Avernum 5 - Designing Party for First Playthrough

[Harehunter]

It is just my philosophy that to become expert in only one skill is in fact handicapping yourself in everything else, leaving weaknesses that the enemy can exploit. It also leaves you with a party in which, in many situations, one or more of your team is unable to contribute to accomplishing the mission. Such dead-weight characters become more of a liability, not an asset. In the next major scenario, the dead-weight character may become the primary assailant, but someone else becomes useless.

 

I have said that I will try my next mapping tour of Av5 with single specialty PC's that you recommend, just to try to get a feel for your enthusiastic support for that style. More on this subject as the expedition progresses.

[Slawbug]

To expand on this specialization thing:

 

A5 does not actually reward specialization. Indeed, there are diminishing returns for all of the attack skills as you spend more and more skill points to increase your damage by a smaller and smaller percentage of the total. (This is somewhat mitigated by having supporting skills available.)

 

The problem is that A5 seriously punishes generalization. Attacking with a well-trained skill will usually do more damage than attacking with a lightly-trained skill, even if resistances, etc, favor the lightly-trained skill.

 

And non-attack abilities usually require moderate-to-substantial investment to have a meaningful effect. That is true of status effect spells and that is true of healing.

 

Exceptions:

1) Archery is much worse than in A4, and it is just not worth being a dedicated archer to begin with.

2) Battle disciplines are useful for everyone, which means weapon skills are useful to everyone. HOWEVER, you can get up to 20 in battle disciplines without investing more than a handful of points into weapon skills, and nothing into the supporting skills. So this isn't really an argument for generalization either.

 

Also, sometimes things that look like generalization, aren't. For example, I tend to advocate making all spellcasters Divinely Touched/Elite Warrior, as the fatigue reduction from EW's Blademaster boosts magic output more than the extra points of Mage Spells or Priest Spells would. But even with Elite Warrior and as a Slith, putting enough points into Mage Spells and Spellcraft and Magery to make them useful means you'll almost always do more damage with spells than with halberds, whether or not you plunk some random points into Pole Weapons et al.

[Harehunter]

Now you have me totally confused. Here is what I understand of your last post.

 

Specialization is not rewarded, ergo generalization, at least to some degree, is encouraged.

 

However, generalization is punished, ergo specialization is promoted.

 

Battle Disciplines are useful for everyone, yet they require some skill with weapons; something I have always advocated, and yet been criticized for.

 

Elite Warrior for spell casters sounds out of place as well. Mind you I don't argue the benefits; it just sounds dichotomous. Pure Spirit for priests and Natural Mage for mages sound more appropriate.

 

Divinely Touched is indeed a good trait to have, but is it really worth the XP penalty? Getting skill points is hard enough, and gaining levels increases so many stats and is a factor in so many algorithms.

 

One additional note about why I chose my style; much of my experience comes from the Exile series including Blades. In those games, XPs were awarded predominately to the PC that made the kill. The other PCs got a portion of the dregs. With that in mind, your always had to make sure to rotate which PC made the coupe de grace. Pure priests, with their very weak attack spells, could not acquire enough skill points to advance their levels on a par with the other PC's. I did not notice that the algorithm had changed in Avernum 1-3. and with Avernum 4-6 the rules have drastically changed. XPs are now distributed more evenly, no matter who made the kill. In this case my extreme style of multi-classing may indeed not be the best style for these games. On the other hand, it is a style I have used with good success ever since Exile II came out.

[Lilith]

The XP penalty for positive traits like Divinely Touched isn't actually as harsh as it looks, since XP gains are adjusted based on your level, so if you fall behind in levels you'll gain more XP to catch you back up.

 

It's good for spellcasters to have access to battle disciplines, which does indeed require combat skills. However, there are generally ways to get those skills without investing very many skill points, since racial bonuses and trainers exist.

 

Recommending Elite Warrior for spellcasters is an idiosyncrasy specific to Slarty, who has a tendency to analyse strategies based on endgame numbers rather than actual play throughout the game. Fatigue reduction is a nice thing to have late in the game, but in the midgame having extra skill points to fill out your build because you don't have to pump Mage Spells or Priest Spells all the way to 17 is likely to matter more.

[Randomizer]

Elite Warrior trait came out of singleton testing. The advantages of extra carrying capacity without ever needing to raise strength, free parry, and free blademaster levels for reducing fatigue were better than getting extra spell levels and a Natural Mage's ability to use bulky armor. Reduced spell energy costs would be better if it had applied to area effect spells.

