88 replies to this topic

[Qwinn]

About which part? If you mean about fighters always having exceptional strength, such that a fighter simply can't have a plain 18 strength, that's basic 2nd edition D&D rules. I'd say every CRPG except PS:T follows that convention. S'why I think of this as a fix, really.

If you mean about letting TNO specifically get away with being considered a fighter for these purposes even if he's currently a mage when leveling up, well, TNO is pretty much a special case in just about everything, and so is the entire notion of adding points on levelup (at least in 2nd edition), so I don't think we can look to other CRPG's for guidance on that issue.

I really don't have a problem conceptually with making it so he has to step on 18/0 when adding the point leveling up as a mage or thief... if it were easy to implement, I'd be giving it strong consideration... but practically, the implementation would be pretty damn nasty, and all in the service of something that would probably be mostly regarded as a nuisance.

Basically, the onus for making that work right would be almost all on scient, and would probably be pretty nasty. He'd basically have to store two separate strength values, and switch between them when switching classes. How to handle it would be an issue: does this mean TNO gets stripped of -any- exceptional strength as a mage or thief, and if so, why should he be stripped of 18/100 if he's not going to be stripped of 19? There's other issues I can think of too, and it would be a crapload of pain for relatively little gain, IMO.

Oh, when it comes to the various strength spells, that's a pretty easy decision - if TNO is a fighter when he gets the spell cast on him, he skips 18/0, and if he isn't, he doesn't. Since it's just a temporary boost at that point, it doesn't really cause any of the same issues.

Items, similarly, would skip 18/0 only when TNO was a fighter. And every dialogue in the game that raises strength, for anyone including TNO (specifically, TNO's Vhailor upgrade, Morte's upgrade, Nordom's upgrade and end of game Dak'kon and Vhailor upgrades) are only accessible as a fighter, so it's not an issue there either. It's really only at character creation/levelup screen that this becomes a real issue.

Qwinn

Edited by Qwinn, 03 January 2010 - 07:17 AM.

[Qwinn]

I meant the exact number. When a fighter has 17 STR in other AD&D CRPGs and then, say, reads a tome that increases his STR by one, does it become 18/30?

I'm pretty sure in BG1 and BG2, he gets assigned a random exceptional strength if and only if he's a fighter, just as if he'd gotten to 18 strength at character creation. We can't do the random thing in PS:T - PS:T is based on a point-buy system, unlike the other games - so setting to 18/30 is the closest we could get.

As for the the second part (i.e. if TNO is a mage or a thief), I'd say it'd be better to stick to the AD&D rules here. The Nameless One is special, true, but I think it wouldn't be such a great idea to further bend the rules citing his uniqueness.

I added a lot to this argument in edits, sorry, please review.

Besides, frankly, this argument: ... seems a bit strange for a fix.

And if I were basing the decision wholly on that argument, I would agree that'd be an issue. But that argument is only applicable to character creation, and TNO is -always- a fighter at character creation, so there's really no other argument to be made, IMO.

Qwinn

[scient]

Before making any more changes to strength code I'm waiting until there is some kind of "final" decision on how mechanic should work. At the moment, I have items, boosts via dialog (permastatchange) and perma str effects (fighter specialization) all working with 0/30/60/90/99/100 progression for all classes. Adding in this extra class based check isn't difficult it's just pita shifting assembly around to insert it (like shifting all internal jumps).

There are five areas which handle changes to strength: spells (Strength, PoO, Improved Strength), perma effect boosts (via items like "Gordian Knot" for WIS/CHR; class specialization bonuses), temporary effect boosts (items -> equipped or time limited boost like Whispering Flask), PermaStatChange (dialog bonuses), and level up char point distro / TNO creation.

There are also three sets of variables for strength (this is IE code, so really for all stats): base which can only be modified by permanent effects, "temporary" perma boost -> spells or where items "set" stat (Fiend's Teeth), and a single "bonus" variable which stores cumulative bonuses from items. This single bonus value stacks ontop of whatever is the "active" stat set (base vs temp perma boost).

Edited by scient, 03 January 2010 - 07:37 AM.

[Qwinn]

Okay, I think I have a solution I can live with, but let me address the arguments in play first.

However, mages and thieves should lose that exceptional strength when they level up, because of their class. They shouldn't get access to exceptional strength, as per AD&D.

Now, see, this isn't what I'm attempting to do here. I can understand objections to implementing new stuff based on "Well, TNO is special" - I don't particularly like it either - but there ARE situations where it's valid, such as this. This is because the specialness in question is both preexisting and clearly intentional. Other than in the low level Strength and Power of One spells, PS:T wipes it ass with -all- class and stat restrictions. And not just for TNO. Any PC can easily boost his stats over 18 with items. Dak'kon and Vhailor can both get their stats pumped -way- over 18 in the endgame. PS:T simply doesn't have class or racial limits on stats, for anybody. That's clearly a design choice, and I have no standing or desire to reverse it.

