So with LOB being bugged in 2.5 do you think it's easier or harder than 2.3?

Myrag

Currently in LOB in 2.5 one major bug has been reported

All monsters get +5 saving throws penalty (instead of -5 bonus). Mephits have 19-20 saving throws instead of 9-10 on LOB.

But 2.5 also introduced

All monsters get -11 AC bonus

So do you think this makes game harder or easier in general? For instance melee parties have very very hard time in BG1 and SOD and most of SOA but on the other hand saving throws difference of 10 points is also massive allowing you to land CC pretty easily. Maybe general answer is it depends on party composition which I know but I wonder overall what are people thoughts.

ps. I know some people don't play LOB but this is for people who do. @Harpagornis @Grond0 @semiticgod @the_sextein @Lord_Tansheron you guys play a lot of LOB. Any thoughts?

I'm asking as I'm doing improved ust natha run currently and just realized saving throws being bugged. I knew about AC but I liked additional challenge.

JuliusBorisov

"All monsters get -11 AC bonus" is not a bug, it's intended behavior.

Myrag

JuliusBorisov said:

"All monsters get -11 AC bonus" is not a bug, it's intended behavior.

Oh cool. I like that thanks @JuliusBorisov. Fixing topic.

Grond0

I would say it's easier. Overall the bonus to AC doesn't make things much harder - it's a problem for solo fighter types, but actually makes summons more worthwhile as they get the bonus AC as well and therefore can tank for even longer. The change to saving throws though makes using spells and abilities considerably easier.

Myrag

Does anyone know a mod which would let me adjust saving throws for enemies?

Would love to do a small switch-a-roo and add enemies -10 saving throw bonus to negate this bug.

Myrag

Actually nevermind. I reused this Difficulty and Tweak MOD

https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/19928/release-difficulty-and-tweak-mod-ver-7/p1

Simply replace contents of "DiffTweak/DiffTweak.tp2" file with below.

https://pastebin.com/QQCtDkmi

Then install option 5 from the list.



Changed

• Thaco/AC bonuses from -5 to 0 (so it won't change them) and,
  
• Saving Throws bonus values of -5 to -10 which negates LOB error.
  

Now you can play LOB on 2.5 the way it should be. Note that it does impact Insane (and other) difficulty as now enemies will have -15 saves but I guess it works if you only play LOB.

Sorry for messy workaround but it works. Just tested this.

Modded	Unmodded

Someday I will find time to compile small scripts into tiny mods just as fixpacks for official patches as bugs sometimes happen.

Grond0

I've just been doing a LoB run with a sorcerer. Enemies targeted with spells in that were still getting +5 added to their rolled saving throws - which negates the +5 adjustment applied to their base saving throw. Therefore I imagine that the required adjustment to get to the intended LoB behavior would be -5 and not -10.

Note though that my game was BGEE - I've not checked whether BG2EE functions the same way.

Myrag

Grond0 said:

I've just been doing a LoB run with a sorcerer. Enemies targeted with spells in that were still getting +5 added to their rolled saving throws - which negates the +5 adjustment applied to their base saving throw. Therefore I imagine that the required adjustment to get to the intended LoB behavior would be -5 and not -10.

Note though that my game was BGEE - I've not checked whether BG2EE functions the same way.

@Grond0 I've tested BG2EE, kinda messy impreative way but I casted 30+ times blindness on Lightning Mephit and it had 100% success chance. If there was +5 bonus I should get around 25% of fails. How did you test +5 bonus? can it be mod or something?

Adul

I don't know, AC is a pretty big deal in BG1. Some enemies like Battle Horrors are already really hard to hit even on core. Makes me wonder how tough they would be on LoB now. Hmmm.

semiticgoddess

I'm usually the last person to complain about changes from new updates, but the new AC bonuses are ridiculous overkill. Giving enemies -5 AC would make them a lot harder to hit, but -11 is too far. I mean, we're talking about a game where hit rolls are done on a d20. THAC0 values for fighters only range from maybe 17 at Candlekeep to -13 at the Throne of Bhaal; AC values for enemies run from -10 to 10. A level 7 fighter with Mastery in longbows has a 35% chance of hitting a kobold.

Legacy of Bhaal mode already revolves around summoned critters. This just makes that problem far worse.

Legacy of Bhaal mode is already infamously sluggish. This just makes that problem far worse.

the_sextein

semiticgod said:

I'm usually the last person to complain about changes from new updates, but the new AC bonuses are ridiculous overkill. Giving enemies -5 AC would make them a lot harder to hit, but -11 is too far. I mean, we're talking about a game where hit rolls are done on a d20. THAC0 values for fighters only range from maybe 17 at Candlekeep to -13 at the Throne of Bhaal; AC values for enemies run from -10 to 10. A level 7 fighter with Mastery in longbows has a 35% chance of hitting a kobold.

Legacy of Bhaal mode already revolves around summoned critters. This just makes that problem far worse.

Legacy of Bhaal mode is already infamously sluggish. This just makes that problem far worse.

