+thaco weapons

Jidokwon

Arrows of piercing grant +4, but they don't work properly on any creatures that need magic weapons. Jerrod's mace grants +5 against demons, but doesn't work on demons that need more than +2. I guess the question is are there any +thaco weapons that grant the enhancement properly?

elminster

Jerrod's mace looks like its an oversight. I'll tag @CamDawg here since as far as I'm aware the trend with BG2EE has been to make weapons like that have the higher enchantment level.

As for Arrows of Piercing it looks like they have an enchantment level of 1. Not sure if that was a deliberate decision or an oversight.

Shin

Jerrod's mace worked the same way in vanilla. Not sure if there's been any EE reasoning about it, but there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason to make it +5 enchantment. As it stands it's still useful on demons below Balor-level (Glabrezus and down) - and adding a straight-out +5 vs demons weapon accessible at the start of the game might seem a little too much. Of course, on the other hand it's not like there isn't already overpowered items available.

Arrows of Piercing should indeed be magical, +1 like @elminster says - makes them go through protection from normal missiles, etc.

elminster

Shin said:

Jerrod's mace worked the same way in vanilla. Not sure if there's been any EE reasoning about it, but there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason to make it +5 enchantment. As it stands it's still useful on demons below Balor-level (Glabrezus and down) - and adding a straight-out +5 vs demons weapon accessible at the start of the game might seem a little too much. Of course, on the other hand it's not like there isn't already overpowered items available.

Arrows of Piercing should indeed be magical, +1 like @elminster says - makes them go through protection from normal missiles, etc.

Yea what magical weapons get in terms of their enchantments seems like its very much a hodgepodge of different rules still. Foebane +3 is only a +3 weapon when it comes to hitting something, even though Burning Earth +1 counts as a +4 weapon (they both have different effects that give them greater damage against certain enemies).

I think there is a case to be made for Arrows of Piercing to be given a +4 enchantment. How many other weapons in the game get a straight bonus to thac0 that doesn't reflect on their ability to actually hit an enemy?

Kaltzor

I wonder how much work it would be for the devs to add a note on all the weapons (and arrows, bolts, bullets) about what kind of + weapon they attack as for determining what they can hit...

Shin

Yeah, indeed rather weird to have Burning Earth as +4, but it was like that in vanilla too iirc. Realistically it should probably be +1. Looking more closely at Jerrod's mace it seems to only add a thaco bonus towards demons, and no damage. If nothing else, this should be fixed.

Shin

elminster said:

I think there is a case to be made for Arrows of Piercing to be given a +4 enchantment. How many other weapons in the game get a straight bonus to thac0 that doesn't reflect on their ability to actually hit an enemy?

In BG1 this wouldn't really matter much imo, but for BG2 it might be a bit too much. Would make some of the more challenging enemies kind of open to missile barrages by arrows afaik very easy to come by. It's not until ToB that you can even get +3 arrows.

elminster

Shin said:

elminster said:

I think there is a case to be made for Arrows of Piercing to be given a +4 enchantment. How many other weapons in the game get a straight bonus to thac0 that doesn't reflect on their ability to actually hit an enemy?

In BG1 this wouldn't really matter much imo, but for BG2 it might be a bit too much. Would make some of the more challenging enemies kind of open to missile barrages by arrows afaik very easy to come by. It's not until ToB that you can even get +3 arrows.

I think it would be a positive change for archer characters. Its not like they are doing +4 damage as well though so while it certainly would allow archers to hit more enemies they would still wouldn't be doing the kind of damage output you'd see with a fighter with a strength benefit/off hand weapons that boost their APR. Their damage beyond 1d6 is entirely dependent upon a save vs death (and items and proficiency points that other weapons can benefit from). Like I said I can't think of any other item in the game where it gives a basic +x to Thac0 that doesn't mean its enchanted enough to hit certain enemies. If anything I think its just an inconsistency that is bound to confuse at least some people.

elminster

From what I can tell The Burning Earth, War Hammer +1, +4 vs Giantkin, Daystar, Kondar (the Bastard Sword +3 vs Shapeshifters), Bone Club +2, +3 vs Undead, and Root of the Problem +1 (+3 vs unnatural creatures) currently are hitting as though they are using the highest Thac0 value of whatever Thac0 bonus they get against certain enemies for their enchantment level (so Root of the problem hits as a +3, Warhammer +1 +4 vs Giantkin hits as a +4)

Dragon's Bane +3, Foebane +3, Foebane +5, Jerrod's mace, Flame of the North+2, Dwarven Thrower, and the Rod of Smiting all are hitting at (lacking a better description for it) their basic Thac0 level.

