[BGEE] Feedback on thAC0 and revised stats bonus components regarding difficulty

[raindare]

Honestly, not a bad idea, and I think most statistics do more than one thing, so I’d be just as happy with an “alternating” version. Thus, you might end with:

9: -1 damage

10: No bonus

11: +1 damage

12; +1 hit, +1 damage

13: +1, +2

…

25: +7, +8

Some stats do more than two things, but said things are usually very minor (e.g. speed factor).

Of course, higher base THAC0s for everyone might be the simplest suggestion, and it brings things closer to the -7/+14 effect cap of BG2, but it’s very bespoke and extraordinarily unfavourable for certain NPCs. 

Edited March 25 by raindare

[polytope]

Several attempts have been made over the years to revise stat bonuses (for IE games and by 2e players as a whole), almost invariably, something goes wrong, the already tenuous game balance falls apart. Personally, I think one of the main reasons for dissatisfaction and attempts at reworking it is the "dead zone" for most ability scores taking up the larger part of the bell curve of a 3d6 die roll, so that there's too little chance of generating a character with useful bonuses raw, and you have to start moving ability points around.

Besides, it makes little sense that a character with 15 strength is no better in hand to hand combat that one with 8 strength, despite being able to carry more than twice as much weight. Similarly, because ability checks weren't implemented in the IE a character with 14 dexterity is no more likely to avoid physical damage than one with 7 dexterity (and their basic AC wouldn't be better anyway, dex checks only applies to a handful of monster attacks and a larger number of traps/hazards).

FWIW, this is the table in OD&D:

Strength                  Hit Probability      Damage
3-4                            -2                            -1
5-6                            -1                            Normal
7-12                         Normal                   Normal
13-15                       +1                            Normal
16                            +1                            +1
17                            +2                            +2
18                            +2                            +3

Exceptional strength

Dice Score                  Hit Probability       Damage
01-50                            +2                            +3
51-75                            +3                            +3
76-90                            +3                            +4
91-99                            +3                            +5
100                                +4                            +6

Something to note is that an exceptional strength roll in the 1-50 range (originally) gives no bonuses over plain 18, which I doubt would be popular, and 18/100 ends up one point ahead of vanilla values for THAC0 bonus. Arguably, 17 str should grant only a +1 to damage and 18 (unexceptional) would increase that to +2. Also, 13-15 share the same bonus, whereas 16, 17 and 18 all grant improvements. 

On 3/24/2024 at 1:19 PM, DrAzTiK said:

No offense but It is a bit sad that the current fashion is to rely so much on 3e edition. There is some good things in it but also a lot of garbage.

 

8 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

The obvious problem with 3E ability scores (and 4E, and 5E, and Pathfinder, etc.) is that you can boost an ability score and get no benefit from doing so. This seems so shockingly bad to me, it boggles my mind that WotC has stuck with the system all this time.

I'm also not a fan of 3e intrusions into BG trilogy, particularly because so many of the mechanics were hardcoded under the assumption of a 2e ruleset, which isn't easily changeable, besides 3e not being an improvement anyway.

Ability scores increments that give no immediate mechanical improvement are still useful as a protection against stat draining creatures/diseases and for ability checks that compare the result of a die roll or multiple dice to the score, failing if the rolled number is higher (in 2ed that was usually a d20, but occasionally something like 2d12, or with a -X penalty applied, that ensured success wasn't always guaranteed in every instance no matter stat enhancers).

Edited March 25 by polytope

[DavidW]

14 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

The obvious problem with 3E ability scores (and 4E, and 5E, and Pathfinder, etc.) is that you can boost an ability score and get no benefit from doing so. This seems so shockingly bad to me, it boggles my mind that WotC has stuck with the system all this time.

I think you're misunderstanding how that system has evolved. The odd numbers aren't useless in 3e/3.5e - feat qualification requirements are usually odd-numbered, and it functions as a mechanic to ration ability score boosts - but they're certainly much less significant. But the logical conclusion isn't 'we need to invent something for odd-numbered values to do': it's 'we need to drop odd-numbered ability scores entirely'. You see this most clearly in recent versions of Pathfinder - what matters are the bonuses, with the base scores kept around only for nostalgia value, and indeed dropped entirely in the most recent version (one just talks about having Strength +4 or Intelligence -1).

Of course, there's a gap between abstract RPG design and what makes sense internal to the IE and its modding community. (It would be technically feasible to move to a pure + system, given UI editing, but it feels like a bridge too far. Though it might be interesting to code, just as an exercise.)

[DavidW]

5 hours ago, polytope said:

I'm also not a fan of 3e intrusions into BG trilogy, particularly because so many of the mechanics were hardcoded under the assumption of a 2e ruleset, which isn't easily changeable, besides 3e not being an improvement anyway.

Which is why mods come in components. Most of ToF doesn't assume its ability score system. (The origin of that system was actually thinking about how much of IWD2 could be done in the EE engine.)

[polytope]

2 hours ago, DavidW said:

You see this most clearly in recent versions of Pathfinder - what matters are the bonuses, with the base scores kept around only for nostalgia value, and indeed dropped entirely in the most recent version (one just talks about having Strength +4 or Intelligence -1).

