List of Man-at-arms bugs and issues

[Wandering_Woodsman]

brings the thread back from the dead

Quick question regarding this, as i play a MaA character, but has this been looked into and tweaked since the last post?

And speaking of the last post, while loosing the ac bonus to the shield from a knockdown or fear is a painful thing, un-equipping then re-equipping the shield just makes a bad situation worse. Instead of loosing the armor bonus to your shield, you loose ALL of your shield bonus.

[Steve]

I'm going to ask...did anything listed here, in the OP, become part of the latest Server Update?

Subject: SERVER UPDATES

18Oct2015

Numerous script-based bug fixes from Rasael deployed. Scripts associated with the following.

- Body Guard and Shield Other Fixes
- Shield Bash Updates
- Cavestalker class fixes
- Sleight of Hand script fixes
- Bloodwalk Fixes
- Man at Arms Updates & Fixes

Report any new bugs in the Bugs Forum:
http://www.bgtscc.net/viewforum.php?f=25

If so...can they be updated in the appropriate description on the Forum?

[Duster47]

From the notes in the RAR file:

The following things are changed.

-If demoralized, target receives -2 to ab, saves, ac and skills. (was -1 erroneously)
-Ranges increased to 100 feet. (was bugged, waaaaay shorter)
-Standard challenge duration to 5+ CHA modifier. (could subtract for negative Cha mod)
-Panic now lasts one round per MaA level. (was barely noticeable)
-Standard Challenge can be reissued if previous target died, or after 120 seconds - your MaA level. (gameplay improvement)

Please post any bugs here.

[Steve]

Thanks Duster.

[Steve]

Alright, I just got to ask: why doesn't a MaA get Tower Shield Proficiency?

The man-at-arms's talent with heavy armor, shields, and defensive tactics grant him the ability to disrupt his foe's plans.

[Rasael]

Because that's what the class description says.

[Steve]

Because that's what the class description says.

Well, I could actually read that for myself.

And sometimes, believe it or not, the descriptions on the Forum are actually not up to date.

But maybe it's that I didn't properly write out my question, so let me attempt it again: what was the decision to not give Tower Proficiency to the Man-at-Arms Class?

Considering that BG's MaA is a take off of Kaedrin's Knight Class—besides a few nerfs—was there any rational behind no Tower Shield Proficiency, or just a copy-and-paste issue?

Or, in other words: could the MaA Class be granted Tower Shield Proficiency?

Thank you.

[Rasael]

It has nothing to do with Kaedrin's Knight class. Both are NWN 2 implementations of the DnD 3.5 edition Knight class, which you can find on DnD tools.

It wasnt nerfed. Its been buffed since its original design and implementation. Its been designed with the original class in mind. Whatever the KPRC pack did was its own design choices. Unrelated to the man at arms.

Does the DnD Knight get towershield proficiency? (It doesn't)

[Steve]

Well, no, Socrates, the D&D Knight class doesn't grant Tower Shield Proficiency. But I guess you know that already, didn't you?

But if you want to play the game, then let's play it. We're talking about BGTSCC Man-at-Arms class, with is a derivative of the Knight Class, therefore, it can be anything "we" want it to be.

Whatever the KPRC pack did was its own design choices.

Maybe so. However, from your own Wiki page:



So what is it, really? Based off of the D&D 3.5 Class, or the Kaedrin class?!?

Furthermore, since we're on the subject, let's talk about "differences," or nerfs. This is all subjective, so really, if Holy Balance dictated how the Class we implemented, then I put some faith in QC for trying to do a fair job. Additionally, there are many aspects of the D&D PnP Knight class that were probably impossible to script for. Thus, whatever you were able to manifest is rather special, in first principle.

But that doesn't mean that some aspects were entirely lost. And maybe is why this Knight Class was renamed and reconceptualized as a Man-at-Arms.

Thus, define Man-at-Arms. A Man-at-Arms in the medieval sense was a mounted master of armor and the lance. Impossible for BG. A Man-at-Arms in the D&D sense was a master of all weapon & Armor proficiency.

Essentially, what I'm saying, is define what Man-at-Arms should be, not what it isn't. Is Tower Prficiency for the BTSCC Class out-of-Balance? I can accept that. Do I think it is, personally? No. Just a simple oversight in the implementation. Hence, why I asked QC to consider the change.

Thank you.

[Rasael]

You are mistakenly interpreting inspiration ( this is an intetesting dnd class to implement in nwn) as design ( lets copy or make something similar). The two classes aren't similar apart from being designed off the same dnd class. They aren't related in terms of design and implementation. For that reason the term inspiration wasnt quantified in the quote you supplied. Its mentioned as a thank you, for directing us to this class and inspiring us to undertake our own design.

For it to have been nerfed it needs to have existed in a more poweful form. It didnt. Since i originally designed it, it has been buffed. It was made stronger. That is part of server policy. We'd rather release it weak than nerf it later.

Of course you can discuss whether it deserves another buff. But not by comparing it to something which never happened, a nerf, or another class its not related and not similar to.
It has to pertain to this class for it to be an argument about it. You havent told us why tower shield proficiency would be a good idea for THIS class.