Edit: Apparently the Abyssal Blade (regardless of its version) also falls into this latter category

Its kind of odd because Jerrod's Mace gets +5 Thac0 verses Demons but it is still being counted as a +2 weapon. The others in that second category only get damage bonuses vs certain creatures.

So like a hodgepodge of different enchantment levels.

Schneidend

I'm all in favor of all increased thac0 weapons counting as higher enchantments for hitting those enemies that need high enchantments, provided the enemy in question fits the bill.

PawnSlayer

Shin said:

elminster said:

I think there is a case to be made for Arrows of Piercing to be given a +4 enchantment. How many other weapons in the game get a straight bonus to thac0 that doesn't reflect on their ability to actually hit an enemy?

In BG1 this wouldn't really matter much imo, but for BG2 it might be a bit too much. Would make some of the more challenging enemies kind of open to missile barrages by arrows afaik very easy to come by. It's not until ToB that you can even get +3 arrows.

There's no Arrows +4 at all in in the series, and you think that making arrows you can get right at the start of the game +4 wouldn't matter much? That would be a huge change, though I can see that your thinking is that not much requires +3 or better to hit in BG1.

Still, it would be far too powerful. +1 is fine, I think. Definitely support the labelling of all arrows with their actual enchantment though.

Also, it's not strictly speaking true that you can't get +3 arrows until TOB, because Tansheron's Bow, obtainabl relatively early in SOA, fires an infinite number of them.

elminster

PawnSlayer said:

Shin said:

elminster said:

I think there is a case to be made for Arrows of Piercing to be given a +4 enchantment. How many other weapons in the game get a straight bonus to thac0 that doesn't reflect on their ability to actually hit an enemy?

In BG1 this wouldn't really matter much imo, but for BG2 it might be a bit too much. Would make some of the more challenging enemies kind of open to missile barrages by arrows afaik very easy to come by. It's not until ToB that you can even get +3 arrows.

There's no Arrows +4 at all in in the series, and you think that making arrows you can get right at the start of the game +4 wouldn't matter much? That would be a huge change, though I can see that your thinking is that not much requires +3 or better to hit in BG1.

Still, it would be far too powerful. +1 is fine, I think. Definitely support the labelling of all arrows with their actual enchantment though.

Also, it's not strictly speaking true that you can't get +3 arrows until TOB, because Tansheron's Bow, obtainabl relatively early in SOA, fires an infinite number of them.

They are already giving a +4 to Thac0. All this change would do is make it so that they hit as though they were +4 weapons (which doesn't really matter in BGEE because there are only a handful of enemies that have any kind of immunity to weapons). Also you can't buy them at the start of BGEE. The earliest you can get them is the Carnival and even then you can only get 25 there. You can also find some in Ulcaster but again that was always the case.

Shin

PawnSlayer said:

There's no Arrows +4 at all in in the series, and you think that making arrows you can get right at the start of the game +4 wouldn't matter much? That would be a huge change, though I can see that your thinking is that not much requires +3 or better to hit in BG1.

Yes. There's virtually no such enemies in BG1, nor any usage of the mantle spells. If you look only at the enchantment level, throughout the game it doesn't make much difference whether an arrow is +1 or +5.

nano

Huh... I had no idea arrows of piercing had such a huge thac0 modifier. It's pretty weird that +3 arrows are rare in comparison. I think the +3 arrows should give +3 to damage as well, if the piercing arrows are boosted to +4 enchantment. There's little enough reason to use them already. That might not be allowed for contractual reasons though.