Weapon Grand Mastery BG1 vs. BG2
jflieder
Member Posts: 115
I may be looking ahead on this one, but I'm just curious about other's thoughts.
As anyone familiar with the fighter class in both BG1 and BG2, weapon grand mastery (achieved with 5 proficiency points) grants different bonuses between the two games. A fighter in BG1 with grand mastery receives +3 to hit, +5 damage, -3 speed factor and an additional full attack per round (cumulative with level progression APR benefits) while wielding the grand mastered weapon type. BG2, however, grants a nerfed +2 to hit, +4 damage, -3 speed factor and an additional 1/2 attack (again, cumulative with level progression APR benefits).
That missing 1/2 APR in BG2 is a sore spot for a lot of players that I've heard from. Which do you prefer, the BG1 style GM or the nerfed BG2 style? Are the original (BG1) GM bonuses viable in BG2 or would they overpower fighters for BG2? Do the different structures suit the games they are respectively implemented in?
I feel that granting the BG1 GM bonuses in BG2 would bring fighters closer to arcane casting classes in terms of power, but would put give fighters an unnecessary advantage over the enemies of BG2. I'm divided, though I am leaning towards BG1 GM bonuses for BG2. Any thoughts?
As anyone familiar with the fighter class in both BG1 and BG2, weapon grand mastery (achieved with 5 proficiency points) grants different bonuses between the two games. A fighter in BG1 with grand mastery receives +3 to hit, +5 damage, -3 speed factor and an additional full attack per round (cumulative with level progression APR benefits) while wielding the grand mastered weapon type. BG2, however, grants a nerfed +2 to hit, +4 damage, -3 speed factor and an additional 1/2 attack (again, cumulative with level progression APR benefits).
That missing 1/2 APR in BG2 is a sore spot for a lot of players that I've heard from. Which do you prefer, the BG1 style GM or the nerfed BG2 style? Are the original (BG1) GM bonuses viable in BG2 or would they overpower fighters for BG2? Do the different structures suit the games they are respectively implemented in?
I feel that granting the BG1 GM bonuses in BG2 would bring fighters closer to arcane casting classes in terms of power, but would put give fighters an unnecessary advantage over the enemies of BG2. I'm divided, though I am leaning towards BG1 GM bonuses for BG2. Any thoughts?
1
Comments
Nerf GM, and you've made playing a true class dwarven fighter almost irrelevant compared to their dual and multi counterparts. In an AD&D game. That seems beyond backwards and stupid to me.
OTOH, don't nerf it and it opens the door to true class fighters dual wielding with Grand Mastery in each hand. Or fighters dualed at level 13 with Grandmastery/Mastery or High Mastery/High Mastery.
OTOOH, none of that makes much difference (outside trivializing the appeal of true clas fighters) because by the time you get to ToB, class and encounter balance is pretty much permanently broken anyways.
There's a compelling argument to go Ranger for a two-handed warrior in BG2 otherwise.
Not saying that such a contradiction doesn't exist in-game, but even for BG2 that would be glaring and odd.
@jflieder Grandmastery gives 3/2 extra apr compared to 1/2 for specialisation. So the difference is one full attack, not half. See http://playithardcore.com/pihwiki/index.php?title=Baldur's_Gate:_Progression_Charts#Proficiency_Benefits
Under BG2 rules the ranger, paladin and barbarian single classes are all pretty much superior tanks due to damage resistance and multiclasses are just plain better. I'm therefore all for the single class fighter having true GM to give him an edge. It's not like 10 apr isn't possible anyway, but it will let the fighter get 10 apr with something other than Belm/Kundane in the off-hand (e.g. Crom Faeyr or Equalizer) or upto 8 (I think) with a 2H weapon.
http://www.planetbaldursgate.com/bg/character/classes/tables/specialize.shtml
Everything gets to Grand Mastery as long as you are a pure fighter. I don't see why we are discussing this.
It's incentive to pick ranger, which is 4th wheel to Fighters, Paladins and Barbarians on the usefulness scale so I'm okay if they leave that alone. I suspect they will.
Someone mentioned somewhere else on the forums (I wanna say @Dragonspear?) the only way you can actually get grand mastery in a weapon type for BG1 is to abuse dual-classing anyway. Naturally, a raw fighter can't ever hit more than 4 pips in a given weapon style because you'll only gain the XP to earn 2 more pips beyond the 2 you can stick wherever you want upon creation. Unless the XP cap is significantly raised, there already isn't any incentive to play raw fighter. Anyone wanting to specialize in ranged weapons is best off going Archer, and otherwise a Paladin or Ranger can basically do anything a fighter will be able to.
so to get this right...a fighter with GM on a weapon has the same damage and apr as a paladin with specialised or a multiclass fighter/?
One could even say that its rather convenient that a fighter 7 dualed cleric is capable of reaching level 8 just in time to reactivate their fighter abilities and voila you hit grand mastery. If I'm not mistaken however you cannot actually get the final points you need until after you've regained your fighter class. If that IS the case, then in BG1 you have to dual from a fighter to a cleric or thief. Mages only get their proficiency at 1, 6, 12 so they won't get another one in time (if I'm right) and you need 6 levels of fighter in order to get High Mastery.
Spec (++): +1 hit, +2 dmg, +1/2 apr
GM (+++++): +3 hit, +5 dmg, +1 apr
That's a common myth but I can confirm that it is false. People are confusing BG1 ('97) and BG: TotSC ('98) with IWD and more specifically the first expansion to IWD which gave rangers that ability. It is not present in the BG game series. IWD 1 did not hit stores until 2000 and I think the expansion was 2001