Bows (ranged in general) weapons proficiency vs. ToB (BGEE) engine...

jolly_bb

It just occured to me, that in BG2/ToB there is no specific weapon proficiency for ranged weapons. We have 2-handed, dual-wield, one-handed single use, shield etc, nothing on ranged right?

I do recall that i've checked that 2-handed proficiency does not affect bows/crossbows (they're two-handed, but it does not work).

Am i right here? Should we ask for a new proficiency apart from the one mentioned above (specifically for ranged weapons)? Or should ranged weapons be included in 2-handed proficiency (what about darts/slings etc though?)?

Oxford_Guy

I'm not sure whether there *should* be a ranged weapon style (though it might be nice to have, e.g. extra critical chance, maybe also reducing the +4 penalty for using a ranged weapon in melee), but none of the current weapon styles work with ranged weapons.

Mungri

Hmmm, ranged 1 - critical hits on 19-20. Ranged 2 - remove -4 close combat penalty.

Rangers start with 2 points in ranged instead of TWF.

Oxford_Guy

Mungri said:

Hmmm, ranged 1 - critical hits on 19-20. Ranged 2 - remove -4 close combat penalty.

I think there should still be *some* penalty for using a bow in melee, though maybe:

1: crits on 19-20
2: bow in close combat only gives -2 penalty
3: bow in close combat give no penalty

Mungri said:

Rangers start with 2 points in ranged instead of TWF.

Interesting...

BTW how are weapon styles implemented in PnP D&D?

Mungri

I havnt played PnP, just looked at some tables online. In the later DnD games, the point blank shot feat removed the -4 melee range penalty for ranged weapons, like combat casting remobes the -4 concentration penalty for spells while being melee attacked.

Improved Critical could be taken for any weapon, and proficiencies worked with specialization feats.

Wikkid_Suhn

If ranged weapon proficiency is to be implemented, I would like them to nerf range weapons to begin with. They are already pretty deadly, so maybe drop the speed factor initially and have proficiency improve that. That might balance the game at lower levels, but it may also just be an unnecessary complication.

jolly_bb

Wikkid_Suhn said:

If ranged weapon proficiency is to be implemented, I would like them to nerf range weapons to begin with. They are already pretty deadly, so maybe drop the speed factor initially and have proficiency improve that. That might balance the game at lower levels, but it may also just be an unnecessary complication.

You're talking of BG1 engine of course? In BG2 engine (BGEE) the characters overall move faster on the screen, and there is not that much advantage in using ranged weapons (compared to BG1). In effect:
vanilla BG1 archery rules, BG2/ToB i never even use bows...

Maybe bows/crossbows are not balanced well enough, true. Nerf them at low levels, but then make them matter late game more.

Making changes to vanilla rules & creating a reasonable proficiency could help.

Pantalion

@Mungri: Just an FYI, Point Blank shot gives +1 to hit and damage if you're within 30ft. There's a penalty for attacking a target that's *in* melee, including presumably with you, that is then overcome by Precise Shot (with Point Blank Shot as a prerequisite), and the third, most severe penalty of firing in melee (basically every time the archer shoots, anyone in melee with them gets a free attack) is a third, even harder to acquire feat.

Mungri

Ranged weapons are only strong in BG1 while you are low level and weak. In BG2 they become mostly useless.

Oxford_Guy

jolly_bb said:

Maybe bows/crossbows are not balanced well enough, true. Nerf them at low levels, but then make them matter late game more.

I'd be inclined to agree

Mungri

Pantalion said:

@Mungri: Just an FYI, Point Blank shot gives +1 to hit and damage if you're within 30ft. There's a penalty for attacking a target that's *in* melee, including presumably with you, that is then overcome by Precise Shot (with Point Blank Shot as a prerequisite), and the third, most severe penalty of firing in melee (basically every time the archer shoots, anyone in melee with them gets a free attack) is a third, even harder to acquire feat.

I was referring to NWN, in which point blank shot removes the -4 penalty.

Jaxsbudgie

Perhaps a * in whatever the ranged proficiency would be could allow for higher ammunition stacks? From 40 to 60 perhaps? And perhaps increased (or lowered I guess) speed bonus when attacking with ranged weapons, doesn't sound too overpowered.

elminster

Not sure one what should be done, but there should be a proficiency for using ranged weapons. Even if it is just to reduce the up close penalties.

Quartz

Ooh. Ranged Weapon Style sounds sexy. Count me in as a supporter!

Oxford_Guy

Jaxsbudgie said:

Perhaps a * in whatever the ranged proficiency would be could allow for higher ammunition stacks? From 40 to 60 perhaps?

No, that sort of thing is better handled by ease-of-use mods, if people want to go there

Jaxsbudgie said:

And perhaps increased (or lowered I guess) speed bonus when attacking with ranged weapons, doesn't sound too overpowered.

Neither does a crit bonus or reducing melee penalties

bigdogchris

I always thought the two handed weapon proficiency applied to bows.

