Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit nwn.beamdog.com to make an order. NWN:EE FAQ is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE, PST:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

i found two longswords of action +4

124

Comments

  • RamzaRamza Member Posts: 111
    bob_veng said:

    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.

    How could they fix it so that it's still fun, but not game breaking? As is, it's probably only marginally better than two-handed weapon style thanks to the improved critical rate. If they lower the damage somehow, it'll be worse than two-handed style.

    If they increase the max APR past 5, that'll only compound the issue to making it even more game breaking.

    RAM021
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,204
    edited November 2014
    they could mostly fix in the way subtledoctor proposes - replace +1 apr with base apr of 2.
    that would reduce cheese from extra to reasonable levels resembling the original.

    two handed style is definitely not on par. there are no two handed +apr weapons, the ring of reckless action is random and the weapons themselves are lackluster.

    edit: i agree that they shouldn't increase it past 5

  • RamzaRamza Member Posts: 111
    The only situation in which changing +APR weapons to set your APR to 2 instead of adding 1 APR will result in an actual balance change is in the case of the blade as I mentioned earlier.

    As we already went over, no one other than someone who is not a warrior is getting a benefit out of multiple +1 APR weapons. Making it so that a +APR weapon sets your base APR to 2 only lowers the total APR given by dual wielding those weapons. As mentioned earlier, a fighter with grand mastery (even a level 9 one) already has 5 APR with only one of those weapons while dual wielding. The second does nothing.

    This change doesn't correct anything balance wise. Unless you're counting the blade.

    But the only real situation in which the blade with dual LSoA is going to out-perform a warrior is if he's cast tenser's transformation on himself and is using his offensive spin.

    Since no one's complaining about that being overpowered, I'm going to assume no one cares about it.

    RAM021
  • kensaikensai Member Posts: 216
    I agree that LSoA should'nt be changed, and should be kept as in original.

    RAM021
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,204
    @Ramza

    okay. i get it now that even this solution doesn't substantially reduce cheese.

    but there's one thing that it does and for me it's important - it reduces the visibility of the buggy-looking 5 apr cutoff

    that's good enough for me for it to be implemented.

    also, i believe now that grandmastery should definitely be reduced to +1 apr.
    if they ported dual wielding from bg they also should have ported this because it comes in a package.

  • RamzaRamza Member Posts: 111
    To be honest, I'm not sure why they changed grand mastery. In Vanilla BG1 grand mastery was listed as give +1 APR ( for 1.5 total) but the level cap prevented you from getting it in BG1. In BGEE they made a point of changing grand mastery to be in line with BG2, which only gave the 1/2 attack for grand mastery.

    If they left that in IWDEE to not ruin the experience, I guess that's fine though.

  • QueegonQueegon Member Posts: 355
    I found 5 rings of free action, and 4 rings giving 2AC, 25% crushing resist, and some saves bonuses.


    I don't mind. This is a pointless thread.

    RAM021kensai
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,204
    edited November 2014
    with bg2 grandmastery and subtledoctor's sword idea my level <13 fighter wielding two longswords of action +4 would have:

    2 base +1 offhand +0.5 levels +1 gm = 4.5 apr

    YES! IT'S LESS THAN 5! A NERF WAS BORN!

    edit: okay...

    i see how far reaching the changes must be to do anything about dual wielding apart from the mentioned cosmetical fix.

    this is something for a mod apparently.

    because the dev's are definitely not going to touch grandmastery and most probably not going to touch weapons. and i don't really blame them, i see the bigger picture now.

    @Queegon‌
    it's not pontless for me at least, i'm very pleased i started it.

    jackjack
  • RamzaRamza Member Posts: 111
    edited November 2014
    Why is it that to you the most game breaking thing about this is that dual wielding two +APR weapons doesn't put you over 5 APR? You admit yourself that going over 5 APR would be broken, but cite that this +APR 'nerf' fixes your issue with it by making it so that you can't go over 5 APR, which you can't anyway.

    If the fact that equipping a +APR weapon into your offhand doesn't raise your APR to 5.5 or 6 is so jarring, why are you doing it?

    edit:

    If you want less APR, dual-class your fighter before level 7.

    RAM021
  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 9,831
    edited November 2014
    Ramza said:

    Making it so that a +APR weapon sets your base APR to 2 only lowers the total APR given by dual wielding those weapons.

