Two weapon suggested changes

ZanathKariashi

Bring two weapon fighting more in line with PnP. The other weapon styles were implemented properly, yet for some reason two weapon style wasn't.

One * (basic Dual-wielding proficiency) should be -2 MH, -4 OH
Two** (Specialization) should be 0 MH, -2 OH.

There shouldn't be a 3rd rank at all.

Also,single class clerics and druids shouldn't be able to put points in two weapon style at all (2nd excerpt), while rogues of all types should be able to master it (but shouldn't have access to sword/shield style, also 2nd excerpt)). Warriors are fine as is. (Mages are also missing the ability to put points (plural) in single and 2-handed weapon style, 2nd excerpt).

Rangers can remain as is, though optionally, Swashbucklers and Blades could start with a free * in two weapon (both kits are supposed to start with 3 proficiency points rather then 2 anyway, but since the weapon types they're supposed to spend the extra point in aren't implemented, a free two weapon rank is a nice compromise).

Relevant excerpts.
http://i1066.photobucket.com/albums/u412/ZanathKariashi/DW1.jpg?t=1355519197
http://i1066.photobucket.com/albums/u412/ZanathKariashi/DW2.jpg?t=1355519839
http://i1066.photobucket.com/albums/u412/ZanathKariashi/DW3.jpg?t=1355519828

CamDawg

BGEE is not PnP.

Edit: whoops, thought this was in bug reports. Request away.

ZanathKariashi

Or if that's too much work...

Make it so that Warrior and Rogue classes start with a free * in two weapon style (Both groups are automatically proficient in Dual-wielding), and can put up to a total of *** (both groups can potentially master dual-wielding if they wish to spend points on it). Rangers, Blades, and Swashbucklers would start with *** for free (their unique training has already allowed them to master dual-wielding).

That way it's more like PnP, but without having to grossly mess with mechanics, and at least gives Warriors and Rogues the opportunity to be like their PnP incarnations.

Rapscallion

This only helps their thac0, though. The damage will be terrible with a low strength score.

ZanathKariashi

str doesn't matter. There's plenty of options for raising strength, stat manuals, spells, belts, some weapons...but for rogue's, they really can't afford that kind of thac0 penalty, and they're otherwise gimp'd from lack of base attacks if they can't dual-wield.

ZanathKariashi

Revamped the original proposal, after acquiring further rule books.

Dee

It did always kind of bug me that all of the fighting styles are two-slot styles except for two-weapon style.

It also always bugged me that the first slot was basically useless.

I support the "warriors and rogues get a free [effective] pip in TWS" idea. Not so much the "blades and swashies get *** for free", though; that seems silly.

elminster

No druid (or cleric) dual wielding? I disagree with that. If you want to see it boosted fine, but I hardly see why it should be taken away. Even if druids/clerics aren't great candidates for it because they can only get * in the case of clerics especially they get enough boosts for their thac0 that they can benefit from it. Not only that but because critical hits lose their effectiveness over the course of the series putting a proficiency into two-weapon style is an option for druids later on if they want to increase their viability in combat.

ZanathKariashi

I only suggested removing two weapon from clerics and druids because it clearly says in the rules they don't have it (and can never attain it, unless multi or dual classed) and rogues shouldn't have sword/shield style. Also mages are supposed to have access to single weapon and 2-handed weapon styles but currently don't.

And the rules are a bit confusing. They seem to imply that EVERYONE starts with basic proficiency in any styles they're capable of, for free, and only have to spend a single point to master it (though only warriors can specialize in more then one style..not sure how that would be implemented). Or at least that's what it seems to say...I'm not 100% for sure.

elminster

ZanathKariashi said:

I only suggested removing two weapon from clerics and druids because it clearly says in the rules they don't have it (and can never attain it, unless multi or dual classed) and rogues shouldn't have sword/shield style. Also mages are supposed to have access to single weapon and 2-handed weapon styles but currently don't.

