159 replies to this topic

[T.G.Maestro]

TG, I would increase the missile resistance for full plates. After all, you would need some damn good arrows to pierce the armor, especially if it is enchanted.

What would you suggest? They have pretty high resistance already if I recall correctly (30%, which is the highest value so far).

As a reminder to my last post, we nshould carefully maintain the balance between AC and Damage Resistance: these two show the true power of an armor, and both have a specific purpose.
We might even revise the base AC modifiers against the various damage types, as originally the_bigg suggested.

Edited by T.G.Maestro, 31 May 2005 - 03:53 AM.

[Feanor]

TG, I would increase the missile resistance for full plates. After all, you would need some damn good arrows to pierce the armor, especially if it is enchanted.

What would you suggest? They have pretty high resistance already if I recall correctly (30%, which is the highest value so far).

30% High resistance, TG ? That is for +6 armors. Sorry, TG, but a +6 armor, in my opinion, should be almost impenetrable for arrows. Compare it with the resistance of the scales of the dragon : even from the scales of a red dragon, you can forge only a +2 full plate. I would say +50%. Anyway, it seems a little bit strange that the slashing and missile resistance have the same value (not in all cases, but most of them)

[T.G.Maestro]

30% High resistance, TG ? That is for +6 armors. Sorry, TG, but a +6 armor, in my opinion, should be almost impenetrable for arrows.

Lets separate this question.
First, 30% can be most significant if you receive massive damage - the greater the blow that penetrates the armor (AC), the more damage the armor soaks up (Damage Resistance). If we take a devastating blow with 60 points of damage, that ~20 points of damage resistance sounds more than nice.
Second, don't forget that the "impenetrable" +5 armor is often attacked by "penetrating" +3 arrows for example. Also remember, that Full Plates get AC bonuses vs. missile weapons to further show their enhanced defense against projectiles.

Anyway, it seems a little bit strange that the slashing and missile resistance have the same value (not in all cases, but most of them)

Balancing the damage resistance types is another story, and we are fully open towards suggestions. Let me know if you think some of the values sound unrealistic.

[the bigg]

Regarding the stackability of AC modifiers: there is nothing like this in BGII, but you can't wear more than one of the items in itemexcl.2da (meaning that if you have one you can have none else).

[T.G.Maestro]

Regarding the stackability of AC modifiers: there is nothing like this in BGII

Um, I'm not sure I understand you here: AC bonuses from various items can be stackable, depending on their nature in BG2. For example while you can't wear an enchanted armor together with a Ring of Protection, you can wear the very same armor together with the Ring of Earth Control (which grants -1 to AC) and their AC bonuses will stack normally.

you can't wear more than one of the items in itemexcl.2da (meaning that if you have one you can have none else

That explains why Weimer's "Item Upgrade" rings are equippable with other enchanted items (armors, rings, anulets) providing AC bonuses...

[PolarBear]

I think additional ac bonus vs misslie weapons in the case of heavy armor is more realistic than damage resistance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but IMO there is no way an arrow could penetrate thick iron. And the way archers deal with heavily armoured enemies is to aim on weaker spots, such as maybe your neck, and things like that. Sorry I've seen such only in movies

[the bigg]

Regarding the stackability of AC modifiers: there is nothing like this in BGII

Um, I'm not sure I understand you here: AC bonuses from various items can be stackable, depending on their nature in BG2. For example while you can't wear an enchanted armor together with a Ring of Protection, you can wear the very same armor together with the Ring of Earth Control (which grants -1 to AC) and their AC bonuses will stack normally.

There is no selective stackability like in IWDII, though.

[Talib]

Wouldn't an easy way to allow rings to stack with magical armor but not each other be to simply remove the flag classifying magical armors as magical?  The armor works the same in all other respects whether the armors are flagged that way or not.  I imagine this would save a lot of work.   Also......most mod armors I've seen aren't actually flagged as magical anyway so you can already use rings of protection with them.  Doing this would actually increase the consistency of most mods I've seen!

Edited by Talib, 31 May 2005 - 01:37 PM.

[Feanor]

Anyway, it seems a little bit strange that the slashing and missile resistance have the same value (not in all cases, but most of them)

Balancing the damage resistance types is another story, and we are fully open towards suggestions. Let me know if you think some of the values sound unrealistic.

I would make the slashing resistance more similar in values with the blunt resistance.

[T.G.Maestro]

I think additional ac bonus vs misslie weapons in the case of heavy armor is more realistic than damage resistance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but IMO there is no way an arrow could penetrate thick iron. And the way archers deal with heavily armoured enemies is to aim on weaker spots, such as maybe your neck, and things like that.

It is possible. If you ever tried to shoot with a professional bow (or simply seen someone else do it), you know that even these normal real-life weapons are capable to penetrate 1-2 cms of iron, if the hit is centered directly at right angles to it. Of course, this is only true for precision bows in RL. In a fantasy setting however, we have magic enchantments. And using the same RL logic, it is indeed possible to penetrate armors with an arrow - of course, it is very hard, and in most cases the arrow will break or simply bounce off the armor's surface (AC!), but on success, it can pierce through the material by losing some of it's impact power (Damage Resistance!).