    Yes. That is the whole point of this thread.

    It would make those weapons be in line with how they were used, and how they were useful, in vanilla IWD. Without being totally upended by the engine additions in EE.

    I dunno, it seems like a perfect solution to me. The best argument against it so far, has been something like "well it wouldn't be *that* much better!"

  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,204
    edited November 2014
    @Ramza
    ah, you misunderstood me. i don't think that they should put me over 5 apr. i think the items and the mechanics should be tuned to mask this limitation which in itself is not bad.

    i thought earlier today that the tuning could be pretty subtle but now when i see that you have to change grandmastery too only to still get a value that puts you over 5 (maximum 6 with the ring) i understand that none of it is going to happen and that the the game will remain in it's current state.


    edit:
    Ramza said:

    If the fact that equipping a +APR weapon into your offhand doesn't raise your APR to 5.5 or 6 is so jarring, why are you doing it?

    edit:

    If you want less APR, dual-class your fighter before level 7.

    i want lots of apr (but over 5 natural and 10 hasted) and i want it to look good in the process.

    in my mind this has now turned from a balance thing to a cosmetic thing.

    edit2:
    what the mod could and should do

    - +1 apr melee weapons are changed to base 2 apr melee weapons
    - grandmastery gives 1 apr, not 1.5 apr
    - ring is gone from the game. bye bye ring.
    - base 2 apr and/or 1.5 apr two-handed weapons are introduced (made from existing weapons without changing anything else)

    this would be a comprehensive dual wielding prettification project and i'd be sufficiently pleased.

    (sory for lots of editing)

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 9,831
    edited November 2014
    I don't even think the ring is so bad, it could be good for non-warriors. Make it thief-only or something.

    But really I think fixing GM per PnP/BGEE and making the Action items not stack is all that's required here. I doubt there would be any complaints about that.

    Post edited by subtledoctor on
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,204
    edited November 2014
    yeah, making the ring thief-only would be fantastic. but the rest is more important, agreed.

    edit: there's atually the problem of nerfing two handed weapons with only the two changes you mention because it will be -0.5 apr from normalizing GM so some help in the two-handed department is needed.
    this especially goes if the ring is to be made thief-only.

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 9,831
    Well 2H weapons would only be nerfed to the extent they are in BG/BG2 which I think is fine. Seems like IWD may be a bit unbalanced, it is ripe for item packs or the IR treatment.

  • RAM021RAM021 Member Posts: 371

    The point a that dual-wielding has changed the results of those calculations, making the game easier. The devs have stated something to the effect that they want to update the game, not change it. So, simply preventing the Swords of Action's APR bonuses from stacking would be closer to the dev's intent.

    The original Devs are on record for saying that they wanted to include proper TWF, but that the (Infinity) Engine did not support it.
    bob_veng said:

    also, i believe now that grandmastery should definitely be reduced to +1 apr.
    if they ported dual wielding from bg they also should have ported this because it comes in a package.

    This should be your argument rather than wasting our time on nerfing Action weapons.

  • CoM_SolaufeinCoM_Solaufein Member Posts: 2,584
    What's the big deal? Don't want two just sell or drop the second one.

  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,204
    edited November 2014

    Well 2H weapons would only be nerfed to the extent they are in BG/BG2 which I think is fine. Seems like IWD may be a bit unbalanced, it is ripe for item packs or the IR treatment.

    agreed.

    @RAM021‌
    sad day for you. i'm not responsible for how you (who's we btw) spend your time.

    @Solaufein_CoM
    you're not contributing to the discussion, i've responded to identical advice in this thread already.

  • RAM021RAM021 Member Posts: 371
    bob_veng said:

    @RAM021‌
    sad day for you. i'm not responsible for how you (who's we btw) spend your time.

    Your waffleing throughout the thread has wasted your time too - not that we care about that.

    kensai
  • Manveru123Manveru123 Member Posts: 52
    Is this thread really still going? Wow.

    RAM021kensaijackjack
  • QueegonQueegon Member Posts: 355
    Ring of the Warrior Thief

    +1 STR
    +1 APR

    Where can I find it? I never did. :/

    Also is the Armor of Glory in the game, or was it omitted like before EE?