 

The difference in levels for not having the huge XP penalty of Divine Touch isn't that great. Maybe 6 extra levels if you don't choose another high penalty trait. The extra levels and having them from the start in blademaster, magery, and sharpshooter mean more damage and fatigue reduction. You don't even begin to unlock them until the mid game.

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Battle Disciplines are useful for everyone, yet they require some skill with weapons; something I have always advocated, and yet been criticized for.

The difference is how much skill with weapons. Six points in archery and thrown weapons is more than enough and will leave you a lot more skill points for skills your character can actually use effectively.

Quote:

Divinely Touched is indeed a good trait to have, but is it really worth the XP penalty? Getting skill points is hard enough, and gaining levels increases so many stats and is a factor in so many algorithms.

This particular point is crystal clear and undebated: yes, yes, it is totally worth it. Levels don't actually do anything in A5 other than give you skill points, so you are trading a paltry number of skill points for what starts out as +1 to Blademaster, Magery, and Sharpshooter, and eventually becomes +8 or +9 to all three skills. And 20% bonus armor protection. I mean, really.

Quote:

In those games, XPs were awarded predominately to the PC that made the kill. The other PCs got a portion of the dregs. With that in mind,

If you are basing your choices on game mechanics that are not actually the mechanics the game uses, it should not be surprising that other people are questioning them. Don't get me wrong, I love Exile too, and much more than A5. But they are very, very different games.

Originally Posted By: Lilith

The XP penalty for positive traits like Divinely Touched isn't actually as harsh as it looks, since XP gains are adjusted based on your level, so if you fall behind in levels you'll gain more XP to catch you back up.

It's good for spellcasters to have access to battle disciplines, which does indeed require combat skills. However, there are generally ways to get those skills without investing very many skill points, since racial bonuses and trainers exist.

Recommending Elite Warrior for spellcasters is an idiosyncrasy specific to Slarty,

That's not true at all. Randomizer came up with the idea. And Lilith, what are you going to flesh out your build with that beats free fatigue reduction meaning free extra damage and/or attacks, free parry, and free ability to wear heavier armor? Plus, looking at old threads, apparently in A5 Parry did give elemental damage reduction (although not melee damage reduction).

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

Levels don't actually do anything in A5 other than give you skill points

Well, also hit points and spell points, which are kind of important. Even so, the main issue is just that the difference in levels between a character with XP penalties and a character without is never going to be very large.

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

Quote:

Recommending Elite Warrior for spellcasters is an idiosyncrasy specific to Slarty,

That's not true at all. Randomizer came up with the idea. And Lilith, what are you going to flesh out your build with that beats free fatigue reduction meaning free extra damage and/or attacks, free parry, and free ability to wear heavier armor? Plus, looking at old threads, apparently in A5 Parry did give elemental damage reduction (although not melee damage reduction).

You're already getting a significant amount of fatigue reduction from Divinely Touched in any case, so the extra points from Elite Warrior are nice but hardly game-changing. The free Parry comes at such a slow rate that it's mostly a non-issue -- and if you really do want Parry on your spellcasters, I'm pretty sure the skill points that Natural Mage or Pure Spirit saved you would buy you more Parry than Elite Warrior would. The raised encumbrance cap is nice, but there's enough good lightweight armour for spellcasters in the game that encumbrance shouldn't be a major factor.

Getting Mage Spells or Priest Spells to 17 without any kind of support from traits will make them by far the most expensive skills in the game, and you'll be spending pretty much all your skill points on them for a long time. This means that you're going to fall behind on Endurance and probably won't be able to invest much in Bows to unlock mid-level battle disciplines before the trainer either -- and if you don't have any decent battle disciplines unlocked, fatigue reduction is kind of useless to you. Heaven help you if you want mage spells and priest spells on the same character, and still want to be able to keep up with new spells as they become available.

[Harehunter]

Slarty, you are a pleasure to dual with. It is also a tribute to Jeff for producing a game which can invoke such a complex and intriguing discussion.

 

Quote:

Six points in archery and thrown weapons is more than enough

Why not melee or poles? Six points is all I have ever used anyway. That is enough for any one to effectively use a singing rapier or sword of flames.

 

Quote:

Levels don't actually do anything in A5 other than give you skill points

and Health points, and spell points, and damage inflicted, and chance to hit, and encumbrance limit, and resistances ... Granted these have diminishing returns the higher you go, but in the early to mid game they can and do make a difference.

