Mods which tweak flails

[Greenhorn]

So does anybody knows mods which do this particular change? I can't stand that they are heavier, require more strength  and are more expensive than morning stars and do same damage as maces. I usually use item revision for classic games, v.2 IIRC which gives them 1d10 blunt damage but newer EE compatible versions did lots of changes that I'm not particularly fond of. I was thinking that moderate change to 1d8 +1 or old IR 1d10 is a nice solution. Luckily there are several mods which change spears to 1d8. I also don't like current vanilla bastard sword 2d4 dice but Anthology tweaks 2H bastard swords and Skills and abilities component " more meaningful stat bonuses "  combo partially correct that and actually make them versatile and useful options. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Greenhorn

[subtledoctor]

1d10 seems a bit extreme for a one-handed weapon, especially given that magical flails tend to be pretty powerful. Scales of Balance has a component that sets flails to 1d8, making them the blunt-weapon equivalent of longswords.

It also sets spears to 1d8+1, per PnP.  

[Greenhorn]

6 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

1d10 seems a bit extreme for a one-handed weapon, especially given that magical flails tend to be pretty powerful. Scales of Balance has a component that sets flails to 1d8, making them the blunt-weapon equivalent of longswords.

It also sets spears to 1d8+1, per PnP.  

Hmm, strange, if you mean "Functional Weapon Tweaks" Doc it states that " Spears do 2d4 damage, since in BG games they are of the 2-handed variety (this is per PnP)" and not a word about flails. In fact whole Readme ( SoB Github) only mentions changes to flails to heavy weapons relative to dual wielding. I guess that is one of recent changes not documented yet?

[subtledoctor]

Oh yeah spears do 2d4, you’re right. Huh. Probably because it’s too annoying to patch a +1 bonus into descriptions. (I think it actually used to be 1d8+1 but the descriptions said 2d4, and people freaked out on me for not being accurate.)

As far as the readme, no, just the opposite. It was done so long ago, and both the code and the readme have been untouched for so long, that I’ve had no reason to look at the readme or think it might need editing. 

[Greenhorn]

2 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

Oh yeah spears do 2d4, you’re right. Huh. Probably because it’s too annoying to patch a +1 bonus into descriptions. (I think it actually used to be 1d8+1 but the descriptions said 2d4, and people freaked out on me for not being accurate.)

As far as the readme, no, just the opposite. It was done so long ago, and both the code and the readme have been untouched for so long, that I’ve had no reason to look at the readme or think it might need editing. 

Yeah, doubled checked it just now, nothing about flail's new, increased damage. Good solution, 1d8 is better than present equivalent of mace, although I still think that flail should be more powerful than morningstar ( OK, I concede, 1d10 is little OP). So moderate option of flail's 1d8+1 or at least reversing morningstar and flail damage ( former 1d8 and latter 2d4) is still preferable  solution IMHO. 

[subtledoctor]

Well this conversation caused me to go back and review the PnP source, specifically DMGR3 "Arms and Equipment Guide." And it reminds me that there are several problems with how weapons are treated by the BG games. Spears are a great example. The classic spear does 1d6 damage in D&D, but that is a one-handed spear like the Greeks might have used with a shield. Using a spear two-handed is supposed to do 1d8+1 damage. Interestingly, the engine actually has some one-handed spear animations, and maybe it was originally designed for such use. That would certainly be cool, giving you an option for a medium-sized piercing weapon intstead of just functioning as sad inferior halberds. But unfortunately the animation is incomplete and looks really bad,and I don't know if it works at all with a shield equipped. So it's a no-go.

Glancing more at DMGR3, I realize that two-handed spears actually do more damage than almost all polearms. Halberds are very much the exception in the poelarm category. And even then, the fact is that a 1d10 weapon and a 1d8+1 weapon will both do 5.5 damage on average. So upon reconsideration, I think I will actually bump spears up to 1d10.

I hadn't thought too much about flails, but now I see that while a flail is supposed to do 1d6+1 damage, that is for a footman's flail, which is about 6+ feet long and is used two-handed. The short one-handed flails in BG are horseman's flails, which are supposed to do 1d4+1 damage - the same as war hammers. Giving them the same damage as maces is actually a bonus.

On the other hand, I think the way the damage of blunt weapons is minimized is kind of weird. Like, a big war hammer that could crush your skull and pound your bones to dust does the same damage as being stabbed by a dagger?

And then there is the limitation of the game's animations. Clubs look like maces, and morning stars (which are supposed so be clubs with spikes - not maces with spikes) also look like maces. What is the need for three different categories there? It's just odd - proficiency limitations and extra record-keeping, for no real benefit. I wish there was an animation for a two handed blunt weapon in the game.

