Ranged Weapons and STR bonus

Remove all ads!

Hi all,

I was working on a possible new item a few minutes ago, and I had a little brain storm on ranged weapons and STR bonus damage... I did some quick testing and proved my idea was in fact true...

Most of us know that there are some ranged weapons that are supposed to add STR bonus to damage, and in fact they do, even if for certain weapons, you can't see this additional damage on the character info pages.

And now I know why that is...

If you look at any truly thrown weapons, such as a throwing axe or throwing dagger, you should see the STR bonus damage. But if you look at a sling on the character info page, you will not see the STR bonus damage...

The reason that I've discovered is this... when it's an actual thrown weapon, the "weapon" is also the "launcher" and the "ammo" all in one. OTOH, when you are talking about a sling, you have two discrete elements ... the "launcher" (i.e. the sling) and the "ammo" (i.e. the bullets). And if you look at the character info page for the weapon's damage, you will see that it is the ammo that is examined, not the launcher. And because bullets don't have the STR bonus damage directly linked to them in the ITM files, you don't see the STR bonus damage added by the launcher.

I tested this out by adding "uses STR" to one of my LOS arrows, then starting up IWD2... All of the sudden, this arrow was showing STR bonus damage on the character reference screen.

I didn't go on to test this hypothesis in battle testing... It was so logical that I don't really see the need for additional testing, at least for now...




However, as I write this, it is causing me to consider whether I should have a next rev of LOS remove "uses STR" from all slings, and add "uses STR" to all bullets, so that STR bonus damage would show up on the character screens, since slings by their very nature allow the adding of STR bonus damage to any ammo...

While I haven't tested this, I suspect that if both a sling and its bullets were tagged in their ITM files as "uses STR", it's possible and maybe even likely that you'd get the STR damage bonus twice... Hence, the need to remove "uses STR" from all slings, if it were to be added to all bullets.

 

That's good debugging effort there, crucis.

Since you're not essentially changing anything in how the game works, just correcting a display bug, I'm all for it.

Have you tested that it actually works the way as advertised if it's the AMMO that carries the STR bonus? It's easy to verify with anyone with huge STR score.

As an ex-programmer it makes me cringe to think that the guys at BIS never thought about doing some sort of an dependency tree for the weapons, with inheritance and so forth. So instead of having to spec every single detail for your weapon, you just point out it's, say, a sling and you get the properties of a generic sling inherited to it.

 

I agree, great work there crucis. Sir Rechet's makes a good point; you'd have to find and alter every sling and bullet in the game, and alter them one by one, not an easy task. Don't forget the Falcon Arrow and Greenbow in LoS...
Any mods with bullets that go unmodified, could be used for double damage! Is there some way to make the character info screen to display the weapon damage with the missile as the weapon, instead of the launcher..?
I'm guessing that's more a thing that MindChild's fix could... fix. Where is he nowadays??

 

Actually, coin, it's not that difficult to do. The following block of WeiDU TP2 installation script code will make the necessary changes to ALL slings and bullets that exist in the game (including those included by any mod installed prior to running this code).

Rechet, it's possible that I might be able to merge the two loops into a single more efficient loop. I only wrote this last night, and haven't tested it yet. However, I do know that the basic logic will work since I copied it from the "druids being unable to use metal armor" patch that's in LOS (which I leveraged from some BG2 mod...).

Code:

    COPY_EXISTING_REGEXP GLOB ~.*\.itm~ ~override~
      SET "sling_patch" = 0
      READ_BYTE 0x1C "type"
      WHILE ("%sling_patch%" = 0) AND            
            ("%type%" = 18)  // Sling
      BEGIN
        WRITE_BYTE 0xA8 0 // making sure that all slings no longer add STR bonus damage
        SET "sling_patch" = 1
      END
    BUT_ONLY_IF_IT_CHANGES

    COPY_EXISTING_REGEXP GLOB ~.*\.itm~ ~override~
      SET "bullet_patch" = 0
      READ_BYTE 0x1C "type"
      WHILE ("%bullet_patch%" = 0) AND            
            ("%type%" = 14)  // Bullets
      BEGIN
        WRITE_BYTE 0xA8 1 // making sure that all bullets DO add STR bonus damage
        SET "bullet_patch" = 1
      END
    BUT_ONLY_IF_IT_CHANGES

