Avernum 6 - May Update.

[Rent-an-Ihrno]

Everybody keeps talking about the offensive capabilities of a dual-wielder - but how about his defensive abilities? For a very skilled fighter, it's possible to block any attack, from any other melee weapon, using two swords, sai, tonfa or whatever, much more efficiently and safely than using a shield.

 

A big shield messes up your balance and blocks your vision. A small one is just too much of a gamble, as you won't necessarily stop the blow entirely. And of course, you can only block with your shield-arm and attack with your sword-arm! Any good opponent is aware of that takes advantage of it.

 

Thus my proposal: dramatically increase the parry/riposte-percentages for dual-wielders vs melee attackers. Raise the blockrates of shields accordingly vs projectiles (arrows, javelins, fireballs..). Heighten the max damage of two-handed weapons.

 

I think these 3 measures could be balanced so that all types of fighters can be equally effective, but in a very different way. We all want more options for our builds, right? Plus, I think it would be more realistic.

 

 

Oh oh oh!! I just had another idea: shields could deflect any kind of blow extremely effectively when multiple characters stand next to each other, forming a phalanx!! .....or maybe not. Would be cool for a 10-20 char party.

[Alorael at Large]

Cite evidence on the efficacy of parrying? Sword and dagger fighting works well against swords, but you really can't parry a halberd with a dagger and outside of fiction I don't think two long blades were ever used very effectively. (I'm also not sure a sword of any size is much use parrying things that aren't sword-like.)

 

Also cite evidence on shields being a problem? Combat may not have been a science, but it was an art and there was more than enough incentive to get bad ideas in armaments thrown out. Shields do, of course, change your balance, but so do weapons, especially weapons that are longer and heavier than a dagger. A shield obstructs vision, but that goes both ways: you can also launch a more surprising attack from behind its cover. And shields were often used to deflect rather than to simply block. but blocking is no more of a gamble than trying to parry in such a way that your arm won't buckle, your weapon won't be torqued out of your hand, and you won't miss the parry and be hit.

 

Finally, you want it both ways. If weapons are better for blocking than shields, why would a sword and shield prevent parrying with your sword?

 

—Alorael, who suspects that this post is influenced by fiction more than by reality. Certainly shields good for a shield wall didn't work quite as well for personal combat, but the heater shield and buckler seem to be perfectly adequate defensive tools. Particularly given the off-hands reduced strength and coordination, and the fact of divided attention between hands during combat, the simplicity of the shield block seems like it would be rather advantageous.

[Rent-an-Ihrno]

I think you just went a tiny bit too far there, Alorael. You can agree or disagree with anything I say, but to "suspect", meaning openly state, that my opinion is based upon fiction is an insult. Nowhere in your post do you explain how my conclusions must be derived from fantasy.

 

Rather than go into further detail concerning what I've already posted, I will but say this: I've been a practicioner of martial arts for 14 years now - and not just any one. It would make little sense to try and prove that I know everything about martial arts and you don't so all I say is true and what you say is wrong; that's not what I'm doing. I'm saying that what I stated above is derived from what I've learned, seen, heard and actually done myself. Believe it or not. If you believe it, you can still agree or disagree. There is always dispute between martial artists, and that's the way it should be.

 

"Cite evidence"... cite whom? I can state whomever I want concerning anything I want, that doesn't produce any truth. Where did this hysteria come from, that as soon as you can quote some big name who gave a handful of numbers or statements, you're really scientific and stuff. Personally, I prefer analysing the logic within the problem itself, not looking everything up somewhere and relativising everything somebody says without having done so. That said, I do have books on this topic. And I've read them, too.

 

There is reason in what you say - but please, go ahead and try things out yourself. Take a shield in one hand, a sword in the other, and repeat your post.

 

 

 

Edit: typo.

[Student of Trinity]

Well, then, why did so many armies for so long use shields and single swords or spears? Why have so few historical armies ever used two weapons?

 

It could perhaps be that it's harder to train to high enough proficiency for two weapons to start to pay off. A similar high training threshold is why longbows weren't the universal late medieval missile weapon. But I dunno. Parrying with a blade, instead of great big shield, seems like something that might work better in carefully controlled competitions than in rough-and-tumble fights for life or death.

