Proficiencies, PIPs and such

[kreso]

 

 

I think the benefits of more stars should increase, not decrease, with higher mastery. I.e. the jump from 3 to 4 stars should give greater benefits than the jump from 1 to 2. Thus maintaining fighters' class benefits in reaching higher levels of mastery.

 

 

This is to me, a GREAT idea.

 

The more I think about moving extra 1/2 apr to 4*, the better I like it. As it stands now, Cavalier is an utmost abomination and it bugs me a lot (being the single kit with 3*, he pretty much pawns fighters in BG1 in virtually any combat aspect apart ranged combat - if any kit needs nerfs, it's Cavalier.).

But this would call for some slight revision of 3* bonuses.

How about this:

HIT DAMAGE SPEED

0 0 0 0

1 1 0 0 // why not? Let mages/thieves actually gain some benefits, not avoid penalties.

2 1 2 0 // same

3 2 3 0 // buffed with additional damage point

4 3 4 0 // same, but now grants 1/2 apr

5 3 5 -2 // same

[Jarno Mikkola]

How about this:

HIT DAMAGE SPEED

0 0 0 0

1 1 0 0 // why not? Let mages/thieves actually gain some benefits, not avoid penalties.

Well cause for the simple reason that the 0 profs give a Thac0 penalty of 5 to a mage ... so you wish to give the single point a bonus of +6 ?

[kreso]

so you wish to give the single point a bonus of +6 ?

So you wish to use a weapon which penalizes THAC0 by -5?

 

P.S.

Don't forget that by your logic (or lack of it) a single point already grants mages THAC0 of +5.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Don't forget that by your logic (or lack of it) a single point already grants mages THAC0 of +5.

Actually, if you look at it, the thac0 is the measure of difficulty a normal 1st level char with a point in the proficiency gets to hit an AC of zero. The penalty of not having that point is whopping 5 for a mage, and 2 for a fighter. To me that's FAIR. And the in game effect is still the same, your mage still be only able to hit with a critical roll anyways, unlike in your case where the mage can hit 50% of times without a crit roll.

 

Somehow you failed to see how evil I can be, and how tall a small imp can be.

[kreso]

Actually, if you look at it, the thac0 is the measure of difficulty a normal 1st level char with a point in the proficiency gets to hit an AC of zero.

No, it isn't.

 

 

To me that's FAIR.

That being fair or not has nothing to do with 1 pip granting +1 THAC0.

 

 

And the in game effect is still the same, your mage still be only able to hit with a critical roll anyways, unlike in your case where the mage can hit 50% of times without a crit roll.

No, you're wrong. Plenty of oponnents in BG1 have pathetic AC (gibberling has an AC score of 10). Now, if you understood how THAC0 works (which you apperantly don't ), you'd also be able to understand how the above quote of yours is wrong.

[subtledoctor]

Well cause for the simple reason that the 0 profs give a Thac0 penalty of 5 to a mage ... so you wish to give the single point a bonus of +6 ?

I think the point is, that's what kreso suggested changing.

 

My solution is to just give each class 1 * in certain profs at level 1, while keeping the unskilled penalty with other weapons. (But again that involves a much more extensive rethinking of system.)

[Jarno Mikkola]

...

K, let me do the exact same surgery here:

 

No, you're wrong.

No, I am not.

 

oponnents

Hmm, waht ?

 

Plenty of ... in BG1 have pathetic AC (gibberling has an AC score of 10).

Yeah, but this was not about AC ten, but ZERO !!!

 

Now, if you understood how THAC0 works (which you apperantly don't )

Hmm. I know it quite well...

 

you'd also be able to understand how the above quote of yours is wrong.

It was not wrong in the case I gave. It doesn't matter a bit about if all the others cases are different in because the stat change, they are different cases then and not about THAC0... and by the by, what is the THAC0 a short of ? (T)o (H)it (vs.) (A)rmor (C )lass zero(0), in a d20.

In case you are still confused, if you put the +1 to the d20 and have a AC zero opponent, you can hit it with 19 and 20 on the roll. Now, that's tw0 out of the twenty rolls that have the possibility of landing a hit, but also twice or 50%(relative) more than if the case is done without the +1.

unlike in your case where the mage can hit 50% of times without a crit roll.

 

Well cause for the simple reason that the 0 profs give a Thac0 penalty of 5 to a mage ... so you wish to give the single point a bonus of +6 ?

I think the point is, that's what kreso suggested changing.

 

Erhm, but in that case the system looses a lot's of it's identity and there's no single thing that explains why it's how it is...

[kreso]

K, let me do the exact same surgery here:

Well, you can try...

 

 

It doesn't matter a bit about if all the others are different...

 

You're building your argument on two equally wrong assumptions:

a) mage is fighting an oponnent with AC=0 prior to obtaining a +1 THAC0 bonus from any source (not impossible, but highly improbable). The fact that now a mage would have a double chance to hit against AC=0 is nothing special, it happens to everyone upon obtaining +1 THAC0 bonus while their base is 20.

b) 1* doesn't affect anyone but mages.