As for the Greenbow, I'm fully aware of that issue (and almost included a paragraph in my original post on it, but decided to not do so). The problem with doing this fix for the Greenbow (and its HOF version) is this... the fix for slings and bullets is viable because ALL slings add STR to damage. If I simply transfer the "uses STR" functionality to the bullets, the adding of STR bonus damage will still remain as a global functionality for all sling/bullet combinations, the way it is already.

BUT, the Greenbow is unique... It is the ONLY bow that adds STR to damage. And to make the STR bonus show up on the character info screens for the Greenbow, I'd need to have not just the Falcon arrow "use STR", but have ALL arrows "use STR". However!!! ... if I were to make all arrows "use STR", then ALL bows would add STR bonus to damage, not just the Greenbow. Unfortunately, the Greenbow cannot be changed, unless all bows were allowed to add STR to damage, which they shouldn't, of course.

Actually, the issue would be less with bullets than slings, coin. If you used an unpatched bullet with a patched sling, you'd get no STR bonus. OTOH, if you used a patched bullet with an unpatched sling, then, yes, it appears that you might get double the STR bonus added to damage.

Is there some way....? I don't know. I am conversant in programming. The thing with Mindchild's mod is that I don't know how he was able to get the info that allowed him to write his code. I can read the code in his DLL mod just fine. MY problem is that I just don't know how he knows that his code is able to work within the IWD2 mod.

Also, the character info screen already does display weapon damage using the AMMO, not the launcher. It does include (IIRC) the enchantment bonus to damage from the launcher, but not any STR bonus added by the launcher.

As for where Mindchild is these days... I don't know.

---------- Added 0 hours, 13 minutes and 27 seconds later... ----------

Thanks, Rechet. The idea only hit me last night that this could be the problem.


All I've done to this point is that I manually flagged "Uses STR" for the Falcon Arrow (already installed in the game). Then I started up IWD2 and loaded a game save where my ranger already has the Falcon Arrow. I had the ranger equip the Falcon Arrow, and then checked the character info screen. And, lo and behold, the weapon damage section stated that a) the equipped weapon was the Falcon Arrow, and that b) the STR bonus was displayed as being added to damage.

However, I didn't go so far as to battle test if this was true in combat. I think that I'd want to give my ranger an utterly bland short bow with the most minimal damage bonuses possible to limit the number of potential variables that could affect damage output. If I have a chance, maybe I'll check it out later today.

 

Tsssk... what was I thinking

More silliness... mixed it up, didn't I?

<bangs head> think before you post! think before you post!


Well, it looks like you're nearly there. Writing a code that alters the features of all slings and bullets will do the trick, no need for MindChild's fix anymore..

 

With some of the recent talk about archery, as well as the above stuff about slings and bullets and STR bonus damage, I've been investigating doing something similar for bows.

For better or worse, things are a little more complex with archery. With slings and bullets, all slings are basically the same. However, with bows, there are effectively 2 subtypes of bows, longbow and shortbow, and 2 further subtypes, composite vs non-composite. Then add to this that in p&p, long and short bows are treated as different weapons for the purpose of weapon proficiencies. IIRC, this was also true in BG2, but in IWD2 all bows are grouped into a single weapon prof feat "Bows".

Anyways ... after reading my 3.5ed player manual, it's clear that IWD2 cannot support a strict reading of the differentiation between composite and non-composite bows. However, it is possible to make due with a simpler though less realistic model, wherein all composite bows are allowed to add STR bonus to damage and all non-composite bows do not do so.

However, note that doing it this way means that the STR bonus damage would be attached to the launcher rather than the ammo, which in turn means that it would NOT show up on the character info screen. It is possible to make this bonus damage appear on the character info screens, but only by attaching it to all arrows, and making the differentiation between composite and non-composite bows disappear. Let me know what you think about this.
My current preference is to support the differentiation between composite and non-composite bows, and live with the bonus damage being invisible. However, I could live with the other path as well, I suppose.

