Weapon Changes

[Jarno Mikkola]

Halberds

Are you saying that creating two separate items is preferable over duplicating a couple of lines in descriptions?

Besides the inability to quickly switch modes, I can offhands name a compatibility issue - the Eclipse encounter from Solaufein mod explicitly checks for Ravager to comment on party having it ("They've got the Ravager +6. I don't want to be decimated!"). That's a minor one, but you get the idea.

Well, if you need, you can add

OR(2)
...

To the script...

And yes, I would say it's preferable, as I would say that it takes time for the halberd user to retake his grip from the weapon to actualize the best stance etc so his skill can be best used....

[Ardanis]

This is not only a waste of round (which I can agree with), but also you have to go to inventory and manually re-equip the weapon. And unless I'm mistaken newly created items come fully charged on top of that (Blackmist and Ravager).

 

Since unlike thrown daggers/axes halberds can operate fine without ITM duplication, I'd say we better keep it a single file.

[Dakk]

Halberds

I actually like the randomness-factor of halberd damage. And making it possible to choose one damage (only thrusting, or only slashing) does not really fit with the way you fight with a halberd. It's the sum of it's abilities, and you'd be seriously nerfing yourself only relying on one method of attack.

In other words, I'm against that method.

Technically this is only semi-doable at best, because base weapon damage is located in the header along with damage type (aka effectiveness vs different AC types).

Since unlike thrown daggers/axes halberds can operate fine without ITM duplication, I'd say we better keep it a single file.

I'm not sure what's what now, but I (think ) I prefer it Vanilla-style. That is, one file, one weapon, and there's a random chance you stab or slash. Is that the way you also endorse Ardanis? Please correct me if I'm wrong

[Demivrgvs]

This is not only a waste of round (which I can agree with), but also you have to go to inventory and manually re-equip the weapon. And unless I'm mistaken newly created items come fully charged on top of that (Blackmist and Ravager).

 

Since unlike thrown daggers/axes halberds can operate fine without ITM duplication, I'd say we better keep it a single file.

Ohh, I see, then no duplication.

 

I prefer it Vanilla-style. That is, one file, one weapon, and there's a random chance you stab or slash. Is that the way you also endorse Ardanis? Please correct me if I'm wrong

This is not doable, and I wouldn't even be so much for it. You aren't randomly swinging the halberd after all, you either want the dmg output of its axa-like edge, or the piercing potential of its spike-like pointed shaft.

 

There's a dmg type value which would make halberds count as both slashing and piercing at the same time, and then automatically select the better type vs the opponent. The problem with this solution is that afaik piercing dmg is always better than slashing dmg (am I wrong?), thus having halberds use that dmg type would be just the same as leaving them as piercing only. Furthermore, if it wasn't for the suggestion of making slashing halberds more damaging, I would have probably not cared much for this component (in fact I never used it).

[Dakk]

I'm not sure I follow (might be that I'm at work and my mind wanders)... But that's ok, as long as I don't get a halberd that duplicates itself in the inventory when I want another type of damage, and a +1 THAC0 dagger - I'm all good

[Jarno Mikkola]

And unless I'm mistaken newly created items come fully charged on top of that (Blackmist and Ravager).

Ohh, I see, then no duplication.

Or you could consider making those "Special Abilities (xxx per day)" to be combat abilities of the same caliber.

... but that's just me.

 

piercing dmg is always better than slashing dmg (am I wrong?)

It depends on the enemy's damage resistance you face... the everyday normal enemy probably have more resistance to slashing than piercing, but there are exceptions.

[Demivrgvs]

Halberds

piercing dmg is always better than slashing dmg (am I wrong?)

It depends on the enemy's damage resistance you face... the everyday normal enemy probably have more resistance to slashing than piercing, but there are exceptions.

Yeah, but how many times can that happens? Anyway, is damage type (7) checking for "dmg type resistance" or "AC vs. dmg type" to determine which dmg type apply?