Brude

jolly_bb said:

Am i right here? Should we ask for a new proficiency apart from the one mentioned above (specifically for ranged weapons)? Or should ranged weapons be included in 2-handed proficiency (what about darts/slings etc though?)?

Ranged already has too many advantages:

- Better starting thac0s
- More APR
- Easily obtainable magical weapons

Plus, well, the whole "cause damage while safely at range" thing. Ranged doesn't need additional weapon specializations.

BelgarathMTH

Couldn't you just use the archer kit if you want this?

Wikkid_Suhn

jolly_bb said:

Wikkid_Suhn said:

If ranged weapon proficiency is to be implemented, I would like them to nerf range weapons to begin with. They are already pretty deadly, so maybe drop the speed factor initially and have proficiency improve that. That might balance the game at lower levels, but it may also just be an unnecessary complication.

You're talking of BG1 engine of course? In BG2 engine (BGEE) the characters overall move faster on the screen, and there is not that much advantage in using ranged weapons (compared to BG1). In effect:
vanilla BG1 archery rules, BG2/ToB i never even use bows...

Maybe bows/crossbows are not balanced well enough, true. Nerf them at low levels, but then make them matter late game more.

Making changes to vanilla rules & creating a reasonable proficiency could help.

I assumed that the relative speeds are the same in both games. Slower movement in BG1, but also slower action. Did they keep speed factor the same but increase movement speed in BG2?

Either way, it would be nice if we weren't running for our lives every time we met a bandit or black talon with a bow in his hands. I don't know how many times I've sent out Minsc or Kagain into that rain of ice arrow death trying to reach the bastards, who were so killable if only you could close in on them, only to have them get wasted about halfway.

Hey that's right, we're getting shield proficiency this time round!

GygaxianProse

I first question whether bows should have 2 attacks per round as a base. That's why they are so deadly in esp. lower levels. Is a bow twice as likely to hit at range as a longsword is in melee? I'm not sure about this. If not, then original D&D had this right with 1 attack roll/round for bows.

Oxford_Guy

bigdogchris said:

I always thought the two handed weapon proficiency applied to bows.

It doesn't, nor does single weapon fighting work with slings/darts/throwing daggers

jolly_bb

GygaxianProse said:

I first question whether bows should have 2 attacks per round as a base. That's why they are so deadly in esp. lower levels. Is a bow twice as likely to hit at range as a longsword is in melee? I'm not sure about this. If not, then original D&D had this right with 1 attack roll/round for bows.

I actually agree. Bows should not have more APR then e.g. sword. Swinging a sword does not take more time vs. aiming and firing a bow.

And overpowered ranged is the result exactly of that.


APR on ranged should be reduced, but instead a proficiency should be implemented to make up for it. Overall well balanced ranged weapons would be a bit worse early game and more powerful late game.

reedmilfam

I agree with @jolly_bb, but a point is being missed. Firing an arrow vs swinging a sword is not what is being measured. Sword attack speed is the speed to reach an opening that allows you to make an 'attack', not timing the back and forth swing speed of your warrior.

I'd be more for slowing the archery attack to 1 attack per 2 rounds (proficiency helps this), but upping the damage because short bows hit like spears and long bows impale like a great sword. More a slower attack, but more awesome effect.

- Thinking short bow d8 and crit on 19-20
- Long bow/light crossbow d10 crit 19-20
- Composite bow d12 crit 19-20
- Heavy crossbow d12 crit 18-20

Oh, crossbows would be slower reload, too. Again, devastating when they get the shot off, but the 2 APR at level one and moving up does not match with the time required to nock, draw, aim. Archers don't do this in 5 seconds (10 second round, 2 attacks).

GygaxianProse

jolly_bb said:

GygaxianProse said:

I first question whether bows should have 2 attacks per round as a base. That's why they are so deadly in esp. lower levels. Is a bow twice as likely to hit at range as a longsword is in melee? I'm not sure about this. If not, then original D&D had this right with 1 attack roll/round for bows.

I actually agree. Bows should not have more APR then e.g. sword. Swinging a sword does not take more time vs. aiming and firing a bow.

And overpowered ranged is the result exactly of that.


APR on ranged should be reduced, but instead a proficiency should be implemented to make up for it. Overall well balanced ranged weapons would be a bit worse early game and more powerful late game.

Yeah, I think I would house rule that way, allowing additional attacks at higher levels/prof slots, but making the base ROF for all missile weapons 1 for PCs and monsters alike. The kobold commandos are still going to be very dangerous, but not the Kobold Death Squad lol

AHF

jolly_bb said:

more powerful late game.

The biggest obstacles for late game relevance are the low + rating on missile weapons (meaning they are mostly useless against tough enemies) and the lack of strength being a factor. I agree that the increased critical range would help but the best thing would be to have a way to have the equivalent of the many, many +4/+5/+6 melee weapons out there. There isn't a single missile weapon that works against the Ravager, for example. It isn't like there are a bunch of +5 arrows or bolts or bullets. By the late game, that is a huge factor with all the golems, dragons, liches, etc.