Thieving is Too Easy! Add Missing Thief Armor Penalties
bigdogchris
Member Posts: 1,336
At the end of this game, even with a Fighter/Thief who gets much less points to invest in Thief skills, I'm able to disarm almost every trap in the game (there was one I could not). On top of that you throw in potions to further enhance that, these characters are too easy to play. If it's this easy to disarm traps as a Fighter/Thief, a pure Thief is downright overpowered.
Currently only Elven Chain and Hide Armor have the penalties, Leather and Studded leather do not (and Chain for Bards).
According to the original Baldur's Gate manuals, and D&D rules, characters are supposed to receive a penalty to thieving abilities by wearing armor. I understand this alone does not mean penalties should be added. However, I do believe the penalties would help balance thieving based on my game play experiences.
I ask to put in the penalty, that was originally advertised as being in the game, to help balance the ease of thieving that currently exist in game.
Currently only Elven Chain and Hide Armor have the penalties, Leather and Studded leather do not (and Chain for Bards).
According to the original Baldur's Gate manuals, and D&D rules, characters are supposed to receive a penalty to thieving abilities by wearing armor. I understand this alone does not mean penalties should be added. However, I do believe the penalties would help balance thieving based on my game play experiences.
I ask to put in the penalty, that was originally advertised as being in the game, to help balance the ease of thieving that currently exist in game.
Post edited by bigdogchris on
2
Comments
My point was really to prod you into arguing for this on its merits as a feature, of which there are many, rather than as another 'PnP does it differently' thread. I don't really view the thieving penalties in armor as nerfs at all (since it lets you use skills which are otherwise outright disallowed) and I think you'd get a lot more support if you couched your arguments accordingly.
Personally, I'm ambivalent--this is one instance where mods have already enabled this choice so the default setting, so to speak, doesn't matter too much.
If developers want to open up the game to modding so that people who want to change the rules can, just like a DM can, then I'm fine with that. However, I think that if developers are going to subscribe to the idea that this is a tactical D&D based game and want to use that label, then they owe it to the game and the fans of the game to at least try and follow the rules where they are able to.
As tired as you are about the PnP rule argument, I'm equally tired of not following the rules "just because".
If people don't want Dungeons and Dragons, then I say play another game. You have said that many times. However, this is a D&D, which is PnP. Saying it should follow the rules because of that fact, alone, has more weight than someone saying not to follow the rules, "just because" which you seem to be insinuating by saying "Being PnP is not enough of a reason". This being a D&D game and all, wouldn't it make more sense to have mods to break the rules, rather than have mods be required to follow the rules?
There is a significant difference between what works for PnP and what works for video games, and that difference is the reason why so much of the PnP structure was omitted for BG (non-weapon proficiencies, for example).
Implementing something like this means shifting the balance of several abilities in a meaningful way, which means taking a lot of other factors into consideration; so it's important that the argument be more substantial than "Because that's how it works in PnP", because if it's done for the wrong reasons, it might be done poorly, and it might ruin some other things that weren't anticipated.
On the other hand, if you state reasons why this feature would be helpful or a positive addition to the game, then it's possible that the developers might be able to find an even better way of implementing it than what you originally proposed, which makes it a meaningful but not ruinous addition.
Right now, CamDawg's argument is, "It shouldn't be done because that's not how it works right now", which is a more substantial argument than "it should be done because that's how it works in another, similar game."
There's also the school of thought that the reasons no longer matter--we have the capability to implement PnP rules and we should do so, regardless of the original reason to diverge from the ruleset. Setting aside the conceit, this is correct insofar as we do have the capability, as many PnP mods demonstrate, but broad mandates for change should be met with equally broad skepticism. I load up my game with PnP rule mods since I happen to prefer them (and this one in particular since I wrote the mod), but I have a much higher bar for changing the way everyone else has to play.
So if you're asking me to list reasons why giving Thieves negative skills is a good thing for the game, I can't, other than to say I want the game to take itself seriously.
I'm not asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars in manpower be spent on adding in the endless amount of out-of-combat skills or non-weapon proficiencies and feats. I'm only asking that the implemented features that can follow the rules, do.