 

Having been more taken up with cartography I have not taken the time to work out the trade-offs between battle disciplines and fatigue. If divinely touched is indeed the antidote to fatigue, it would seem to be a very valid argument in its favor.

 

Blademaster would be nice for my spell users, since they have to have weapons skill in order to get access to battle disciplines. With spelled weapons they could indeed be a threat in hand to hand combat. But would that not be considered multi-classing which is punished by the game?

 

Sharpshooter? Sorry, but for my fighters melee and poles, especially the strongly spelled ones, do more damage, and mage/priest spells are more frequently more effective than archery or thrown.

 

Parry is nice, but a few points in defense is cheap, and 4-5 points in strength allows for wearing the highest possible weight armor a mage can use (natural mage assumed), and encumbrance does not affect priest spells anyway. Encumbrance does affect action points, but 4 points strength is more than adequate to compensate, 6 if you want to wield a magic weapon with any effect.

 

Please remember, when I talk about cross training skills, I only mean to the minimum level to be effective in a secondary MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) without detracting from their primary MOS. It may seem to be a waste training strength and dexterity to a mage, but strength is good for wearing better armor, and dexterity is good for directing attack spells. Endurance is good for everyone to increase health points. Intelligence has only two good purposes: spell points and spell casting. I don't know if tool use is affected as well. I always have one pMOS priest and one pMOS mage. They only train in their sMOS as spells and money and skill points allow. In all other respects, priests and mages share the same skill requirements in Int, spellcraft and magery.

 

(And who has not had the misfortune of having the only priest in your team become charmed/dazed/... and your poor mage can't do anything about it? And you haven't found a wand to use against it?)

 

As for training priest skill to my fighters, again the secondary MOS is strictly that; secondary. Once smite is attained, stop. Divine fire is nice, but only once the Primary MOS of melee or pole is trained to deadly effect. Starting out with elite warrior is a good step in that direction.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

damage inflicted, and chance to hit, and encumbrance limit, and resistances ...

For the record, levels don't actually improve any of those things except insofar as you have traits that give you bonuses as you level up. So avoiding positive traits for those purposes is self-defeating.

Quote:

Blademaster would be nice for my spell users, since they have to have weapons skill in order to get access to battle disciplines. With spelled weapons they could indeed be a threat in hand to hand combat. But would that not be considered multi-classing which is punished by the game?

"Generalisation is rewarded" and "generalisation is punished" are both vague and unhelpful things to say without further context. Some kinds are rewarded and some kinds are punished. Getting free Blademaster on your spellcasters from traits is one of the kinds that's rewarded. Your spellcasters probably won't ever actually want to hit anything with a melee weapon beyond the early parts of the game, though -- the Blademaster is useful solely for its fatigue reduction.

[Harehunter]

But then again, I may be once more crossing myself with my Exile doppelganger. Has this been empirically tested?

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

The free Parry comes at such a slow rate that it's mostly a non-issue

You get 2 points at level 1, 3 points at level 6, and 4 points at level 12. If I remember A5 correctly, getting to the 10-15 range happens relatively quickly (though maybe I'm remembering a singleton). At any rate, it's a bonus of at least 3 points of Parry for most of the game, which is nothing to laugh at.

Quote:

-- and if you really do want Parry on your spellcasters, I'm pretty sure the skill points that Natural Mage or Pure Spirit saved you would buy you more Parry than Elite Warrior would.

Straw man apple and orange comparison. The comparison is all the benefits of EW (parry chance, parry damage reduction, fatigue reduction chance, melee damage increase, encumbrance increase for better armor) versus all the benefits of NM/PS (saved skill points, minor contribution towards SP savings on non-AoE spells). Those saved skill points would need to buy Parry AND Blademaster; I'll let the encumrance bonus trade with the Magical Efficiency, which I think is generous.

Quote:

Getting Mage Spells or Priest Spells to 17 without any kind of support from traits will make them by far the most expensive skills in the game,

Originally Posted By: Slarty a long time ago

A mage with NM or a priest without PS has to spend about an extra 40 skill points on their basic package. That knocks out either their extra damage pack, or their bow pack, which sucks.

Apparently in my min-maxing analysis, I did recommend NM/PS over EW.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

You get 2 points at level 1, 3 points at level 6, and 4 points at level 12. If I remember A5 correctly, getting to the 10-15 range happens relatively quickly (though maybe I'm remembering a singleton). At any rate, it's a bonus of at least 3 points of Parry for most of the game, which is nothing to laugh at.

