The modern truncheon or baton is not meant to be a deadly weapon, it's specifically designed to be non-lethal. Classic clubs have heavy heads and taper to the handle. The archetype is more the shillelagh than the police baton. Also think of Aztec or Polynesian war clubs that are shaped more like cricket bats, they still put most of the weight out towards the tip. That's simply the most efficient way to crush skulls and break bones, which is something you don't want to do with a baton.
The mace was designed to be a more durable club, cheap and easy to make, and usable by any thug you recruit into your service. They're the Saturday night specials of the medieval world. They're not really that much heavier than a shillelagh, the handles are hollow while the clubs are solid wood.
The quarterstaff, on the other hand, is a two handed weapon, six to NINE feet long (really) that's primary attack is the thrust, not the strike. Some of the old fighting schools forego strikes completely, since it takes too long to get the staff back on center and leaves you open to a thrust.
Stepping back for a second, I don't see why the concept of proficiencies must be tied to a single arm motion or even a single overall skill. We could just say "proficiency with light bludgeons" and it could cover skill fighting with a club, as well as a separate skill fighting with a staff.
Quarterstaves are not light, nor are they bludgeons.
The collection of motions that make up the standard attacks and parries when using a particular weapon is the proficiency. I know you're looking more at game balance than realism, but if you go too far, you start impacting suspension of disbelief. If you have a thug from Waterdeep who knows all there is to know about bashing peoples' heads in with a club, and you tell me that experience means he can fight effectively with a quarterstaff, I'm not going to believe you. If you tell me that same experience means he can use a mace, I'm going to buy it.
@subtledoctor - bows = long bows + short bows - slings = slings
I think that slings are used same as the bow: first hand is holding a weapon and second is loading ammo. How about merged long bows + short bows + slings?
I think you need to decide, @subtledoctor, whether to forgo balance and focus on "realism" or the other way around. A qstaff is prolly more similar to your polearm category than a club, and I agree to pretty much everything @billyyank says, especially this: " The collection of motions that make up the standard attacks and parries when using a particular weapon is the proficiency. "
Really, the way you use a weapon to score a hit, measured in THAC0, is what defines your proficiency with said weapon. And using a club and a qstaff use completely different motions to strike, thus having proficiency in one is not equal to the other. But using a mace and a club are very similar in battle. It's essentially the same weapon, one in wood and one with metal. The morninstar is essentially the same as well, just some spikes on top. Even warhammers are very similar, though since some warhammer also has a spike/hook on the opposite side of the blunt head, they may offer other tactical/movement choices in battle thus being profiecent with a mace doesn't necesseraly equal prof. in warhammers.
So, I will very soon back out of this discussions since it's your mod and you seem set on what you want to do with it. I fully respect that and the work you pour into this, so I will not continue to argue just for sake of arguing but with that said, I would forgo the idea of having exactly 2 weapons in each category and instead focus on what seem realistic. You will still have different prereq's for different weapons, meaning if you ie lump in qstaffs with polearms, it doesn't mean a mage can suddenly weild a halberd.
One final comment, "light sword" could maybe be called "thrusting sword" or "straight edge sword". A long sword can hardly be called light since it's both longer and heavier than a bastard sword. Unless a longsword is interpreted as an arming sword, then it's prolly lighter.
Well, considering this is all an outgrowth of a mod called "Scales of Balance," you can probably guess realism is not going to win here. This mod is not going to combine staffs and halberds anytime soon.
I hear you and I'm stepping out of this discussion.
A long sword can hardly be called light since it's both longer and heavier than a bastard sword.
... is it April fool's or something?
I'm just going by the 2E weapon descriptions. Long Sword = ~36" long, thin and straight. The PnP game has a separate "broadsword" category that is heavier and single-edged but otherwise has similar size and damage. Bastard swords are ~42" long and heavier, and have a larger hilt, and are designed to be used with 2 hands. They're only slightly smaller than a claymore. (That's why I laugh when I see people talking about dual-wielding bastard swords.)
No man it's not April's, it's called historical accuracy, hehe... or perhaps the lack thereof in the games.
True, in DnD longswords are smaller than bastard swords, but in reality they were longer. I've had this discussion in other threads ("little things that annoy you", among others), but a proper long sword is what BG is calling twohanded swords. The long sword in BG should really be called an "arming sword" and not a long sword. A proper long sword was used with two hands and was both taller and heavier than the bastard sword which was, slightly shorter and could be used be one or two hands. But anyways, this is a game and their interpretation is weird and incorrect alot of times (like the katana doing a D10 in damage, ridiculous!).