[Rent-an-Ihrno]

1. Fighting as a group is a completely different matter. You don't have the time or the space to move, you don't want to slice your comrades, etc. Most importantly, you need to be able to stand against cavalry attacks, infantry plunging their bodies onto you and hails of arrows.

 

2. As you said, it takes too much training to master that kind of fighting for an army to pay off (soldiers tend to die early); it may do so for special forces, though. Various nations have had shock troops, assassination squads etc using a weapon in each hand.

[Alorael at Large]

I didn't mean to be confrontational! You just didn't mention where your assertions about the superiority of two weapons came from. I wanted to know. Practicing martial arts and knowing what you're talking about is evidence; it may not be enough for Wikipedia, but it's plenty for me. When I said I suspected, I meant it: I thought it was likely, but I wasn't certain, which is why I asked in the first place.

 

Since I don't actually have any experience with fighting, you know more about this than I d. On the other hand, have you practiced with a shield at all? Most martial arts practiced in the US, at least, tend to be East Asian, and while some incorporate weapons, none that I know of teach the use of shields. I suspect (yes, again with the suspicion!) that in Europe it's easier to get training in Western combat. Even the longsword/broadsword training I've seen here is all shield-free, though. Have you practiced with a sword and shield? And have you practiced with two swords, or with tonfa, or whatever, against swords and spears?

 

[Edit: And one more, funny point. RPGs are already strange in their combat, as a lot of it isn't against humanoids with weapons at all. If you're fighting something that's using claws, or biting, or something like that, you may very well want a large, broad, interposing surface rather than a weapon. Yes, a weapon is a good deterrent, but a shield is better prevention. Although by this reasoning and by the logic of hunting maybe everyone should be using spears rather than swords.]

 

—Alorael, who gets the sense from others who have done more fighting than he that there's a sort of continuum between unarmed and very definitely armed combat. Unarmed requires the use of at least two limbs for attack and defense. Fighting with short weapons, like knives or tonfa, works similarly to unarmed combat. As weapons get longer and distances between fighters likewise increase, it seems that the use of two hands/weapons at once declines. That may just be coincidental, but it may also be because using two long weapons works worse than using one. When you have one weapon for attack, your other hand is for defense and secondary attack. A buckler may actually be much worse than a dagger, but it's not obvious that this should be true.

[Dintiradan]

As far as this layman can tell, the reason why shields were more popular than dual-wielding in the rank-and-file of the typical army had just as much to do with cost as it did with training. Swords are expensive. Even setting aside the cost of high quality steel, a hunk of sharp metal is still going to be more expensive than a hunk of wood.

 

(Of course, this is an aside. We're talking about RPGs here, and your typical adventurer has a bit more disposable income than your typical enlisted peasant.

[Alorael at Large]

Even the wealthiest didn't use two weapons, though, and they were perfectly happy to be better armed and armored in other ways. It may be that the cost meant only a few people could afford it and therefore no one developed effective techniques, but that still seems odd.

 

—Alorael, who is pretty sure most adventurers should have a sword and a shield with an anti-inertia enchantment on it. In each hand. Maybe a few more swords, too, if that can squeeze out any more bonuses.

[Rent-an-Ihrno]

@Dinitiradan:

True, good swords were and are extremely expensive, like Katanas for example. But then, regular armies often used swords that hadn't been forged but were simply sharpened chunks of cast iron and could be produced quite easily even in ancient times. Thus in large parts of Europe, your equipment would often be made of metal but break easily anyway.

In case the material was the problem and not he production process, there would probably be little difference to you between shields, swords etc. The huns had wooden swords, the Aztecs had mace-like clubs with obsidian edges, and so on.

 

@Alorael:

To be exact, I am best trained in unarmed combat, saijutsu and Japanese sword (long) and staff (long) fighting. Being an instructor myself however, I have trained with masters of many different styles, and am currently involved in Chinese kung-fu, particularly southern Shaolin, as well as Okinawan Shorin-Ryu. The Chinese have always used shields in their martial arts, so yes I have some experience in that field. This is what I've found:

 

The problem is how you obstruct yourself. In a fight, not only a fist, or any number of limbs for that matter, move; the entire bodies move. I need to be able to tell who my opponent is, why he is doing what he does etc, and beat him on this meta-level our actions, our perception and our subconcious (or background, intentions, whatever) form. It's basically a dance...