As far as its name is concerned: The DM team does not want a class to grant a noble title. That has to be earned through roleplay. Thats the only intended deviation from DnD source material.

[matelener]

I think it's reasonable to add all shields proficiencies to a class that is designed around using shields. I wouldn't consider it as anything remotely close to affecting the balance of this class.

[Steve]

Thou art thyself though, not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name;
And for that name, which is no part of thee,
Take all myself.

You havent told us why tower shield proficiency would be a good idea for THIS class.

I kinda already did, Ras. By quoting the Class's description above: "The man-at-arms's talent with heavy armor, shields, and defensive tactics grant him the ability to disrupt his foe's plans."

But let's get into it...with the caveat that I realize comparing D&D to Medieval times, is not always the most appropriate thing:

The Man-at-Arms is considered a fully armored, heavy Calvaryman. Their distinctness comes from their "master" of armor and weapons (but especially mounted attack with a lance, which is impossible for NWN2 atm).

"For close combat the main weapon was the spear, around 7 feet (2.1 m) in length with a leaf-bladed head, and a heavy wooden shield with an iron spindle-type boss." So is written on Wikipedia (I am being a tad lazy by just using this as a resource, but if you need, I can dig up more). "...the Carthaginians... may have carried the "soliferrum", the all-iron javelin unique to Iberia, in addition to a spear and shield and a Celtic-style longsword or an Iberian falcata." These are examples of Shield Proficiency as part of the armored way of a "man-at-arms" or heavy calvaryman, as it is being historically described.

But a heavy wooden shield is not a tower shield!!! You may be about to jump to say. But hold back your armored war house Sir, for now comes the next part:

If you do some Wikipedia research on Shields, you actually find a reference to "tower" shields: "The Mycenaean Greeks used two types of shields: the "figure-of-eight" shield and a rectangular "tower" shield. These shields were made primarily from a wicker frame and then reinforced with leather. Covering the body from head to foot, the figure-of-eight and tower shield offered most of the warrior's body a good deal of protection in man-to-man combat."

That's interesting, but hmmm...what really is a "tower" shield, after all. Well, if you search up Medieval Shields on Wikipedia, you find a nice list. In that list is the Pavise shield, which is the most full-body protective shield listed there, and...if you read it's description, you find something altogether supportive of my argument: "A pavise (or pavis, pabys, or pavesen, all of them words stemming from the name of the city of Pavia, in Italy) is a large convex shield of European origin used to protect the entire body. The pavise was also made in a smaller version for hand-to-hand combat and for wearing on the back of men-at-arms. " The full-size Pavise was more often, in Medieval times, used by archers.

But the most tower of the tower types is the Roman Scotum...and a medieval version is a shield called a Renntartsche, that is modeled after the Roman Scotum. They are fully rectangle, but just as large as a Kite Shield, and like the Kite, provided protection against the foreleg (sounds very "tower" like, doesn't it?). The Renntartsche was used by jousters, as a way to catch the enemies lance (remember cavalryman reference?).

So, for all practical purposes on BGTSSC, Tower Shield proficiency grants +2 AC to the Class, for a -2 AB penalty. That spells balanced, does it not? This Class is, as it is described, to me, translates as the most armored "shield" for the rest of the Party/group. His taunts and challenges are to focus the enemies attention to him/her, and...then stand his ground, the best defended armored warrior on the battlefield (with the force of personality to keep standing... ). Would a Tower Shield not give the Man-at-Arms that full aspect?

[Darkcloud777]

I have only one thing to say. Calvary do not use infratry tower shields.

[Kasmir]

I have one thing to say. Take the tower feat . Hardly a big issue if you can take it. I mean you could talk more about the balance of how many bonus feats they get compared with a fighter 1/5 versus 1/2 if you play a pure class and don't dip as i intend to for one of mine (love this class BTW). I think this is slightly weak compared to a fighter but it's a marginal IMO and this is a great 'defender' RP build.

I have a separate question on shield bash related to this. As far as I can tell so far...

(1) All AB bonuses work for the shield to hit (including the plus of the shield AND the MAA challenge ability. Don't know about spells but I suspect they will work as well).

(2) only STR adds to damage (haven't tested modes like power attack but I hear they do work). It adds at full whack (not half like an off-hand weapon).

MAA challenge does not add to shield damage. Was this intentional or a bug please? I feel that it should - how else can you get your shield damage up? I guess you could also argue that if damage bonuses are applied as normal then STR should be halved i.e. treated exactly the same as an off-hand weapon? Maybe it can't be implemented this way?

Somewhere it says you can get shields that do more damage - has this been implemented? I haven't seen any for auction.

Otherwise if this is all intentional I guess you just pump STR as much as you can

One other comment - I would like this to have been the one non-alignment restricted melee class that had intimidate AND diplomacy but that's because I really want to play a cavalier

Thanks,

Kas

[Kasmir]

...Also would be nice if the demoralize effect scaled a bit with class level. Not insanely, but a stronger effect would be nice at higher levels please

Maybe -1 for each 5 levels or a similar scaling to the challenge ability? After all there are plenty ways to counter it for strong enemies and plenty of stuff is immune to begin with.