Quarterstaffs are too good and should have their damage reduced to 1D4. Also, their staff spear version are better than regular spears which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and their damage should be reduced to 1D6.
1d6 is already quite pathetic when compared to the 1d12 you get with a two-handed sword or halberd. Quarterstaffs are good because of the variety of magic ones and because bludgeoning damage is the best approach against basically everything, not because of their base damage.
1d6 is already quite pathetic when compared to the 1d12 you get with a two-handed sword or halberd. Quarterstaffs are good because of the variety of magic ones and because bludgeoning damage is the best approach against basically everything, not because of their base damage.
1) You can't backstab with two-handed swords or halberds 2) Everyone and their mothers can use staves 3) Staves are actually the most damaging weapons in the game (Staff Mace+2, Staff of Striking and Staff of the Ram+6) 4) cool af
1d6 is already quite pathetic when compared to the 1d12 you get with a two-handed sword or halberd. Quarterstaffs are good because of the variety of magic ones and because bludgeoning damage is the best approach against basically everything, not because of their base damage.
1D6 is not pathetic considering you are literally trying to smash through someones steel plate with a broom stick. If you stab someone in the throat with a knife you do 1-4 dmg, but if you smash them with a stick it does 1-6.
And looking at the staff spear it has 1D8+1 as base damage! There are no non-magical ones though, but the +2 version is 1-8+3. That's almost on par with the katana.
I also think it's funny that you respond to my comment where I state qstaffs are too good, by stating exactly why they are too good! "Quarterstaffs are good because of the variety of magic ones and because bludgeoning damage is the best approach against basically everything" No offense, I don't mean this as confrontational, but you just proved my point.
Edit: Btw, twohanded weapons are 1D10 not 1D12. To my knowledge only Carsomyr has the higher base damage of 1D12, but to be frank I haven't memorized every single item.
@Skatan Weapons that do bludgeoning damage are actually the best weapons against armour as the armour itself does the damage as it hits the person inside. The heavier the armour, the more effective the blow. Other weapons have to pierce the armour and that is much harder to do, particularly with good quality armour, not so hard with leather though.
@Skatan Weapons that do bludgeoning damage are actually the best weapons against armour as the armour itself does the damage as it hits the person inside. The heavier the armour, the more effective the blow. Other weapons have to pierce the armour and that is much harder to do, particularly with good quality armour, not so hard with leather though.
Both yes and no @Wise_Grimwald; Yes crushing weapons are indeed intended to crush what's underneath the armor rather than the armor itself, but if you look at the mace vs a qstaff you will notice the mace is specifically designed to just that but the qstaff isn't. A mace's added weight in the head, which was also sometimes flanged, adds mass which adds punching power to the smaller area of effect whereas a qstaffs straight form and little mass would disperse it's kinetic force to much to do much, if any, damage to what's underneath a platemail (which is probably also a gambeson). So when a qstaff does similar damage to warhammers or maces I still think that is wrong.
If the qstaff is magical I can suspend my disbelief enough to imagine it can strike with more force to do damage though, but the base dmg should still be lower than any other crush weapon, even clubs.
Well, @Skatan, my point was that they're good for reasons that a small reduction in damage won't fix. Staff spear isn't nearly as good because it's piercing damage, the worst type in the game. Staff mace is quite good, but only +2, which means it can't hit everything. Maybe these two need more nerfing, but eh. The point is that bludgeoning the master form of damage, since it always seems to get a bonus against armored enemies (Drow Full Plate gets an extra +3 against slashing and piercing, IIRC), and it does full damage to things like skeletons.
As for the dagger comparison, you're not hitting in the throat with a knife, not unless you're backstabbing or get a crit or something. If you backstab with a staff, I dunno, maybe you're hitting them in the kidneys or something. Anyways, the mace does more damage than a staff, the latter doing as much on average as a warhammer.
I'm curious about something - these discussions of damage possibilities with various weapons always seem to assume that the attacker is aiming at the opponent's torso, limbs, or throat.
No one ever seems to think about the blow to the head. That attack seems to me to be not that difficult, at least for anyone with a height advantage.
Maybe staves are good for "backstabbing" because, if you've successfully sneaked up on your opponent, you can hit him or her over the head. Even a good helmet isn't going to stop unconsciousness, concussion, or death from a blunt trauma of sufficient force to the head.