It's not so much about distance. A simple backhand Karate-punch has a range of up to 3m. It's that whatever I do, I have to do it with my whole body or it won't be effective, it will even be dangerous to myself. (Most of the energy I channel into a blow is invisible. If I don't use my body like an iceberg, I will not deliver much of an impact and I will probably hurt a loose joint or relaxed/wrongly tensed muscle)

 

- So when I use two weapons, I have to be able to do two different movements simultaneously, using the same muscles, forming a new entity of movement.

- A long staff is difficult to control. You have to utilise its inertia as if it was your own power, so you don't get flinged off your feet when you strike.

 

Put these two statements together and you have a feeling for why weapons used in martial arts are shaped the way they are and used the way they are.

 

Hmm. I'm not sure I expressed myself correctly. It's a very complex topic and this little box is not a very fitting medium. I'm not sure my English is sufficient, either. Simply put, what I wanted to say is this: martial arts work according to certain mechanics given by the human anatomy. If you can/want to use your body in a specific way, you should do so - but my opinion is, you should try to stay as flexible as possible for any kind of movement you might have to make. Carrying a heavy shield makes this very difficult, as does any other extreme like very long weapons or very short ones. I think that's why the medium-sized sword was the standard weapon for so long; you can use it any way you want, for anything and against anything you want. (this also means it cannot excel at anything particular, though)

 

To conclude my insanely longbreathed post, what you, Alorael, said in your edit is very smart indeed! I completely forgot about monsters that don't attack with weapons but with claws or teeth (or horns). Vs these creatures, I agree that shields would be much fitter.

 

This whole discussion got me thinking: what would Avernum be like, utilising a more differentiated system of fighting abilities than "melee skill" and "pole skill"? Something like many RPGs have, being able to specialize in a specific type of weapon or fighting style? I'm not sure what I would think of it.

[Alorael at Large]

Yes, the sword did become so common because it's so versatile. A polearm has greater reach, an axe often has greater power, and so on, but a sword is dependable.

 

On the other hand, I'm still just not convinced that shields are inherently problematic. A shield that is too heavy is a problem, certainly. A shield that is heavy is a problem if you are using a fighting style that relies on quick motion that isn't possible with the shield. But is a buckler so much heavier than a weapon? And Is it impossible to fight excellently with a shield, though? That's where I'm not convinced. I imagine German school fencers might disagree with your assessment; they certainly had (have?) fencing techniques for use in single combat with a sword and shield.

 

—Alorael, who gains from your explanation the idea that fighting is complicated and requires careful use of balance and movement. You can see how shields can cause problems or have possibly experienced those problems in Chinese martial arts. Given that your expertise seems to lie with shieldless combat, though, some skepticism still seems warranted. Unfortunately, this also seems impossible to resolve unless anyone happens to know practitioners of historical European martial arts.

[Rent-an-Ihrno]

Of course, that's why I said I'm not accustomed to using a shield myself, I only have some insight in it. And your critique is well placed - a shield is not necessarily heavier than a weapon and one can fight exquisitely using one. (Besides, it can also be used in offense! It can be shoved in someone's face or thrown like a discus, etc)

 

But any object used in a fight, be it a shield, a sword, or your elbows come with a unique problem that has to be solved - a mechanic you have to master and apply to your fighting style and the situation you currently want to use it in. A shield is - like any other object - not better or worse than any other, it's just different. In individual combat, say a duel, a shield eliminates the bulk of your options to move, because your hands (thus the halfes of your body) are destined for either attack or defense (this can be overriden, but only with difficulty) and you need to use a portion of your strength and awareness just to stand straight, let alone step in a direction without falling over (you'd be surprised how long it takes to learn to simply take steps or shift your weight in combat). A shield is (like a halberd, f.ex.) so specialised in its purpose, it provides you with great opportunities and great dangers.