  • limaxlimax Member Posts: 14
    edited November 2014
    RIng of the Warrior Thief I think was removed from loot tables with Heart of Winter expansion. Would be pretty neat to have on a solo F/M/T if it wasn't though.

    I can confirm it's possible to find 2 Long Swords of Action +4 in non-enhanced IWD, I did a few months ago when I replayed it. First one from one of the mercenaries in Lonelywood and then another in the crypts in Trial of the Loremaster. It's a bit of a waste to dual-wield them though as APR caps at 5. You're better of with just one and then a +4 Defender morningstar or warhammer which still gets you 9/2 attacks (assuming specialization) but better AC and resistances.

    RAM021ReadingRambo
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,204
    i think that the apr cap of 5 should be documented somewhere. at least the manual.

  • simplessimples Member Posts: 539
    well this all seems like a huge waste of time

    elminsterRAM021jackjack
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,204
    it has been demonstrated in this thread that the game has become significantly easier in certain instances and that dual wielding was just grafted to the game without regard for the bigger picture. whether you care about that information or not is purely your private matter and has nothing to do with the topic.

  • QueegonQueegon Member Posts: 355
    This game has been significantly easier to its similar counterparts since its inception.

    Finished the game with cca 5mil XP on each of 6 heroes on Insane difficulty. The 100% xp bonus is what made it easier. Not some dual wielding.

    RAM021Mathsorcerer
  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 9,831
    edited November 2014
    RAM021 said:

    This should be your argument rather than wasting our time on nerfing Action weapons.

    No one's talking about nerfing anything, I proposed a change that would make the weapons work precisely as they did in the original game...
    simples said:

    well this all seems like a huge waste of time

    Is this thread really still going? Wow.

    I think trolling threads on baldursgate.com is a bigger waste of time... :P

    Erg
  • RAM021RAM021 Member Posts: 371

    RAM021 said:

    This should be your argument rather than wasting our time on nerfing Action weapons.

    No one's talking about nerfing anything, I proposed a change that would make the weapons work precisely as they did in the original game...
    We certainly see why you get along with billy bob...

    1 - the quote was clearly in response to someone else
    2 - nevertheless, your proposed change is by definition a nerf too
    3 - your proposed change does not accomplish what you claim it does

    As has been pointed out repeatedly, the issue is NOT Action Weapons - so your focus exclusively on them is misguided at best.

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 9,831
    edited November 2014
    RAM021 said:

    1 - the quote was clearly in response to someone else

    Really? My mistake then.
    RAM021 said:

    3 - your proposed change does not accomplish what you claim it does

    How not? I think it does.
    RAM021 said:

    As has been pointed out repeatedly, the issue is NOT Action Weapons - so your focus exclusively on them is misguided at best.

    Look at the thread title - the entire issue here is dual-wielding Action weapons. I suggested a pretty easy fix. What is misguided?

    Erg
  • RAM021RAM021 Member Posts: 371

    Look at the thread title - the entire issue here is dual-wielding Action weapons. I suggested a pretty easy fix. What is misguided?

    The thread title reads like a loot brag, and clearly does not by itself convey ANYTHING to do with the perceived (non)issue of TWFing Action Wpns.

    TWFing WoA as they are is of marginal benefit for Warriors as they encounter the APR cap. This is achieved even with a single WoA. Nerfing WoA to merely be 2APR will NOT change this. What a WoA nerf would accomplish is to hurt NON-Warrior melees. The melee damage differential on a non-Warrior between 3 APR & 4 APR is inconsequential in comparison to a full Warrior melee and thus does not warrant a nerf.

    Even if we agreed with the ludicrous view that melees needed a nerf, a nerf that only affects the worst melees while not affecting the best is as pointless as this thread.

    As has been stated repeatedly, your (non)solution does not impact the actual issue you are rallying against. That you cannot see this after four (4) pages pointing it out to you is hardly our concern. Whether your actual issue is really a concern or not remains to be see, but we are skeptical at best. What we can say is that a nerf to a base 2APR would be utterly ineffective.

  • B4nJ0B4nJ0 Member Posts: 92
    Personally, I'm waiting for the mod that gived you the chance to CHOICE what random drop you can get from random chests (via token, or swapping it at a merchant) so you can choice how much min/max you wanna go.

    RAM021
Sign In or Register to comment.