The characters you create with the creation screen will be present in the "game world" so as far as immersion breaking goes, you're already sacrificing immersion to retain difficulty.
If people think War Chant of the Sith is overpowered then they can't pick a Bard. They can't pick a group of multi class Fighters. From the beginning immersion is ruined because there is a chance that player can't pick the party they want to roleplay . So that's no different from breaking immersion and tossing away that Long Sword of Action
no you're not sacrificing immersion, that's the point. once the game begins, you are stuck with whatever choices you've made and can't go back. you are planted into the game's reality and have to conform to it's laws. your imagination becomes secondary to the information and the stimuli that the game's environment feeds you and only once you loose total control you can fully immerse with the game as an actual medium.
that's why the designers made easy rerolling an option in the first place. they knew that it won't adversely impact the players experience once the first chapter starts - they simply understand the players' psychology.
you can't relativise game design choices in such a way. the way you put it gaming aspects of the CRPG are unimportant because gaming is compromised from the beginning by giving you total control during character creation. if that was really the case this would be a really bad and unpopular game and it is not.
I haven't read this entire thread but are we really arguing over a game giving you options? Lets face it, with the amount of diversity and different builds in IWD, the game will never truly be balanced. This is a game as much about adventure and freedom as it is self control. It's not a game design flaw if they give you 2 +4 uber swords of game breaking throughout your adventurers, even more so when they are introduced to you at the end of the game and in the expansion.
More options is better, DnD games have never been about holding your hands. If you don't like it, don't use it. Simple.
i'm not arguing about the game giving you options, i'm saying that the enhanced edition does not provide substantial enhancement if it compromises core, gaming aspects of a product which is a computer game.
small adjustments can be made and i've opened a feature request thread.
we can agree to disagree here. asking statistical data from me when i don't ask statical data from you when you make your own claims is not fair debating.
All I need to do is present an equally possible assumption to force the burden of proof on you seeing as your argument relies on a significant amount of players who actually care about breaking immersion for a few seconds to adjust the game's balance in a game full of game breakers.
there's no burden of proof here since i'm not trying to prove anything, just trying to get my point across in a clear way and basically answer to some of your questions. this is not an exercise in formal reasoning and i don't know why you're trying to make it into one.
your desire to demonstrate that you're right or that i'm wrong is something i can't object to but this is not the proper thread for it. if you look at the title and the opening post you will remind yourself that the topic is very narrow, basically a single item.
i feel that you should ask the mods to split the discussion if you want to keep going in this direction.
Your point relies on the assumption that this single gamebreaker is something that players realistically care about and somehow the necessary minor break from immersion to take it out from their game is something they can't overlook.
So yes you need to prove this assumption given that this isn't the only game breaker present and won't be the only time players need to suspend immersion if they really cared about avoiding game breakers.
Your point relies on the assumption that this single gamebreaker is something that players realistically care about and somehow the necessary minor break from immersion to take it out from their game is something they can't overlook.
So yes you need to prove this assumption given that this isn't the only game breaker present and won't be the only time players need to suspend immersion if they really cared about avoiding game breakers.
i generally agree with the first paragraph. in the least, that was the case with me and i'm just an ordinary guy. the process went like this:
(...finished severed hand, going to how, game is fun) "woot nice sword, me strong - time to have a look at those spectral guards, those guys are badass!"
(...going to totl) "woot another nice sword, me super strong for my level - now i feel really secure about thwacking those spectral guards ... hey! looks i'm invulnerable to slashing damage, what a sunny day!
(...entering castle maluradek hall and getting attacked by circa 6 spectral guards - to my shock and chagrin they explode in a couple of seconds against my virtually unscathed frontline section, particularly the depraved dual godsword user) "uhhm ... this turned out not to be really all that exciting. this certainly used to be tougher when i did totl with lvl 18 instead of lvl 11 characters...let's see how the luremaster holds up!"