 

Say you just blocked a blow coming from the left, opening your guard with your left arm. How will you now defend against a frontal assault? You can't just swing back your shield to protect your body, that's too slow. You must move around your shield, trying not to get slowed down by its inertia. You could jump to the left, turning behind it and deflecting the attack to the right with your sword, which you first will have to rotate so it comes from the left. You could also let your shield hang where it is, jump to the right to dodge the attack, then lock your opponent's weapon between your shield and your body, then counterattack. Both examples can be winning moves, and both are probable to get you killed if you don't execute them with menacing skill and speed (and luck). There are many scenarios like these, but they all have the same problem: how will I make myself and my equipment to a unity, without subjugating myself to it?

 

This is much, much easier using versatile objects like swords or sais. Using two sais, I could think of countless effective and safe reactions to the scenario described above.

 

Anyway, I think in Far Eastern terms. I've never practicioned any European fighting style, they might have better answers; they sure are used to different attacks they need to counter. Asian martial arts always try to use the most efficient type of movement, which is a rotating one (This is true for any movement, even if it doesn't look so. Inspect it, and you will find it's foundation is basically a turn of some sort). It's stronger and faster, and can be done in any scheme you wish. I can rotate my hand around your wrist if you grab me, I can rotate my arm around your sword using a sai, I can rotate my entire body around the vector you create when you plunge yourself onto me. Using a heavy instrument like a shield, I will always have to take into account that the axis of my rotation is pretty much predestined.

 

I'd understand if a Teuton broadsword fighter disagreed.

 

 

Edit: typo and stuff.

[Drakefyre]

Re: Exile III

 

20 Strength, 20 Assassination, 20 Pole Weapons. Can't be beat! I'm not sure, but does assassination even come into play on the second swing?

[Dark.Fenix]

Originally Posted By: Drakefyre

Re: Exile III

20 Strength, 20 Assassination, 20 Pole Weapons. Can't be beat! I'm not sure, but does assassination even come into play on the second swing?

yes, im 95% sure it does (might be wrong), althouth i never leveled pole in any char (OPness of dual blades maybe)


i do however would like to see diferences between dual-wield, poles and shield/weapon. not just a "this does more dmg so not worth investing in the other 2".

i never got much love for shields cause, and i might be wrong, other than stats stick and a bit armor they were useless compared with dual(e2) and poles(A5).
but its also true that making a shield interesting would be hard.

1thing that came to my mind is a shield block rate, and a trait that would say "your shield is well known by the enemies, and is ur trusty pillow, whenever u block and attack, u get ur openent of balance and will be able to get a surprise swing at them".
this would work much like risposte, abling to be taken early but at the cost of dmg rate as u couldnt use dual or pole. would be something usefull for the beating sack we have as tank.

still many things are in open, will the testers force a balance nerf for dual? will shields get back to casters stats stick? i will enjoy finding out

[Student of Trinity]

Another thing about shields in history: missiles have always been very important in actual warfare, probably quite a bit more important than hand-to-hand combat. A second sword is much less help against arrows than a nice big shield.

[Sss-Chah]

just to beat the topic to death a bit more: the reason why most shields were made mostly out of wood was because things get stuck in wood a lot more easily than metal. that definitely makes it harder to fight against multiple enemies, but easier to fight one. if you're fighting against somebody with a halberd and it gets stuck in your shield, you pretty much just disarmed that person.

[Alorael at Large]

Are you sure it wasn't because an entirely metal shield would be very hard to make, would cost a lot more, and would probably be too heavy to lift?

 

—Alorael, who again isn't sure. He's just reasoning that most shields probably weren't designed to catch weapons. If they're soft enough to do that they're soft enough to break, and more importantly a weapon-studded shield is heavier. In a duel that may be fine, but on a battlefield that can get you killed.

[Rent-an-Ihrno]

I concur with Alorael. Those who went into battle with entirely wooden shields often carried 2 or more (the Vikings, f.ex.), because you can't walk around with a spear stuck in your shield, swinging around, and any considerable force delivered onto a wooden shield breaks it along the natural growth lines (eng?) of the tree it was made from, save frontal, piercing thrusts.

 

Also, as the offensive power of medieval weapons increased, the armor (incl shield) of professional warriors became more and more specialised in deflecting any oncoming blows instead of stopping them. That's why wooden shields usually were flat and metal shields were curved, by the way.