There's nothing stopping this game from properly implementing Thieving armor penalties,
There's nothing stopping this game from properly implementing proper Constitution regeneration,
There's nothing stopping this game from properly implementing proper Elf sword THAC0 bonuses,
...except just not wanting to.
What makes matters worse is when I read things where part of bugs are fixed (like Elf Charm resistance), but the other bugs (THAC0) that are nerfs, are ignored.
So I ask again;
Does it make more sense for a game that is trying to "bring...the AD&D game alive on the computer like no other game before it" require mods to follow the rules?
OR:
Does it make more sense for a game that is trying to "bring...the AD&D game alive on the computer like no other game before it" require mods to break the rules?
@Camdawg, you prove my point. "I have a much higher bar for changing the way everyone else has to play."
My poll here shows that the majority if people want to follow the rules.
So again, doesn't it makes more sense to follow the rules, since the majority want to, and then allow the lesser amount of people who don't want to follow the rules mod the game to break them?
And just because most people want it doesn't necessarily make it automatically the best thing for the game. Which is why CamDawg is asking you to give reasons why this feature request should be implemented, aside from the fact that it would match what the PnP rules follow. More to the point: Why this feature, rather than the myriad other feature requests in this subforum?
As an aside, there's one thing we certainly agree on: powergamers are flooding the forums with shit requests. I usually only venture in here for interesting ideas (like this one) or when a truly bad idea gets traction (i.e. ogre magi and katanas). It's a meaningless marketing phrase, and a false dichotomy to boot. We're already at a very good implementation of PnP rules, as I mentioned above, we're simply arguing over the small bits of non-conformity. If we were building BG from scratch I'd be right there with you (and the folks in your poll) on most of these issues. But we're dealing with a highly successful, well-known game that's been out for over a decade and, with that in mind, I think the burden of the argument falls on the person advocating for change, even when I personally think the idea makes for a better game.
Currently, a multiclass fighter/thief who wears more than studded leather armor can't use his thieving abilities at all. This is a good way to discourage fighter/thieves from wearing heavy armor, but it means that any fighter/thief who does wear heavy armor is essentially a fighter with a reduced THAC0 and fewer proficiency points.
On the other hand, if instead of blocking the thieving abilities, the heavy armor bestowed a significant penalty to those abilities, it would still be a strong deterrent without being something that the player would never be able to do.
To wit: A fighter/thief who wears full plate armor would see that he can use the Stealth ability, and attempt to use it, only to realize that it's all but impossible in full plate armor. He will either have to remove his armor, or invest heavily in his Stealth abilities--both of which become viable options.
Using penalties rather than restrictions creates more options for the player without adding potency to the character (if you really want to be able to sneak around in full plate armor, go ahead, but expect to put all your skill points into Hide or Move Silently).
A similar argument could be made for armor-based spell failure chances for fighter/ or thief/mages, although that can get dicey real fast.
That being said, it's not just a matter of saying "All Studded Leather armor is like X", which would make it rather easy to implement; the armors in the game aren't broken into categories like that. So you'd have to apply the penalties for each skill to every single .itm file.
It might not seem like a lot of work, except that you'd have to either use the PnP values (which runs the risk of nerfing the thief, which is something that shouldn't be done), or come up with new values that make sense (which would take a lot of time and consideration in order to make it not unbalanced in either direction). And then you have to add the effects to each armor.
All in all, it would probably take an afternoon to do it; but there are so many other things that are more worthwhile to implement, and this idea already exists as a mod, so I'd rather the time be spent on something else.
Sophisticated games like Baldur's Gate simply are not created anymore, so I will do everything I can to try and keep it, or more-so, to it's roots.
Edit: huh I just noticed that some peoples comments have a light gray background, instead of the normal dark gray/black. I guessing this is applies to moderators, as a way of highlighting their posts? Neat idea.
I appreciate that, and I can understand why Beamdog takes that approach with a game that's been around almost 15 years as to why they may not want to change things.
One other thing I'd like to point out though is that I hope that they remain fair when it comes to fixing things, say, don't only fix missing/broken bonuses. I say that because the few changes I have suggested have been really resisted. I don't think it's just a coincidence that the resistance comes from my requested nerfs. Penalties are in place for a reason as well.