And BTW, note that with either path, if you look at unenchanted LB, CLB, SB, and CSB, they all should really have +0 to AB and +0 to damage (according to the p&p rules). Furthermore, if you look at any generic +X bow, its AB should be +X and its bonus to damage (via the enchantment) should be the same +X. Any additional bonus damage (from the launcher, not the arrows) should come from the STR bonus of the character.

The only functional difference between LB's and SB's is that LB's should do 1d8 damage vs 1d6 for SB's. However, this isn't really possible to represent in a strict sense. The best that can be done would be to give a +2 to damage to LB's and CLB's (which was the solution I used in rev 1 of LOS).



Another point relating to bows is the following. According to the p&p rules, bards and rogues start with proficiency in short bows but not longbows. However, since IWD2 has merged short and long bows into a single Feat, bards and rogues get longbow proficiency for free. In one sense, this may not seem like a big deal. However, the result is that doing so basically makes shortbows (composite or non-composite) rather pointless, since longbows are almost always better, at least in vanilla IWD2 and in LOS rev 1/2.

It's been a long time since I've played p&p D&D, but I'm thinking that if I were playing a bard or a rogue and already had weap prof in shortbow, I'm not sure that I'd waste a feat to get prof in longbow, when I could spend the feat on weap focus on SB, or some other feat.

So what I'm seriously considering doing is making all longbows unusable by bards and rogues, so that shortbows will have more value within the game. However, it should be considered that getting around this limitation should be dirt simple... all you'd have to do is multi-class in some class other than bard or rogue, and the limitation disappears. And given how often people multi-class rogues, it's not much of a limitation. Besides while, the real limitation is more that there aren't as many shortbows or worse, composite shortbows as there are LB's or CLB's. (Of course, adding new ones to fill the void isn't all that difficult...)



Anyways, I just thought that I'd dump out a few thoughts on this matter to start a conversation on the topic...

 

Like you said it's not much of a limitation but I don't see it as a needed limitation. I'm not that keen on ranged Rogues myself but that can only make them even less interesting for powergaming purposes.

Now if there was a way to implement sneak attacks with ranged weapons I wouldn't mind Rogues being limited to shortbows.

 

You do realize that trying to convince me of this on powergaming terms will only fall on deaf ears? I'm the person who is determined to make the Holy Avenger sword a weapon for true paladin's, not just some magic resistance shield for powergaming paladin wannabe sorc X/pal 1.

By now, you should realize that trying to convince me to do something in Light of Selune for the sake of powergaming is only likely to convince me to do the opposite for the sake of anti-powergaming.




Currently, there's no point to shortbows even existing. Longbows are better than shortbows in every circumstance, at least given the way that they're implemented in IWD2. I don't know if a differentiation between long and shortbows is "needed". But if there is none, then frankly there's no point to even mentioning that a bow is a longbow or a shortbow... the only distinction becomes composite or non-composite... which is also an almost non-existant distinction in vanilla IWD2. The way vanilla IWD2 is, you might as well just call all bows "bows" and be done with it, since the the differences between the actual subtypes is barely noticeable.

There's no way that I know of to do this without using some sort of mod like Mindchild's Custom DLL mod.

Furthermore, aside from the desire for rogues to do sneak attacks with ranged weapons (which I can sympathize with), I don't see the logic of this statement... unless you were saying that ranged sneak attacking would only be allowed with SB's but not LB's, which seems somewhat illogical in its own right but does seem to let your statement above make more sense.

 

Then the question would be, does IWD2 implement Rear and Flank attack bonuses? If so, does it do so for Ranged Attackes or only Melee Attacks?Ranged Sneak Attacks for Rogues would be an AWESOME addition to that class in IWD2 and it would definitely make me consider having multiple Rogues in a party.

 

I'm no powergamer either but you should know that by now.

I'm probably less of a powergamer than even you because I just hate HoF and I don't think one can play through HoF without cheesy tacks and (senseless) powergaming.