That's not the rule I'm trying to reintroduce here. The rule I'm trying to reintroduce is the rule that fighters automatically get exceptional strength, which is intended as a -bonus- for being a fighter. The poor implementation of strength in the vanilla game actually makes exceptional strength a -penalty- for fighters. I'm trying to bring the game closer to 2nd ed. rules -in a way that advances the D&D design-. If PS:T ignored rule X, and reimplementing rule X would actually screw up game balance worse, I'm not going to do it. I don't think I'm wrong to prioritize fixes to broken implementation that screws up game balance and in fact reverses the effects that those 2nd edition rules were intended to achieve.

In PS:T, I'm almost certain Grace and Ignus can get exceptional strength scores via the Improved Strength spell (scient, correct me if I'm wrong on that please, but I don't think I am). Improved Strength is actually the least problematic implementation of any of the spells in the game, and scient even discovered that they made a half assed attempt to impose the Improved Strength logic on Power of One as well, but it looks like that effort was aborted, probably due to the game being rushed out the door. That does support my belief that they did in fact think these problems through, and they intended to have the Improved Strength logic apply universally, but they didn't prioritize it or have time to get around to it.

Anyways. In the big picture, there is no possible way that we can make PS:T fit perfectly to 2nd edition rules. This is because PS:T does things that other D&D games don't. Other D&D games don't throw dozens of different ways to increment strength - for a reason. The design isn't suited for it. That's why normal D&D games generally offer you only "Gauntlets of Ogre Giant Strength" or "Girdle of Frost Giant Strength" - magic that sets your strength to a specific number, rather than incrementing your base strength. This is for a reason - if you throw in a lot of items that straight out increment it, the design intent gets clobbered. Yes, there's a single Tome of Gainful Exercise in BG1... but one single item that increments strength doesn't overwhelmingly break things and doesn't turn exceptional strength into a penalty for fighters. A crapload of them does. Note that BG2 didn't add another bunch of tomes, and I don't think there was any way to increment strength in IWD1, correct me if I'm wrong (never played IWD2).

The idea that "if we can't make PS:T line up perfectly with 2nd edition rules, then there's no point in trying to bring it closer", I reject entirely. Some of those rule violations were clearly intentional - as ignoring class/race stat limits clearly was - and some are not clearly intentional. Ones that were not clearly intentional, and where making them work like 2nd ed rules say they should improves balance and is simply better design, are fair game IMO.

It's never going to be pretty. PS:T wipes its ass with too many D&D rules, and some of them simply weren't well thought out. But where we can improve balance and design by imposing 2nd ed. rules that were not clearly violated for any specific reason, I think we should do so.

Which brings me to what I think is the best of all possible solutions here. I do think we should have the levelup screen skip 18/0 only when you are leveling up as a fighter - and we don't do anything else in that regard. If TNO switches classes, the strength stays as what it is. Yes, that means its possible to have TNO as an 18 strength fighter, but you know what? The design works so that this is much more likely to happen if TNO's -primary-, highest level class is -not- fighter. If TNO is specializing as a fighter, then almost all, if not in fact all, of his attribute points will be spent as a fighter and he'll skip 18. If he's specializing as a mage/thief, then most of his attribute points will be spent as a mage or thief, and he'll wind up having to spend a point on 18/0 before he can add another to get to 18/30. This is fitting, IMO, and I think the best way to handle it, in a way that satisfies the design intent as much as possible. Thoughts?

Qwinn

Edited by Qwinn, 03 January 2010 - 08:27 AM.

[Qwinn]

Here, let me give a much more concise response to the specific objection raised:

. Basically, you want to implement this feature because it's more consistent with AD&D. However, if mages and thieves don't lose that exceptional strenght, you'd essentially break the AD&D rules again. So, what's the point?

I wouldn't be breaking anything. The game already does not remove exceptional strength from a fighter TNO switching to mage or thief.

If we can't fix anything unless we fix everything, then the entire Fixpack is pointless, because some 2nd ed. rules were clearly violated as a matter of design and shouldn't be fixed. And there -aren't- any 2nd ed. rules as far as "class switching" is concerned.

If mage/thief TNO's couldn't get 19+ strength, then I would consider nixing exceptional strength for them. However, since class/race bonuses are ignored and mage/thief TNO's can easily get above 19 strength (and fighters can get above 19 DEX, INT, etc.) the idea of nixing their exceptional strength would only make sense if we fully implemented all class/race restrictions and TNO couldn't get 19+ in anything. Otherwise, why say a TNO mage can have 19+ strength but not 18/30? This actually illustrates the design flaws in D&D in this regard, and it is -why- you don't get tons of strength-incrementing items in other D&D games, and why they do generally have race/class restrictions all over the place.