I thought Elite Warrior gave the slow progression for Parry (1 point per 10 levels). Apparently, I misrememebered. That does make a bit more of a difference.

Quote:

Straw man apple and orange comparison. The comparison is all the benefits of EW (parry chance, parry damage reduction, fatigue reduction chance, melee damage increase, encumbrance increase for better armor) versus all the benefits of NM/PS (saved skill points, minor contribution towards SP savings on non-AoE spells). Those saved skill points would need to buy Parry AND Blademaster; I'll let the encumrance bonus trade with the Magical Efficiency, which I think is generous.

In my opinion, you're overselling all the other benefits of Elite Warrior. Fatigue reduction on a spellcaster mostly helps with damage output over the course of a long battle, which is nice and all but an extra 30% fatigue reduction isn't going to translate to that much extra damage even under ideal conditions. I never had serious encumbrance problems on my spellcasters, and most spellcaster builds shouldn't be using melee attacks (because they'll be wielding melee weapons that are crappy for damage output but have good incidental bonuses), which just leaves Parry.

[Slawbug]

For fatigue reduction, it can also mean more flexibility via more Adrenaline Rushes

 

To answer a question of Harehunter's from a while back, the 6 or so points into weapons go into bows/throws and not melee/pole because bows/throws are significantly cheaper.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

For fatigue reduction, it can also mean more flexibility via more Adrenaline Rushes

Usually when I have my casters use Adrenaline Rush in a serious battle, it's to go nova with attack spells in the first round of a fight -- and when I do that, it usually means there won't be many enemies left by the time my casters' fatigue expires, fatigue reduction or not. Possibly you prefer different tactics, which could well affect your strategic decisions as well.

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

To answer a question of Harehunter's from a while back, the 6 or so points into weapons go into bows/throws and not melee/pole because bows/throws are significantly cheaper.

It actually works out about the same, since bows/thrown also only count for half as many points for battle discipline purposes. On the other hand, bows have more tactical uses than melee weapons for a spellcaster (which is to say, you might actually have a reason to use one, ever).

[Slawbug]

It has been a while, hasn't it. Doesn't work out quite the same though:

 

10 Bows costs 40 (2+2+3+3+4+4+5+5+6+6)

5 Bows + 5 Throws costs 28 (2+2+2+2+3+3+3+3+4+4)

5 Pole costs 24 (4+4+5+5+6)

3 Pole + 2 Melee costs 21 (4+4+4+4+5)

 

Hm.

 

One thing I am realizing here is that it's a lot easier to know what I'm talking about when I've actually played the game in the four years. (Don't worry... that doesn't make anyone else less wrong

[Harehunter]

Quote:

On the other hand, bows have more tactical uses than melee weapons for a spellcaster

Why use bows when you already have spells to attack from a distance? More often than not, IMHO, spells have a greater effect than bows (I will grant that Heartstriker is powerful, but it comes too late in the game.

Quote:

(which is to say, you might actually have a reason to use one, ever)

I just happen to enjoy using my spellcasters in melee combat in the late-middle to end game. Once I have upgraded the weapons for my fighters and handed down their otherwise useful weapons to my back rank, with a small investment in melee they can inflict significant damage, while conserving spell points. This is usually done when I run into a mass of weaker opponents, but I always revert to their primary MOS against the big baddies.

I know, I know, other traits need to be strengthened as well for this skill to be useful, such as strength, dexterity, hardiness and defense, but these need to be raised slightly for other reasons anyway, regardless of whether or not the PC is used for close combat.

Using spell casters for close combat is just a style preference of my, just as Elite Warrior is a style preference for Slarties. I ran into a situation in Exile II where my spellcasters were completely nullified by anti-magic fields. This was a major vulnerability for me, and the only solution was to cross-train. I also discovered that if anti-magic fields were so effective against me, I could turn the tables on my opponents and render them defenseless. Giving my spell casters melee skill just made them effective in a no-magic environment, taking advantage of the vulnerability of my opponents.

I know that there is no such thing as anti-magic fields in Avernum, but once I had discovered this technique I found it to be useful in so many situations I stuck with it. Just a style preference.

[Alorael at Large]

I'm with Lilith. From my testing, and with the caveat that I give caster mage and priest spells, trying to get through the beginning without Natural Mage or Pure Spirit is painful. Natural Mage raises your encumbrance limit sooner and better, and you get bonuses to your spells that aren't tied to battle disciplines because all your mage spells are better.