Now about what you had to say in your last post (which I've just quoted). You will have to agree that from a purely effective point of view (which we could choose to call a powergaming point of view) Rogues in IWD2 are not that good (except for the few of us who enjoy sneak attacks).

When I say sneak attacks should work with ranged weapons I don't mean short bows only, that's you interpretating my post. What I mean is that if you take away something from the Rogue class (the ability to use longbows) then you'd have to give them something to make up for it... It's not like Rogues are overpowered in IWD2 (hence my remark on powergaming).

That is to say, nerfing what is considered to be the weakest class in IWD2 is probably not such a good idea.

So Crucis, get off your high horses, I'm NOT trying to convince you to do anything you don't want to do with your mod. You asked for comments and feedback and I was just providing that.

 

I don't have a clue about rear or flank attack bonuses. Sorry.

About the only "simple" (i.e. not using a Mindchild-line custom DLL) mod to do "ranged" sneak attacks would be to create a weapon similar to the Phantom Staff or the Twelve Paces HOF spear ... melee weapons with a greater range than is normal for "normal" melee weapons. The same thing could be done with a "bow"... sort of, I suppose. It'd almost certainly be ammo-less. (True ammo-less bows are actually coded as projectile weapons, rather than launchers...)

Regardless, this isn't on my radar screen, as this really is something that's hardcoded into the game.

I'm more interested here in worrying about standard bow issues, not ranged sneak attacks, which is simply not within the scope of what I can do.

---------- Added 9 hours, 5 minutes and 52 seconds later... ----------

Whoa.... somehow I missed your reply, Carad. I suppose because my most recent reply got posted only a minute after this one, and I never noticed it and only saw that my post was the "most recent", so I never checked back in. My bad.

Sorry, Carad, but I tend to have a bad memory as to who are and are not the powergamers.

It's been a while since I've played HOF, but I've always been able to do HOF without resorting to powergaming or cheesey tactics (at least I don't think that they're cheesey, but opinions may vary).


However, I respect those that don't like HOF. Frankly, in some ways I think that one could even say that 3e in general creates a similar problem, since 2e characters tended to have their HP totals top out at around level 10 or so, but in 3e, you get your 1dX per level (plus CON bonus) in HP at every single level. Arguably, this makes archery that much more difficult, but then again, it makes all combat more difficult...

I don't disagree, but you will have to agree (or not, your choice) that waving the powergaming red flag in front of my (virtual) eyes is not going to do anything positive to convince me of anything. My eyes will immediately glaze over, and I'll start snarling "powergaming!!!"

Yes, I was "interpretating" what you wrote because I felt that I had no choice because it wasn't clear to me what you were trying to say. And ntoe that I didn't actually "say" that you said this either... I was trying to infer what you were trying to say.

I appreciate your cents, but it still seems to me that you're making this argument from a "powergaming" point of view. If one argues from a roleplaying PoV, it should be a non-issue. I always have a rogue in my parties and I don't mean a Wiz X/rogue 2 build), regardless of how "efficient" rogues are, and they always do just fine.


Anyways, if there's a good selection of shortbows added, exactly how are rogues being nerfed?

Mind you, I am not exactly committed to this idea in either direction. It just bugs me that there's absolutely no point to shortbows in vanilla IWD2... none whatsoever. They're inferior to LB's. Everyone is allowed to use LB's right at the start (which is counter to the p&p rules). Even in BG2, there was a distinction between SB's and LB's (as well as separate proficiencies), and Thieves (among others) couldn't uses LB's. But in IWD2, why even call them shortbows or longbows? What's the point? There's no difference. Why have composite or non-composite bows either? There's almost no difference there either. Why not just have "bows"? (he says sarcastically...)

Carad, this is how I communicate. I push people to defend their positions, and I defend my own positions with vigor and passion. If that means that I'm on my high horse, good for the horse! Hi-ho, Silver!!!!

I'm not going to ask everyone to gather 'round the camp fire so we can all sing "Kum-by-yah" (or however it's spelled). That's not who I am nor ever will be.

Besides, it's been my experience that "why" you believe something to be true is more important to this process than the "what". "What" provides no context. "Why" does.

