Future tweak ideas - post 'em here

[Fouinto]

Ouh amazing, now we can have a max attacks per round of 1, hurray! This is a-mazing, so what if the eyes sting a bit.

As long as you can choose to install this component or not, where is the problem ?

[Jarno Mikkola]

@Fouinto, did you notice that you miss-quoted me ?

My post was not a statement by itself, but with the other quotes ...

 

I don't really have a problem with the component if it's done well. But it sounded very much that no such considerations were to be made. Aka the attack speed of 0 vs 10 should only determine a small portion of the max attacks amount.. so 5->4 can be good, but reducing it by 4(5->1) is way too much.

And it's likely that all of this is going to be harder to implement than just one effect. Which will mess with things and that's usually not good, for compatibility and will likely to lead to problems not seen on the surface. Aka it's probably not worth to even experiment.

[bob_veng]

it can't be max 1 apr.

the slowest weapon, sf=10 (2h sword) would have this calculation for max apr: 10/(10/2)=2 apr

sf=9 (halberd): 10/(9/2)=2 apr, rounded down

sf=8 (bastard sword)... same result

sf=7 (flail)... same result --- a notable magical weapon which is this slow is the silver blade, and i don't think there are many cases like this, and those that would exist i'd consider pretty justified

sf=6 (spear): 3 apr

sf=5 (long sword): 4 apr --- this is exatcly your desired scenario 5 apr > 4 apr, and i think that many magical weapons have speed factors of 5 and 4 (carsomyr, unholy reaver...), and generally less than that (one-handed weapons)

sf=4 (katana): 5 apr, which is the hard cap, so sf=3,2,1,0 is the same

 

greater haste would double these values, and whirlwind would set it to 10. so not such a big change, it's pretty subtle. maybe too subtle.

Edited August 26, 2017 by bob_veng

[CamDawg]

Let's back up a sec or 10.

2) Limit the number of attacks based on the Weapon's Speed Factor. A combat round is split into 10 segments. When a weapon has a SF of 7, supposedly you need a time of 7/10 of a round in order to swing it because it is heavy. How is it possible to swing it 4 times in that time ? I would love to limit the APR based on the weapon's SF. That way, you need a weapon with a SF

IIRC a weapon's speed factor is purely used for round initiative calculations, e.g. who attacks first, and is not indicative of how long it actually takes to attack. Five attacks with a two-handed sword in six seconds is silly, but that's because IE games compress combat time by a factor of 10. Rounds in PnP are a minute long; five attacks in sixty seconds seems entirely reasonable. APR itself is a bit of a misnomer, as the rules finagle and massage it along the lines of opportunities. E.g. the difference between a 5 APR fighter and a 1 APR fighter is that they'll both hack and dodge and parry for a minute, but the 5 APR fighter will see five openings in the opponent's defense and have five opportunities for actual hits and damage, whereas their opponent is only skillful enough to recognize and take advantage of one during the same time period.

[subtledoctor]

IIRC a weapon's speed factor is purely used for round initiative calculations, e.g. who attacks first, and is not indicative of how long it actually takes to attack.

Well, but these games don't actually have initiative. The number actually does determine how long it takes to attack... but, only for the first attack each round.

 

And to the extent that number does approximate initiative, it is messed up because getting high APR can effectively reduce your initiative, even though it is not supposed to. And that happens because the game needs to squeeze in all of the attack animations... even though the animations are only supposed to be an abstraction, and not reflect real attacks.

 

To summarize: the weapon speed number means very little, and what little importance we can give it, is often undermined by other game mechanics. To summarize this discussion, a lot of people are unhappy with that. How much better if it was another mechanism that really meant something? If it was a number with real consequences that you would look at when deciding between two weapons?

 

Question is, how could that work? It wouldn't be easy.

[CamDawg]

I'm sure we could find something interesting to do with weapon speeds, I was more trying to clear up the misunderstanding of what weapon speed actually means. SF 7 does not mean it's supposed to take 7/10 of a combat round.

[bob_veng]

on apr=1: sf=10 means you attack at the boundary of round 1 and round 2, sf=5 means you attack in the middle of round 1 and sf=0 means you attack at the very start of round 1, right? i mean that's the common wisdom

so how is it true that "SF 7 does not mean it's supposed to take 7/10 of a combat round"? the idea is that it's true in a apr=1 situation. so the logic of the proposed tweak is based on the question: why wouldn't it also be true with more than 1 apr? why should the attack be compressed to squeeze in more attacks?

 

i mean it's not necessary to see things like this but there's something persuasive about the proposition that more attacks per round doesn't mean that attack duration is compressed, it just means...more attacks - if there's a time window to fit them in, considering the physical boundaries of the weapon etc.

[CamDawg]

Again, that's not SF is supposed to mean. It's only supposed to be only for initiative calculations and not an actual reflection of attack duration, and subtledoctor notes many ways these all get incorrectly conflated and mashed together. The original point that a high SF means a weapon is too slow for multiple APR is not accurate.

 

A combat round in PnP is a full minute. A 1 APR fighter doesn't swing his sword and then stand idle for the rest of the minute. That one attack represents only one opportunity in a full minute of slashing, thrusting, parrying, moving, feinting, etc. (This is why I actually prefer the cosmetic animations, but I digress.) APR is meant to be a reflection of skill and experience, not a mundane physical restriction--even if that's how it manifests in game.

[khelban12]

SF 7 does not mean it's supposed to take 7/10 of a combat round.

on apr=1: sf=10 means you attack at the boundary of round 1 and round 2, sf=5 means you attack in the middle of round 1 and sf=0 means you attack at the very start of round 1, right? i mean that's the common wisdom

so how is it true that "SF 7 does not mean it's supposed to take 7/10 of a combat round"? the idea is that it's true in a apr=1 situation. so the logic of the proposed tweak is based on the question: why wouldn't it also be true with more than 1 apr? why should the attack be compressed to squeeze in more attacks?