Qwinn

Edited by Qwinn, 03 January 2010 - 09:25 AM.

[Qwinn]

All right, just laying out what the current plan is:

There are five areas which handle changes to strength: spells (Strength, PoO, Improved Strength), perma effect boosts (via items like "Gordian Knot" for WIS/CHR; class specialization bonuses), temporary effect boosts (items -> equipped or time limited boost like Whispering Flask), PermaStatChange (dialog bonuses), and level up char point distro / TNO creation.

In all of the above cases I think we should have the class check. In some cases, like with permanentstatchange (used in dialogues), it's not really necessary because all existing dialogue strength boosts pertain to fighters only, but someone could want to do a mod where they increase strength for a non-fighter in the future, so might as well.

With Strength and fixed PoO, non-fighters are already capped at 18/0, so fighters should just skip over 18/0 and go straight to 18/30. Improved Strength can affect anyone and should skip over 18/0 when cast on fighters only. This spell already has varying effects based on class of the target, so not really adding anything new there.

It is my understanding that in the vanilla game, the spell boost doesn't stack with items or anything else... if the Strength spell puts you at 18/60, for example, then you can equip items all you want and you'll stay at 18/60. You're basically stuck at that value until the spell expires. I have no problem with that, and it makes our job easier here. I do not think the effect of the spell should change if you change classes. It doesn't currently, even though fighters have always gotten better benefits from strength spells, so it was always advantageous for mage/thieves to change to fighter, have Dak'kon/Ignus cast the strength spell, then switch back to mage/thief keeping the enhanced strength of the fighter. I have no great objection to this and see no compelling reason to change it.

Perma effect boosts, the only ones existing in the game are for the fighter specialization bonus - obviously fighter only, so should obviously skip 18/0.

Equipped items should skip 18/0 based on class. Since we now have all item effects effectively recalculated when TNO changes class, that part will work out just fine, and the items will skip 18/0 when TNO is a fighter and otherwise not.

Temporary effects from items - i.e., Dak'kon's Whispering Flask - should probably behave like spells. I think it only works on Dak'kon anyway, right? So no issues with changing class there, though can check class anyway in case of mods.

And finally, character creation/levelup should check class. That means character creation will always skip 18/0 because you start the game as a fighter, and on the levelup screen, it should skip over 18/0 if and only if TNO is leveling as a fighter.

TNO changing class should have no effect on TNO's base strength. The only strength effects that should be recalculated when TNO changes class are those granted by items like tattoos, and this will happen automatically without any need of further modding.

Any objections?

Qwinn

Edited by Qwinn, 03 January 2010 - 11:15 AM.

[Markus Ramikin]

Hm... I'm sure I could think of something, but I just remembered I never get high strength on my TNO any more.

More seriously: just saying, but it's great you're putting in this thought and effort.

Edited by Markus Ramikin, 04 January 2010 - 08:06 AM.

[gothemasticator]

All right, just laying out what the current plan is:...

I think it all looks great, what you've laid out. Rational, consistent. I'm really looking forward to this release.

gothemasticator

[Karnor]

Personally I'm not sure how useful it is to try and follow the AD&D rules too strictly for strength progression.

I always felt that exceptional strength was a poorly implemented system - the difference between a fighter with 17 strength and a lucky one with 18/100 strength was huge.  The lucky guy got +2 to hit and +5 to damage.  In game terms that was basically the equivalent of having 2 additional levels just for having a single extra stat point followed by a lucky roll.  No other stats offered the potential for this much variation.

If you look simply at the bonuses for increased strength scores, there is a pretty linear progression for every step up.  Once you get to 16 strength then you either get +1 to hit, or +1 to damage (or both for a few steps) for each increase.  So there is always an incentive to put additional points into strength - ultimately the only difference compared to other stats is that you can put more points into it.  Therefore I don't see why fighters need any additional incentive by being able to skip a level once they reach 18.

For strength spells, the fighter still gains a benefit because they are capped at 18/100 and not 18/0.

I think this would work fine for TNO because he isn't really one class or the other.  He just chooses which he wants to be at a particular moment.  Strictly speaking only fighters should gain constitution bonuses to hitpoints of greater than +2 but I'm pretty sure this isn't implemented in PST.  And after all, TNO always gets 1d10 hitpoints when he levels up, regardless of which class he levels up as.

It would perhaps be a slight problem for other fighter characters (Dakkon and Annah really) as they wouldn't gain exceptional strength bonuses from item upgrades.  But as I've noted above, they still gain a linear benefit from increased strength, and the whole exceptional strength concept seemed poorly thought out in the first place.

[Qwinn]

I always felt that exceptional strength was a poorly implemented system

Oh, no doubt. I'm in complete agreement. It's a crappy design even if the implementation goes out of its way to accomodate it, for the reasons you gave and others.

