Jump to content

Proficiencies, PIPs and such


pblack476

Recommended Posts

I played a lot of Temple of Elemental Evil lately and was delighted with the multiclassing freedom and the various "degrees" that you could take your character ranging from a full fighter to a full mage and anything in between in terms of Base Attack Bonus (or Thac0 like it is in BG).

Going back to BG all the restrictions really started to bother me, and with all mods installed something was still off.

KR is meaning to address the issues of thieves (my favorite class) to make them more competitive, and I made some modifications of my own in my game to address that for now.

But proficiencies still bugged me.

Revised grandmastery made almost all the progress in terms of balancing stuff out, but I still do not agree that Fighters get to go 3 steps further in specialization over paladins or rangers for example.

So I came up with a custom proficiency table. I don't know how to transcribe it here so I'll just post the weapprof and profmax files.

 

 

But basically, if anyone wants to use it:

 

 

1) It brings paladins and rangers to up to (+++) in all weapons (except archers).

Cavaliers get ++++ in longswords and bastard swords

2) Thieves, bards and monks to (++)

Assassins get +++ in Daggers and Crossbows

 

3) Fighter/thief reaches (+++) instead of (++)

4) Fighter/Cleric reaches (+++)

4) Spellcasting thief multis reach (++) (Mage/Thief, Cleric/Thief)

5) 3-way multis remain the same at (++)

6) Pure Spellcasters remain with (+)

 

 

I thinks that's basically it. Special cases (like Blade's +++ in TWO WEAPON STYLE) reamain untouched.

 

 

I think it brings another dimension to things along with revised grandmastery.

 

There's a third rank in Single weapon style for the thieves in the files but that's for another modification and it can be ignored.

 


profsmax.2da

weapprof.2da

Link to comment

I'm not the police, but if everyone posted here his own small variant of tweakA or tweakB it would become quite a mess.

 

Anyway, the reason I'm not convinced about giving all classes increased weapon proficiency is that while KR's Fighter also has new features, weapon mastery still is the major selling point. The more you open it for other classes the more you reduce Fighter's appeal in comparison, especially when those other classes have TONS of other feats.

 

I'm open to discuss this though.

Link to comment

You are right about posting tweaks. I'll keep it private next time.

 

As for proficiencies. I never liked how thieves (specially assassins) were as proficient with daggers as a mage. Weapon style points don't really make up for that.

 

And rangers and paladins IMO are actual fighters. I can see barbarians having only (++) because they are not exactly "refined" in their fighting style. But paladins actually train a lot. And Rangers can too.

 

The rest (like fighter/thief's +++) is derivative of those two basic concepts with some exceptions like Fighter/cleric that I think it fits well with the whole battlepriest archetype.

 

According to the revised grandmastery table, fighters still get:

 

-1 Thac0

+3 dmg

+1/2 APR

 

over any other melee character out there.

 

I'd say that's still very appealing.

 

But yet I feel there's a better calibration to the system and it's not exactly the one I'm proposing. I just cannot see it.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Maybe, if the GM table only gave +1/2 APR at ++++ this could all work out as intended.

 

The upside is that fighters still are 1 APR ahead of everyone else and balance remains as it was.

The downside is that fighters only get there later. Maybe allowing fighters to allocate +++ in the first level could remedy that.

 

This also adds another dimension to the game as pure fighters get a headstart on every other melee class/combo in PIP allocation.

The whole point I'm trying to address here is that too many classes have the same specialization capabilities, when I believe that this should be more diverse.

 

I also like "favored weapons" for certain classes like daggers for assassins, maces for priests and so on. I also find it really frustrating the the best thief backstab is from a staff. That should not even be in the thief ethos IMO and classes should get incentives to use certain weapons.

 

And lastly. Another benefit of increasing proficiencies all around is that classes like thieves will have better places to put their PIPs instead of choosing 3 different weapons and then just tossing PIPs at random because they no longer matter for anything.

Link to comment

....................

To interpret the power of Paladins/Rangers as opossed to fighters weapon pips aren't really that important. Right now, both classes gain early spellcasting and cast at the same level as other classes (i.e. they no longer suffer -x to spellcasting level).

Paladin kits gain various immunities or abilities not available to fighters. Rangers have a few also (backstab, unique spells, probably an animal companion).

It's quite balanced imo, the only "abomination" being the Cavalier (since he gets 3* in certain weapons + retains spellcasting + is virtually the best kit for now :p ).