 

This is probably a ridiculous and unachievable idea, but I'll say it anyway:
Is there some way to give rogues and bards a plain attack and damage bonus for using shortbows, by adding a feature to the bows? There are weapon bonuses against certain enemies, but can you implement bonuses when wielded by certain characters?? Or from another angle, since shortbows are inferior to longbows all of the time, give the bows attack & dmg bonuses, but make them usable exclusively by rogues & bards... Then the bows will be on the level of longbows, but only rogues can even consider them.

 

No, it's not really ridiculous.

It's certainly possible to give weapon bonuses against certain enemies, though the list of such enemies is rather limited. (For some reason, BG2's implementation in this regard is much better than IWD1 or IWD2.) Within the D&D rules, this sort of bonus is referred to as a "Bane" ability and gives a +2d6 to damage with a "+1" modifier on the cost tables (i.e. basically making a +1 weapon into a +2 weapon for costing purposes, for example). There are a number of examples of "Bane" Weapons in LOS (and some in vanilla IWD2 as well). The "Drowbane" bolts are one example of a Bane weapon.



As for whether SB's are inferior to LB's all the time, let me explain in a bit more detail. The implementation of SB's and LB's (composite and non-composite) in IWD2 tends to muddy up the issue a bit. In the p&p rules, for starters, SB's and CSB's (CSB = Composite Short Bow, fyi) do 1d6 damage, while all LB's and CLB's do 1d8 damage. That is the core of why LB's are "better" than SB's. (A secondary reason that may not come into play much in IWD2 is that LB's have roughly a 40-50% greater range than SB's.)

When it comes to magic bows, a +1 bow adds +1 to the AB and _1 to the damage, regardless of whether it's a SB or LB... so it still comes down to the 1d6 vs. 1d8.

A parallel differentiator is composite vs non-composite. Of course, there are composite and non-composite longbows and shortbows. In p&p, NON-composite bows cannot add any positive STR bonus to damage (though any negative STR bonus IS subtracted from damage). However, composite bows CAN add positive STR bonus to damage, though it's a little more complex than that.... In p&p, comp. bows have STR ratings. That is, a CLB might be rated for an 18 STR... meaning that you could add a +4 STR bonus to damage if you had an 18 STR. But if a 20 STR character used that bow, he could still only add +4 to damage. And if a sub-18 STR character tried to use that bow, you'd be able to add your own STR bonus, but would also take a -2 penalty to your AB because your STR didn't meet the bow's STR rating. In effect, the bow's pull was greater than what your character could manage easily, and it prevents you from using the bow proficiently.

HOWEVER, this cannot be emulated properly in IWD2. For starters, you'd end up with a half dozen different +1 CLB's for each even numbered STR rating between 10 and 20 or so. And you'd end up with that for every generic type of composite long and shortbow. Also, there's no way to emulate the -2 penalty for insufficient STR to "proficiently" use the high-pull bow. The best that can be done is to use the STR limitation that sets whether you can or cannot use the item at all. The best way that I can see to emulate this is to simply make all composite bows "use STR", and to sort of assume that for simplicity's sake, all composite bows are adjusting to the STR of the user (and avoid the nasty little details that cannot be accurately emulated).

Another issue crops up at this point... which I mentioned before... do we want to SEE the STR bonus damage on the character info screens? This can be done... but the cost is that you lose the differentation between composite and non-composite bows because the methodology for making this work is to attach "uses STR" to the ARROWS. And because arrows are useable by all bows, all bows would gain the benefit of "uses STR". And functionally, this would mean that all bows become composite bows.

But there's an interesting issue on the other side of this conundrum. If the the uses STR flag is attached to the (composite) bows (and the effect is hidden from the char info screen), it's entirely possible that the STR bonus damage will actually be at 150% of the STR bonus ... because bows are two-handed weapons.




Hmmmm.... I think that I've sort of wandered a bit off of your comments, Coin. let me try to get back to them....

There are two shortbows (don't remember if they're composite or not) in LOS rev1 of note. One is the Alicorn Bow which has the effect of illuminating a struck target with a glow similar to that provide by the Alicorn Lance spell (which lowers the target's AC by 2 for 3 rounds). Another is the Wildfire Bow, which adds +1d6 fire damage to any arrow. Those should both be useful effects.