+1

 

I thought that this was exactly what the Speed Factor meant (and the same for casting speed for spells but this is irrelevant here). I may be wrong of course and the engine works differently but that was what i observed by using 1APR classes like thieves. Isn't this also why every thief guide suggests "speed weapons" so you can backstab early in the round ?

 

It's just that because of >1 APR have to be squeezed in the 6 seconds, it pretty much becomes irrelevant for a character with many attacks.

 

Again, that's not SF is supposed to mean. It's only supposed to be only for initiative calculations and not an actual reflection of attack duration, and subtledoctor notes many ways these all get incorrectly conflated and mashed together. The original point that a high SF means a weapon is too slow for multiple APR is not accurate.

 

A combat round in PnP is a full minute. A 1 APR fighter doesn't swing his sword and then stand idle for the rest of the minute. That one attack represents only one opportunity in a full minute of slashing, thrusting, parrying, moving, feinting, etc. (This is why I actually prefer the cosmetic animations, but I digress.) APR is meant to be a reflection of skill and experience, not a mundane physical restriction--even if that's how it manifests in game.

Edit: Yes, in PnP the Weapon Speed behave differently and is added to initiative. I was only talking about how it behaves in game.

 

 

With regards to Jarno's post and that it will be ridiculous to go from 5APR to 1APR, yes this isn't a component that everyone will like. It will seriously nerf (to a point of being unusable) slow weapons and will favour quick weapons. In the vanilla game you have no reason (at least from a powergaming point of view) to use clubs, maces, etc when you can use long swords and two-handed swords. Or there are many people that use swords of small enchantment that have beneficial secondary effects instead of swords with larger enchantment. I read "balance" all the time in mod descriptions but in truth it is almost impossible to balance the game because "balancing" nerfs something and overpowers something else. With every component we install we exchange a certain imbalance that we don't like with a imbalance we like.

 

All these of course, only if it was easily coded. I would then argue, as Fouinto said, that since it is optional then even if it is completely silly and useless, what is the problem ? Just don't install it. But since it is very difficult to implement then i agree that it isn't worth for CamDawg and other modders to devote an enormous amount of time just to humor me.

Edited August 27, 2017 by khelban12

[Jarno Mikkola]

In the vanilla game you have no reason (at least from a powergaming point of view) to use clubs, maces, etc when you can use long swords and two-handed swords.

Tell me that again when you meat an enemy that's AC is 20 better against slashing weapons than blunt. And you are wrong. Or just regular golems that are immune to your regular slashing weapons ... well, they were.

[khelban12]

 

In the vanilla game you have no reason (at least from a powergaming point of view) to use clubs, maces, etc when you can use long swords and two-handed swords.

Tell me that again when you meat an enemy that's AC is 20 better against slashing weapons than blunt. And you are wrong. Or just regular golems that are immune to your regular slashing weapons ... well, they were.

 

I thought 10 times to change that part and articulate it better because i knew someone would isolate it and take advantage that both the weapons i mentioned are blunt and so mention something like "skeletons" (or golems that you did)

 

My point still stands though. Why would you form a warrior to have 4 attacks with clubs when you can have 4 attacks with two-handed swords (or long swords, etc) that will have more damage ? By modding we replace one imbalance we don't like with another (bigger or smaller) that we like.

[Jarno Mikkola]

My point still stands though. Why would you form a warrior to have 4 attacks with clubs when you can have 4 attacks with two-handed swords (or long swords, etc) that will have more damage ? By modding we replace one imbalance we don't like with another (bigger or smaller) that we like.

Because you don't have 25 proficiency points in the game and you went ahead and chose the club to be one of the primary weapons at the start. Mayhaps you were clever and at level 13 switched to be a thief and began to backstab with the club .. no body expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Aka there's always a case for most of these.

Why not longsword... well the Paladin needed one, the orc berserker took the other and so forth.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Jarno Mikkola

[CamDawg]

 

 

In the vanilla game you have no reason (at least from a powergaming point of view) to use clubs, maces, etc when you can use long swords and two-handed swords.

Tell me that again when you meat an enemy that's AC is 20 better against slashing weapons than blunt. And you are wrong. Or just regular golems that are immune to your regular slashing weapons ... well, they were.

 

I thought 10 times to change that part and articulate it better because i knew someone would isolate it and take advantage that both the weapons i mentioned are blunt and so mention something like "skeletons" (or golems that you did)

 

My point still stands though. Why would you form a warrior to have 4 attacks with clubs when you can have 4 attacks with two-handed swords (or long swords, etc) that will have more damage ? By modding we replace one imbalance we don't like with another (bigger or smaller) that we like.

 

Honestly, I think weapon selection is more metagaming than anything else. Some of the best weapons in BG and BG2 are two-handers (IWD is all about the Xs of Action for those sweet, sweet APR bonuses). By the time you hit endgame in ToB, the difference between a d12 or d6 is not much compared to equipping bonuses or other on-hit goodies. My two cents, at least.

[Angel]

I'm toying with the idea of modifying Time Stop so that all those affected by it will also be immune to all damage for the duration (as is the rule in 3.5E, if I am not mistaken), preventing cheap "Time Stop & melee" tactics.

[Jarno Mikkola]

I'm toying with the idea of modifying Time Stop so that all those affected by it will also be immune to all damage for the duration (as is the rule in 3.5E, if I am not mistaken), preventing cheap "Time Stop & melee" tactics.

Toying... you mean you want to reinvent the same wheel that's there already, as Spell Revision or what not has the same feature, except that they just disable attacking during Time Stop.