(...luremaster and his spectral cohort melts on autocombat while half of my party sits waiting in the middle doing nothing) "GAEM BROKN NERF NERF DIVEL0PR PLOX PHUN GUN"
I'm going to try to actualize this as best I can. Using math. Whoa.
Firstly, even if you go into HoW at level 9, the minimum allowable, the first long sword of action doesn't drop until you're more than halfway through. Certainly after the burial isle for sure, anyway. There's more than enough experience from monsters and quests to get from 9->13 on every class, probably even multiclassed fighters. So the extra 1/2 attack from warrior levels is probably a non-issue. Unless you were deliberately trying to rush through the game to get the sword, in which case you were probably power gaming, and your whole point is moot.
The other sword is near the end of TotLM, which you'd be even higher level to get, unless you like smashing your face against a brick wall, anyway. It's highly unlikely that a warrior would still be under level 13 by the time you get both swords. Kay?
Secondly, you're brandishing dual wielding these swords with improved haste as if it's the swords that are breaking the game. Newsflash: Improved Haste is a little unbalancing. The whole game isn't balanced around it, because it lasts barely three turns at MAX level, and just under two turns when you first get it. If your mage has only improved haste memorized, well, see power gaming above.
Third, the individual bonuses for dual wielding two of those swords isn't that great. +1 AC is basically useless, most enemies will hit you easily even if you have a -13 AC at that point in the game. The slashing resistance might be useful, but not everything in the game is using slashing weapons, and using other items you can already get close to 100% physical resistance anyway, so it's not that gamebreaking comparatively.
But let's compare a couple of things to see where everything stands... mathematically! *thunder crashes*
Assuming 18/00 STR, because, why not?
Vanilla IWD Ranger: Normal Weapon: 3.5 APR (1 base, 1 warrior levels, .5 spec, 1 'dual wield') 1d8+4+2+(6STR) 13-20 damage (16.5 avg) 16.5 x 3.5 APR = 57.75 damage per round (average of course) Normal Weapon Improved Haste: 7 APR (1 base, 1 warrior levels, .5 spec, 1 'dual wield' x 2 imp haste) 1d8+4+2+(6STR) 13-20 damage (16.5 avg) 16.5 x 7 APR = 115.5 damage per round (average of course) Long Sword of Action: 4.5 APR (1 base, 1 warrior levels, .5 spec, 1 'dual wield', 1 LSoA) 1d8+4+2+(6STR) 13-20 damage (16.5 avg) 16.5 x 4.5 APR = 74.25 damage per round (average of course) Long Sword of Action + Haste: 9 APR (1 base, 1 warrior levels, .5 spec, 1 'dual wield', 1 LSoA x 2) 1d8+4+2+(6STR) 13-20 damage (16.5 avg) 16.5 x 9 APR = 148.5 damage per round (average of course)
The base damage gain is predictably, the value of an average attack, or double an average attack if hasted. In the case of a fighter in base IWD, he would gain grand mastery for a +2 to hit and +3 damage per swing. But his extra APR is cancelled out by the ranger's dual wield bonus. Technically he could also use a shield for a large AC gain, or even some extra physical resistance in the case of certain shields.
Fighter: 16-23 damage per swing = 19.5 avg. 68.25 per round 136.5 hasted 87.75 with weapon 175.5 hasted with weapon
Those 3 extra damage per swing really add up from grand mastery. The problem is, that this was a balance problem from before the inclusion of dual wielding. The extra attack weapon in the offhand only grants an extra 1/2 attack, in either case. In the case of the fighter above, that only amounts to an extra 9.75 damage per round (or 19.5 if hasted).
As stated above though, the sword gives +1AC and some slashing resistance. But I'm pretty sure there's a large shield in game that also gives resistance. and it has a lot more than +1 AC.
This is a long winded post, but the TL:DR of it is that dual wielding isn't what broke the melee in the game. Look at those numbers above. Improved haste broke the melee game. No one wants to have them change improved haste do they? The why is dual wielding such a big issue?