Wouldn't an easy way to allow rings to stack with magical armor but not each other be to simply remove the flag classifying magical armors as magical? The armor works the same in all other respects whether the armors are flagged that way or not. I imagine this would save a lot of work. Also......most mod armors I've seen aren't actually flagged as magical anyway so you can already use rings of protection with them. Doing this would actually increase the consistency of most mods I've seen!

That would be allowing cheating openly, something that is definitely out of the scope of Refinements. One of the tweak mods already implemented this, but I never used it.
And the fact that mod armors aren't flagged as magical despite their crazy bonuses further shows how far they are from professional work. It is a rather sad tendency, one that I'd avoid to follow at all costs.

I would make the slashing resistance more similar in values with the blunt resistance.

I wouldn't accept this in case of every armor type. There is an important difference between the infilcted damage types of the edged and blunt weapons. While a blade can have a most difficult time to damage a plated armor for example, a mace/morning star can easily penetrate it and damage the wearer. In fact, blunt weapons were always efectively used against armored opponents in RL too.

[T.G.Maestro]

For the record, here are the basic AC modifiers of the various armor types. I'd be interested in the public opinion, weather we should change any of these bonuses/penalties for this component.

Armor Type

Leather Armor Base AC:8, S:0 P/M:+1, B:0
Studded leather Base AC:7, S:?1 , P/M:?1, B:0
Hide Armor Base AC:6, S:0, P/M:+1, B:0
Chain mail Base AC:5, S:?2, P/M:0, B:2
Banded mail Base AC:4, S:?2 , P/M:0, B:?1
Plate mail Base AC:3, S:?3, P/M:0, B:0
Field plate Base AC:2, S:?3, P/M:?1, B:0
Full Plate Base AC:1, S:?3, P/M:?1, B:0


My basic modifications would be to change the following:

Studded Leather: P/M:0
Hide Armor: B:-1
Plate Mail: P/M:-1
Field Plate: P/M:-2
Full Plate: P/M:-3

Edited by T.G.Maestro, 02 June 2005 - 12:35 AM.

[T.G.Maestro]

UPDATE: Thieving Skill penalties added.

[SimDing0]

Okay, this looks pretty good to me. The more I think about it, the more fair it seems, although I'm hardly particularly good with balance.

I'm not sure the damage % modifiers are actually going to make that much difference in practice. If you take 10 damage and your full plate takes 10% of it, that's not a whole lot a difference. Similarly, if Aerie takes 50 damage and her studded leather takes 5%, she's still (nearly) dead. The key factor is going to remain whether you take any damage at all, which is still determined by AC. Have you considered simply upping the damage resistance to something far higher and dropping AC bonuses completely? Hence, armour would absorb damage, and AC would represent your ability to dodge. (That's what I tried.) That said, keeping the AC bonuses in does appear to make it better balanced-- I'd just be concerned that you're effectively making heavier armour much weaker than it currently is (potentially a decrease of 4 AC from the dexterity penalty of full plate) without a significant advantage to compensate.
Did that make any sense?

I don't believe THAC0 penalties should be implemented, because I'd imagine that's already represented sufficiently by the dexterity drop.

Also, remember to implement minimum dexerity requirements to wear the armours, otherwise characters'll put on full plate mail and chunk because they only have 4 dex.

Finally, since it's been raised here, I'd be thrilled to see item requirements dropped and balanced properly. It'd be lovely to have AoE's Universal Weapons, my backstab tweaks, the armour revisions, and so on, combined into a well balanced sum which wouldn't have the stupid PnP usability restrictions. Unfortunately, that's balancing hell.

[T.G.Maestro]

Okay, this looks pretty good to me. The more I think about it, the more fair it seems

I'm glad you see things this way.

I'm not sure the damage % modifiers are actually going to make that much difference in practice. If you take 10 damage and your full plate takes 10% of it, that's not a whole lot a difference. Similarly, if Aerie takes 50 damage and her studded leather takes 5%, she's still (nearly) dead. The key factor is going to remain whether you take any damage at all, which is still determined by AC.

This is worth considering, I admit. The only problem with this is that we can only use %s when it comes to damage resistance. Fixed amounts (as seen in IWD2 for example) are not available in BG2. This way we are stuck with those %-s, and that means a much harder balancing part.

Have you considered simply upping the damage resistance to something far higher and dropping AC bonuses completely? Hence, armour would absorb damage, and AC would represent your ability to dodge. (That's what I tried.) That said, keeping the AC bonuses in does appear to make it better balanced-- I'd just be concerned that you're effectively making heavier armour much weaker than it currently is (potentially a decrease of 4 AC from the dexterity penalty of full plate) without a significant advantage to compensate.

