I'm not sure why the BG2 system would be unworkable for BG? Seriously, there's magic weapons available of every sort. The basic long sword and short sword are most plentiful, but that's because umm, they're the most common! I get that if you've never played before you won't know all those sorts of details, but that's part of the fun of discovery. It is to the rookie player's advantage to use the BG1 system, but as an experienced player, the BG2 system is actually more advantageous (adding styles).
I said doesn't make sense. I don't think it fits for Bg1, seeing as it wasn't implemented in BG1.
Weapon styles definitely help, never said they didn't.
The question doesn't ask whether it works or not, whether its advantageous or not, or even if its like PnP or not. The question is which better fits the First Baldur's Gate Game.
Again I just don't get why that would be. What doesn't fit? It was the first attempt at implementing a proficiency system in an AD&D game, it was a good effort, and they made it better in BG2. It's pretty close to one of the proficiency systems from the PHB, but not exactly (only fighters, not other warriors, are allowed a single specialization per PNP). BG2 modified a slightly different proficiency/specialization rule.
I guess I'm not getting the whole "fits" concept here. Is it like a karma or fang shui thing? Sorry I'm not the artistic type, I don't get it. It's fine if you just like one system or another, that's purely a matter of opinion and taste. But this "fits" thing sounds like there's something wrong with having it in the game.
I really liked the general proficiency system presented in the original Baldur's Gate. It was easy to understand and allowed access to a more vast array of weaponry. Nevertheless, I prefer the weapon specific proficiency coupled with the weapon styles as introduced in Baldur's Gate 2. The weapon style bonuses are great. They are also self explanatory in their benefit.
The specific weapon proficiency brings a degree of restraint, as well as a degree of diversity. I would probably never have tried certain weapons if not for their branching off into their own category. The problem was a lack of availability in weapons for certain proficiencies.
Im not saying the BG2 style doesnt fit. Im saying BG1 style fits better. Theres nothing wrong with the BG2 proficiency style. I'm in no way saying 1 sucks and 1 is superior. They are both good in there own ways. I'm just saying I like and think the system implemented in BG1 is better suites the first game.
I'm not saying anything between the lines here. Try not to read into things that arent there. I'm not drawing comparison to PHB or PnP or any other game.
I just feel the general proficiency is a better fit, match, better flow, goes better with, compliments better. you can choose any word you want. I don't think there should be the degree of restraint that comes with the specific weapon proficiency present in BG2 in the first game.
The style is great for BG2, there are way too many powerful and great items that you shouldnt be able to achieve GM in all of them. WHICH ISNT THE TOPIC NOR THE QUESTION
In BG1 you cant achieve GM, without modding or tweaking the game, or taking advantage of a flaw in the mechanics.
My perspective is I like that the BG2 system forces you to make more hard decisions and deal with the consequences. I like that I can't just opt for "Large Swords" for half my fighters and expect them to be able to wield two-handed swords, longswords, scimitars, bastard swords, and katanas with the same effectiveness.
Also, as someone pointed out earlier, if you are going to add the Kensai kit, that only really makes sense with the BG2 system of profs, since the whole point of that kit is that Kensais maximize specialization in a particluar melee weapon.
I completely agree. I like the BG2 system. I just like it in BG2. I also don't like having the kits in BG1 which may influence that but that's neither here nor there.
The problem with the BG2 system is that it leads people to design character progression around specific weapons, rather than designing characters however they want and then using the weapons they find.
I see no problem with this. Granted players will power game and build their proficiency list around the more powerful weapons in BG2, but those who don't power game will build combatants around a specific weapon type or a small group of weapons simply because that is closer to reality. Fighting with a long sword is VASTLY different than fighting with a Scimitar. And specializations should not translate across weapon types that different.
I think the BG1 method was designed and created as it was simply due to ease of programming. It was a completely new engine and they were more focused on other aspects of the game than splitting out individual weapons. I don't think it was designed that way because it "Fit" the playing style, but more that it was a lower priority than other things. Just a guess on my part.
On a slightly off-topic note, IWD uses a system that sits in between BG1 and BG2. Some weapons are grouped together (but most are not), and there are no weapon styles.
Slings and darts are bundled together, and so are bastard and two-handed swords. Bows (long and short) are one proficiency as well.
I think this system (with weapon styles added) could work in BG:EE. I'd suggest it for BG2 Tweaks but it might not be worth their time.
Of course, IWD also had the awesomeness of two-handed hammers and axes.
Now THAT would make for a great mod component! But I imagine you'd also need animations for that, right? Bummer.
EDIT: now that I think about it, I'm kinda curious as to how that was dealt with in IWD to BG2. IWD characters had animations for two-handed axes and hammers, but not for dual-wielding. What was the way around that? Mixing avatars? Changing them automatically according to the weapon equipped?
IIRC we used halberd animations for 2H axes and just the 1H hammer animations for both 1H and 2H hammers--looks bad, but editing a few thousand animation frames is not in the cards.
I always love these topics, especially on forums like this, since there's always a ton of weapon buffs that can comment on these. I made the BG2 Tweaks rebalanced profs based mainly on intuition--katanas and wakis are the only ones I've actually trained with--so it's always nice to get feedback from folks who are smarter than I.