The thing is, the act of dual wielding is already simulating dual wielding on rangers now. In current IWDEE a fighter dual wielding with grand mastery has 4.5 APR without using an extra attack weapon.
1 base 1 from warrior levels 1.5 from grand mastery 1 from having a weapon in offhand
In such an example as given by @bob_veng above, his fighter would still have 5 attacks per round with only one of the swords equipped. The second sword isn't boosting his APR anymore. The second sword is only boosting his AC and slashing resistance. Wielding one of those swords with a The Sundered Shield of Tiernon gives +2 more AC and 10% physical resistance (not counting sword and shield style bonuses).
first of all your dramatic introduction of math to this topic is strange because i already made a similar calculation previously. you would have done better to have referred to it as it's obviously relevant to the discussion.
now to the specifics - i wasn't level 13 but below (lvl 11) - the two swords can to be found in a seriously short space of time - one before the final part of HoW and the other *at the beginning* (not the end) of ToTL - i got them, non-deliberately in a span of a couple of rl minutes and i argue that this is not an improbable or muchkiny scenario - my sorcerer has improved haste, so what? it's a rational pick even for a total newcomer to the game. i, as a more experienced player didn't even think much about it or approach it with a minmaxing mentality. - i disagree about ac. stacking ac on at least one character really protects him against tougher enemies' hits. 1 ac doesn't go a long way on it's own but every little stackable effect magifies the whole. - the above is true especially for damage resistance. 15% slashing is great on it's own and even more valuable when stacked with other sources. - in the calculation you have not accounted for the additional apr fighter gets over ranger from grandmastery
i believe that my earlier calculation is the correct one for the scenario that i'm describing. it's in the ballpark of a 60 - 70 gross damage difference along with better thac0 which improves net damage.
in my scenario ranger when imp.hasted doesn't do 9 but 8 attacks per round because of lack of lvl 13 warrior level apr bonus and fighter does 10 attacks: 1 base + 1 offhand + 2 weapon bonus + 0.5 ninth level bonus + 0.5 spec bonus = 5 x2 = 10
My example was from the original IWD, where a ranger got an extra 1 APR for being a ranger and having nothing in his offhand to simulate dual wielding. The fighter's grand mastery giving him an extra APR over the ranger is cancelled out by the ranger gaining an extra APR over the fighter. It was to demonstrate that this was still possible in the original, where a ranger could achieve 5 APR with the same longsword while 'dual wielding'.
Your 9th level fighter gets 4 APR for dual wielding any two weapons in the game. He gets an extra APR for using one long sword of action with any other sword in the game. Having a second one in your off hand provides no APR bonus, as max APR is 5. The only thing having a second one of these swords gives over any other +4 longsword is the AC bonus and the slashing resistance. 1 AC and 15% slashing resist is not game breaking.
In BG2, the extra APR weapons were low enchantment, and were used specifically to buff the main hand weapon with an extra APR. This isn't the case in IWD because this particular weapon has one of the highest enchantments available, and is therefore suitable for use in the main hand.
In such an example as given by @bob_veng above, his fighter would still have 5 attacks per round with only one of the swords equipped. The second sword isn't boosting his APR anymore.
Well then if it makes no difference, can I count you as supporting the idea that the APR bonuses from such weapons should not stack? And as agreeing with the idea that preventing it from stacking indeed makes EE function more closely to how the original was, and is therefore consistent with the stated goals of the devs?
The main reason why I believe these bonuses should stack is for non warriors using them. A blade is stuck at 1 base APR, but dual wielding these swords gets him to 4 APR, which is what dual wielding grand master fighter would have.