Well, yes, the only real reason to chart in game bonuses to an arbitrary numerical threshold was if you're randomly rolling stats for your character (rather than using a point-buy system that's become more common and something like this is basically assumed for BG2 players given rerolls and moving points around in chargen) which permits uncertainty as to whether you'd have any stats in the bonus range.

Without a base score it's a bit more complicated to keep track of things like the possibility of dying to a stat drain, but the systems that do that have their own rules for "draining" monsters.

I wasn't specifically attacking your mod for borrowing from recent rule sets btw., just my opinion that it's easy to break balance when overhauling mechanics, particularly with assumptions made by other modders about creatures/items they've added to the game and how effective those will be.

Edited March 25 by polytope

[Jarinex]

I do like the idea of some bonuses for higher stats, although I do worry about going too overboard and messing up game balance.

Speaking of modularity, would it be possibly to separate the spell slot component so if I only wanted that I could install that?

[subtledoctor]

8 hours ago, DavidW said:

But the logical conclusion isn't 'we need to invent something for odd-numbered values to do'

Most stats already do two things, no need to invent anything. 

EDIT - STR and DEX already do two things. WIS grants bonus spells that increase with every point, so it is not a big deal. To the extent a mod wants to add more benefits to INT and CHA, it is inventing something anyway. And CON… well, CON is a tougher nut to crack. 

8 hours ago, DavidW said:

it's 'we need to drop odd-numbered ability scores entirely'.

Well yeah, my gripe with the 3E system is that it is, for the most part, a 9-point system masquerading as an 18-point system. 

But even there, bonuses every two points is not necessarily a bad design. It’s only bad if you cast DUHM to buff yourself and there is no benefit. An easy alternative to providing a benefit for each point increase is to simply make sure that post-CharGen stats buffs increase stats by an even number. 

Edited March 25 by subtledoctor

[RoyalProtector]

... But at least we can all agree, I think, that the THAC0/AC system as such is trash and absolutely beyond hope [in ToB].

 

 

[subtledoctor]

THAC0 is an amazingly useful shorthand and easy to understand and you will never convince me otherwise. 

As for AC, I used to concede to you children of summer that pre-3E AC was weird. But no longer! I recently learned the origin of it and it’s fascinating. Apparently the system stems from an old naval combat simulation where the best ship armor you could have was 1st-class, and the next-best armor was 2nd-class, etc., getting worse as you get further from 1st class. (Think about airline seats or cruise ship accommodations - we still use a system where lower is better and nobody complains that it is “hard to understand.”) The took that naval defense mechanic and plugged it into the d20 roll-over to-hit roll, and ended up with a working fantasy combat system! At a time when there was almost nothing to compare it to. 

I just can’t bring myself to be critical of that. 

Edited March 26 by subtledoctor

[Dorothy_Dorothy_]

On 3/24/2024 at 5:06 PM, subtledoctor said:

The obvious problem with 3E ability scores (and 4E, and 5E, and Pathfinder, etc.) is that you can boost an ability score and get no benefit from doing so. This seems so shockingly bad to me, it boggles my mind that WotC has stuck with the system all this time. The answer seems obvious: have every ability score do two things, and give a bonus to each one on alternating ability scores. So for STR, a damage bonus for every even score starting at 12, and a to-hit bonus on every odd score starting at 13. For DEX, an AC bonus for every even score starting at 12, and a ranged thac0 bonus for every odd score starting at 13. Et cetera.

My own mod's allocation of bonuses is quite idiosyncratic, due largely to the particulars of this game's campaign. But surely there is a way to be more systematic with stat bonuses without rendering every other point increase useless...

I've shared your complaints about the "only evens count" issue of 3.x's architecture for decades, but I quite like your solution to it. It helps to keep numerical inflation under control while also elegantly resolving the "dead spot" problem. For years now I've used a mod I found somewhere that used a constantly-refreshing effect + spell to give various bonuses based on current ability scores. I think you may have been the author! It's been my favorite "gameplay systems" mod for a while.

If it's true that David can implement a customizable formula option for users to tweak during / before install, I'm gonna use your scale for my first test (waiting on beta 9! ;D)

Edited March 26 by Dorothy_Dorothy_
addendum

[Dorothy_Dorothy_]

15 hours ago, DavidW said:

I think you're misunderstanding how that system has evolved. The odd numbers aren't useless in 3e/3.5e - feat qualification requirements are usually odd-numbered, and it functions as a mechanic to ration ability score boosts - but they're certainly much less significant. But the logical conclusion isn't 'we need to invent something for odd-numbered values to do': it's 'we need to drop odd-numbered ability scores entirely'. You see this most clearly in recent versions of Pathfinder - what matters are the bonuses, with the base scores kept around only for nostalgia value, and indeed dropped entirely in the most recent version (one just talks about having Strength +4 or Intelligence -1).

Of course, there's a gap between abstract RPG design and what makes sense internal to the IE and its modding community. (It would be technically feasible to move to a pure + system, given UI editing, but it feels like a bridge too far. Though it might be interesting to code, just as an exercise.)