 

There's always the wooden shield with a metal frame, of course. But they only made real sense vs. weapons that were swung, such as swords or clubs.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Rent-an-Ihrno

any considerable force delivered onto a wooden shield breaks it along the natural growth lines (eng?)

The grain.

[Rent-an-Ihrno]

Really? Grain? I've only known that word in association with, like, wheat and stuff. You people are crazy!

[Sss-Chah]

well, yeah, metal being heavier and more expensive was another reason. and i actually was talking about the wooden shield with a metal frame, i just forgot to mention that part of it for some reason.

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Rent-an-Ihrno

Really? Grain? I've only known that word in association with, like, wheat and stuff.

Thuryl was talking about this type of grain. It's a woodworking term.

[Rent-an-Ihrno]

Yeah, I got that. Anyway, as interesting as our discussion here might be, how could our findings be applied to SpidWeb games, spec A6? I've already given 3 of my favourites. But how about a more differentiated attack/armor system? In some games, light armor is better vs missiles (because tenacious materials such as leather are harder to pierce) and heavy armor is better vs melee weapons. There could be various types of shields, and so on and so on.

But of course, differentiation isn't the only way to develop a combat system.

[Earth]

i don't like having to carry 2 or more different armors especially if A6 has places where gets lotsa stuff to sell but no way to get to sell those before inventories are full, i had that problem few times at A4 and A5.

[Rent-an-Ihrno]

I meant that characters would specialise in a type of armor etc, for more party build options.

[Sss-Chah]

a lot of the ideas in this thread couldn't really be put into an rpg setting, especially with the engines jeff's been using. i'm sure he could add in specialized shields and armor, though

[The Lost Anvil]

Something I'd like to see if an Avernum: Origins ever comes out... It being made with something like A3 graphics.

[Reve]

Originally Posted By: The Lost Anvil

Something I'd like to see if an Avernum: Origins ever comes out... It being made with something like A3 graphics.

Something I'm sure everyone is wishing - but it'll never happen

[Rent-an-Ihrno]

Actually, it's on my To-Do-List for BoA. It can only be a matter of years now.

[Sudanna]

That is one thing that Jeff's games seem to lack - armor specialization, and significant differentation between, say, leather and plate armor, beyond simple protection.

[Dintiradan]

It's something most RPGs lack. RPGs tend to deal with armour in one of three ways - either it reduces the chance of getting hit in the first place (i.e. the sword is deflected off your breastplate), or it reduces the damage dealt to you (the leather armour absorbs most of the sword's blow), or it's some combination of the two (shields deflect blows and armour absorbs them). The Avernum games go the deflection route, though the miss chance calculation is somewhat unorthodox. They also have all the side effects of wearing armour that most RPGs have - it's harder to cast arcane spells, and your move rate can be affected for heavy armour (Avernum at least also lowers your attack chance based on how much armour you're wearing, something I haven't seen elsewhere). I can't think of any RPG, computer or tabletop, that deals with armour in a significantly different way.

[Slawbug]

I'm fuzzy on A1-3, but A4 and A5 definitely go the absorption route and not the deflection route as far as armor goes.

 

I don't think it's so uncommon for heavy armor to lower to-hit chance. It's standard in roguelikes and it's even made it into console titles like Final Fantasies.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Rainblow

I'm fuzzy on A1-3, but A4 and A5 definitely go the absorption route and not the deflection route as far as armor goes.

All of Jeff's games do, actually. It was one of Jeff's design philosophies from as far back as Exile 1 that armour should actually protect you from damage, to the point that he wrote about it in the readme.

[Sleeping Dragon]

Originally Posted By: Höðr

That is one thing that Jeff's games seem to lack - armor specialization, and significant differentation between, say, leather and plate armor, beyond simple protection.

Nethergate came pretty close to having armor specialization, sort of. With the Celts being able to wear certain things and the Romans other things. If Jeff could apply that mechanic to sorcerers and fighters it could be interesting. But he probably likes giving people the freedom to encumber themselves if they want to, unlike, say, World of Warcraft, where simple are not allowed heavy armor if you are a caster.

[Alorael at Large]

I prefer the lack of absolute restrictions. If I just need my mage to live and don't care about casting or even moving, why shouldn't I be able to pile on the plate armor?