I won't spam your thread with videos/links, but if you're at all interrested I can PM you links to videos/sites which explain the real world swords and how they were used.
@Skatan that's all fair enough, I don't doubt you for a second. But the game is what it is. A mod that makes weapons more accurate in description/use/characteristics would be very interesting... but this is not that mod.
I suppose I could go in that direction - the Item & Weapon Overhaul component would be a natural place for it. But I would need a conprehensive plan beforehand - what weapons need changing, and how? E.g. renaming all longswords to "arming swords" is definitely possible... and from a 10-minute review on the web, it seems that arming swords might actually have more in common with the short sword/drusus/spatha in form and use, than with longer and later swords like hand-and-a-half swords. Which actually supports my idea of combining arming swords and short swords into a single 'light swords' proficiency. '
Spatha yes, gladius probably not as much. But I think I should stop giving you new ideas and let you finish on the ones you are currently working on instead
If you have suggestions I'm all ears, as always. ("Arming swords?" Sure. Reduce katana damage? Sure. Etc.). But the final review of any changes will be geared toward game balance, so be prepared to be slightly annoyed by the end product.
I don't think so. The reason I reply so much to your topics is because I think what you are doing is really impressive. If I install your mod I know what I get and ofc won't be annoyed. If I had the time, energy and knowledge I would tailor a mod suiting my own preferences, but I don't I'm lazy, busy and don't know jack sh*t about modding, hehe..
E.g. from a realism perspective, I don't think the wounds caused by these weapons are so different. A solid slash with a drusus can disembowel you just as thoroughly as one from a claymore. Also, STR differences for using 2 hands with a weapon are not implemented. So game balance question: how to represent that? Maybe: - dagger = 1d5 damage - short sword = 2d3 - arming sword = 2d3+1 - bastard sword = 3d3 - 2-hand sword = 3d4
I think I've mentioned that in other posts, I think there's alot one can do by tweaking the dmg rolls, just as you suggest here. I think for example that one thing that would make 2-handed swords better would be to up their minimum damage instead of their maximum. They are clumsy and heayy, but if you actually manage to score a hit with it, it should hurt. Alot.
Maybe (here's an immensely controversial suggestion) add an equipping effect for weapons that changes your STR score. A bonus for 2-handed weapons first occurred to me... but that would make things a bit crazy and unbalanced, especially given the game's mishandling of the "exceptional strength" rule.
So how about just do the opposite: apply a -1 STR penalty to all 1-handed weapons? The idea is, Minsc with his 18/93 would do great on the carnival contest where you see how hard you can swing the hammer... but if you try it one-handed, you're handicapping yourself a bit.
That would also have the beneficial side-effect of making 2-handed weapons a bit more competitive vs. dual-wielding.
Yeah, this IS a controversial suggestion. I like how you think, way, way "outside the box" I don't dislike the idea in general, however, I think, though, that it might make more sense to reduce the dmg per weapon instead of applying a fixed strenght penalty. Reducing strenght will also reduce THAC0 bonuses, so not sure that is what you want?
Hey @subtledoctor, this mod looks superinteresting. I understand this mod is to be installed before SCS and aTweaks. Does this apply to all components? I'm particularly interested in trying the revised stat bonuses component. Would I have to uninstall SCS and aTweaks if I were to install that component only?
Great! I'm going to play only with revised bards and stats revision for now, basically because of a multiplayer game that I want to keep playing without forcing my partner to do a near complete reinstall. I'm very tempted to try out other components though. Thanks a lot for your work.
... i have another suggestion (for an optional component) that entails more extensive changes to the items:
merchants offer several magical weapons that are unique, have nice icons and descriptions, and are extremely expensive but don't have any special properties, or at least no useful special properties.
maybe... you could keep them similarly pricey but give them more useful special properties of certain better random loot weapons. weapon type wouldn't have to match completely.
and then replace this random loot (whose properties you copied to purchasable weapons) with more generic random loot that doesn't have special properties (so you might find a generic longsword +3, flail +3 etc, but not the fire flail).