 

Also, for efficiency, 2 Bows, 2 Throws, 2 Pole, 1 Melee costs 20 (2+2+2+2+4+4+4). Investing in all the options keeps costs down most efficiently, obviously. The difference is that the investment in bows is marginally more useful to casters; they don't want to be in melee with inadequate weapons and skills, but they might as well plink better.

 

—Alorael, who never adds more than a few points to any of those skills. He doesn't optimize for battle disciplines much anyway, and he can get to the critical Adrenaline discipline with being a slith or nephil.

[Harehunter]

Like I have said before, I don't train melee to my spell casters until after I have maximized their primary skill in mage or priest. By the time that I do, I have acquired decent arms and armor which, with a relatively small investment in melee (I usually only train 5-6 in it), will inflict 20+ damage to most creatures. And I use them for melee only against weaker monsters when I am in a long campaign and I need to stretch their spell points. I carry lots of energy potions/elixers, but sometimes I need to stretch them too.

 

Against stronger monsters, I always use the primary MOS for each PC. I match strength for strength, and apply secondary MOS only when it can be used to exploit a vulnerability in the opponent.

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

I ran into a situation in Exile II where my spellcasters were completely nullified by anti-magic fields. This was a major vulnerability for me, and the only solution was to cross-train.

Again, if you are basing your A5 party design on game mechanics that haven't existed for a decade before A5... call it a style preference if you want, but don't argue that it has any strategic basis, then.

[Harehunter]

There are as many style preferences as there are people who have played the game. Some people play to maximize battle disciplines, some people find some limited use for them, some people consider them a quirky adjunct, and some people will outright shun them. Parties of three, two and even one are popular themes. Various combinations of skills have their advantages and their disadvantages. The characteristics and abilities of the equipment available throughout the game are factored in as well.

 

It is the decision of the individual player how to design a team that best suits his or her style that will end up winning the game. The fact that there are so many combinations to choose from makes the game infinitely replayable. Even after playing the game enough times to have memorized the entire dialog, there are challenges enough to play it again.

[Slawbug]

I largely agree. Again, however, "stylistic preferences" and "best general options" are two very different things. Both are useful for new players to hear, when they ask. But the distinction needs to be upheld.

[Harehunter]

In chess the "best general option" for white's first move is P-K4. On the other hand, Bobby Fischer won the tournament at Reykjavik, Iceland by using P-Q4. By which standard do we determine the "best general option"?

 

Apparently you use a mathematical model that favors unlocking special traits and battle disciplines. I use an empirical model based upon what I found that worked in 6 of 9 games in the Exile/Avernum series. You can reasonably argue that all old empirical models do not apply in the A4-6 games.

 

On the other hand I make the argument that may be many very effective models depending on ones definition of "best general options". Maximizing versatility (combat options) may be considered by some to be more important than battle disciplines. For some people, unorthodox strategies may work better.

 

I don't believe that the Queen's Gambit is the best opening in chess for most people. It takes an aggressive, inverted sort of logic to make it work. It is a powerful opening for people who look at an attack from multiple angles, looking for the obvious response, and then looking for the hidden threats that must be countered. By attacking from the opposite side they seek to throw their opponent off balance, forcing loop holes in his defense and aggressively exploiting them.

 

I believe the same principle applies to Avernum; there is a statistically sound model that is best for most players, and there are at least a few alternative models that would outplay the statistical model. These models seek to outflank the rules of the game and exploit loop holes that are inevitably left because the game designer had a notion of how the game should be played and assumed that everyone else would see the same model. However, as a programmer I have learned that no program can be fool proof, because fools are so creative. Over 75% of my code is to ensure that the user follows the rules of the application and yet somehow they always find a way to use the program in ways I had not anticipated, causing great havoc to the database.

 

Just as in chess, and in programming, there is no one "best solution". Many paths will lead to success, some more efficiently than others, and the set of "best solutions" includes more than one element.

[Slawbug]

Agreed that there is no one "best solution." (I had actually thought about something similar, which is why I made sure to use the plural in my post.) You can, however, distinguish between solutions that make sense and solutions that don't.

 

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

I use an empirical model based upon what I found that worked in 6 of 9 games in the Exile/Avernum series.