I wouldn't agree that paladins need any more buffs - they're very hard to bring down, and have a slew of abilities working in their favour. They do attack somewhat slower, but hit probably just as hard, if not harder when buffed; than a true fighter.

Rangers could probably use some buffs (at least true class - Archer and Stalker are more-less fine, Stalker is probably way more powerful than it's vanilla counterpart - that imo says a lot), but I wouldn't give them 3* in weapons. Maybe long bow for true class, but otherwise no.

Agree that Assassin being limited to 1* in daggers is stupid, but afaik that's already planned (he will be able to obtain specialization).

Multiclasses are fine with specialization as well. There's no need to break the rules of vanilla game with them. They're not "real" fighters, and shouldn't behave so. Unlike paladins, fighter/clerics have spell progression above level 4, which is a huge boon.

Likewise, a fighter/thief using offensive stance to backstab is broken enough as it is - thus I think further boosting multis is pointless.

Link to comment

Unlike paladins, fighter/clerics have spell progression above level 4, which is a huge boon.

That's like your opinion man...(wink, there's rulesets that have a different setup) but yes, in nearly all these things you say will be balanced when the KR hits the release, and I believe that, but until that time, there's room for speculation and conversation, even for people that do not obsess about being participants of the beta. After all, the KR's balance is likely to be distorted by the testers points of view(and the other mods they play). How that will effect the outcome is any ones guess. Hopefully the board leveled, and not tiptoeing on a feather element. We'll just have to see.

Link to comment

I see that. Perhaps they are indeed good points. I guess the issue of Thieves being too similar in melee to wizards was addressed already by the revised Thac0 tables and the extra PIP would just further that a little too much.

 

 

BUT, thieves still get many pips that they do not have real use for.

Link to comment

That's pretty much what I had mentioned in this forum few years ago - increase the proficiency point cap by one for non-fighters.

It's not right that rogues and priests are already packed full when they hit level four - melee weapon, ranged weapon, style. After that you have excess proficiency points, which may still be needed for situational or planned weapon change in future, but are not exactly critical.

 

I see no issue with fighter's bonus being moved to 4th or even 5th position - with everyone limited to 2-3 they still get two extra points.

This is quite per 3E even - everybody there can take weapon focus on top of weapon proficiency, but only fighters are allowed weapon specialization and greater versions of those.

 

It will somewhat disrupt the flawlessness of our current class/kit progression tables, where each level unlocks something unique and special, but I think that's a small price to pay for fixing the proficiency mess. Heck, logically fighters shouldn't even be allowed the maximum points in a weapon, it should be reserved for specialist kits.

Link to comment

Giving letting classes reach an extra level of proficiency can help players define their character according to what they're *good at,* instead of what they're barely capable of. The game gives them points, why not let the player spend them? It also allows for further kit-by-kit distinctions - I let assassins get 3 stars in daggers, etc.

 

The way I balanced it for true fighters, though, is counterintuitive. Saying "they still get two extra points" sounds good, but it is really more of a penalty than a benefit. Getting *any* extra stars beyond what other classes can is a great benefit; but having to spend more points to reach it is worse, not better.

 

So, I simply eliminated grandmastery, moving the benefits down to the 4th star. That way, true fighters can hit the max, and get all of the benefits of hitting the max, and they have more points leftover to spend on styles or other weapons.

 

BUT: eliminate grandmastery, let non-warriors go a step higher... do enough of this stuff and at some point you need to re-think the whole system from the ground up. That's what I ended up doing, but it doesn't seem like it's what KR is trying to do.

 

Heck, logically fighters shouldn't even be allowed the maximum points in a weapon, it should be reserved for specialist kits.

That is a very interesting idea: really just give up on the trueclass fighter and make it utterly inferior to the kits. Take grandmastery, and the work done on stances and tactician ability etc., and shift it over to a new soldier/weapon master/myrmidon kit. KR's stated goal of making the trueclasses distinct and competitive with the kits is in opposition to this idea; but it could really bring some balance to the mess that is dual-classing.
Link to comment

That is good reasoning subtledoctor. I admit that I didn't "get" why you removed the fifth pip before. But, if the bonus is good enough, and our fighter has the points, why not let him spend them on his favorite weapon... Or on styles.