To be honest, making heavy armors weaker than they currently are was one of my goals - or to be more precise, I wished to make it more useful to less dextrous characters, because these won't suffer any additional penalties from wearing them (aside the slight decrease in movement rate), since their DEX score is already low. On the other hand, agile characters with a DEX score of 17+ will benefit much less from these types of armor, just as they should. As a compensation, they'll find once again re-equip all those "useless" Studded Leathers, because most of their skills and ability score bonuses will remain untouched by them.
As for the damage resistance bonus, it is mostly there to compensate for the other losses (and of course to show the impact-reducing aspect of armors). As I said to Feanor a bit before, we are still open towards any balancing discussions, so I guess I can accept a slight increase in the bonuses of heavier armor types.

I don't believe THAC0 penalties should be implemented, because I'd imagine that's already represented sufficiently by the dexterity drop.

Absolutely.

Also, remember to implement minimum dexerity requirements to wear the armours, otherwise characters'll put on full plate mail and chunk because they only have 4 dex.

Heh, this is a good point, really..
Thanks for the note!

Finally, since it's been raised here, I'd be thrilled to see item requirements dropped and balanced properly. It'd be lovely to have AoE's Universal Weapons, my backstab tweaks, the armour revisions, and so on, combined into a well balanced sum which wouldn't have the stupid PnP usability restrictions.

Well, we have basically similar dreams then. We are already discussing the possibilities of a modification that would deal with item restrictions in a proper way - but that is for the future for now.

[SimDing0]

To be honest, making heavy armors weaker than they currently are was one of my goals - or to be more precise, I wished to make it more useful to less dextrous characters, because these won't suffer any additional penalties from wearing them (aside the slight decrease in movement rate), since their DEX score is already low. On the other hand, agile characters with a DEX score of 17+ will benefit much less from these types of armor, just as they should. As a compensation, they'll find once again re-equip all those "useless" Studded Leathers, because most of their skills and ability score bonuses will remain untouched by them.

I firmly agree that if you've made studded leather a viable alternative to full plate for high-dex characters, then you've done your job.

As for the damage resistance bonus, it is mostly there to compensate for the other losses (and of course to show the impact-reducing aspect of armors). As I said to Feanor a bit before, we are still open towards any balancing discussions, so I guess I can accept a slight increase in the bonuses of heavier armor types.

I think I'd favour an increase in the bonuses, yes. In the end though, it's so complicated that you can only do so much before people just have to play through the game and see how it works.

Well, we have basically similar dreams then. We are already discussing the possibilities of a modification that would deal with item restrictions in a proper way - but that is for the future for now.

Well, if and when you come to working on this, count me in. Uh, unless I'd be in the way or something.

[T.G.Maestro]

I think I'd favour an increase in the bonuses, yes.

Please don't forget that we also plan to alter the base AC modifiers vs. various weapon types somewhat - for example heavy armors will receive bonuses versus ranged weaponry.
Also, another factor that should balance things out is the increasing bonuses with increasing Enchantment Levels. As I see things ATM, a highly enchanted Full Plate can still make your character a tank, no matter those (decreasing!) penalties.

UPDATE: Damage Resistance bonuses for heavy armors slightly increased.

[Littiz]

Are you talking about stats restrictions or class-wide usability issues?
If it's the latter, DON'T count me in
I don't regret Use Scrolls or the work for SA, but when it's enough, it's enough

[the bigg]

Are you talking about stats restrictions or class-wide usability issues?
If it's the latter, DON'T count me in 
I don't regret Use Scrolls or the work for SA, but when it's enough, it's enough

The first .tp2 thing I ever wrote was the mod-sensible installer for Universal Weapons from AoE, so I think I have at least some expertise in this regard :closedeyes:

[Chevalier]

Have you considered simply upping the damage resistance to something far higher and dropping AC bonuses completely? Hence, armour would absorb damage, and AC would represent your ability to dodge. (That's what I tried.) That said, keeping the AC bonuses in does appear to make it better balanced-- I'd just be concerned that you're effectively making heavier armour much weaker than it currently is (potentially a decrease of 4 AC from the dexterity penalty of full plate) without a significant advantage to compensate.

What is heavy?? Heavy to a Str 9 or Str 16? Heavy armour should slow down your ability to dogde. Drink of potion of storm giant str. and your armour should feel light! Could you balance lost of Dex with current Str? My archer with with high Dex (18), but low Str (12) should be slowd up with Plate mail, but not studded leather. My Knight with High Str (18) and ok Dex (16) should not be slowed down by wearing plate mail. Well made heavy armour should let you move with ease.

Also, I too am against Universal Weapons and Armours. It is ok to have a mage sneaks into a castle waering chain mail with a DM playing, but not in a computer game. For a brief part of SoS all party members wear plate mail, but when the quest is done things go back normal. Spell failure rate is a good idea for multi-class and bards and such. Thieving Skill penalties should be 0% for leather(in PnP D&D leather is thought to be standard, no armour you got bonuses). No armour should get you a bonus.

Edited by Chevalier, 03 June 2005 - 03:07 AM.

[the bigg]

While fine, most ideas you posted aren't doable, or not enough easily to be worth (penalties according to strenght, bonuses for no armour) or weren't planned (revision of usability checks).
Moreover, a plate mail is thick at least 1 inch, even if you had 25 strenght you'd be clumsier, so it's not entirely clear that a strong character should get less penalties for heavy armours.