Proficiencies, PIPs and such

[Mike1072]

These math posts are not very constructive. The relative worth of a +1 bonus to hit depends on your current THAC0 value as well as the enemy's AC. Let's agree that it's good to have and leave it at that.

 

Getting back to the proficiency tables, I found these observations most interesting:

1. Attaining grandmastery in a proficiency is the first target for most fighters because the benefits are so good. Since that requires so many pips, it takes a lot of time before they move on to become proficient in other weapons.
2. Because they are so restricted, the classes that can only obtain simple proficiency end up knowing how to use more weapons faster than fighters (even though they gain pips at a slower rate).

Some of #1 is helped by KR's "proficiency in all weapons" granted to the true class fighter. Removing the 5th pip and moving its benefits to the 4th pip is an appealing idea. The downside would be the effect on low-level gameplay (getting something at level 6 that normally wouldn't come until BG2).

 

#2 could be helped by giving those classes more things to put pips into. I've never liked that weapon styles were restricted to warriors; maybe those could be opened up to everyone?

[Jarno Mikkola]

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

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

Now go quickly and edit your post.

Sorry, but it was in the original post... I just restored it in your posts quote to show the point. If you noticed, what you quoted didn't even have punctuation marks, not even one. While my post has plenty. Why ? Was it taken deliberately out of context ?!?

 

Some of #1 is helped by KR's "proficiency in all weapons" granted to the true class fighter. Removing the 5th pip and moving its benefits to the 4th pip is an appealing idea. The downside would be the effect on low-level gameplay (getting something at level 6 that normally wouldn't come until BG2).

Yeah, but in BG2, you can have a 5 pips in level 7, where if the old rules were to be followed, you shouldn't be able to have them. As the max in level 1 is 2 pips, not 4 which leads to the gathering of max 4 points in level 7.

 

#2 could be helped by giving those classes more things to put pips into. I've never liked that weapon styles were restricted to warriors; maybe those could be opened up to everyone?

There are rulesets in the community that do this intentionally. And remember that for example, the Swashbuckler can use 3 pips in two weapon style. It's up to each of the kits to make their own rule. Yes, technically the Swashbuckler is a warrior of sorts, but that's kinda the point actually, as there is kits that are more and kits that are less warrior like. And thus they should have totally different restriction sets, even as the base class is the same. By the by, you do this in addition to the weapprof.2da with profsmax.2da, and the first one is the more determinant, unless the second is smaller than the first.

[kreso]

Some of #1 is helped by KR's "proficiency in all weapons" granted to the true class fighter. Removing the 5th pip and moving its benefits to the 4th pip is an appealing idea. The downside would be the effect on low-level gameplay (getting something at level 6 that normally wouldn't come until BG2).

What I was thinking here is

- right now gaining 3* gives you 1/2 apr. This happens (usually) at level 3. At level 7, you gain another 1/2 for level.

What I would do is remove the extra 1/2 apr from 3* (and grant it an additional damage point compared to what is now used).

The extra 1/2 apr from profs would be gained for 4* (level 6) and 5* (level 9). The net effect would be:

- only fighters get extra apr for profs, not Cavaliers, while still keeping Cavs superior to other Paladins in martial combat

- it tones down the relative power of fighter types in early BG1 (imo a good thing, since AC is too good there anyway)

- the extra damage point, while little by itself, can be fairly important when facing low-level mobs, while HP pools are relatively low, and it makes a real difference in between multis and pure classes/kits.

I wouldn't remove the 5th pip, I don't think it's a good idea.

 

 

Yeah, but in BG2, you can have a 5 pips in level 7, where if the old rules were to be followed, you shouldn't be able to have them. As the max in level 1 is 2 pips, not 4 which leads to the gathering of max 4 points in level 7.

Well, I play BGT, so all is fair - albeit w/o ToBEx tweak one can put 4* in a sword from the get go even in BG1.

 

 

#2 could be helped by giving those classes more things to put pips into. I've never liked that weapon styles were restricted to warriors; maybe those could be opened up to everyone?

Definitely thieves, yes. Clerics would benefit from it, mages slightly less so, unless specifically played. I don't think that's important (or looks nice) for classes other than thieves.

[Ardanis]

Well, I'd pick this:

 

pip - thaco - damage - apr

1 - 0 - 0 - 0

2 - 1 - 0 - 0

3 - 2 - 2 - 0

4 - 2 - 3 - 1/2

5 - 3 - 4 - 1

 

class - max pip - max style

mage - 2 - 1

priest/rogue - 2 - 2

ranger/paladin - 3 - 3

fighter - 5 - 3

 

And the usual +/-1 for some kits, i.e. 4 in weapon styles for kensai, 4 in weapons and shields for cavaliers, 3 in weapons for rogue kits etc.

 

PS 3+ in styles would obviously be BGEE-only.