Of course, by that logic, clubs and maces ought to be just as good for "backstabbing", It really ought to be called "sneak attack", as in third edition, not "backstabbing".
Think of how often in "spy vs. spy" settings, or procedural crime dramas, attacks are executed via blow to the head with blackjacks or pistol butts. It's a highly effective attack in any realistic setting. The only problem with the trope in the mentioned settings, is that blows to the head are far more lethal in real life than depicted in fiction. I find myself thinking all the time in movies and TV, "That was shown as just temporarily knocking them out when it should've killed them."
"Go for the eyes, Boo, go for the eyes!" Except I'd paraphrase it to, "Go for the head, Boo, go for the head!"
As for the shortie races, attacks to hamstrings, calves, kneecaps, Achilles' tendons, feet, and toes, are also highly effective. If you crush your bigger opponent's feet or knees, he won't be standing over you much longer.
@Cloutier , I'm about to start a new paladin in original BG, for that very reason. I was trying both an inquisitor and a cavalier in EE, and I started thinking, "You know, this game wasn't designed for this."
I'm actually learning staff fighting styles in real life. Most of them start with "go for the legs." Imagine falling prone (or worse, falling supine) while wearing full plate.
Weapon styles break BG1 almost as much as kits do.
Both CAN break the game if that is ALL you do, but I think that most players will also install difficulty increasing mods or just play at a harder difficulty setting.
Weapon styles break BG1 almost as much as kits do.
Both CAN break the game if that is ALL you do, but I think that most players will also install difficulty increasing mods or just play at a harder difficulty setting.
That's kind of a contradiction don't you think? If they break the game unless you mod it or play LoB then they break the game period.
Everything about the BG2 engine makes BG1 easier. The kits, the weapon styles, the pause on inventory, the half-orcs, the "Rest until healed" option for inns... It's not necessarily a bad thing, as BG1 was very unforgiving but it's a truth certain people refuse to recognize for some reason.
@Kurona But some modders assume that players have SCS, installed, and mod accordingly. People who use mods can then make informed choices as to which mods to install. Every time I find that the game is too easy for me, I up the difficulty in one way or another. That is why I have only finished ToB once!
@Vallmyr There is a scene in the Drizzt comics (and presumably in the novels they are based on) were Drizzt has to join in this ritual that is meant to officially turn him into a grown up man and it's literally just an orgy. It ends with his sister giving him an earful while she is effectively naked (she wears a type of silk robe or something, but it's completely open in the front).
Yep, that's canon. In 'Homeland', by R.A. Salvatore. Chronologically, the first Drizzt book, but not the first one published. I don't remember the details of her state of (un)dress, but I remember the orgy, him leaving it confused and unsettled, one of his sisters following him and talking to him about it. I think that included an introduction to a drider and a tongue lashing that he'd better shape up and behave more drow'ish or get turned into one of them.
To be honest, I think that kits designed for the base classes (fighter, mage , thief ) are pretty balanced. I mean, a kitless fighter has advantages that a berserker, kensai and wizard slayer don't, a kitless thief is more versatile than its kits and and a generalist mage , by the rules, can memorize more spells and more easily.
Cleric kits are powerful but they were indeed designed for BG2, as in pnp their special abilities are more modest at lower levels. So are druid kits.
I think that the problem lies with paladins and rangers, as they have way more advantages than disavantages.
Cavaliers , Undead Hunters and Inquisitors have immunities that regular paladins don't, and the penalties are too modest to match those. The only advantage of the original ranger class is being able to wear metal armor, but if you do then you lose stealth ability and all you've left is racial enemy.
On the other hand, paladins are more powerful because they are deeply attached to their code of honor, and that doesn't translate well in a game like BG unless you change several dialogue and gaming options.
@DJKajuru IMO there should be greater rewards for being honourable which could be lost for being dishonourable. For instance you could have additional clerical type powers for having a high reputation, but you could lose some of them for attacking, never mind killing a non-hostile character even if that character is evil. That is just one example of the kind of thing that I mean.
More rewards for being honorable? I feel the complete opposite, the game already rewards you a lot for doing good, and most quests don't have an evil solution.
Staff spear isn't nearly as good because it's piercing damage, the worst type in the game.
True, over the course of the saga piercing is the least effective damage type, but who said this was about which damage type it had? I know I didn't. I said it's ridiculous that a make-shift staff-spear has higher base damage than a weapon purely designed to be a spear, which ofc are actual spears.