And the rules are a bit confusing. They seem to imply that EVERYONE starts with basic proficiency in any styles they're capable of, for free, and only have to spend a single point to master it (though only warriors can specialize in more then one style..not sure how that would be implemented). Or at least that's what it seems to say...I'm not 100% for sure.

Ohh I don't even deny I'm opposing the rules by taking the position that I am taking I also agree that the rules are poorly written in that they do imply proficiency in all styles usable by whatever class a character happens to be.

thedemoninside

Fine. I want 1 xp/gp as well! The PnP rules suck for a video game, so they changed things. I get so tired of seeing new people every week trying to change an old game just because of what that book says.

HexHammer

It would be nice to having it spelled out if there's a style supporting archers/bows, guess I'm too dense to know.

Dee

@HexHammer
If you mean in the BG games, I can tell you: there aren't any ranged weapon styles.

There was a thread a while back where we brainstormed two styles that would work as possibilities--one for thrown weapons that reduced the stack weight for any thrown weapons, and one for missile weapons that allowed you to retrieve your ammunition from the corpses of your fallen enemies.

Giving ranged weapons tangible bonuses to attack, damage, or APR would be too potent, so we kept it more or less "mundane".

HexHammer

@Aosaw ..APR?
..archers feels sorely neglected, give them some luv, they want a bonus too to their style!

Ulfgar_Torunn

Two weapon style is already the most powerful style, and it's fine that three slots are required. Some sacrifice should be expected so as to avoid unbalancing this already overused fighting style.

As I frequent user of Two Weapon fighting I assure you that it's fine as it is.

@HexHammer:

Attacks Per Round

HexHammer

@Ulfgar_Torunn
But those who only have 1 point in bows/missiles can't hit *bleep!*

ZanathKariashi

The problem is, it's directly nerfing all Rogues from what they're SUPPOSED to have, with absolutely no compensation. Warriors don't give a crap cause they have proficiency slots and thac0 to burn, but rogue's can't really afford any of that. They don't get any extra attacks naturally, no specialization, and slower proficiency rates. And yet according to the rulebooks, they're supposed to be just as proficient in DWing as warriors (including the ability to place multiple points), which is a massive nerf to their melee presence. And especially considered how nerf'd BS becomes at higher levels, they're losing major sources of melee damage for no reason.

3 proficiencies to a warrior is a joke (and most don't even get the 3rd points, because with their thac0 progression, a further -2 on the single off-hand attack is laughable).

And again....it doesn't matter how broken something is....you can break the game wide open, naked, with any single weapon that can hit your enemies, just by min/maxing stats and using proper battle tactics.

Using a F'd up, house-ruled Two weapon that favors only warriors is a biased decision that shouldn't have happened, be cause it limits peoples options, with no identifiable precedent for the change.

IchigoRXC

@Aosaw Those actually sound pretty cool. I would put points in thrown, because at the moment axes are pretty much unusable unless you have 18/00 strength and don't care about using most of your weight on axes :P

Pantalion

Oh I definitely agree with pretty much all of this, that third pip always annoyed me, and Swashbucklers and Blades suffer from such pitiable proficiencies they may as well get a free pip in TWF to compensate, nine times out of ten they'll be going that way anyway.

bigdogchris

I wouldn't say the first slot is worthless as they all provide some type of bonus (or prevent a penalty).

On Two-Weapon Style, while I agree with what is being suggested, saying it doesn't follow PnP is not going to be enough to make it changed.

If you could provide a reason why the PnP way is better than how they originally implemented it, then your idea would have a better chance of surviving.

Dee

Challenge accepted!

The way that it currently works, if you attempt to wield two weapons with no proficiency, the penalties are so great that you might as well not be wielding any weapons at all. This could be better represented by non-warrior, non-rogue classes being simply prevented from equipping a weapon in the off-hand slot.
Problem solved: non-warrior/rogues are unable to take advantage of multiple weapons, because they're not "proficient" with the fighting style. It becomes just like any other weapon.

