Skip to content

[Request] Gradual thieving and casting penalties for medium and heavy armour

LuneverLunever Member Posts: 307
Current behaviour:
For multiclass fighter/thieves it is very inconvenient to switch between a studded leather and a scale male even for a minor trap or lock with low difficulty.

Desired behaviour:
There was a tweak in the g3 Tweakpack that introduced the paper&pen AD&D optional armour table, that allowed those characters to use their thieving skills while wearing heavier armour than studded leather, albeit with a significant penalty. Unfortunately it also introduced penalties to light armour, which was very inconvenient to standard single-class thieves.

I'd suggest to use this tweak, since it is convenient as well as absolutely in line with p&p rules, but I would skip penalizing light armour.

The same goes for the tweak, that allowed multiclass fighter/mages to cast with armour, but with the spell failure chance from third edition.

Post edited by Lunever on

Comments

  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    This is one of the mods that I usually install on my playthroughs, but I doubt they would add the spell-casting failure part since its 3E.
  • LuneverLunever Member Posts: 307
    Well, sorcerers and monks also went from 3E to BG2.
  • ElectricMonkElectricMonk Member Posts: 599
    I usually install this mod on my playthroughs as well.

    My vote would be to allow thieving in armor with penalties as per PnP rules. As for the spellcasting component, I'm not really in support of it but it wouldn't bother me that much if it was implemented.
  • LuneverLunever Member Posts: 307
    Well, as mentioned elsewhere I prefer multiclass characters, and I changed armour incredibly often with my fighter/mage/thief. In paper&pen you do everything you can to get an elven chain at some point for such a character, but items like this are exceedingly rare in BG.
    Constantly changing armour isn't exactly suporting immersion.
  • ElectricMonkElectricMonk Member Posts: 599
    Constantly changing armour isn't exactly suporting immersion.
    I agree, it would be cool if there were two "quick armor" slots or something so that you could just select it easily from the in-game screen without having to open up your inventory.
  • sarevok57sarevok57 Member Posts: 5,975
    you don know that fighter/thieves can use drizzt's armor with no penalties yes?
  • ElectricMonkElectricMonk Member Posts: 599
    Whether or not you kill Drizzt can depend heavily on your alignment and how closely you adhere to it, though the XP and loot is mighty nice :)
  • sarevok57sarevok57 Member Posts: 5,975
    its hella nice, i even have my paladins kill him, his stuff is WAY to good to pass up, its just way to usefull and way to good, if he didnt have those sweetski items then i would never kill him, its only for the items ( well that 12 000 xp is also nice) but if he didnt have those items it would at least give him so justice in not to kill him ( like shandalar in ulgoths beard, all of his stuff is mediocre can easily be pick pocketed even though he is worth 26 000 xp its not really worth it for the hassle)
  • LuneverLunever Member Posts: 307
    I am aware of Drizzt's armour. In an early BG1 prepatched release you could even pickpocket it from him.
    But then, when playing again, I didn't want to kill Drizzt, and I didn't want to cheat either.
    So I constantly changed between Ankheg armour, Shadow armour, and the Robe of the Good Archmagi.

    In my current BG2 playthrough I'm constantly changing between full plate +1, shadow armour and naked, since suitable multiclass armour is only available late in the game.

    I support @jaysl659's idea of quick armour buttions - maybe even total quick equipment set buttons - in addition to my proposal.
  • ElectricMonkElectricMonk Member Posts: 599
    @Lunever I started a new discussion specific to allowing for more/customizable quick item slots here

    I figured it would be best to keep these requests separated.
  • AndreaColomboAndreaColombo Member Posts: 5,525
    What's the problem with leaving this the BG2 Tweak pack? It looks to me like it's already doing a perfect job of it. The devs have a limited amount of time at their disposal and I'd rather see them spend it on things that require the source code to be done (especially things that overcome engine limitations and increase modder-friendliness). If something is already done by mods, let the mods keep doing it :-)
  • ElectricMonkElectricMonk Member Posts: 599
    If something is already done by mods, let the mods keep doing it :-)
    @AndreaColombo While I understand that they have a limited amount of time, your post seems to suggest that all things that can possibly be done with mods shouldn't be requested... this doesn't make sense to me. Although I know many of us that have used many mods over the years will probably end up using a few despite the final product due to our tastes having become a bit more specific, the idea should be that the product which is released is as complete as possible and eliminates any need for mods. Things like allowing thieving with penalties in armor, as per PnP, seem important enough to at least request.