Plus if they just set base APR to 2, there'd still be some cheese involved in using lower enchanted APR weapons in the offhand to buff a stronger main hand weapon.
i'm comparing an original ranger with the current fighter. that is the correct comparison to make - comparing former optimum with the present optimum.
pre-13th level ranger with a bonus apr weapon without other external modifiers made 4 apr (1 base +1 simulated offhand +1 weapon bonus +0.5 ninth level + 0.5 specialization)
and the current fighter makes 5 apr, has better thac0 while also having other defensive benefits
Your 9th level fighter gets 4 APR for dual wielding any two weapons in the game. He gets an extra APR for using one long sword of action with any other sword in the game. Having a second one in your off hand provides no APR bonus, as max APR is 5. The only thing having a second one of these swords gives over any other +4 longsword is the AC bonus and the slashing resistance. 1 AC and 15% slashing resist is not game breaking.
okay. i concede the point that it's not so much finding both swords that made my game too easy. dual wielding in general is more to blame.
subtledoctor's solution is the one i wholeheartedly agree with
also, in term of aesthetics the cutoff at 5 when you could easily have way more apr is really ugly. this ugliness didn't exist in the original because it was only in one instance possible to go over 5, and that's only 5.5 right?
Dual wielding changed the balance of the game, for sure. I'm not denying that.
What I'm getting at is that you specifically attacked these +APR weapons as if they were destroying the balance of the game, when they're hardly changing anything. There was a whole crowd of people in IWDGeneral all up in arms over dual wielding being implemented in IWD breaking the balance.
It's pretty much been summed up already:
There are dozens of ways to break the game already, what's one more? If you don't want dual wielding to break the balance of the original, don't dual wield. It's the same theory that a Kensai dualled to a Mage makes the game too easy, or that a ranger -> cleric in BG2 got all the spells.
i concede that +apr weapons in general and this particular sword don't produce drastic unbalancing effects there are some but they are moderate.
the real problem is dual wielding.
i want the game to work well, i don't think in terms of such provisional restrictions in order to moderate my game. the game should work on it's own without me constantly nagging it. new players not coming from the IE and the relatively-oldschool CRPG ethos don't understand that approach to the game and i want future players to appreciate it for it's virtues (and some quaint flaws) and for the EE projects not to compromise on any of those virtues and especially not to introduce new flaws (especially ones that not even quaint but ugly such as this because of the ultra visible 5 apr cutoff value).
also and i feel this is really important - dual wielding is simply fun. i don't want not to use it. it should stay fun and it should work well. too much to ask? i don't think so.
if they just set base APR to 2, there'd still be some cheese involved in using lower enchanted APR weapons in the offhand to buff a stronger main hand weapon.
Right, there would be the normal amount of cheese; just not any extra cheese. Again: isn't that basically the devs' stated goal?
But that's the thing, there isn't any extra cheese from multiple APR weapons equipped, except in the case of the blade I just mentioned, but that just makes them more melee capable, not overpowering. Or at very low level, but this is mostly a non-issue as well, as the +APR weapons earlier on are mostly crap, unsuitable for using towards the end game, and mostly random drops that you're not guaranteed to get in the first place.
Furthermore, to encounter an issue like listed above, the new player to the IE would have to pre-meditate which weapon proficiencies to take ahead of actually finding the weapons with +APR. If someone just happened to pick long swords because bastard swords has a bad word in it, fine, but the odds of a complete new person to this engine/game rolling their character just right to get 3 in dual wield and 5 in long swords is... Wait. You can't even get that many proficiency points until level 12. And that's assuming you don't put anything in a ranged weapon, or a secondary weapon. No one who's new to the IE is going to slap all of their proficiencies in one weapon. That's silly.
As for dual wielding in general breaking it, if you wanted to play the original IWD, it's on GOG. The new one adds kits and dual wielding. It can't add one without the other. Deal with it, I guess.
every first-timer picks longswords. they just seem like a staple weapon and a safe choice so it's likely to come up.
also a great majority of people are going to max out a single weapon type when it's just obvious that it's a smarter thing to do than dissipate your pips
2 pips in dual wield is enough, you get 7 pips soon enough
to conclude: i want iwd:ee with dual wielding that works well and suits the game. not too much to ask i think. i don't want to go back to the original anymore, played it enough.