But, IR for whatever reason make flails heavier and slower, and for that I think it is reasonable for their damage to match a long sword. Long swords are the second-best one-handed weapons in the game behind bastard swords,* and a 1d8 flail matches them but also gives you a far better damage type. Seems perfectly fine to me.

* (Except katanas of course. But then katanas are stupid and cheesy and born of a weird "orientalism" fetish from the 2E days, and are not really worth considering in this context.)

As far as reducing the damage of morning stars... I rather think the thing to do there is to switch them to do piercing damage. Right now the only piercing weapons are daggers, short swords, and two-handed spears. There is a huge gap there, which could be filled this way. Put morning stars and maces on the same proficiency and have one do blunt damage and one do piercing damage, and now players actually have an interesting tactical choice.

EDIT - I also notice that crossbow bolts do very little damage, maxing out at 1d4+1 while bows have "sheaf arrows" doing 1d8 like a long sword. The book seems to be silent on matter of APR. Maybe I should go further down that road, making crossbows all about accuracy and ease-of-use, and bows more about damage. That would look something like giving crossbows a to-hit bonus and, probably, giving bows a to-hit penalty. Think about it: any idiot can't pick up a bow and fire it well. it takes training and practice. Whereas, aiming a crossbow is a lot more of a "point and shoot" matter. You could still get quite good at using bows... but it would require investment in proficiencies and levels (i.e. training) while crossbows would be fairly useful for every level one noob - but do less damage.

Edited April 5, 2022 by subtledoctor

[Greenhorn]

Heh, introducing Greek hoplite warfare would be neat, I admit  As for multiple  similar blunt weapons reason was probably that fighter clerics should spend all those proficiency pips somehow coupled with the fact that mechanically blunt damage is the best in the game and various armors ( except splint mail) give least protection against them so amount of damage was reduced. Warhammers are the only blunt weapons that can be used as missile weapon but in that case Thaco and damage should be blunt type. Spiked weapons should do mixed blunt/piercing damage. Historically you are absolutely right about Crossbow, it was widely used as easy to use/learn missile weapon favorite to various semi trained militia among others because of precision and tremendous piercing power. However bows ( longbows especially ) did have some crucial advantages, namely rate of fire and range. 

[Dan_P]

Flail of Ages is the highest dps weapon in BG2 (unmodded) and flail/morningstar is one of the top 2-3 weapon classes in IWD. Of all weapon types, this is one of ones that least needs an upgrade. If anything, morningstar could be brought down to the level of mace/flail.

 

1 hour ago, subtledoctor said:

Glancing more at DMGR3, I realize that two-handed spears actually do more damage than almost all polearms. Halberds are very much the exception in the poelarm category. And even then, the fact is that a 1d10 weapon and a 1d8+1 weapon will both do 5.5 damage on average. So upon reconsideration, I think I will actually bump spears up to 1d10.

Personally, I'd put spears at 1d8+1 in this case. Asymmetrical balance > perfectly even numbers.

Also, with bows, the to-hit penalty idea seems to be just doubling up on the game mechanic that already exists, where no proficiency gives a penalty. That first proficiency point represents the basic training that you're talking about. I think just giving the IWD bonuses to crossbows would be enough. Light crossbows in IWD give a flat +2 to hit, heavy crossbows give +2 to both hit and damage. This allows a warrior class with no proficiency to still hit at an okay rate at low level (i.e. the ease-of-use stuff you mention).

[Greenhorn]

5 minutes ago, Dan_P said:

Flail of Ages is the highest dps weapon in BG2 (unmodded) and flail/morningstar is one of the top 2-3 weapon classes in IWD. Of all weapon types, this is one of ones that least needs an upgrade. If anything, morningstar could be brought down to the level of mace/flail.

 

OK, that is your opinion but you can't measure whole category of weapons on one super, uber powerful weapon which is exception and unavailable in BG1 which I intend to play. By that logic two handed swords should be toned down because of Carsomyr.  Talking about BG here as I never even played IWD ( grave sin which I intend to amend someday ).

[Dan_P]

My comment applies to BG1 as well though. There's very little difference in most weapon types, besides there being only a limited amount of magical weapons, and only a few with on-hit effects. The flail/morningstar class with a 2d4 damage weapon is one of the best weapons to start the game with, any way you look at it.