[Grammarsalad]

 

 

 

 

I think the benefits of more stars should increase, not decrease, with higher mastery. I.e. the jump from 3 to 4 stars should give greater benefits than the jump from 1 to 2. Thus maintaining fighters' class benefits in reaching higher levels of mastery.

 

This is to me, a GREAT idea.

The more I think about moving extra 1/2 apr to 4*, the better I like it. As it stands now, Cavalier is an utmost abomination and it bugs me a lot (being the single kit with 3*, he pretty much pawns fighters in BG1 in virtually any combat aspect apart ranged combat - if any kit needs nerfs, it's Cavalier.).

But this would call for some slight revision of 3* bonuses.

How about this:

HIT DAMAGE SPEED

0 0 0 0

1 1 0 0 // why not? Let mages/thieves actually gain some benefits, not avoid penalties.

2 1 2 0 // same

3 2 3 0 // buffed with additional damage point

4 3 4 0 // same, but now grants 1/2 apr

5 3 5 -2 // same

Something like this would be pretty cool imo. I would be fine with a -1 hit penalty for no prof...

 

Edit: yes,I mean give mages a "+4 to hit". A sc mage fighting with a melee weapon is already in big trouble anyway

[kreso]

they are different cases then and not about THAC0.

Yeah. Elven sorcerer with 19 dex is imba, he gains a +1 THAC0 with ranged weapons when compared to his 18 dex human counterpart.

 

 

Hmm. I know it quite well...

 

that's tw0 out of the twenty rolls that have the possibility of landing a hit, but also twice or 50%(relative) more than if the case is done without the +1.

I see that you do.

 

In that case, you should try to expand the concept you're trying to prove here (which would be....??).

Maybe you can get to a point where you understand that it's a 100% net increase if you double the chance (50% increase of 5% chance is a 7.5% chance, which doesn't happen in BG. But I'm sure you can see it clearly now ).

It's not uncommon in BG system you can get to a 600% increase in your chances to hit at level 1.

[n-ghost]

Why would anyone want to hit an full plate armored\shielded guy with physical attack as a mage.

[Jarno Mikkola]

(50% increase of 5% chance is a 7.5% chance, which doesn't happen in BG.

You take the wrong perspective intentionally here. Say you have 2 out of 20 chance to be able to hit with whatever, now then you loose one of those chances cause your thac0 get's worse, how much did your chance to hit decreases ? It did from 10 to 5 in net percentage. But how much is that in actual percentage ?

I don't know about you man, but usually insisting someone is wrong only get's you in trouble if you misunderstood them in the first place. And if you think that performing surgery to a post of mine is a good thing, I'll just next time won't use the sideliners(grammatical characters).

 

Why would anyone want to hit an full plate armored\shielded guy with physical attack as a mage.

It's a hypothetical case on what is involved with the math of the game that's actually the same with a fighter well except the fact that not having the prof penalizes you less

 

Now don't I look stupid ?

[kreso]

Say you have 2 out of 20 chance to be able to hit with whatever, now then you loose one of those chances cause your thac0 get's worse, how much did your chance to hit decreases ? It did from 10 to 5 in net percentage. But how much is that in actual percentage ?

You tell me. So, now, if a mage with 20 THAC0 attempts a hit against AC0, it's the same if he has proficiency in sling or not, given that he can only hit on a critical? That's a very valid reason to actually implement +1 THAC0 from my prespective.

 

twice or 50% more

did it now...??

Only qouting you, Jarno.

Sure, it's a net decrease by 50% when you put it from 10 to 5, but you were saying "more"; which is wrong.

We're not talking about worsening THAC0, but improving it.

 

Your reasoning (following your logic) for "1* pip = +1 THAC0 net bonus" is correct (considering the 100% chance increase, not 50% as you say, since he will hit 100% more of time - on rolls of 19 and 20) only if the difference in between THAC0 and AC is so large that only a critical hit would be succesfull (and only for the exact difference in between THAC0 and AC. Not even cases where AC is better than thac0 by 20 points, since +1 THAC0 wouldn't matter any ).

In all other cases (many more than than this would happen), it's wrong, and the % based bonus is smaller.

I'm not saying that bonus should be granted (I think it would be nice, but whatever) - but the reason you post against it isn't really a strong argument.

[Jarno Mikkola]

 

twice or 50% more of times !!!! you are capable to actually hitting him, then, as in right after)

did it now...??

Only qouting you, Jarno.

 

Yeah... if you learned how to do it correctly, then you would not take things out of context, even if it's not said in plain words. Or perform surgery to a sentence, or train of though.

 

You tell me. So, now, if a mage with 20 THAC0 attempts a hit against AC0, it's the same if he has proficiency in sling or not, given that he can only hit on a critical? That's a very valid reason to actually implement +1 THAC0 from my prespective.

Actually the validation comes from the enemiest that do not have AC less than zero. But the fact still remains that THAC0 is what it's short for, and so uninnitiated warrior is only capable to be able to hit a fully and well protected warriors at critical hits. With a weapon of their choice.

[kreso]

Quote "of times", or it didn't happen.

Ah, right, can't qoute what isn't there.

Now go quickly and edit your post.