For me, it's a problem with a level 1 party. I have 1 spell and all of my physical attacks need a lucky 20 to hit. It makes the first game pointless in my opinion. I'm back on insane for now. I don't bee line for a wand of summoning or some quick level up area. Playing it naturally has always been my style. Things just can't work with my style of play right now. I'm going to wait and let Beamdog check for bugs, playtest and see what they think it should be.

It's Beamdog's game and if they think enemies should have -11 AC then that is up to them. It's not for me in it's current state and I didn't even know about the saving throws bug. I wish they would have just left it the way it was for the last two years. It took some getting used to but I ended up liking it in the end. Either way, I'll find a way to mentally program myself to enjoy the game on insane one way or another. I will keep an eye out for tweaks like the one mentioned above, if things get settled and the tweak reliably brings the old LOB back, I'll use it.

Grond0

Myrag said:

Grond0 said:

I've just been doing a LoB run with a sorcerer. Enemies targeted with spells in that were still getting +5 added to their rolled saving throws - which negates the +5 adjustment applied to their base saving throw. Therefore I imagine that the required adjustment to get to the intended LoB behavior would be -5 and not -10.

Note though that my game was BGEE - I've not checked whether BG2EE functions the same way.

@Grond0 I've tested BG2EE, kinda messy impreative way but I casted 30+ times blindness on Lightning Mephit and it had 100% success chance. If there was +5 bonus I should get around 25% of fails. How did you test +5 bonus? can it be mod or something?

I was just reviewing the dice rolls shown when creatures saved - those regularly showed rolls above the theoretical maximum without a LoB adjustment. As an example here's an ankheg saving against a chromatic orb with a roll of 29, i.e. more than the normal maximum of die roll 20 + spell adjustment 6.

I do agree though that there is something else going on as well. I found that certain spells, against certain enemies, did seem to be getting automatic success - so my chromatic orbs for instance always seemed to be successful against hobgoblins.

Doing a quick test I cast 100 blindness spells against an ankheg. That had a displayed save vs spell of 18, so should have saved 15 times in the absence of a LoB die roll adjustment. There were actually 18 saves displayed with die rolls of between 23 and 25, but no saves were shown with die rolls of 18-22. That might suggest the +5 die roll adjustment is only cosmetic and doesn't affect the underlying result. However, there were also 24 occasions where nothing happened, i.e. no save was shown, but blindness didn't take effect. I've never really understood why no results are reported so often in this way in the EE, but one possibility in this case would be that these reflect the 'missing' 25 saves expected in LoB.

Myrag

Seems like general opinion is in agreement that this option doesn't feel right. Maybe it should be like -5? For bg2ee I don't feel -11 this much but in bgee its ridicolous.

kjeron

Grond0 said:

There were actually 18 saves displayed with die rolls of between 23 and 25, but no saves were shown with die rolls of 18-22. That might suggest the +5 die roll adjustment is only cosmetic and doesn't affect the underlying result. However, there were also 24 occasions where nothing happened, i.e. no save was shown, but blindness didn't take effect. I've never really understood why no results are reported so often in this way in the EE, but one possibility in this case would be that these reflect the 'missing' 25 saves expected in LoB.

Successful saving throws are only displayed if they would have been successful without any bonuses applied to the roll.
An LoB Ankheg has 18 Save vs. Spell, so it will only ever display a successful save if it rolls an 18, 19, or 20.
Chromatic Orb offers a +6 bonus to the roll, so the displayed rolls would be 24, 25, 26.
LoB then gives it a +5 bonus to the roll if the creature is NOT IN THE PARTY, resulting in successful saves displaying as 29, 30, and 31.

Level 1 Edwin (not a LoB creature) has a base 12 Save vs. Spell.
While outside the party, his successful saves vs Chromatic Orb will display as: 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. His normal range (12 - 20), plus the 2 bonuses (+11): +6(Chromatic Orb), +5(LoB)

Grond0 said:

Therefore I imagine that the required adjustment to get to the intended LoB behavior would be -5 and not -10.

Correct
All LoB creatures receive a -5 penalty to their saves.
In LoB, all creatures (even non-LoB creatures) outside the players party receive a +5 bonus to their saving throw rolls.
The two cancel each other out, so they only need a 5-point bonus adjustment.

One exception: a base save of 20 will always fail, unless the bonus is +20 or more (not possible without mods AFAIK), so any creature with a save at 15 or more before LoB will always fail those saves in LoB.

Myrag

@kjeron need to test your 'exception' theory. So you are saying if I find a mob with 14 save vs spell, then without mods I should be able to blind him at about 30% rate in LOB setting.

kjeron

65% rate
10% chance of save with display (rolls 19,20, displays 24,25)
25% chance of save without display (rolls 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, displays nothing)
65% chance of failed save and Blinded

I don't see what this has to do with the exception I listed.

semiticgoddess

kjeron said:

Successful saving throws are only displayed if they would have been successful without any bonuses applied to the roll.
An LoB Ankheg has 18 Save vs. Spell, so it will only ever display a successful save if it rolls an 18, 19, or 20.
Chromatic Orb offers a +6 bonus to the roll, so the displayed rolls would be 24, 25, 26.