Note that I know the point of this thread was about flails being weaker than morningstars. I agree it would be better if they had the same or closer average, though max should be 1-8 damage imo. By the time you get to BG2, dual wielding even +3 weapons will usually out-dps Carsomyr (or other 2 handed weapons). Above 1d8 (i.e. katana) is already slightly overkill, without limiting the power of magical weapons.

[Greenhorn]

I get you but tell me why flail should have same damage as mace? What's the point? Club, weakest but can backstab. Staff give you reach (and backstab). Warhammer has throwing variant. Mace step above them. Morningstar ultimate blunt weapon. And what about flail, which is more expensive, heavier and requires more strength than any of them? I guess it would only be logical to have some payoff for that. Talking about mundane variants and not Flail of ages mind you. As for well known dual wielding superiority just check some modded weapon style overhauls, although I think that making morningstar 1d8 and flail 2d4 will hardly ruin game balance ( more than it already is anyhow). 

[subtledoctor]

1 hour ago, Dan_P said:

Personally, I'd put spears at 1d8+1 in this case. Asymmetrical balance > perfectly even numbers.

Yeah I would too, except it is way, way more complicated and annoying to mod that bonus point, and way easier to mod the base dice values. Putting in lots of hours for the sake of asymmetrical balance, when the end result is functionally the same? Sorry that's not going to happen. If the base damage was 1d6+1, then yes I would change it to 1d8+1. But as the base damage is 1d6, the reasonable possibilities for the change are 1d8, 2d4, or 1d10. (Or I guess 3d3, but with dice values lower than 4 you get into weirdness where, e.g. a Recitation spell or Chant + Luck results in doing max damage on every hit, while the guys with long swords and greatswords get comparatively tiny bonuses, with no good explanation for the difference.)

1 hour ago, Dan_P said:

Also, with bows, the to-hit penalty idea seems to be just doubling up on the game mechanic that already exists, where no proficiency gives a penalty. That first proficiency point represents the basic training that you're talking about.

Yeah but my point is, you should be better at hitting targets with crossbow than with a bow given the same amount of training. A long bow shouldn't equal to any other weapon at level 1 with 1 proficiency point; it should be daunting to anyone until they get a LOT of training. Rather than just a +2 for crossbows (which would probably be too much in BG1 given that DEX thac0 bonuses are so high and ranged weapons already rule in that game) I might apply a +1 bonus for crossbows and a -1 penalty for bows. That would go some way toward offsetting the somewhat ridiculous APR bonus (which I already nerf from 2 to 1.5).

13 minutes ago, Greenhorn said:

I think that making morningstar 1d8 and flail 2d4 will hardly ruin game balance

You're not really wrong. I only hesitate because the more I think about it, the more I think giving any weapon a base die as small as d4 is a bad idea, for reasons to do with the Luck mechanism (which AFAIK does not exist in that form in PnP). Having read more about morning stars being spiked clubs, rather than spiked maces, it makes be think that the point of a morning star is not to be big and heavy and do lots of crushing damage, but to simply be a delivery vehicle for those spikes. So tone them down and make then distinct by making them do 1d8 piercing damage. Then flails can do 1d8 blunt damage, and be appreciably superior in their own way. (And I would change maces from 2d3 back to a basic 1d6.)

[Greenhorn]

17 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

So tone them down and make then distinct by making them do 1d8 piercing damage. Then flails can do 1d8 blunt damage, and be appreciably superior in their own way. (And I would change maces from 2d3 back to a basic 1d6.)

First two points sound rather good. But regarding third point please don't tell me that clubs would be as consequence 1d4. 

[subtledoctor]

45 minutes ago, Greenhorn said:

please don't tell me that clubs would be as consequence 1d4. 

They already are with Item Revisions! Which I really don’t like. I suppose 1d4+1 would be okay, it would match war hammers. Or a straight 1d5? Or heck, since I personally combine club and mace proficiencies and the animation is identical, let them both do 1d6. Just have them be the same thing. Why not. 

[Greenhorn]

34 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

They already are with Item Revisions! Which I really don’t like. I suppose 1d4+1 would be okay, it would match war hammers. Or a straight 1d5? Or heck, since I personally combine club and mace proficiencies and the animation is identical, let them both do 1d6. Just have them be the same thing. Why not. 

Heh, why not just leaving maces and clubs like they are in vanilla? Why not?  But of course you are the boss Doc, especially of your own mod. But sometimes it is better not to fix that which is not broken.  And yea too much tweaking on the weak side was the reason why I'm not so taken with IR as before at least concerning ordinary weapons. Some like that, tastes differ, but not me, thanks. 

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Greenhorn