    I fully support making the game as modder-friendly as possible, but I think a great deal of mods are things that should be implemented into the game itself as they have proven themselves to improve the game. This way future mod installations won't have to include those things that were already incorporated. I mean, installing a wealth of mods will almost always present at least some compatibility issues that will manifest in a variety of forms including game crashes, etc. The mods that have been made show us what needs to be corrected in the future (in this case that future is BG:EE) and I think that they're a great source for ideas of what needs to be done.

    Additionally, there are plenty of Baldur's Gate fans that didn't even know of the modding community for the original games, despite it having existed for so long, until they joined this forum (that's what I gathered based on some comments anyway), and so I'm sure that there will be quite a few BG:EE players that never use a single mod. The final product should be, in my opinion, as final as possible.
  • AndreaColomboAndreaColombo Member Posts: 5,525
    @jaysl659 - I agree with you that BG:EE should be as complete and final as possible, and as the rules laywer I am, nothing would make me happier than to see every house rule replaced by proper P&P implementation. However, I realize that every single rule change the devs may implement would have to go through a long, time-consuming approval pipeline that may eventually deny it, and the thought something cool that requires access to the source code could be left behind to implement something mods already do feels like a missed opportunity to me.

    If someone doesn't know the modding community, it's never too late to get acquainted :-) Once everything modders can't do is tackled, should the devs be left with additional spare time (which I doubt), moddable things could also be implemented (and God knows I would support everything P&P). Until then, I'd rather see them vanquish hard-coded engine limitations, fix bugs (which is the devs' job and not the modders') and do all sorts of things modders can't possibly do.
  • ElectricMonkElectricMonk Member Posts: 599
    Once everything modders can't do is tackled, should the devs be left with additional spare time (which I doubt)...
    @AndreaColombo Perhaps I was overestimating how far along they were with the engine limitations, and the bug fixes (which I agree is definitely the job of the devs and not the modders, it would be preferable if nobody ever needed to use a fixpack again).
    ...moddable things could also be implemented (and God knows I would support everything P&P). Until then, I'd rather see them vanquish hard-coded engine limitations, fix bugs (which is the devs' job and not the modders') and do all sorts of things modders can't possibly do.
    I still think that this is important enough to request. I mean, basically everyone on this forum is largely in the dark about where exactly the team is in the development process, so I'm not exactly sure when you're suggesting they're meant to hold these requests until (I doubt the community will be informed as soon as all soft-coding, etc. is finished). What I would like the devs to do as far as approval goes (not sure if this is possible) would be to group all 2nd ed AD&D PnP implementations together and request approval for them as a group, possibly speeding up the process. Given that they're within the rules that the game is based on, I would think it could be considerably easier to get them approved. Maybe these things are more important to me than others, but I just feel like so many of these PnP implementations have proven themselves to drastically improve the game and are well worth being a part of the final product that's released.
  • bigdogchrisbigdogchris Member Posts: 1,336
    edited January 2013
    I'm bumping this out of the Abyss.

    When I equip leather and studded leather armor, the character record does not show penalties. There is no penalty data attached to the items in the game data either (except for elven chain).

    Where/how/is these penalties being applied?

    Also, are there any penalties on other items helms/bucklers/etc.?
  • CamDawgCamDawg Member, Developer Posts: 3,438
    Heh, I was just exchanging a PM about this with someone.

    BG and BG2 really half-assed armor penalties and thieving. Chain and above outright disable thieving, light armor (leather/studded leather) allow it w/o penalty, with a couple of in-betweens--elven chain and hide--allowing thieving but with their PnP penalties.

    The Tweak Pack component essentially allows thieving in everything, but with the PnP penalties. Leather is unchanged, studded leather gets modest penalties, and so on and so forth. Unarmored rogues also get their PnP bonuses. Shields and other items don't impose penalties, mainly because I couldn't find any in the source books.
  • ajwzajwz Member Posts: 4,122
    I wish they'd revamped the thief penalties display to break down any positive or negative effects on them in the same way they have done for thac0, damage and AC
  • AndreaColomboAndreaColombo Member Posts: 5,525
    ajwz said:

    I wish they'd revamped the thief penalties display to break down any positive or negative effects on them in the same way they have done for thac0, damage and AC

    I like the idea, but the main problem with its implementation is that the information would only be relevant to rogue-types, which would leave us with a purpose-less empty square in everyone else's inventory.

Sign In or Register to comment.