The problem with the BG2 system is that it leads people to design character progression around specific weapons, rather than designing characters however they want and then using the weapons they find. @Rhyme has the right idea (as does @CamDawg's BG2 Tweaks mod, to some extent), but I would tweak it a bit:
While I do have a couple of nitpicks below, I think you've got a pretty solid setup. When I redid these for Tweaks one of my goals was to keep the total number of proficiencies the same. Fewer profs means that fighters get even less of an advantage from their pips--you could, in turn, reduce the total number of pips given but then you're treading into very unpopular territory.
- Combine spears and halberds into 'polearms' (since BG spears are basically 2-handed pikes, rather than Greek-style 1-handed spears)
I think my biggest reservation here is that spears and halberds are wielded just differently enough for me to see some separation. Spears are mainly about thrusting attacks, whereas halberds can be swung as well. This is the same objection I have to the combination of staves with either.
- Combine clubs, maces and morning stars (all radially symmetrical blunt weapons used the same way)
Again, hard to argue here. Morningstars should not, in any way, share a prof with flails. I can understand, kind of, differentiating clubs from the other two--the fact that they're wooden and not metal means you might use them differently, especially against armored opponents.
- Combine war hammers and axes (blunt weapons that require a particular, directional style of use)
Yeah, not on board with this. The fact that one has an edge whereas the other is mainly blunt trauma means you're going to have significant differences in technique, especially against armor.
- Combine scimitars, katanas and wakizashi (curved, single-edge swords)
I'm not sure on this one, mainly because I don't know enough about scimitars. Katanas and wakis are designed to be light, quick slashing weapons. Depictions of scimitars tend to range from heavy, curved blades to near-rapiers, and the game doesn't really clarify--katanas and wakis are both faster than scimitars, but about the same weight. A rapier-like scimitar would strike me as a primarily thrusting weapon, which is a great way to get killed using a katana.
- Combine short swords and ninja-to (short, straight, and stabby). Add daggers too? I'm not totally convinced...
Short swords and ninja-tos are a slam dunk, though I can see excluding daggers as they'd have more in common with knife fighting. Plus, you might be able to parry with short swords/ninja-tos, but definitely not with a dagger.
Comments
I said doesn't make sense. I don't think it fits for Bg1, seeing as it wasn't implemented in BG1.
Weapon styles definitely help, never said they didn't.
The question doesn't ask whether it works or not, whether its advantageous or not, or even if its like PnP or not. The question is which better fits the First Baldur's Gate Game.
I guess I'm not getting the whole "fits" concept here. Is it like a karma or fang shui thing? Sorry I'm not the artistic type, I don't get it.
It's fine if you just like one system or another, that's purely a matter of opinion and taste. But this "fits" thing sounds like there's something wrong with having it in the game.
The specific weapon proficiency brings a degree of restraint, as well as a degree of diversity. I would probably never have tried certain weapons if not for their branching off into their own category. The problem was a lack of availability in weapons for certain proficiencies.
I'm not saying anything between the lines here. Try not to read into things that arent there. I'm not drawing comparison to PHB or PnP or any other game.
I just feel the general proficiency is a better fit, match, better flow, goes better with, compliments better. you can choose any word you want. I don't think there should be the degree of restraint that comes with the specific weapon proficiency present in BG2 in the first game.
The style is great for BG2, there are way too many powerful and great items that you shouldnt be able to achieve GM in all of them. WHICH ISNT THE TOPIC NOR THE QUESTION
In BG1 you cant achieve GM, without modding or tweaking the game, or taking advantage of a flaw in the mechanics.
It's all just personal preference, I guess.
My perspective is I like that the BG2 system forces you to make more hard decisions and deal with the consequences. I like that I can't just opt for "Large Swords" for half my fighters and expect them to be able to wield two-handed swords, longswords, scimitars, bastard swords, and katanas with the same effectiveness.
Also, as someone pointed out earlier, if you are going to add the Kensai kit, that only really makes sense with the BG2 system of profs, since the whole point of that kit is that Kensais maximize specialization in a particluar melee weapon.
I completely agree. I like the BG2 system. I just like it in BG2. I also don't like having the kits in BG1 which may influence that but that's neither here nor there.
I think the BG1 method was designed and created as it was simply due to ease of programming. It was a completely new engine and they were more focused on other aspects of the game than splitting out individual weapons. I don't think it was designed that way because it "Fit" the playing style, but more that it was a lower priority than other things. Just a guess on my part.
Slings and darts are bundled together, and so are bastard and two-handed swords. Bows (long and short) are one proficiency as well.
I think this system (with weapon styles added) could work in BG:EE. I'd suggest it for BG2 Tweaks but it might not be worth their time.
Of course, IWD also had the awesomeness of two-handed hammers and axes.
EDIT: now that I think about it, I'm kinda curious as to how that was dealt with in IWD to BG2. IWD characters had animations for two-handed axes and hammers, but not for dual-wielding. What was the way around that? Mixing avatars? Changing them automatically according to the weapon equipped?