That said, what PS:T implemented is only a redheaded bastard stepchild of 2nd edition rules. The design of 2nd edition rules requires things like a random stat roll and class/race limits, all of which PS:T ignores.

But one thing I think we can all agree on is that exceptional strength was supposed to be a benefit to fighters, not a penalty. There's nothing wrong with that as a design intent, and if PS:T's implementation actually reverses or negates that, that's a problem. By having it skip 18/0 for fighters, as it does in 2nd ed. rules, we are at least partially restoring the original intent.

Therefore I don't see why fighters need any additional incentive by being able to skip a level once they reach 18.

Look at it this way: in the PS:T implementation, any other class needs to put 16 points into their primary stat to max it out at 25. Fighters need 21 points to do the same thing. That's rather rough. By letting them skip 18/0, which is what the rules say should happen anyway, we are at least softening that penalty somewhat by reducing their total needed to 20 instead.

Qwinn

Edited by Qwinn, 07 January 2010 - 05:04 AM.

[Karnor]

Therefore I don't see why fighters need any additional incentive by being able to skip a level once they reach 18.

Look at it this way:  in the PS:T implementation, any other class needs to put 16 points into their primary stat to max it out at 25.  Fighters need 21 points to do the same thing.  That's rather rough.  By letting them skip 18/0, which is what the rules say should happen anyway, we are at least softening that penalty somewhat by reducing their total needed to 20 instead.

Qwinn

Depends how you look at it I guess.  Another argument would be that fighers have a bigger benefit because they can put 21 points into their primary stat and still get benefits rather than other classes which are restructed to 16 points

And actually its more than that because a mage gets practically nothing for int beyond 19, and a rogue gets practically nothing beyond 18 dex.  A fighter on the other hand gets benefits all the way up to 25 strength (and really that's effectively 30 strength!)

I think that what I proposed is a more logical system given the PST mechanics, but your proposal is the best way to blend the PST and AD&D 2ED mechanics.  Ultimately there is no clearly correct solution - it's just a matter of personal preference.  Whichever system you decide to go for in the end, there is no way I could say you had chosen wrongly.

[Qwinn]

And actually its more than that because a mage gets practically nothing for int beyond 19, and a rogue gets practically nothing beyond 18 dex.

Well, nah, not quite true for thieves. They do continue to get significant bonuses to their thieving skills all the way to 25. Sure, they'll max out eventually anyway so the bonuses won't mean much in the endgame, but at least they can get better thief skill values earlier with a high dex. They get everything they're supposed to in 2nd. edition rules, at any rate.

Can't argue with you on INT though. 20+ INT doesn't do squat for mages that it doesn't do for anyone else (which is higher lore value and a couple of dialogue checks). I guess that's true in 2nd ed. rules too, though.

Qwinn

Edited by Qwinn, 07 January 2010 - 06:50 AM.

[Daulmakan]

Can't argue with you on INT though. 20+ INT doesn't do squat for mages that it doesn't do for anyone else (which is higher lore value and a couple of dialogue checks). I guess that's true in 2nd ed. rules too, though.

Pretty much. Although there's really no incentive to spend points in INT over any other attributes unless you want to roleplay a hardcore fighter tactician or some such...

Exceptional higher INT also gives additional immunity to Illusion spells. INT 19 gives you immunity to level 1 illusions, INT 20 to level 2, and so on.

[Qwinn]

Actually, skipping 18/0 wasn't anyone's request, it was my idea Well, based on my understanding of 2nd ed. rules.

Qwinn

Edited by Qwinn, 13 January 2010 - 08:14 AM.

[Qwinn]

"If you want to switch TNO's STR back and forth by 1 point every time he switches from fighter to mage, be my guest."

This was never part of the plan. Changing TNO's class will not change his strength. And mages/thieves no longer having the THACO of their fighter class is something we implemented in v3.0. (It should be noted though that due to engine and design limitations, number of attacks remain based on your fighter level regardless of current class).

"so when he switches to other class, he might lose some other benefits ... proficiency bonus for mage AND thief."

I don't think this is necessary, and I think the way it works was specifically designed to be the way it is. You only gain more proficiency points as a fighter, -and- you cannot put 4 or 5 proficiency points in any single weapon type unless you have -specialized- (at level 7 and 12) as a fighter. I think that last bit was specifically done as a response to the engine limitations they were dealing with. The limitation I'm talking about is that in the IE engine, you -cannot- give anybody extra # of attacks based on proficiencies without also giving them extra attacks based on fighter level. A single table determines both values.

"I'm looking forward to those monsters actually running towards me in v4.0"

That change actually went in 3.0, but glad ya waited, lots of good stuff in this version too

Qwinn

Edited by Qwinn, 13 January 2010 - 12:42 PM.