 

Anyway, on the other hand, limiting fighter investment doesn't necessarily amount to giving up on the fighter. It all depends on whatever else they get. The philosophy of kr--one I agree with--is that base classes are generalists, and kit s are specialists.

 

I really am fine with giving some weapon specialization to non warriors, and perhaps something better to non fighter warriors too, where appropriate.

Link to comment

I understand your reasoning subtledoctor. And I actually like it. But one of the main characteristics of Fighters in D&D IS their specialization in one single weapon. Yes it takes longer for them to reach their top, but it is worth it. That's the point of playing a fighter.

 

But, making them able to "grandmaster" more weapons by moving the benefits to the 4th rank makes sense. And I actually think you are mistaken when you say that GMing at 4th level and giving non-warriors extra ranks makes you start to rethink the whole system.

 

As long as fighters are the only ones able to reach that last rank, it does not matter if it is the 4th or 5th point. As long as it gives the fighter ALL HE NEEDS to stand out above the other classes. It could be the only rank giving extra APR for example. That alone is enough to separate fighters from "mere mortals" in melee combat.

 

The 4th rank is actually nearly useless in BG. The only class able to reach it apart from fighters are dwarven defenders. It is almost a rank created in between just for that class.

 

 

I confess I'm torn on the matter now despite having started the thread.

 

I agree that PIPs aren't really the defining feature of any class apart from fighters. So it shouldn't really matter that much.

 

But I find it stupid that a thief or cleric gets so many useless ones. In PnP something of the sort might work but in BG everyone knows by now what weapon they want to use and so on, so everyone would like to be able to specialize a little bit more. It also makes no sense that characters like thieves end up being barely proficient with 4 or 5 different weapons where a fighter ends up being really good with one. I can understand the thief being less proficient. But why so many different (and useless) weapons?

 

Maybe classes should be thought of completely independently in this matter...

 

 

RP wise, the thief (my example here) could be seen as anything ranging from former circus acrobat with basic knowledge of light weaponry (the way we are more or less forced to play it right now) to a professional spy, not necessarily an assassin, who almost certainly had weapons training at some point.

 

To me, out of all kits, the one closer to the "circus acrobat" is the shadowdancer. Which should indeed remain with only 1 proficiency slot. but should get other benefits to reach a good balance with other classes.

 

Swash is already better with weapons than most. but to me he should get lvl 3, while the others should get to lvl 2. Their defining feature is that they can be better with most weapons than most thieves and trade backstab for it. That cannot be changed so it does not alter an inherent characteristic of the thief kits.

 

Assassin should get extra pips in daggers and xbows IMO and bounty hunters can be like unkitted thieves in that matter.

 

It really just depends on what EACH RANK DOES. Not the rank itself.

 

If we kept vanilla's GM progression, we all knew that reaching specialization was a defining feature that separated classes between those that could handle front-line combat and those that couldn't. Simple as that.

 

With another revision of the GM table I'm sure there's a way to give more flexibility to all kits and STILL keep the defining features of fighters present.

Link to comment

Thank you - you understand my reasoning perfectly.

 

The problem is, the biggest jump as far as prof pips is the one from 1 to 2. Non-warriors should be able to get "weapon focus," per PnP, but really 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.

 

But so many things are interconnected. What if the player uses a 'WSPATCK For All' mod? Now that 2nd star is even *more* beneficial. So now we're re-designing the GM table, re-thinking who gets how many stars, re-thinking how and when players get extra APR... those are drastic changes.

Link to comment

But so many things are interconnected. What if the player uses a 'WSPATCK For All' mod? Now that 2nd star is even *more* beneficial. So now we're re-designing the GM table, re-thinking who gets how many stars, re-thinking how and when players get extra APR... those are drastic changes.

That's why one should choose a system he finds most appealing/balanced (whatever that system may be, wspatck, extra attack for all at level 7/13 or whatever) and stick to it.

Link to comment

Muck up time:

2DA V1.0
0
   HIT  DAMAGE HPRbonus
0   -x    0      0
1   0     0      +1/2 at level 14
2   1     2      +1/2 at levels 7 and 14
3   3     3      +1/2 at levels 7 and 13
4   3     4      +1/2 at levels 5, 10 and 15
5   3     5      +1/2 at levels 3, 7, 11 and ~15
Hits per round bonus. :p

x being the class tied base variant.

Values are reserved to be altered at any given time. :D

Link to comment

 

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.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...