So giving all the evens and odds "something to do" could still be done just by writing a looped script to "squish" all the ability scores in .cre files. This could prevent both the issue of "needing an 18 to function" and also help to reduce numerical inflation at all stages of the game, while also rewarding every single increment of your ability scores. If everyone's in a rush to 18 just to feel like they can do their job, suddenly the hard ceiling of 25 feels very low and rigid. Like without any way of adjusting or customizing your ability scores in play (apart from like one or two items in the entire game that give you a +1 somewhere), it's a lost opportunity for players to feel like they have agency over their character's development. This way, with squashed stats, with every +1 you feel like it's meaningful to get an item that gives you that +1 but it also opens the possibility of modders to add in nifty trinkets and consumables that give a stat boost as one more way to expand content.

At that point, the only lingering problem would be bonus spell slots for spellcasters based on their ability scores. Since spell levels are on integers 1 - 9, you wouldn't be able to "squash" the table without just giving +1 slots to SL1 and SL2, then +1 to SL3 and SL4 and so forth. But all the mages are having their ability scores squashed along with everyone else, they shouldn't complain. When you get to the end of the loop, just double back to give an extra slot in the lowest two spell levels again or something.

Edited March 26 by Dorothy_Dorothy_

[Dorothy_Dorothy_]

3 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

THAC0 is an amazingly useful shorthand and easy to understand and you will never convince me otherwise. 

As for AC, I used to concede to you children of summer that pre-3E AC was weird. But no longer! I recently learned the origin of it and it’s fascinating. Apparently the system stems from an old naval combat simulation where the best ship armor you could have was 1st-class, and the next-best armor was 2nd-class, etc., getting worse as you get further from 1st class. (Think about airline seats or cruise ship accommodations - we still use a system where lower is better and nobody complains that it is “hard to understand.”) The took that naval defense mechanic and plugged it into the d20 roll-over to-hit roll, and ended up with a working fantasy combat system! At a time when there was almost nothing to compare it to. 

I just can’t bring myself to be critical of that. 

If it helps, just remember that it's algebraically the same as +to-hit and +AC where higher is better. The children of summer are still learning their gradeschool math, though, so maybe we should keep the THAC0 just for the educational value... ;D

And because it'd be a huuuuuuge PITA to change the engine now!

[polytope]

10 hours ago, RoyalProtector said:

... But at least we can all agree, I think, that the THAC0/AC system as such is trash and absolutely beyond hope [in ToB].

Nothing's simpler than THAC0/AC, subtract the targets AC from the attacker's THAC0 and that's the number needed on d20 for a successful hit (if <1 is a guaranteed hit except on critical, if >20 is guaranteed miss except on critical), it works when both THAC0 and AC are negative too (as if often the case in ToB), since only the difference matters. Prior to THAC0 in AD&D the charts for what creatures attacked as were a lot more obscure and difficult to remember.

Unless you mean that AC becomes useless in ToB? Not quite, there are bosses that will hit any AC, but they're rarely alone, and the attacks from their minions (who can be foiled by AC) add up quickly. Likewise only warrior classes and priests at full buffs have THAC0 in the auto-hitting range.

THAC0 seamlessly converts to base attack bonus btw. as in 3e, so in my view it's cosmetic which system is used (except for a few unusual rulings for unimplemented monsters/abilities where for instance target's AC is added to the damage, or chance of infection is a % = 10 times the armor class, so that it's worse for it to be a high number).

[RoyalProtector]

13 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

children of summer

9 hours ago, Dorothy_Dorothy_ said:

The children of summer are still learning their gradeschool math, though, so maybe we should keep the THAC0 just for the educational value...

Ahhhh, I love the taste of condescension in the morning.

6 hours ago, polytope said:

there are bosses that will hit any AC, but they're rarely alone, and the attacks from their minions (who can be foiled by AC) add up quickly

Good point about the minions, I grant thee that much. I still find it rather dumb that a feature like that is essentially invalidated by some enemies. Also, realistically it's rather dumb. Can you imagine Drizzt fighting Demogorgon and getting hit every time? Hilarious.

No one said anything about the system not being simple, regardless.

Edited March 26 by RoyalProtector

[polytope]

4 hours ago, RoyalProtector said:

I still find it rather dumb that a feature like that is essentially invalidated by some enemies. Also, realistically it's rather dumb. Can you imagine Drizzt fighting Demogorgon and getting hit every time? Hilarious.

That's a problem ultimately caused (mostly) by kit/class tables extended to levels above 20 (above 30...) along with HLAs so that certain builds like swashbucklers (and monks and kensai->thieves) can get AC much better than even Drizzt, thus, to keep up with this power creep the big enemies in ToB need even lower THAC0 than they should "legitimately" have.

Also, it is a problem, but one not really resolved by any edition of D&D, that AC is an abstraction of both physical armor and capacity to avoid blows, checked with a single die roll... yet most characters didn't get an inherent improvement to their base AC in those rules (beyond that from dexterity) as they increase in level, and all other "survivability" is instead represented by hit points gained. Several other systems split "defense" from actual armor, with weapon type usually mattering more for armor penetration purposes and respective levels for bypassing defenses.