this will singlehandedly solve: - the big ugly discrepancy in iwd's item design: generic weapons have unique icons and fluff and those awesome, uniquely-working weapons have relatively generic sounding names, lame generic icons so that you can't tell them apart and generally no descriptions. - the lame merchant ware problem: now you will want to spend money on those weapons; normally, no one ever buys weapons from merchants
it will also keep loot equally random (instead of de-randomizing like you did). just the finds will be less crucial. it also won't affect game balance. instead of finding the most awesome stuff, you will have to buy it, and there simply isn't enough money for all of it (likewise, you weren't able to obtain all of the best random loot without savescumming).
this could also cover some non-random uber-weapons that lack special icons and fluff, such as longsword of action +4
i'll try to make a complete list, but for clerics there might be a shortcut: there are already divine spells rings - i think two locations for rings of holiness which give +1 lvl1-4 slots
they're both random, so just maybe add more of them. maybe make one a certified find and have two random ones
as for the weapons - i think some late-game dudes actually use (and drop...) sanctified mornin gstars +3. i'd give them a plain +3 morning star. the remaining "of holiness" and sanctified weapons i would remove from the game without even bothering to replace them since they're all random anyway (and there's a clutter of weapons already).
The most fun weapons are the ones with on-hit effects, not the ones with passive on-self effects. Those effects are more attention-grabbing and flashy, and easier to appreciate than passive effects of any sort.
The description of component "500: Multiclass Kits" says:
this component introduces nine more multiclass kits to the game. These are not available at character generation, rather you must use a totem or item to adopt the kit.
Can I find these totems somewhere in IWD:EE? Or can I CLUAConsole them in?
Also, how does that work with level 1 abilities? For example, the "Elven Bladesinger" kit description says: "Bladesingers begin at level 1 with proficiency in Single-Weapon Style." Do I need to make sure that she already has this proficiency when I create the character as a plain Fighter/Mage?
Another thing: Is component "210: Revised XP Tables" compatible with BG2 Tweaks' XP cap remover? And if so, in what order do they need to be installed?
(Be aware, this component drastically slows down your advancement in the late game, making it about twice as slow above level 24 or so.
That's ok. I just hate it when my Bard reaches max level way before the end of the game, and doesn't have anything new to look forward to in terms of character advancement.
(Which happens not just in BG2+ToB games, but also in IWD+HOW games when you play at Insane difficulty with double XP, or with a smaller party.)
1) I've installed component "270: Revised Bard Kits", but chargen shows the original kit description for the Skald, rather than the one from the mod's readme:
Will it work anyway?
Will it work anyway?
2) Why can't my Cleric (Earthwalker of Grumbar) put points in dual-wielding? And why can he put points in Halberds? Did component "120: Weapon Proficiency Overhaul" do this? I can't find it in its description.
Did you install component 120? If so, nobody should be able to put points in halberds, they are now rolled into the spears proficiency
Yes, that's the one I mean. I believe it was called "Spears/Halberds" in the proficiency list on the left-hand-side of the chargen screen, but "Polearms" in the description to the right. Just wanted to make sure that clerics wielding halberds is intended...
It's a little sad that my cleric won't be able to dual-wield maces, but I'll get over it.
Comments
The mace was designed to be a more durable club, cheap and easy to make, and usable by any thug you recruit into your service. They're the Saturday night specials of the medieval world. They're not really that much heavier than a shillelagh, the handles are hollow while the clubs are solid wood.
The quarterstaff, on the other hand, is a two handed weapon, six to NINE feet long (really) that's primary attack is the thrust, not the strike. Some of the old fighting schools forego strikes completely, since it takes too long to get the staff back on center and leaves you open to a thrust. Quarterstaves are not light, nor are they bludgeons.
The collection of motions that make up the standard attacks and parries when using a particular weapon is the proficiency. I know you're looking more at game balance than realism, but if you go too far, you start impacting suspension of disbelief. If you have a thug from Waterdeep who knows all there is to know about bashing peoples' heads in with a club, and you tell me that experience means he can fight effectively with a quarterstaff, I'm not going to believe you. If you tell me that same experience means he can use a mace, I'm going to buy it.
The collection of motions that make up the standard attacks and parries when using a particular weapon is the proficiency. "
Really, the way you use a weapon to score a hit, measured in THAC0, is what defines your proficiency with said weapon. And using a club and a qstaff use completely different motions to strike, thus having proficiency in one is not equal to the other. But using a mace and a club are very similar in battle. It's essentially the same weapon, one in wood and one with metal. The morninstar is essentially the same as well, just some spikes on top. Even warhammers are very similar, though since some warhammer also has a spike/hook on the opposite side of the blunt head, they may offer other tactical/movement choices in battle thus being profiecent with a mace doesn't necesseraly equal prof. in warhammers.