Comments
If people think War Chant of the Sith is overpowered then they can't pick a Bard. They can't pick a group of multi class Fighters. From the beginning immersion is ruined because there is a chance that player can't pick the party they want to roleplay . So that's no different from breaking immersion and tossing away that Long Sword of Action
that's why the designers made easy rerolling an option in the first place. they knew that it won't adversely impact the players experience once the first chapter starts - they simply understand the players' psychology.
you can't relativise game design choices in such a way. the way you put it gaming aspects of the CRPG are unimportant because gaming is compromised from the beginning by giving you total control during character creation. if that was really the case this would be a really bad and unpopular game and it is not.
More options is better, DnD games have never been about holding your hands. If you don't like it, don't use it. Simple.
small adjustments can be made and i've opened a feature request thread.
So unless you provide data to backup your claims, you're making an unsupported assumption
your desire to demonstrate that you're right or that i'm wrong is something i can't object to but this is not the proper thread for it. if you look at the title and the opening post you will remind yourself that the topic is very narrow, basically a single item.
i feel that you should ask the mods to split the discussion if you want to keep going in this direction.
So yes you need to prove this assumption given that this isn't the only game breaker present and won't be the only time players need to suspend immersion if they really cared about avoiding game breakers.
the process went like this:
(...finished severed hand, going to how, game is fun)
"woot nice sword, me strong - time to have a look at those spectral guards, those guys are badass!"
(...going to totl)
"woot another nice sword, me super strong for my level - now i feel really secure about thwacking those spectral guards ... hey! looks i'm invulnerable to slashing damage, what a sunny day!
(...entering castle maluradek hall and getting attacked by circa 6 spectral guards - to my shock and chagrin they explode in a couple of seconds against my virtually unscathed frontline section, particularly the depraved dual godsword user)
"uhhm ... this turned out not to be really all that exciting. this certainly used to be tougher when i did totl with lvl 18 instead of lvl 11 characters...let's see how the luremaster holds up!"
(...luremaster and his spectral cohort melts on autocombat while half of my party sits waiting in the middle doing nothing)
"GAEM BROKN NERF NERF DIVEL0PR PLOX PHUN GUN"
Firstly, even if you go into HoW at level 9, the minimum allowable, the first long sword of action doesn't drop until you're more than halfway through. Certainly after the burial isle for sure, anyway. There's more than enough experience from monsters and quests to get from 9->13 on every class, probably even multiclassed fighters. So the extra 1/2 attack from warrior levels is probably a non-issue. Unless you were deliberately trying to rush through the game to get the sword, in which case you were probably power gaming, and your whole point is moot.
The other sword is near the end of TotLM, which you'd be even higher level to get, unless you like smashing your face against a brick wall, anyway. It's highly unlikely that a warrior would still be under level 13 by the time you get both swords. Kay?
Secondly, you're brandishing dual wielding these swords with improved haste as if it's the swords that are breaking the game. Newsflash: Improved Haste is a little unbalancing. The whole game isn't balanced around it, because it lasts barely three turns at MAX level, and just under two turns when you first get it. If your mage has only improved haste memorized, well, see power gaming above.
Third, the individual bonuses for dual wielding two of those swords isn't that great. +1 AC is basically useless, most enemies will hit you easily even if you have a -13 AC at that point in the game. The slashing resistance might be useful, but not everything in the game is using slashing weapons, and using other items you can already get close to 100% physical resistance anyway, so it's not that gamebreaking comparatively.
But let's compare a couple of things to see where everything stands... mathematically!
*thunder crashes*
Assuming 18/00 STR, because, why not?