I want to get back to the concept of "Bane" effects for a moment. Bane effects don't really badly raise an item's price, at least compared to some other effects. The problem that I have with them as it relates to IWD2 is that with few exceptions, most monster types only appear in one or two areas. And if you place a Bane weapon right before that are, it may seem a bit much. For example, if you could buy an anti-Yuan-ti weapon just before you hit Kuldahar, it ends up feeling too meta-gamed and the weapon ends up feeling like it only exists for a single region. Disrupting weapons (which are sort of a type of Bane weapon in a way, since they're anti-undead) at least have the excuse that there are a fair amount of undead throughout the game, not just in a single region.

So, generally speaking, I feel more comfortable with effects that are a bit more, well, general, like the elemental effects or skills (or occasionally, stat) bonuses.


Anyways, I'm still uncommitted about this SB/LB issue. One downside of doing it would be that I'd probably feel the need to create some more SB and CSB's to provide a better mix for those poor souls who were "limited" to using them.

---------- Added 0 hours, 18 minutes and 31 seconds later... ----------

Upon further reflection (not that I didn't know it already), it would be MUCH simpler to just treat all bows the same.... bows would just be bows. No shortbows or longbows. No composite vs. non-composite. And if "uses STR" were added to the ammo (aka the arrows), all bows would effectively become composite bows, whether it was stated or not.

Note that a minor (?) downside of this is that low (sub-10) STR characters might add negative STR "bonuses" to bow damage, so they might be better off using crossbows.

 

That bit at the end of your post is just irrelevant. A discussion on "what" and "why"? Sorry but that's just gibberish. Just like the Kumbaya part (unless you're trying on both counts to be offensive in a sarcastic way).

You know, I appreciate the anti-powergaming stance but it's pretty obvious by now that it's getting in the way of any sensible conversation.

"I appreciate your cents, but it still seems to me that you're making this argument from a "powergaming" point of view. If one argues from a roleplaying PoV, it should be a non-issue."

Do you mean that nerfing Rogues by not allowing them to be proficient in longbows make sense from a RPing point of view? Sorry, but there is no logic nor sense in that (unless you think pnp rules = RPing and consider these rules to be Holy Scripture descended from on high which would surprise me as I've never seen you as a Rule lawyer -the worst type of powergamers btw).

"Anyways, if there's a good selection of shortbows added, exactly how are rogues being nerfed?"

I'm pretty sure that you mean this as a rhetorical question but I'll answer anyway. It depends on what you mean by "good" because if you're going to balance things out by putting extra bows to make shortbows better it's fine but if you get carried away and make those bows too good then it will probably break game balance.
There is a very fine line between good and too good, if these new short bows are that good then you won't be nerfing but giving weapons to powergamers... Ironic isn't it? Besides if you decide to make these bows Rogue only then you'll completely shift the balance of this class towards ranged combat instead of Sneak Attacks making a strong incentive for taking only 1 level in that class with any ranged character.

FYI I'm not trying to get you to do anything with that mod of yours (I'm not even playing IWD2 at the moment). If you don't care to discuss in a reasonable way (no "why" or "what" talk please) and keep missing your Fortitude check everytime the word powergaming is mentioned then I don't see the point in trying to communicate at all.

"Kum-by-yah" to you buddy.

 

I can confirm that for you already: My human pal1/rgr1/sorcX build has been using your lovely Greenbow for most of the game, and has been getting damage outputs which rival most warrior melee builds. With stats up to 22STR and 23DEX (bonuses added), and a bit of luck, she frequently criticals for 60+ dmg!

It begs the question whether the x1.5 STR dmg multiplier is too much. I think the whole idea around this multiplier, is that a melee weapon can be held with far more grip, allowing for more powerful swings & stabs. Although bow and arrow are held by both hands, they don't form a rigid whole that allow a character to convey more force. The arrow itself is in fact held only by a few fingers, and the other hand is necessary due to the mechanism, but doesn't improve grip on the piercing weapon itself (the arrow). So, perhaps it would be more fair to tweak any (cross)bows' dmg multiplier back to x1.0...