[Demivrgvs]

I'll give my 2cents again:

Grand Mastery

Attaining grandmastery in a proficiency is the first target for most fighters because the benefits are so good. Since that requires so many pips, it takes a lot of time before they move on to become proficient in other weapons.

As you noticed, I used "proficiency in all weapons" granted to the true class Fighter to counter this, albeit such tweak is not compatible with EE because they had the wonderful idea of changing the opcode behaviour.

I'm strongly against removing the 5th pip and moving its benefits to the 4th pip because it makes GM "cheap". Fighters would get it during BG1 at level 6 (PnP GM was around level 12 I think), making them quite OP for low levels when they already shine the most. Fighters should look forward to GM much like spellcasters can't wait to get to mid-high lvl spells. Remove the 5th pip and you remove the most cool looking mid-lvl feature from Fighter's "progression table".

 

@Jarno, I think both TobEx and EE "restore" the use of profsmax.2da, am I wrong?

 

@kreso, if the Cavalier is too good I would simply try to make the kit balanced within its boundaries rather than tweaking the whole weapon mastery system with heavy changes to all the classes, no?

Non-warriors

Because they are so restricted, the classes that can only obtain simple proficiency end up knowing how to use more weapons faster than fighters (even though they gain pips at a slower rate).

I'm totally in favor of opening weapon styles to most, if not all classes. Single weapon style and dual wielding make a lot of sense for rogues, while two-handed and weapon plus shield would be great for priests (note that KR's True Cleric will not be restricted to blunt weapons anymore, that restriction is going to be a drawback for the Morninglord of Lathander).

I also already said that I'm favorable to open specialization (++) in more selected cases (e.g. 1handed blades for Swashbucklers, daggers/darts for Assassins, martial weapons for a warrior-priest kit like the Watcher of Helm, etc.). Similarly, Mastery (+++) could be opened a bit more often.

 

I'm not sure instead why for example I should open specialization to something like the true class Thief who clearly doesn't focus on weapons at all but rather on subterfuges, traps, dirty maneuvers, gadgets, etc.

 

Revised Grand Mastery table

While the above mentioned tables where the first +1/2 apr gets moved from Mastery to High Mastery have their good points (make later pips more appealing) I'm not convinced about them because:

a) it's an even more noticeable change than what I already did, and I prefer smaller changes that better blend with vanilla when possible

b) it makes fighters get +1/2 apr bonuses at levels 6, 7, 9, 13 instead of the better spread out 3,7,9,13

 

The real question is, do we really need to opt for drastic changes? Is the current system so bad that we need to re-build it entirely?

[Ardanis]

The real question is, do we really need to opt for drastic changes?

 

What I see (and saw) a problem is that rogues end up proficient in many more weapons than paladins/rangers, and the latter end up specialized in many more weapons than fighters.

 

Is the current system so bad that we need to re-build it entirely?

 

I wouldn't exactly call it "re-build entirely"... Was considering it an optional component in the first place.

 

b) it makes fighters get +1/2 apr bonuses at levels 6, 7, 9, 13 instead of the better spread out 3,7,9,13

 

Unfortunately...

[kreso]

The real question is, do we really need to opt for drastic changes? Is the current system so bad that we need to re-build it entirely?

No, the system isn't bad. But the point stands - each pip should be (much) better than the one before it. For now, 4* is just a "bridge" you must walk over to get GM asap.

I'd also advise against making specialization (and consecutively, mastery) widely available, ditto weapon styles.

One single instance I'd allow mastery is bows on true rangers, and Cavalier due to him being a fighter/paladin crossbreed.

I'm not very sure how you can balance Cavalier w/o removing 1/2 apr he gains in BG1, apart revising him completely (now why would you?).

In BG2-ToB he may be somewhat even (until you grab that +1/2 apr gauntlets - which only he (!) can use to full extent - then he skyrockets again), but in BG1 he's much superior to a fighter, especially with IR/SR installed, since the 4th pip fighter gets over him means nothing against Cav's treats and spells (DUHM+Shield of Faith; where's your 4* pip now, mr. weapon master? ; never mind the immunities).

CShots are nice, but it's not dependable in BG1, especially with melee (I'd guess this is what fighter will specialize in).

Another option is to remove mastery from Cavalier; which I already suggested that would help balancing him out. I do like the idea of getting pips apr later more, however.

I don't think the change would be that big - but it would round up apr consistently (no more ending up with 5/2 and similar nonsense values which make Haste behave silly)

The really big change (removing 1/2 from widely available specialization for Paladins, Barbis, multis, rangers) is already done, this would actually be a fairly minor tweak to the system as it is now.

 

 

 

b) it makes fighters get +1/2 apr bonuses at levels 6, 7, 9, 13 instead of the better spread out 3,7,9,13

 

Unfortunately...

 

It's not written in stone...

[kreso]

Thinking about it - (assuming 4th and 5th pips add apr)

 

Remove APR from 7th level, add it to 3rd level.