 

Daggers

Speaking of daggers again (as it seems there really isn't a consensus around +1 thac0), I'm now thinking that with weapon's speed finally playing at least a minimal role within V3, daggers may be fine as they are. After all they inflict only 1 point of dmg less than short swords, and with magical weapons (especially later on with all those heavily enchanted specimens) a single +1 dmg probably isn't going to be the main factor to decide which weapon select. Furthermore, taking dagger proficiency has one major appeal imo: throwing daggers. With a single proficiency you get both a melee weapon and a ranged one, which is kinda good for characters like rogues who don't have so many proficiency points to spare. In the end:

- short swords get +1 dmg

- daggers get +1 speed and more versatility (aka can be thrown)

 

I'm not stating that I'm against +1 thac0 (I was for it) but that we can probably live without tweaking daggers now that speed factor can be considered into the equation (I know it has marginal impact in the game, but it does matter for backstabbing and catching opponents on the run like all those SCS mages). Long story short, without a large consensus I'd abstain from tweaking them.

[Salk]

Daggers

 

I would not add the +1 Thac0 bonus to them.

[Shaitan]

Daggers

Speaking of daggers again (as it seems there really isn't a consensus around +1 thac0), I'm now thinking that with weapon's speed finally playing at least a minimal role within V3, daggers may be fine as they are. After all they inflict only 1 point of dmg less than short swords, and with magical weapons (especially later on with all those heavily enchanted specimens) a single +1 dmg probably isn't going to be the main factor to decide which weapon select. Furthermore, taking dagger proficiency has one major appeal imo: throwing daggers. With a single proficiency you get both a melee weapon and a ranged one, which is kinda good for characters like rogues who don't have so many proficiency points to spare. In the end:

- short swords get +1 dmg

- daggers get +1 speed and more versatility (aka can be thrown)

Great

[SixOfSpades]

Daggers

a) even a small +1/2 apr would make daggers way better than short swords, if not most 1handed weapons . . .

b) an off hand dagger would increase the main hand apr

True, that. Ah well, I guess you're right, it'll be only the existence of Throwing Daggers that keep Daggers sexy.

 

a) could be balanced off by you suggestion about making them not add STR dmg (but isn't this strange too?)

I don't think so--in fact, it's almost exactly what I was planning to do with the Rapier: Long Sword proficiency, Speed Factor of 3 or 4, 1D6 Piercing but no STR damage, +1 ApR. Quite realistic--it doesn't matter how hard you stab someone with a rapier, you'll run them through just the same, and they are damned quick . . . though not as quick as a dagger, so if Daggers don't get bonus ApR, then Rapiers don't either, and I'll have to find something else to keep them interesting. Hey, that +5% chance of a Critical Hit on Scimitars would actually make sense with Rapiers, as they're the very best melee weapon for penetrating into the vitals.

 

Scimitars

Scimitars are actually very different to long swords in real life, but I don't know how to represent it with the few options we have within D&D rules and BG engine in particular.

Against an opponent not wearing armor, the curved blade of a scimitar would cause the trailing edge of the cut to leave a much longer wound. So . . . extra Bleeding [which is actually Poison] damage, perhaps? Then again, the very idea of fighting an unarmored foe in BG is nearly irrelevant.

 

Flails

Just to clarify, Ardanis suggested a -1 penalty to thac0, not a bonus.

Then I must disagree. If you've calculated your range right, your swing is pretty much guaranteed to score a hit somewhere on your enemy's body, it's just that you have very little control over the exact impact point (as opposed to using, say, a Warhammer). So I vote for a -1 THAC0 bonus, but a -1 or -2 Damage penalty.

 

Spears

Ardanis kinda suggested me the same (e.g. throwable spears shouldn't have range 3), but I didn't considered it a must, is it?

For me, yes. Pikes (or Lances, or whatever) should not be throwable . . . by anyone with less than 22 STR, at least.

 

I actually read Shadows of Doom (Forgotten Realms: The Shadow of the Avatar, Book 1) not so long ago, and [no spoiler] in it women of the dale would pick up daggers and go after mercenaries. It was sometimes exaggerated but the author got it right that in a tight press of bodies, you will get hacked down if they get too close. Reversely, the same untrained good-wives would not present the same threat armed with clubs ("bat").