Staff mace is quite good, but only +2, which means it can't hit everything. Maybe these two need more nerfing, but eh.
Staff maces are cheap, easy to get, can be single and/or dual-wielded, do 2D4 base damage, always come with +2 and pretty much ANY class can weild them. I'd say they are more than just quite good. They are magical though and my point was not about them at all, but normal qstaffs and the staff spear. But now that you've brought them up, I'd say they should ofc have 1D6 as base damage since it's again very odd that a weapon that's made of wood, hits like a smaller, lesser club-like weapon does more base damage than a weapon designed purely for exactly that; the club.
The point is that bludgeoning the master form of damage, since it always seems to get a bonus against armored enemies (Drow Full Plate gets an extra +3 against slashing and piercing, IIRC), and it does full damage to things like skeletons.
Indeed, your point seem to be about that. Mine wasn't, so it really feels like you are arguing against someone else since nothing I said was about THAC0 vs different armor types or damage vs enemy resistances. My point has always been that a club, which is designed to do blunt force trauma, should do more damage than a qstaff which is more of a utility weapon for tripping, blocking/parrying etc. I'm not sure what you're point is at all, to be frank.
As for the dagger comparison, you're not hitting in the throat with a knife, not unless you're backstabbing or get a crit or something. If you backstab with a staff, I dunno, maybe you're hitting them in the kidneys or something. Anyways, the mace does more damage than a staff, the latter doing as much on average as a warhammer.
Eeh.. why not? If I have a knife and my opponent has platemail, where do you I think I point my dagger? Straight into the metal that will hardly get a dent or into the lesser protected joints, the throat, armpits, eyes etc? Hehe.. I would like to see you plunge a dagger through someones armor, mate.
And again, when comparing to the warhammer you just reinforce my point: the qstaff does equal amount of damage as the warhammer; base vs base. This is my point. It's ridiculous. [/spoiler]
So I guess it's an unpopular opinion that kits that aren't named Berserker don't actually break BG1. I mean, True Sight is cute on Inquisitors and Priests of Helm, but so few things in unmodded BG1 rely on invisibility to kill you anyways. Archers get +2 damage and +2 THAC0 vs a Fighter equally specialized in bows. Charm protection is... nice, I guess, but Greenstone Amulet gets you this anyways. Kensai are barely better off than the Fighters after the Gauntlets of Expertise are taken into effect, a 1 THAC0 difference before Kai.
The next closest thing to breaking stuff is the Avenger, but the true silliness doesn't even come online until level 7 with the Web + Sword Spider combo, and BG1's like 3/4 done by then anyways.
True Sight is nice in BG1 not for invisibility, but mirror images. They didn't have stoneskin in the original game, so mirror image is the go-to defense for the game's mages, plus greater doppelgangers. Likewise, I singled out Cavaliers and Blackguards because of their fear immunity, nice when Horror's another common mage trick in the game. God, we talk about how unforgiving the original BG1 was, but can you imagine if Sleep was their go-to? Eek.
@Kurona But some modders assume that players have SCS, installed, and mod accordingly. People who use mods can then make informed choices as to which mods to install. Every time I find that the game is too easy for me, I up the difficulty in one way or another. That is why I have only finished ToB once!
But this has nothing to do with what I am saying...
Meh, w/e
Here's another one to keep @semiticgod happy and that's fueled by current forum events: cheating isn't bad.
Comments
2) Everyone and their mothers can use staves
3) Staves are actually the most damaging weapons in the game (Staff Mace+2, Staff of Striking and Staff of the Ram+6)
4) cool af
And looking at the staff spear it has 1D8+1 as base damage! There are no non-magical ones though, but the +2 version is 1-8+3. That's almost on par with the katana.
I also think it's funny that you respond to my comment where I state qstaffs are too good, by stating exactly why they are too good! "Quarterstaffs are good because of the variety of magic ones and because bludgeoning damage is the best approach against basically everything"
Edit: Btw, twohanded weapons are 1D10 not 1D12. To my knowledge only Carsomyr has the higher base damage of 1D12, but to be frank I haven't memorized every single item.
If the qstaff is magical I can suspend my disbelief enough to imagine it can strike with more force to do damage though, but the base dmg should still be lower than any other crush weapon, even clubs.