 

It's not irrelevant nor gibberish to me... not by a long shot (hmm... is that a bow pun?).

An opinion without context, otherwise known as an unsupported opinion, is a shallow, empty thing. A supported opinion is quite often something of value.

Actually, rogues (or bards) could become proficient in longbows in a very easy way... take a level of some class other than rogue (or bard)... a class that isn't prevented from using LB's.

Yes, I agree that there's a fine line to be walked, and I've tried and will continue to try to walk it in LOS.

Do note that given my anti-powergaming stance, it's highly unlikely that I'd make it quite so easy to gain access to a "super rogues-only shortbow" by simply taking only 1 rogue level. Such a bow is rather unlikely anyways, but if one were to exist, it'd probably also be "guarded" by some relatively serious stat limitations.... though given the stat most likely to be used (DEX) wouldn't exactly prevent certain other classes from using the bow, if they took the 1 rogue level (i.e. a high DEX ranger, for example).

Actually, I think that I'm being perfectly reasonable here. Unsupported opinions (i.e. "I like/don't like X") are worthless, since they don't advance a discussion, whereas supported opinions (aka, "I like/don't like X because Y") can be highly valuable. When people don't support their opinions, I give them a chance to support them by pushing back.

As for the word powergaming, maybe you should try not using that word, rather than waving it in my face. After all, it's not as if you're a powergamer either, and you know that it is a rationale that will lose out every time with me... so why try to use it as a rationale in favor of something?

---------- Added 0 hours, 32 minutes and 24 seconds later... ----------

Yeah, I thought that it was doing the 150%. But since it was only for 1 NM and 1 HOF bow, I just let it go.

And BTW, if I do go ahead with letting some or all bows use STR, the Greenbow will need to be changed, since otherwise it'd be no different than any other +2 bow. I'm hesitant to make it a "Holy" bow, since that would give it a +2d6 to damage vs. Evil, which is fine in HOF, but makes the Greenbow a really, really deadly weapon for NM. I suppose that I could make it a +1 Holy bow, which would probably keep its overall cost remain about the same, though it would still be a very nasty weapon.

I'm very hesitant to give it a "Speed" effect (i.e. +1 atk/rnd) because the Speed effect is quite expensive (it adds +3 enchantment levels to the calculated cost... and potentially quite powerful. Is +1 attk/round more dangerous than, say, a +2d6 vs evil effect? Costwise, the current Greenbow is basically a 13,000 gp weapon. Changing it to a +1 LB of speed would actually increase the cost to about 23,000 gp. Changing it to a +1 Holy Bow would keep the cost the same, since the # of enchantment levels would remain unchanged (at 3... 1 level for the +1 basic enchantment, and +2 levels for the Holy effect). ((Also note that there's a built-in 30% cost reduction because this weapon has a rather limited usability group, i.e. good human, elven, or half-elven rangers.))

Note that I want the Greenbow to have a very Mielikki ranger feel to it. As its alignment restriction implies, it should be the weapon of a "good" ranger, a worshipper of Mielikki. Flaming effects are pretty much off the table. A "Holy" weapon is conceptually legit. A "bow of speed" seems legit as well.

Can you think of any other effects that might seem legit within a Mielikki motif?

Oh, I certainly agree. I've been asking myself this question as well.

It's not really possible to do away with the 150% multiplier if the "uses STR" capability is linked to the bow, because it's necessary to keep bows as 2H weapons. The only way to keep it at 100% is to link it to the ammo... which is an entirely viable solution.... at the cost of any differentiation in bows.

 

Are you just stating the obvious for fun and giggles?

Did anything I've posted give you the impression that at any given time I implied the opposite?

You see the limitations of what you mean to do so I guess I've made my point.

I didn't use the "I like/I don't like" line because when it comes to mods it doesn't matter. When you make a mod you make it for yourself first, you may share it and take requests but it's a personal modification. If however you imply that I didn't support my ideas with arguments then I'd suggest you read my posts more carefully.