So, I will very soon back out of this discussions since it's your mod and you seem set on what you want to do with it. I fully respect that and the work you pour into this, so I will not continue to argue just for sake of arguing
So, to summarize, I would go with:
polearms: staff, spear, halberd
Blunt: club, mace, morninstar
One final comment, "light sword" could maybe be called "thrusting sword" or "straight edge sword". A long sword can hardly be called light since it's both longer and heavier than a bastard sword. Unless a longsword is interpreted as an arming sword, then it's prolly lighter.
Cheers,
//skat.
@subtledoctor, does the following mod combination & install order look alright?
[spoiler] [/spoiler]
Also, can you give me the Faiths & Powers beta?
And do I need a modified version of Full Plate and Packing Steel?
True, in DnD longswords are smaller than bastard swords, but in reality they were longer. I've had this discussion in other threads ("little things that annoy you", among others), but a proper long sword is what BG is calling twohanded swords. The long sword in BG should really be called an "arming sword" and not a long sword. A proper long sword was used with two hands and was both taller and heavier than the bastard sword which was, slightly shorter and could be used be one or two hands. But anyways, this is a game and their interpretation is weird and incorrect alot of times (like the katana doing a D10 in damage, ridiculous!).
I won't spam your thread with videos/links, but if you're at all interrested I can PM you links to videos/sites which explain the real world swords and how they were used.
I understand this mod is to be installed before SCS and aTweaks. Does this apply to all components? I'm particularly interested in trying the revised stat bonuses component. Would I have to uninstall SCS and aTweaks if I were to install that component only?
...
i have another suggestion (for an optional component) that entails more extensive changes to the items:
merchants offer several magical weapons that are unique, have nice icons and descriptions, and are extremely expensive but don't have any special properties, or at least no useful special properties.
maybe... you could keep them similarly pricey but give them more useful special properties of certain better random loot weapons. weapon type wouldn't have to match completely.
and then replace this random loot (whose properties you copied to purchasable weapons) with more generic random loot that doesn't have special properties (so you might find a generic longsword +3, flail +3 etc, but not the fire flail).
this will singlehandedly solve:
- the big ugly discrepancy in iwd's item design: generic weapons have unique icons and fluff and those awesome, uniquely-working weapons have relatively generic sounding names, lame generic icons so that you can't tell them apart and generally no descriptions.
- the lame merchant ware problem: now you will want to spend money on those weapons; normally, no one ever buys weapons from merchants
it will also keep loot equally random (instead of de-randomizing like you did). just the finds will be less crucial.
it also won't affect game balance. instead of finding the most awesome stuff, you will have to buy it, and there simply isn't enough money for all of it (likewise, you weren't able to obtain all of the best random loot without savescumming).
this could also cover some non-random uber-weapons that lack special icons and fluff, such as longsword of action +4
there are already divine spells rings - i think two locations for rings of holiness which give +1 lvl1-4 slots
they're both random, so just maybe add more of them. maybe make one a certified find and have two random ones
as for the weapons - i think some late-game dudes actually use (and drop...) sanctified mornin gstars +3. i'd give them a plain +3 morning star. the remaining "of holiness" and sanctified weapons i would remove from the game without even bothering to replace them since they're all random anyway (and there's a clutter of weapons already).
Also, how does that work with level 1 abilities? For example, the "Elven Bladesinger" kit description says: "Bladesingers begin at level 1 with proficiency in Single-Weapon Style."
Do I need to make sure that she already has this proficiency when I create the character as a plain Fighter/Mage?
Is component "210: Revised XP Tables" compatible with BG2 Tweaks' XP cap remover? And if so, in what order do they need to be installed?
I just hate it when my Bard reaches max level way before the end of the game, and doesn't have anything new to look forward to in terms of character advancement.
(Which happens not just in BG2+ToB games, but also in IWD+HOW games when you play at Insane difficulty with double XP, or with a smaller party.)
1) I've installed component "270: Revised Bard Kits", but chargen shows the original kit description for the Skald, rather than the one from the mod's readme:
Will it work anyway?
2) Why can't my Cleric (Earthwalker of Grumbar) put points in dual-wielding? And why can he put points in Halberds? Did component "120: Weapon Proficiency Overhaul" do this? I can't find it in its description.
Just wanted to make sure that clerics wielding halberds is intended...
It's a little sad that my cleric won't be able to dual-wield maces, but I'll get over it.