That explains a behavior I've long found confusing: a spell that appears to fail, but displays no successful saving throw by the target. I thought the spell failed to a bug (I often blamed it on the projectile), but apparently there's just an engine quirk that successful saving throws aren't always displayed.

Myrag

@kjeron I meant this

"One exception: a base save of 20 will always fail, unless the bonus is +20 or more (not possible without mods AFAIK), so any creature with a save at 15 or more before LoB will always fail those saves in LoB."

Because our testing seemd to have used mobs which had more than 15 save vs spell so it fallen under this exception. Therefore I didn't seem like -5 save bonus for LOB was in place. At least for my testing.

I tested on modified lightning mephit with -10 saves. Here are my results.

Lightning mephit with saves 8/10/9/11/11
Casted blindness 136 times
Mephit saved 101 times and 35 failed save for total of 25.7% failed saves. This would mean 11 save vs spell was indeed getting -5 bonus from LOB.

So in the end @kjeron, thank you very much for putting the last missing piece of the puzze. Indeed you are correct. Learning stuff about the game every day, I love it!

In case anyone is interested here is updated Difficulty Mod script to add midding -5 saving throw bonus without modifying AC/Thac0. https://pastebin.com/rEYeqxmj

the_sextein

Myrag said:

Seems like general opinion is in agreement that this option doesn't feel right. Maybe it should be like -5? For bg2ee I don't feel -11 this much but in bgee its ridicolous.

Honestly I don't know. I felt like I could handle a little more difficulty in the original LOB mode and maybe adjusting AC to -5 would be ok. All I know is that -11 is overkill for a level 1 team in BGEE. Personally, I'm totally satisfied with it being at 0 but I wouldn't be against giving it a shot at -5. As long as I don't have to depend on a lucky 20 to land an attack against enemies with boosted HP. I don't find kite tactics fun and I want to rely on skill not luck.

I appreciate the difficulty mod that you posted. I will have to look into it. I already have a BWS install on my current game but I may try your tweak to get things how they were before patch 2.5. I can't wait until the game stabilizes so I can have a solid backed up mod installation that I don't need to mess with anymore. Of course I do appreciate the patches as they make the game better 99% of the time.

Grond0

kjeron said:

Grond0 said:

There were actually 18 saves displayed with die rolls of between 23 and 25, but no saves were shown with die rolls of 18-22. That might suggest the +5 die roll adjustment is only cosmetic and doesn't affect the underlying result. However, there were also 24 occasions where nothing happened, i.e. no save was shown, but blindness didn't take effect. I've never really understood why no results are reported so often in this way in the EE, but one possibility in this case would be that these reflect the 'missing' 25 saves expected in LoB.

Successful saving throws are only displayed if they would have been successful without any bonuses applied to the roll.
An LoB Ankheg has 18 Save vs. Spell, so it will only ever display a successful save if it rolls an 18, 19, or 20.
Chromatic Orb offers a +6 bonus to the roll, so the displayed rolls would be 24, 25, 26.
LoB then gives it a +5 bonus to the roll if the creature is NOT IN THE PARTY, resulting in successful saves displaying as 29, 30, and 31.

Level 1 Edwin (not a LoB creature) has a base 12 Save vs. Spell.
While outside the party, his successful saves vs Chromatic Orb will display as: 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. His normal range (12 - 20), plus the 2 bonuses (+11): +6(Chromatic Orb), +5(LoB)

Grond0 said:

Therefore I imagine that the required adjustment to get to the intended LoB behavior would be -5 and not -10.

Correct
All LoB creatures receive a -5 penalty to their saves.
In LoB, all creatures (even non-LoB creatures) outside the players party receive a +5 bonus to their saving throw rolls.
The two cancel each other out, so they only need a 5-point bonus adjustment.

One exception: a base save of 20 will always fail, unless the bonus is +20 or more (not possible without mods AFAIK), so any creature with a save at 15 or more before LoB will always fail those saves in LoB.

@kjeron the main test I ran was with blindness, not chromatic orb, which is why the displayed saves were 23-25 for an ankheg. Thanks for confirming though:
1) the reason why many saves were not displayed (only displayed if the unadjusted roll would save).
2) the reason why I was getting automatic success with spells against low-level creatures (the adjusted LoB save was 20 resulting in automatic fails despite considerable modifiers to the roll).

In relation to point 2) I wasn't previously aware of the automatic fail mechanic for saving throws. That's not generally an issue as saving throw requirements of 20 are not common (although for weaker creatures you could use that mechanic to ensure spell failure by applying malison and/or doom - and that could potentially be worthwhile in some situations in LoB). However, that would be a good reason for not applying a penalty to base saving throws in LoB - a -5 penalty to base saving throws, countered by a +10 bonus to dice rolls has very different effects from just having a +5 bonus to dice rolls. What was the idea behind adjusting the base saving throws in v2.5?