You're so defensive about the use of the word "powergaming" that unless I knew better I'd assume that you were some kind of reppressed powergamer.

 

No, actually, I was describing how I approach such discussions (earlier)... you simply inferred that I was saying that you weren't using supported opinions...which wasn't the case.

Oh, I'm fully aware that items need to be balanced, etc. Frankly, it's a big reason I'm not a fan of using "Bane" effect weapons here, because if you create one at too low a level and place it someplace where you never run into any of the Bane creatures, the weapon's useless. And if you properly balance it, but place it right before you run into its Bane type of creature, it's almost too powerful and too metagamed (except perhaps unless you need to make sure that the player has a means of dealing with a particularly nasty creature ... like having some flame or acid weapons, etc. for finishing off trolls).


I won't say that every item in LOS is perfectly balanced. But I do try.

That's true to a fair degree. But if I was making it ONLY for myself, I wouldn't bother posting my thoughts here to seek out opinions and ideas.

Nope... not even close.

For example, I've resisted the urge to put in anti-powergaming limitations in the stat minmax 2DA files, even though I do play with such limitations sort of softcoded into my party designs. Such limitations are things that I'd require if I was DM'ing, but much as I'd prefer otherwise, I decided not to put them into LOS...

Also remember that the LOS version of Cera Sumat definitely PO's the more powergamey players who want to use the HA as a cheesey spell resistance "shield". Not exactly the design of a "repressed powergamer".

 

Give it an effect on the character while equipped, or a few castings of a ranger-like effect. I really liked that 'book which turns into a necklace when read by the right character' -- it had a special 'ranged Holy Power' casting. Perhaps something similar would be appropriate, ranging from a simple Bless effect, up to Divine Shell (castings or equipped effect). You're the expert on Mielikki, so you decide what would be the appropriate and proportionate...

P. S. why not make (cross)bows into 1-handed weapons. It's very un-D&D-like I know, but archers and crossbowmen were using bucklers with these weapons long before D&D presented its flawed representation of medieval combat! It's not too difficult to draw a bow or string a crossbow with a buckler attached to your wrist... I also think spears and bastard swords should be interchangeably 1 or 2-handed (ehh, Verbeeg?!), but I digress.

 

Well, when you quote my previous post and type that stuff about unsupported opinions below it you can't blame me for taking it personally.

My point is that I'm not trying to sway you in any way.

Balance is really hard to achieve and you know quite well that any modifications will have deep consequences on gameplay.

It's all too easy to get carried away with new items and I think the LOS mod is quite good in that respect although it tends to cater for certain classes more (Rangers mostly) which is not to say that it is a bad thing (especailly when it comes to classes that got a really rough deal in vanilla IWD2). I'm not a big fan of the modifications you've introduced to the Ranger class for instance and I didn't use this component when I did play your mod.

That's why I said "unless I knew better"

Still, powergaming is not a very precise term. Powergamers are obsessed with the best build and the best options to complete quests but in IWD2 I have to associate it with min maxing, level squatting, twinking (foreknowledge of items placement and properties), one level multiclassing (in which I've myself dabbled in the past) or simply getting out of character to get an item (whether it's Emma Moonblade or something else).

The Undead Targos mod is a perfect example of a mod for powergamers. The Widow's quest can only be finished by evil characters (because it's the best option). The goblins are replaced by Undead which can only be killed by a weapon that is given to the party... That is a perfect example of the bad implementation of a perfectly good idea.

There is a fine line between character building and powergaming and this line tends to get blurred at times. Trying to devise the best character is powergamey but there is nothing wrong with trying to make a build work. In the same sense that it makes sense to build a character with some ideas regarding the type of weapons and armours this character is going to be using but IMO it's quite a different thing when you plan out every last detail considering which exact item you're going to use and why you'll take just one level of a given class to get a certain stat bonus (Dreadmaster anyone?) or the ability to use one particular item.

In any case since IWD2 is a single player game so I think you were right to resist your "anti-powergaming" urges and not implement such limitations in 2DA files because in the end it's (mostly) a single player CRPG and it doesn't matter if people bend the rules as long as they enjoy the game.