Skip to content

[Request] BG1 weapon groups vs. BG2 single proficiency slots

LuneverLunever Member Posts: 307
Current behaviour:
You play either old BG1 and have broad weapon groups, which is fine, but no combat styles. Or you use the BG2 engine, have no weapon groups, and very often have a huge discrepancy between proficiencies chosen and weapons found in the game.

The original BG1 system was versatile with its weapon groups (small swords, large swords, etc..), the BG2 system was very restrictive with its single weapon proficiencies (long sword, bastard sword, katana etc..). You never had the right proficiency for the nifty stuff you've found, and for some choices (like a druid aiming für club & shield) you could play eons without finding a suitable magical weapon.

In current BG the best solution is the gibberlings3 tweakpack option of "BG1 proficiencies with BG2 combat style proficiencies).

Paper&pen AD&D allowed BOTH, single weapon and weapon group proficiencies,

Desired behaviour:
For the computer adaptation allowing to spend 1 slot to convert a single weapon proficincy (i.e. katana) into a group (i.e. large swords) is highly recommended. So gaining grandmastery in longsword would just be 1 slot cheaper than grandmastery in large swords.
Post edited by Lunever on

Comments

  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    I disagree with this because I prefer the more individualized system of BG2. Not to mention that if you keep the BG1 proficiencies:

    - Mages will be able to max all possible proficiencies in BG2.
    - Fighters will be able to have Grand Mastery in a large variety of weapon types.
    - etc

    I can see that you wouldn't have a problem with this, but personally I wouldn't like it.
  • LuneverLunever Member Posts: 307
    And disagree with you for several reasons:
    a) my real-life sword fighting experience says the difference in handling with different types of large swords are not big enough to justify separate proficiencies
    b) There ARE weapon groups in the original 2nd Edition PHB
    c) If you play a club specialist or ninja-to specialist or whatever in a paper&pen campaign, probably your DM won't let you be the only character without a cool weapon forever. But in a computer game you have to live with what has been implemented. And after enjoying BB1/ToSC I found it a major inconvenience in BG2 that I had a talent of always selecting the wrong proficiencies for the stuff I would later on discover in the game. I was very glad when the tweak pack offered a solution.
  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    Well, I don't think we should apply real life experiences to a game. If we start doing that we shouldn't be able to cast spells and the like in the game either. More individualized weapon proficiencies is simply a game mechanic.

    For case c), well, that's the risk you take when you choose proficiencies, you never know when an awesome weapon will come along. But even worse, by this logic why even have weapon proficiencies at all? Just let Fighters use anything as if they had Grand Mastery, that way you'll never risk not being able to use a cool weapon. Probably the best way to solve this situation is by asking for under-represented weapons to get more viable options. I believe there is already a Request made along those lines.
  • LuneverLunever Member Posts: 307
    And BG1 - using the original group rules - just met the middle-ground fine, which is why i want to see that implemented in EE too. And my suggestion leaves the BG2 proficiencies intact, it just adds one OPTION to the proficiencies. An option that is so dear to me that I'd rather stick to BG Trilogy forever than play without it.
  • AndreaColomboAndreaColombo Member Posts: 5,530
    About splitting proficiencies for similar weapons, the AD&D Player's Option: Combat & Tactics manual introduces the concept of Familiarity:

    All characters are automatically familiar with any weapon that is related to a weapon they are proficient in. Weapons are considered to be related if they are part of the same tight group. For example, a character who is proficient in the use of the light crossbow is automatically familiar with all other types of crossbow because they're part of the same tight weapon group.
    Familiarity is not as good as proficiency, but it beats not knowing anything about a weapon at all. Characters only suffer one-half the normal nonproficiency penalty when attacking with weapons they are familiar with. They may attempt any normal attack maneuvers possible (the familiarity penalty still applies, of course), and suffer no initiative or rate of fire penalties. Familiarity does not allow the user to make use of any special weapon attack modes that require proficiency in the weapon.
  • ElectricMonkElectricMonk Member Posts: 599
    Given the expanse of the Baldur's Gate games, coupled with the fact that there are often six characters in a party (each of which can be proficient in different weapons), I don't really see a need to compensate for a perceived inability to be proficient in the cool weapons found throughout the game. In the cases where this does occur, it just gives you something to think of on your next play through. Also, there are a variety of unique magical weapons throughout the game and I don't like the idea of being specialized in almost every weapon I pick up. I think it's fun to find a cooler or more powerful version of the specific weapon you have been putting points into.
  • LuneverLunever Member Posts: 307
    Well, since BG:EE includes BG1 as well as BG2 my suggestion is a synthesis of both - and like in paper&pen it'd still cost an extra proficiency slot so can't do this very often with a single character.

    But, if you want a club & shield druid and know that you won't find a cool club in the entire BG/ToSC part, it's not that bad if you have "blunt weapons" and stick to staves for a (long) while.
Sign In or Register to comment.