I ask to put in a penalty, that was originally advertised as being in to help balance that, and basically get told that it's not justified because this is a video game and the penalty is not needed. It's frustrating being told I'm wrong when what I experience in game shows otherwise.
I do want to point out something about your poll though that you used as evidence to change the way things work in BG:EE. Even assuming those that voted represent players of BG as a whole, the poll is not phrased to include changes to BG:EE gameplay -
"Question: When attempting to recreate D&D in tactical video games like Baldur's Gate, how closely should you follow the rules that you are able to implement?"
It is a good question and I voted for the first option, and yet I disagree with some of the changes you advocate for BG:EE. The reason being that BG is a game that has been around for 15 years and plays a certain way. The implementation of certain things, i.e. thief skills in armor, was most likely a conscious decision made by developers at the time (read - it's not a bug) and changing it "just because" it's closer to PnP should not be the only reason to change it. The question does not state "would you like to see BG:EE updated to follow pnp rules as closely as possible" which is a different question, because the game already exists and has been balanced around certain aspects for game play experience. Now, any future game, such as BG3, absolutely I would like to see it as close to PnP as possible and any variation to have a valid reason. I hope I made sense.. I'm thanking you and disagreeing with you
first a minor quibble
Another thing that occurs to me: What is the core of your concern? I see a split here.
On the one hand, you can pursue the "PnP implementation" thing you've been going at and you can throw your hands up in defeat as you did here when they asked you to convince them in a positive fashion.
On the other hand, you mentioned that Fighter/Thief is too easy. That you have enough skillpoints to steamroll most of the game and if you don't, you can just chug potions. From this, you extend that pure-thief never has to really worry about the difficulty of traps. Ever. I'm paraphrasing, but bare with me please.
I think this second concern would be interesting (and logical) to address.
Why not ask for "Trap Disable and Detection thresholds based on the difficulty setting of the game" or just ask for them to be looked at in-general??
I'll be the first to admit I'm clueless at coding and modding. But couldn't this be done?
Why I think this would address your "Multiclass Thiefs are too good at thiefing":
BG2 shouldn't probably happen. The power curve is all messed up. Right out of the starter dungeon, you can go on a short quest and get the +3 or +4 weapon of your choice. Sometimes armor too. At the very start of the game, you're getting something that--in any PnP game--would be artifact status. And this piece of equipment that took you 10 minutes to get? It's Best-In-Slot. Or you're going to sell it. One or the other. TOB is even worse. It seems like a straight out attempt to bring 3x Epic Levels into the bg series.
Given the absurd power levels of the player characters in BG2 and TOB, I'm not sure that arguing back in a couple of -10s and -15s are going to do you a lot of good because players reached redundant skill levels a LONG time ago. Oooh, I'm wearing armor at endgame (where you implied a part of your concern originated from). I'm only a level 28 thief for the purpose of disabling traps. Big whoop. I'm already past the point where the game engine itself can not handle how many skill points I have. What's a -10?
I don't think that armor penalties in that vein, on their own, would address the notion that thief multis are too good at being pure-class thieves. However, armor penalties (and the ability to thief in heavy armors) in addition to a reconsideration of current/tob trap thresholds might go together to restore the balance for thieves. Furthermore, if traps received a boost to their required skill thresholds on Hard or Insane, I think that would go a long way towards creating an elite-tier experience for longtime players and create a situation where even the elite must carefully consider several extra dimensions for their success. Thus increasing the bragging rights and the sense of accomplishment that comes with being able to succeed at the very uppermost echelons of the game.
...Am I way off base here? Anyone?
The penalties are specific armor properties rather than some global setting.
I've also updated my original post to better clarify my request.
I removed those tables, in most cases, because they reflected information that was not accurate, and in most cases they existed because they were simply pulled straight out of AD&D sources, rather than based on information in the actual game.
Regardless of if they are in the book or not, that doesn't change that it's too easy in game. Even so, I changed it per your request.
I don't care which to be honest, if if you're gonna mess with the game, make it consistent. That penalty didn't exist in BG1 or BG2, so by that logic shouldn't exist here either, UNLESS you're going to implement them all.
BTW I didn't know that all this is not implemented and have never put any armor on a thief. Can any penalty from wearing an armor be seen in the character screen?