Remove APR from 13th, add it to 12th.

 

Now you have:

 

level 3 - 3/2 apr, all warriors

level 6 - high mastery, fighters gain 2 apr (with chosen weapon only)

level 9 - gm, fighters 5/2 apr

level 12 - 2 apr all warriors, fighters 3 apr (chosen weapon)

 

Naturally, I'd swap 9/12 but it's not really possible.

[kreso]

Heh. I've made this, tested, and I'm happy with what I see. No longer does Imoen have more kills than my Paladin before he hits 75K exp, which is half the BG1 game.

Now I'm gonna No-Reload a Cavalier.

[Jarno Mikkola]

@Jarno, I think both TobEx and EE "restore" the use of profsmax.2da, am I wrong?

The ToBEx restores the minimum levels(the first column) to level 1, the max(the second column) was already in use always.

Notice that the profsmax.2da is class based, which includes duals and multi's, which can allow fine tuning if you know what you are doing... and the player doesn't object. Notice that the first column also applies to the weapon styles, so setting the rangers min level to 3 allows it to pick 3 in any one weapon and 3 stars in dual wielding. But setting it to 2, will restrict it severely, making it a must to pick 2 different weapons to use, as none can be placed to the 2 weapon style.

[subtledoctor]

Another thing that could balance things is to simply give warriors many more pips. They have *many* more weapon proficiency pips to spend in PnP after all. Give them 1/2 levels, and thieves 1/4 levels... or warriors 1/3 and rogues 1/5, etc. The problem with speeding up warriors' pip accrual is the same as dropping GM to the 4th pip: way too early GM.

 

This can be handled by mimicking PnP, by making the ability to get GM a level-based ability granted in the CLAB. Unfortunately the only way I know to do that, is to make a shadow kit and summon an invisible monster. And I know you guys hate invisible monsters. I myself considered and rejected that idea. (Though I might reconsider it in the future, since I already use that method in numerous other parts of my mod.)

[Jarno Mikkola]

Another thing that could balance things is to simply give warriors many more pips. They have *many* more weapon proficiency pips to spend in PnP after all. Give them 1/2 levels, and thieves 1/4 levels... or warriors 1/3 and rogues 1/5, etc. The problem with speeding up warriors' pip accrual is the same as dropping GM to the 4th pip: way too early GM.

 

This can be handled by mimicking PnP, by making the ability to get GM a level-based ability granted in the CLAB. Unfortunately the only way I know to do that, is to make a shadow kit and summon an invisible monster. And I know you guys hate invisible monsters. I myself considered and rejected that idea. (Though I might reconsider it in the future, since I already use that method in numerous other parts of my mod.)

But what happens if the char never ever gets 4 pips in any slots ?

This is part why one should consider setting the APR to be a level based fact and mastery... so that it increases but doesn't overgrow the fundamental rule set that was in BG1's start. Yes, this will balance even the fact that a fighter can have 53 proficiency point at level 50 if you want to put it there.(so the rate be 1 per level, and 4 at level 1).

AKA you get the benefit only when a normal char would be electable to get it in BG1 (without cheating). By modifying the table. And all it's parts.

[subtledoctor]

Jarno I forgot to say that your table tweak was very interesting, I never thought to change it in the way. Seems like if you do it right, you could balance it very nicely, even for players who use Taimon's wspatck For All tweak, without resorting to CLAB-based effects. (Though, I don't see a problem with using CLAB-based effects, and they allow the edits to the table to be much simpler.)

 

But I'm not sure I understand the question about "what happens if..."

[Jarno Mikkola]

But I'm not sure I understand the question about "what happens if..."

Well, if you put a clab based effect to a level, and and thus be able to restrict the 5th layer, what happens if the player chooses more than one proficiency to put points into ? To the extent that the condition in the clab based effect will never be true... it removes a bonus from the kit. A bonus you intended for it to have, and the player is totally not able to obtain by other means.

Also the clab based weapon prof bonuses are a bit flaky at times. As if you put a point to a prof, and then the clab effect tries to add 3 point to the same prof, in the non-ee-BG2 you are likely to not actually get the bonus at all. And then there's the fact that it can only set and not add (without the EE or ToBEx or one of them).

[subtledoctor]

Well, if you put a clab based effect to a level, and and thus be able to restrict the 5th layer, what happens if

Ah - that's not what I meant. Limit fighters to 4 pips in any weapon, and then at 11th level apply a spell effect that switches them into a shadow kit, which is identical to the normal fighter kit in every way except for being able to reach grandmastery. Then the player can get that 5th pip at 12th level, or later if he doesn' have any weapons with 4 pips yet. Voila - the PnP rule applied. Only catch is, as I said, it relies on an invisicre and an AddSuperKit script. Which people dislike because scripts can flake out, and basic kit abilities are not something you want to flake out.