 

—Alorael, who also doesn't see Nethergate or WoW as specialization. They're more accurately described as armor limitation. The heavily armored class or faction isn't better with armor (although Roman Training and Armor Use can help), they're just able to wear armor.

[Slawbug]

The OP sounded to me like it was suggesting actual differences in the mechanics behind different types of armor -- not characters choosing types of armor to be more proficient with.

[Sleeping Dragon]

Ah, I see now. Specialization seems complicated. I've noticed a trend of Jeff choosing to go simple and efficient rather than more complex, so I'd expect to see simple restrictions sooner than specializations, if either. I guess the encumbrance system works fine as it is now, though.

[Mario]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

From the instructions for Avernum 6:

X's Falling Anvil (Min. Mage Spells skill 17, Costs 25 spell energy) - The most powerful attack spell available to mages. It strikes foes in a circular area with an intense physical blow. As you gain more skill with this spell, the damage increases. Effect: Does 30 damage plus 1-6 points per point of spell strength to all foes in the circle.

No one gives his most powerful spell so this has just one meaning that I will be his foe or very trustworthy so which one is correct?

Maybe it depends on my decisions like A5

[Celtic Minstrel]

I thought that was just a joke...

[Rent-an-Ihrno]

It was.

[Zalatar]

I'm very excited. It sounds so great I might get off my bum and actually buy it instead of just sticking to the demo!

Not that the other ones weren't good. I just rarely buy games.

And has anybody else noticed that there are multiple pages of discussion on armor and shields? That should be it's own topic, probably.

 

To 'Mario', It's an rpg. Yes, it is Avernum. Nevertheless, that's also like asking why you buy the kill spell in E1.

It's an rpg. The kill spell once your mage was at least level 15 did 70's even to sliths. Also, X wouldn't have to worry. The other mages (unless I missed the tower exploding or caving in because I haven't played even the demo for A5) would avenge him. My sister tried to kill a regular town with a good party (everyone at least 12) and was swarmed. With mages it's even worse. You'd need everyone to be absurdly high level or something to pull that off.

 

To 'Rent-an-Ihrno'. Also, I think it was, sadly, a joke. I have had an itch to drop anvils on heads since I played E1 so so so long ago.

 

To a much much earlier reply, hopefully The Man will sell Avernum before he dies. He might leave it to someone in his will. Or open it with a sourceforge project.

Oh, wonderful GNU Avernum! How I wish for you!

 

Seriously. I think after Avernum 6 He should make a sourceforge project. I have an odd feeling that that wouldn't work out so well. Could anyone explain why?

[DOA Assassin]

I can't wait... Bringing back Skribbane herbs, dual weilding, old characters, new graphics, what more could you ask for!!!

 

Im really looking forward to this last release, ever since I bought my first Avernum and got addicted (Avernum 3- The best ever), I always wait for the next release urgently. Im very sad the trilogy is coming to an end (I hope for the anniversaries of Avernum, there can be a release of the newer Avernum's (after 3) remade with the old graphics. I think it would be nice as a collector's additon.

 

Good Luck with A6, can't wait to see what will come out of this.

[Celtic Minstrel]

Originally Posted By: Zalatar

To a much much earlier reply, hopefully The Man will sell Avernum before he dies. He might leave it to someone in his will. Or open it with a sourceforge project.
Oh, wonderful GNU Avernum! How I wish for you!

Seriously. I think after Avernum 6 He should make a sourceforge project. I have an odd feeling that that wouldn't work out so well. Could anyone explain why?

I believe he plans to eventually open-source Blades of Avernum. I have no idea when though.

[Zummi]

I wish the character editor from A5 be ported to A6 too.

[Earth]

i think better editor would be where skills can be reduced too if made mistake.

[feline monstrosity]

I believe we're long overdue some screenshots! >

[Earth]

not really, it's been under 2 months from announcement.

[Toby-Linn]

Screenshots were promised to us in May to be posted in June, but I guess Jeff hasn't been able to update yet.

 

I am looking forward to seeing them, it's very exciting.

[Earth]

he was hoping to release. maybe he forgot or got some setback.

[Toby-Linn]

Isn't that what I just said?

[Earth]

Originally Posted By: Toby-Linn

Isn't that what I just said?

sorta.