Vanilla IWD Ranger:
Normal Weapon:
3.5 APR (1 base, 1 warrior levels, .5 spec, 1 'dual wield')
1d8+4+2+(6STR) 13-20 damage (16.5 avg)
16.5 x 3.5 APR = 57.75 damage per round (average of course)
Normal Weapon Improved Haste:
7 APR (1 base, 1 warrior levels, .5 spec, 1 'dual wield' x 2 imp haste)
1d8+4+2+(6STR) 13-20 damage (16.5 avg)
16.5 x 7 APR = 115.5 damage per round (average of course)
Long Sword of Action:
4.5 APR (1 base, 1 warrior levels, .5 spec, 1 'dual wield', 1 LSoA)
1d8+4+2+(6STR) 13-20 damage (16.5 avg)
16.5 x 4.5 APR = 74.25 damage per round (average of course)
Long Sword of Action + Haste:
9 APR (1 base, 1 warrior levels, .5 spec, 1 'dual wield', 1 LSoA x 2)
1d8+4+2+(6STR) 13-20 damage (16.5 avg)
16.5 x 9 APR = 148.5 damage per round (average of course)
The base damage gain is predictably, the value of an average attack, or double an average attack if hasted. In the case of a fighter in base IWD, he would gain grand mastery for a +2 to hit and +3 damage per swing. But his extra APR is cancelled out by the ranger's dual wield bonus. Technically he could also use a shield for a large AC gain, or even some extra physical resistance in the case of certain shields.
Fighter:
16-23 damage per swing = 19.5 avg.
68.25 per round
136.5 hasted
87.75 with weapon
175.5 hasted with weapon
Those 3 extra damage per swing really add up from grand mastery. The problem is, that this was a balance problem from before the inclusion of dual wielding. The extra attack weapon in the offhand only grants an extra 1/2 attack, in either case. In the case of the fighter above, that only amounts to an extra 9.75 damage per round (or 19.5 if hasted).
As stated above though, the sword gives +1AC and some slashing resistance. But I'm pretty sure there's a large shield in game that also gives resistance. and it has a lot more than +1 AC.
This is a long winded post, but the TL:DR of it is that dual wielding isn't what broke the melee in the game. Look at those numbers above. Improved haste broke the melee game. No one wants to have them change improved haste do they? The why is dual wielding such a big issue?
also we've already been here and we're going in circles.
@Ramza
i didn't grind so i only go to level 11 at the time of getting both swords and beating totl.
i will respond in more detail to your post later.
1 base
1 from warrior levels
1.5 from grand mastery
1 from having a weapon in offhand
In such an example as given by @bob_veng above, his fighter would still have 5 attacks per round with only one of the swords equipped. The second sword isn't boosting his APR anymore. The second sword is only boosting his AC and slashing resistance. Wielding one of those swords with a The Sundered Shield of Tiernon gives +2 more AC and 10% physical resistance (not counting sword and shield style bonuses).
okay here's the response (to your previous post):
first of all your dramatic introduction of math to this topic is strange because i already made a similar calculation previously. you would have done better to have referred to it as it's obviously relevant to the discussion.
now to the specifics
- i wasn't level 13 but below (lvl 11)
- the two swords can to be found in a seriously short space of time - one before the final part of HoW and the other *at the beginning* (not the end) of ToTL - i got them, non-deliberately in a span of a couple of rl minutes and i argue that this is not an improbable or muchkiny scenario
- my sorcerer has improved haste, so what? it's a rational pick even for a total newcomer to the game. i, as a more experienced player didn't even think much about it or approach it with a minmaxing mentality.
- i disagree about ac. stacking ac on at least one character really protects him against tougher enemies' hits. 1 ac doesn't go a long way on it's own but every little stackable effect magifies the whole.
- the above is true especially for damage resistance. 15% slashing is great on it's own and even more valuable when stacked with other sources.
