Consistency in lore values required to identify an item.

Messi

These seems to be all over the place. Eg. my sorcerer could identify the +2 dagger from Dragomir's Tomb just by looking at it, but is not able to do the same to a +1 mace.

TheGraveDigger

For some strange reason, a bigger weapon requires more lore.

Dagger+1 is 10 lore
Shortsword+1 is 20 lore
Mace+1 is 30 lore
Spear+1 is 40 lore

Dee

It's like I always say.

The bigger they are, the harder they [are to identify].

Messi

TheGraveDigger said:

For some strange reason, a bigger weapon requires more lore.

Dagger+1 is 10 lore
Shortsword+1 is 20 lore
Mace+1 is 30 lore
Spear+1 is 40 lore

When you think about it shouldn't the lore value increase go the exact opposite way? Higher lore value requirement basically means the item is less well known, thus requiring more educated person to identify it. I'd at least expect that someone wielding a huge two-hand sword would be lot more visible, and therefore gather more renown for the weapon, than someone using a small dagger for example.

Anyway fantasy rationalizations aside from gameplay perspective it would be lot clearer if the lore value was simply based on the weapons enchantment level. You could still have different lore values for weapons and armor if that's important.

TheGraveDigger

Messi said:

When you think about it shouldn't the lore value increase go the exact opposite way?

Probably, but lore would still make little sense. A level 20 knight would have trouble telling you about any of those weapons, whereas a drunken level 4 bard could write you a book on them...

Most the rare rings and belts in BG1 need less lore than a +1 spear...