As for the dagger comparison, you're not hitting in the throat with a knife, not unless you're backstabbing or get a crit or something. If you backstab with a staff, I dunno, maybe you're hitting them in the kidneys or something. Anyways, the mace does more damage than a staff, the latter doing as much on average as a warhammer.
No one ever seems to think about the blow to the head. That attack seems to me to be not that difficult, at least for anyone with a height advantage.
Maybe staves are good for "backstabbing" because, if you've successfully sneaked up on your opponent, you can hit him or her over the head. Even a good helmet isn't going to stop unconsciousness, concussion, or death from a blunt trauma of sufficient force to the head.
Of course, by that logic, clubs and maces ought to be just as good for "backstabbing", It really ought to be called "sneak attack", as in third edition, not "backstabbing".
Think of how often in "spy vs. spy" settings, or procedural crime dramas, attacks are executed via blow to the head with blackjacks or pistol butts. It's a highly effective attack in any realistic setting. The only problem with the trope in the mentioned settings, is that blows to the head are far more lethal in real life than depicted in fiction. I find myself thinking all the time in movies and TV, "That was shown as just temporarily knocking them out when it should've killed them."
"Go for the eyes, Boo, go for the eyes!" Except I'd paraphrase it to, "Go for the head, Boo, go for the head!"
As for the shortie races, attacks to hamstrings, calves, kneecaps, Achilles' tendons, feet, and toes, are also highly effective. If you crush your bigger opponent's feet or knees, he won't be standing over you much longer.
Everything about the BG2 engine makes BG1 easier. The kits, the weapon styles, the pause on inventory, the half-orcs, the "Rest until healed" option for inns... It's not necessarily a bad thing, as BG1 was very unforgiving but it's a truth certain people refuse to recognize for some reason.
Every time I find that the game is too easy for me, I up the difficulty in one way or another.
That is why I have only finished ToB once!
Cleric kits are powerful but they were indeed designed for BG2, as in pnp their special abilities are more modest at lower levels. So are druid kits.
I think that the problem lies with paladins and rangers, as they have way more advantages than disavantages.
Cavaliers , Undead Hunters and Inquisitors have immunities that regular paladins don't, and the penalties are too modest to match those. The only advantage of the original ranger class is being able to wear metal armor, but if you do then you lose stealth ability and all you've left is racial enemy.
On the other hand, paladins are more powerful because they are deeply attached to their code of honor, and that doesn't translate well in a game like BG unless you change several dialogue and gaming options.
That is just one example of the kind of thing that I mean.
[spoiler] Who said a small damage reduction would fix them being too good? I know I didn't. True, over the course of the saga piercing is the least effective damage type, but who said this was about which damage type it had? I know I didn't. I said it's ridiculous that a make-shift staff-spear has higher base damage than a weapon purely designed to be a spear, which ofc are actual spears.
Staff maces are cheap, easy to get, can be single and/or dual-wielded, do 2D4 base damage, always come with +2 and pretty much ANY class can weild them. I'd say they are more than just quite good. They are magical though and my point was not about them at all, but normal qstaffs and the staff spear. But now that you've brought them up, I'd say they should ofc have 1D6 as base damage since it's again very odd that a weapon that's made of wood, hits like a smaller, lesser club-like weapon does more base damage than a weapon designed purely for exactly that; the club.
Indeed, your point seem to be about that. Mine wasn't, so it really feels like you are arguing against someone else since nothing I said was about THAC0 vs different armor types or damage vs enemy resistances. My point has always been that a club, which is designed to do blunt force trauma, should do more damage than a qstaff which is more of a utility weapon for tripping, blocking/parrying etc. I'm not sure what you're point is at all, to be frank. Eeh.. why not? If I have a knife and my opponent has platemail, where do you I think I point my dagger? Straight into the metal that will hardly get a dent or into the lesser protected joints, the throat, armpits, eyes etc? Hehe.. I would like to see you plunge a dagger through someones armor, mate.
And again, when comparing to the warhammer you just reinforce my point: the qstaff does equal amount of damage as the warhammer; base vs base. This is my point. It's ridiculous. [/spoiler]
The next closest thing to breaking stuff is the Avenger, but the true silliness doesn't even come online until level 7 with the Web + Sword Spider combo, and BG1's like 3/4 done by then anyways.
Meh, w/e
Here's another one to keep @semiticgod happy and that's fueled by current forum events: cheating isn't bad.