- in the calculation you have not accounted for the additional apr fighter gets over ranger from grandmastery
i believe that my earlier calculation is the correct one for the scenario that i'm describing. it's in the ballpark of a 60 - 70 gross damage difference along with better thac0 which improves net damage.
in my scenario ranger when imp.hasted doesn't do 9 but 8 attacks per round because of lack of lvl 13 warrior level apr bonus
and fighter does 10 attacks:
1 base + 1 offhand + 2 weapon bonus + 0.5 ninth level bonus + 0.5 spec bonus = 5
x2 = 10
Your 9th level fighter gets 4 APR for dual wielding any two weapons in the game. He gets an extra APR for using one long sword of action with any other sword in the game. Having a second one in your off hand provides no APR bonus, as max APR is 5. The only thing having a second one of these swords gives over any other +4 longsword is the AC bonus and the slashing resistance. 1 AC and 15% slashing resist is not game breaking.
In BG2, the extra APR weapons were low enchantment, and were used specifically to buff the main hand weapon with an extra APR. This isn't the case in IWD because this particular weapon has one of the highest enchantments available, and is therefore suitable for use in the main hand.
Plus if they just set base APR to 2, there'd still be some cheese involved in using lower enchanted APR weapons in the offhand to buff a stronger main hand weapon.
pre-13th level ranger with a bonus apr weapon without other external modifiers made 4 apr (1 base +1 simulated offhand +1 weapon bonus +0.5 ninth level + 0.5 specialization)
and the current fighter makes 5 apr, has better thac0 while also having other defensive benefits okay. i concede the point that it's not so much finding both swords that made my game too easy. dual wielding in general is more to blame.
subtledoctor's solution is the one i wholeheartedly agree with
also, in term of aesthetics the cutoff at 5 when you could easily have way more apr is really ugly. this ugliness didn't exist in the original because it was only in one instance possible to go over 5, and that's only 5.5 right?
plox devs restore iwd's homeostatic cheesequilibrium.
What I'm getting at is that you specifically attacked these +APR weapons as if they were destroying the balance of the game, when they're hardly changing anything. There was a whole crowd of people in IWDGeneral all up in arms over dual wielding being implemented in IWD breaking the balance.
It's pretty much been summed up already:
There are dozens of ways to break the game already, what's one more? If you don't want dual wielding to break the balance of the original, don't dual wield. It's the same theory that a Kensai dualled to a Mage makes the game too easy, or that a ranger -> cleric in BG2 got all the spells.
there are some but they are moderate.
the real problem is dual wielding.
i want the game to work well, i don't think in terms of such provisional restrictions in order to moderate my game. the game should work on it's own without me constantly nagging it.
new players not coming from the IE and the relatively-oldschool CRPG ethos don't understand that approach to the game and i want future players to appreciate it for it's virtues (and some quaint flaws) and for the EE projects not to compromise on any of those virtues and especially not to introduce new flaws (especially ones that not even quaint but ugly such as this because of the ultra visible 5 apr cutoff value).
also and i feel this is really important - dual wielding is simply fun. i don't want not to use it. it should stay fun and it should work well. too much to ask? i don't think so.
Furthermore, to encounter an issue like listed above, the new player to the IE would have to pre-meditate which weapon proficiencies to take ahead of actually finding the weapons with +APR. If someone just happened to pick long swords because bastard swords has a bad word in it, fine, but the odds of a complete new person to this engine/game rolling their character just right to get 3 in dual wield and 5 in long swords is... Wait. You can't even get that many proficiency points until level 12. And that's assuming you don't put anything in a ranged weapon, or a secondary weapon. No one who's new to the IE is going to slap all of their proficiencies in one weapon. That's silly.
As for dual wielding in general breaking it, if you wanted to play the original IWD, it's on GOG. The new one adds kits and dual wielding. It can't add one without the other. Deal with it, I guess.
also a great majority of people are going to max out a single weapon type when it's just obvious that it's a smarter thing to do than dissipate your pips
2 pips in dual wield is enough, you get 7 pips soon enough
to conclude: i want iwd:ee with dual wielding that works well and suits the game. not too much to ask i think. i don't want to go back to the original anymore, played it enough.