = 54 // thac0 modifier
//    SET param1 = (0 - 1)
//    LAUNCH_PATCH_MACRO ~ADD_ITM_OR_SPL_EFFECT~

 

and in description_updates.tra:

 

from

 

// add thaco line to @100319
@100324 = ~\1
THAC0: -1 Penalty~

 

to

 

// add thaco line to @100319
@100324 = ~\1~

[Salk]

Bump?

[Ardanis]

Seems to be correct.

[Dakk]

I actually think the Large Shield gives AC -4 (and that's what -2 THAC0 is there to balance).

It was 4 in v2' date=' for v3 they instead grant +2 vs missiles (+1 compared to vanilla).

[/quote']

What really, did we reach a consensus for that? We crazy

 

I don't recall the discussions at all, but adding a +1 AC vs missiles doesn't sound balanced vs an added -2 THAC0. Surely large shield wasn't THAT good/overpowered in vanilla? I'd rather dual-wield (incidentally giving me a better THAC0 on-hand, and the aforementioned -2 off-hand with maximum Two Weapon style) than penalize myself that much. Which is sad, and kind of runs counter to what we wanted with IR - toning down the relative advantages of dual-wielding?

[Ardanis]

Dual-wielding (imo not terribly great in vanilla either) two heavy weapons yields -4 offhand thaco penalty, and coupled with overall enchantment reduction, further reducing the chance to hit something with offhand, I think it barely beats two-handed style's +1 damage and +4 speed factor.

 

Tower shield is designed for tank characters, and for that purpose I find extra +2 AC and +1 AC vs missiles to be quite worth the cost of -2 thaco.

 

PS

Damn it.

I actually think the Large Shield gives AC -4 (and that's what -2 THAC0 is there to balance).

It was 4 in v2, for v3 they instead grant +2 vs missiles (+1 compared to vanilla).

I meant to say - in v2 towers gave +4 AC, while in v3 they give +3 AC and +2 vs missiles. Sorry, Dakk.

[Quester]

I think it's a good compromise. Previously, there was no real reason for a shield-using fighter to go with anything other than a tower shield once those are available. Now, on the other hand, you can choose to go all out defense with a tower shield, or you can go with a medium shield which gives a little less protection but allows you to hit more often.

[Ardanis]

Yes, that's it. Although I still think there're only two distinct shield types - light and tower, not four.

 

My own table would look like this:

Shields

Shield	AC Bonus	AC vs Damage Type	THAC0	Arcane Failure	Casting Speed	Other
Buckler	1	none vs Piercing/Missiles	0	0	0	-
Light Shield	1	none vs Missiles	0	10%	+1	Usable by Thieves
Heavy Shield	2	+1 vs Missiles	-1	20%	+2	-
Tower Shield	4	+2 vs Missiles	-2	50%	+4	-2 Speed Factor

[Dakk]

PS

Damn it.

I actually think the Large Shield gives AC -4 (and that's what -2 THAC0 is there to balance).

It was 4 in v2, for v3 they instead grant +2 vs missiles (+1 compared to vanilla).

I meant to say - in v2 towers gave +4 AC, while in v3 they give +3 AC and +2 vs missiles. Sorry, Dakk.

I actually came here because I saw I hadn't noticed the +2 AC (compared to vanilla) and apologize to you for that And with those adjustments I find the -2 THAC0 ok, and suited well for "tanks".

 

Yes, that's it. Although I still think there're only two distinct shield types - light and tower, not four.

 

My own table would look like this:

Shields

Shield	AC Bonus	AC vs Damage Type	THAC0	Arcane Failure	Casting Speed	Other
Buckler	1	none vs Piercing/Missiles	0	0	0	-
Light Shield	1	none vs Missiles	0	10%	+1	Usable by Thieves
Heavy Shield	2	+1 vs Missiles	-1	20%	+2	-
Tower Shield	4	+2 vs Missiles	-2	50%	+4	-2 Speed Factor

I think I might actually like that table better than the current beta v3 table. Any chance of changing this? Thoughts from Salk, usual suspects, others?

[Salk]

I am editing and changing my former message because it was a rant...

 

To answer Dakk, no I don't like the new table better than the current IR's one.

 

I think it might be fine the way it is now but what I'd like to see is a revision of the different combat sty​les.