If you wield two weapons with one pip, the penalties are still kind of enormous considering the investment of a proficiency point. For a rogue that can't exceed one pip, it becomes an unviable combat option (rogues have a naturally lower THAC0 progression to begin with, which isn't helped by the -4 penalty for two-weapon fighting). It's similarly unviable (to a lesser extent) for a warrior, who would be much better served spending the point on virtually anything else. It would be much better represented by replacing the existing two-weapon penalties with the ones associated with this first pip.
Problem solved: since only warriors and rogues would be able to dual-wield to begin with, it doesn't become a concern for priests and mages, but allows warriors and rogues to see what potential future strategies might entail (without giving them the tools to use it effectively).

If you wield two weapons with two pips, you begin to see how it might be useful. The penalties are manageable, but significant enough to keep it from being an immediate "go-to" for any new character. Give this first pip to Rangers for free to represent their inherent ambidexterity, while still giving them room to improve. Consider giving a free pip to Blades as well (possibly at a specific level).
Problem solved: With the same investment as a proficiency in Katanas, the player can now wield two weapons without crippling his ability to hit things with the main hand. The off-hand weapon is still going to suffer, but that's to be expected.

If you wield two weapons with three pips, you can basically wield two weapons as if they were one. That's pretty powerful, but you also spent three proficiency points on them, which means that it took you anywhere between 6 and 12 levels to achieve. That's a long time in gameplay terms--long enough that you'll never dual-wield effectively in BG1 unless you give up your proficiency in regular weapons, and in BG2 only if you start there. By reducing the total number of pips from three to two, it remains a significant investment but becomes an investment that classes other than rangers are willing to make.
Problem Solved: The warriors and rogues have a reasonable path to mastering two-weapon style without making it their sole focus, without removing the investment altogether.

Because rogues can put a point in Two-Weapon Style (but not two unless they're a Blade or Swashbuckler), they'll be able to see some benefit, and a Blade, Swashbuckler, or Ranger will be able to truly benefit from it with a little more investment.

Incidentally, this also gives all of the fighting styles the same number of potential slots, meaning that you (potentially) have the same level of mastery over each one.

ZanathKariashi

Already did, because it unfairly penalizes rogue-type classes. They're supposed to be just as good as warriors at dual-wielding. Including being able to specialize. Dual-wielding as a single class rogue, that isn't a swashbuckler or blade, is a largely a waste of time, due to the higher penalty, and their low natural thac0, as well as more limited thac0 progression. Even Swashbucklers and Blades who currently can place 3 points are majorly inconvenienced since they get so few proficiencies anyway, and especially the swashbuckler who can specialize in weapons is particularly hurt, since they have no real choice in weapons at all till the sequel, since they only get a max of 4 points in BG1. They either have to focus on 1 weapon type, and accept a greater off-hand penalty, merely be proficient in 1 type, and get the smallest penalty, or be proficient in two weapon types, but take the hefty off-hand penalty (the latter two problems also plague the blade).

As is, the change wouldn't affect warrior types at all. Most of them don't get the 3rd point any way cause it's largely a waste, and they have the thac0 progression and volume of attacks to ignore it. Rogues on the other hand are currently frozen at 1 point, and as such aren't suited for dual-wielding. And as mentioned above, proficiency also hurts them. Due to their much crappier thac0 progression, those extra little thac0 penalties hurt a lot, and they don't get the extra attacks warriors do to compensate (aside from using dual speed weapons, which strictly limits your weapon choices and hurts the group overall).

bigdogchris

@Aosaw

If we step back and ask ourselves "Do we want weapons without proficiencies to be severely punished so that they are unused?" If we answer "No" to that question, then Two-Weapon fighting is something that should be looked it.

We all know Two-Weapon Fighting simply reduces a penalty, rather than granting a bonus (like the other proficiencies).

Putting the PnP implementation in would reduce the penalty you suffer under dual wielding without proficiencies where it would still sting but may not make the item completely pointless without putting in pips.