True, the number of swung weapons that can be used by multiple attackers against a single victim is pretty much capped at 6 or so before they start to interfere with each other, but thrusting weapons can easily double that. Yet even so, the BG engine is clearly not equipped to handle this kind of multivariable combat dynamics.

[Salk]

Scimitars

Lower damage to 1d6 and increase critical chance by 5%, as in 3E. Right now these are just copies of long swords, usable by druids.

 

I am not so fond of this. Scimitars might as well be copies of long swods in more than one way but the fact that can be used by druids is not really secondary. For me, no action.

 

Flails

Increase range to 2 and reduce thaco by 1. The damage output is only 0.5 higher than that of morning star, which imo is insufficient to pick two different proficiencies. The range increment can notably help with catching fast moving opponents (if you've played SCS then you know what I'm talking about).

 

I tend to agree more with SixOfSpades about Flails but not enough to justify an increase a bonus to THAC0 and a malus to Damage. Again, no action for me.

[Ardanis]

Halberds

Jarno, J Beau & Dakk - bloated

Lynx, Salk - single line

 

The template will be "bloated" then. In the end, this is also easier to code, if we want (I do) the main Weapon Changes component to remain in softcode, i.e. easily adjustable by changing a couple of values, should the maintainer/user want to do so.

STATISTICS:

 

Damage (piercing): 1D10

Damage (slashing): 1D12

Damage type: piercing or slashing

Weight: 15

Speed Factor (piercing): 8

Speed Factor (slashing): 9

Proficiency Type: Halberd

Type: 2-handed

Requires: 13 Strength

[Demivrgvs]

I moved here the discussion because we were speaking more about weapons than armors within the armor topic.

 

Weapon Changes

Then I'd say it's settled, morningstars get "Damage type: crushing and piercing", which also makes its current 1d6+1 dmg output look as appropropriate as it could be.

The only question is - what to do with maces, that are now quite inferior to MS? I once suggested to treat them as light maces, but you said that was the defining feature of Storm Star.

Well, that's not the only reason for me being against it. Actually, I'm kinda fine with the "light mace" concept, but not with the "uber-light" mace. My points are:

* maces currently are more damaging than short swords

* pre-V3 armor changes crushing dmg was always better than piercing dmg, but even within V3 it generally still is

* being light is almost the only advantage of the poor 1d4 club over the mace unless we count item's usability

 

Long story short, it's better to move morningstar into the heavy weapons category (aka -1 off hand penalty) rather than moving the mace into the light one with clubs, daggers and short swords.

 

Speaking of this, aren't flail supposed to have the same feature? They don't in PnP (see here), but it seems like they should.

I don't know. But if they do, I say that -1 thaco penalty is justified.

If you ask me the AC (parry) penalty we discarded is a much better representation. A flail is hard to swing yes, but that should be represented by its high STR requirement and off hand penalty imo. When you manage to land a swing with a flail it's actually very likely to hit the opponent imo, as he cannot parry it with a sword and even with a shield he would accuse the blow. Otoh, defending/parrying with a heavy flail and its big inertia (not count its very design isn't suited to that) is indeed a problem.

 

 

P.S Have you thought about halberds? Do you still think keeping 1d10 dmg and just putting 'piercing and slashing' dmg type is enough?

[Ardanis]

A flail is hard to swing yes, but that should be represented by its high STR requirement and off hand penalty imo.

My point was that a ball-on-chain is hard to swing with accuracy.

 

P.S Have you thought about halberds? Do you still think keeping 1d10 dmg and just putting 'piercing and slashing' dmg type is enough?

Unsure. Twohander has +1.5 damage, if of slightly less effective type. Spear has -1 damage, but greater range, including thrown. So both win over 1d10 halberd, even if it has piercing and slashing type.

[Salk]

A flail is hard to swing yes, but that should be represented by its high STR requirement and off hand penalty imo.

My point was that a ball-on-chain is hard to swing with accuracy.

 

I perfectly agree but the lack of accuracy doesn't translate into a penalty to THAC0 but rather to critical hits.

 

If possible the critical 20 with flail should be confirmed by a second roll with 50% chance of success.