[Demivrgvs]

Yes, that's it. Although I still think there're only two distinct shield types - light and tower, not four.

 

My own table would look like this:

Shields

Shield	AC Bonus	AC vs Damage Type	THAC0	Arcane Failure	Casting Speed	Other
Buckler	1	none vs Piercing/Missiles	0	0	0	-
Light Shield	1	none vs Missiles	0	10%	+1	Usable by Thieves
Heavy Shield	2	+1 vs Missiles	-1	20%	+2	-
Tower Shield	4	+2 vs Missiles	-2	50%	+4	-2 Speed Factor

Mmm...I'm not sure about the above table especially when it comes to "small shields". Anyway, I actually see 3 distinct shield types in the current V3 solution, not 2. We have:

* bucklers - light shields which offer little protection (none vs missile) but are usable by everyone with no penalties

* small and medium shields - average shields usable by most classes which offer good protection with none or very little encumberance/penalties

* tower shields - large, heavy shields which offer huge protection (even more vs missiles) but are more encumberant (thac0 penalty, high weight, require high STR)

 

With 1PP small shield's animation in particular I see very little difference between "small" and medium shields, because the formers don't look so small at all!

 

Now, the -1 thac0 penalty to medium shields is debateable, but it was "secretly" introduced to balance the +1 AC medium shields have over small ones. Without such penalty medium shields would outshine small ones in every possible way (better AC and pretty much same usability). Compared to vanilla we added a full +1 AC bonus to medium shields, thus a small penalty is fine imo.

 

Keeping again in mind 1PP small shield animation, making them not protect from missiles is a strange choice imo. Not only because I can't see why they should offer so much less protection than medium ones considering they have almost the same size (the difference gets bigger the higher the enchantment lvl, from base 2 AC points up to 7 AC points for +5 shields, and it would be even worse with your suggested +1 vs missiles for medium shields - up to 8 AC points difference!), but also because then medium shields would completely outshine smaller ones (-1 penalty to thac0 is not enough to balance such a huge AC gap imo). I guess your point is that you're opening small shields to thieves (and thus only them would ever care about this type of shield), but I actually fear these shields are now a tad too big for them...or maybe not, I'm just not sure.

 

@Ardanis, I know what you are trying to achieve, but the end result on that table imo would be making bucklers even less appealing than they already are (you're making them offer no protection at all from 2 types of damage/weapons out of 4), and medium shields would once again make small ones pointless. Wasn't you that suggested me to force the -1 penalty onto them exactly because we wanted players to have at least a valid choice (between medium shield's +1 AC or small shield's +1 thac0) to make? Am I wrong?

 

@Salk, removing the small -1 penalty on medium shields is not going to change the world (it was like that in V2), but large shields absolutely need a consistent penalty (Ardanis table above is even suggesting another penalty - speed factor - on top of it!) because of the outstanding +3 base AC (+5 vs missiles) they get under IR V3 (compared to vanilla +1 AC, +2 vs missile the difference is really huge!). Most large shield users wouldn't even notice a small -1 thac0 penalty (too little to matter for warriors) and quite a lot of IR players reported me large shields were very OP in V2 (that's why I switched +1 AC in favor of +2 AC vs missiles only), even with the -2 thac0 penalty.

[Dakk]

That's very well reasoned Demi (as always). And I admit I did not see/grasp the significance of "no AC vs missiles" of small shields. I actually wholly endorse your arguements, and I also feel a mere -1 THAC0 is not going to be felt by a warrior. It's worse at low levels, but the beauty is that you could use medium shield if you're not happy with the tank whiffing his attacks.

 

I'm not surprised I ended up agreeing with you Demi, because if I didn't I'm pretty sure I'd still be arguing this in the original thread And with that, my flip-flopping on this issue is done

[Ardanis]

Cool, at the long last we're having heated debates once again!

 

I suppose I was a bit too hasty indeed with returning to vanilla stats for bucklers/smalls.

 

Towers, ideally, should have DEX penalty (which is what offsets their +4 AC in PnP), but in order to not override armors' penalty it would have to be a fixed value, rather than percentage.

 

Between small and medium, thief usability imo is the only thing that would make a small shield into something valuable - similar how warriors would prefer bastard swords over shorts.

 

Btw, did we decide to abandon the shield bash idea completely?