To me it seems that the original developers added additional penalties to Two-Weapon Fighting in the game to offset characters power or by not requiring a small weapon offhand.

After knowing all that, please also consider that Two-Weapon Fighting in PnP, as suggested, is balanced with having a Small weapon offhand requirement. I would not support changing the penalties of Two-Weapon Fighting without also requiring that only Small Weapons can be equipped in the offhand.

I think BG2 dual wield was inspired by 3rd Edition. In 3rd Edition the penalty is lessened by having a light weapon offhand (2nd requires apparently). The additional penalty to TWF may be due to no light weapon requirement.

ZanathKariashi

Except that 2 pips allows using 2 same size (up to medium) weapons without penalty...so the point is still moot...., since rogues will always go for 2 points anyway since even -2 MH is too much.

On my Bard suggestion thread, I suggested doing the above, suggestion, but leaving the 3 pips in and making the 3rd pip a ranger exclusive rank. that had no penalty, that they started with (in PnP ranger's never suffer a DWing penalty, and have no reason to put points in Two Weapon style EXCEPT to unlock use of two medium weapons, as you can NEVER gain a bonus to thac0 from Two weapon style or Dex reducing the penalty)

0 = -4/-6
* = -2/-4 (basic dual-wield proficiency) (Free at creation for Swashbuckler/Blade)
**= 0/-2 (maximum warriors and rogues can attain)
***= 0/0 (Ranger only, free at creation)


And the thing is...rogues shouldn't need higher two weapon fighting (unless they wanted to dual-wield 2 medium weapons). High Dexerity is supposed to reduce the DWing penalty (both hands: +1 16, +2 17-18, +3 19-20, 21+ no penalty), and only character with low dex should need Two-weapon fighting at all, aside from basic proficiency.

bigdogchris

Fair enough, I missed that.

Let me ask you this:

What is the penalty for having no points in Two Weapon Style with what you are suggesting? -4 -6?

What defines "ambidextrous" that allows the equal sized offhand and a 0/0 penalty (for 2 pips) and how would you put that into BG?

Is "ambidextrous" Ranger only? all others can only achieve 0/-2?

Does BG use PnP proficiencies points properly (amount assigned at character creation and level pacing?) If not how would it need to change to reflect this?

ZanathKariashi

Ambidextrous is a feature you purchase with non-combat proficiency, in PnP. It's primary benefit is that your character can perform actions or fight with either hand, if his dominate hand gets injured or is restrained (otherwise you suffer a -4 penalty to the roll), and has no bonus to thac0 EXCEPT if you have 2 pips in two-weapon fighting it reduces the off-hand penalty to 0.

The using two medium weapons is simply another benefit of 2 pips, in addition to reducing the penalty to 0/-2.

They could open up rank 3 as if purchasing Ambidexterity, but it should not penalize lower ranks, since it's not required for dual-wielding.

Not being able to dual-wield at all technically gives you your non-proficient penalty on top of the normal dual-wielding penalty...

So warriors would be -4/-6, mages would be -8/-10, and everyone else would be -5/-7.

smeagolheart

If we're going Ambidextrous I want Monkey Grip too.

monkey grip is two handed weapon in one hand, freeing up off hand

ZanathKariashi

but at a -4 penalty to both hands...don't forget that part.

bigdogchris

SO with 2 pips you would be 0/-2 penalty

3 pips could be BG way to implement ambidextrous 0/0 penalty.

But again, this is balanced based on requiring a small offhand for 0 or 1 pip. I don't know if BG can do that. If you can't, then I wouldn't accept this change because the original BG penalties are probably taking into consideration players can use large weapons even with 0 points.

ZanathKariashi

Except they're not gonna be able to hit the broad side of a barn, unless they're a warrior, who can actually ignore two weapon entirely already. Sure they suck at the early game, but by SoA, you could hit every enemy easily, save the handful of truly high AC enemies, even with no points.

Dee

There's at least one mod that applies situational penalties for medium and heavy weapons when wielded in the off-hand. So it can be done, but it requires a lot of work.