To continue the chess metaphor, this is the equivalent of saying "This was a good strategy in checkers, so I'm going to advocate using it here." And you can certainly choose to play chess with a checkers-style strategy. However, this strategy is open to the criticism that, when you actually look at the mechanics of how chess pieces move and capture, it does not make sense.

[Harehunter]

I am intimately aware of how the pieces in chess are moved. I was the second ranked player in my chess club in high school. The only person who ranked higher than me did so because he also favored the Queens Gambit. Because we played with the same style, we both knew each others strengths and weaknesses. I could beat him regularly in casual play, but when it came to tournament play he somehow kept his cool just a little bit better.

 

Adding an additional layer to the game is equivalent to changing from a standard clock control to playing blitz chess. The pieces still move the same way, but you have to pay closer attention to the clock.

Or you can play with a variant board. Here there may be adjustments to be made, but the basic strategy remains the same; attack aggressively from the off-side where your opponent is uncomfortable.

 

The introduction of battle disciplines may be the ultimate game changer. On the other hand, the strategy I have always used proved adequate for the first pass. You can't argue with success. The basics of choosing a working strategy does not change. Look for the obvious response, then seek to an alternative response in order to bypass the inevitable trap and exploit any vulnerability that presents itself. In this mode of attack, versatility and adaptability are the prime tools.

[Slawbug]

It's a pretty picture, but the fact remains that there are no antimagic fields in A5.

[Harehunter]

Fact already noted. But once having used my spell casters in a limited combat role, I found it to be useful in other situations. (BTW this skill is a tertiary MOS for my hedge wizards, not even secondary.) E.g. in A1-3, you still have the multi-level dungeons such as the Crypt of Drath, where Spell Point conservation measures were needed. And when confronted with massed monsters in open areas (the Empire forts in Av2), some baddies will get up close and personal to your spellcasters. Being able to defend themselves without having to use precious SP or potions became an advantage I could exploit. Remember, my hedge wizards use close combat only when no enemy spell caster presents a threat; their primary mission is counter-battery fire.

 

No, there are no anti-magic fields to be found in all of Avernum, but other opportunities arise and present themselves to be exploited.

 

The Undead Spiral of Mertis in Avernum's 1,2,4,6 provides a prime example of how having Dispel Spirit spell available to my shamans makes the job a bit easier. Is it really necessary? I am compelled to answer with a strong and unequivocal "No". But then again, is the use of Battle Disciplines required to complete A4-6? Again, the answer is "No". Do they make the game easier? I would have to say, "Yes", once you have taken the time to learn their idiosyncrasies, their strengths and their weaknesses. For myself however, using a style I have developed over years, carefully honing it and adapting it to the different game systems, is a simple, and effective technique; it serves me well. Versatility brings adaptability.

 

Elegance in carefully calculated planning looks good in theory, but brute force has been proven time and again to be an effective technique. (Montgomery vs Patton, McClellan vs Grant) But even brute force must be used with finesse, or it is, as you calculate, a costly and heavily punished tactic. (The battle lines of the frontal assaults used up through the Civil War.)

 

In all things there is a balance to be maintained. Pure specialization vs chaotic multi-classing. Both present significant weaknesses, while presenting the illusory front of strength. Balance is the key. Patton's tactic of charging head-long into the enemy was effective so long as he had good supply. That was his weakness. Montgomery had excellent logistics, but was short on audacity; his weakness. Balance.

 

But then again, I was the sick puppy who would gleefully swap queens in chess, just to watch my opponent squirm in helpless discomfort, having lost the only strength he knew. Meanwhile, I would romp over the board with paired rooks and supporting knights to thoroughly wipe him off the board before finishing him off. Having the versatility of multiple strengths is the only way to pull off a stunt like this.

 

One strength only means weakness in all other categories; attempting to be equally strong in all disciplines means having no real strength in any of them. Specialize, but diversify. Such diversification should complement the primary skill, not compete with it. Balance.

[Brocktree]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Now you have me totally confused. Here is what I understand of your last post.

Specialization is not rewarded, ergo generalization, at least to some degree, is encouraged.

However, generalization is punished, ergo specialization is promoted.

Battle Disciplines are useful for everyone, yet they require some skill with weapons; something I have always advocated, and yet been criticized for.

The philosophy isn't so much to specialise in a certain skill, but to specialise in a *role*. For example, a mage who is a bombadier. At a certain point, the skill point cost to increase spell damage by investing in mage spells/magery/spellcraft becomes prohibitive. For a (far) smaller investment in weapon skills, you can unlock battle disciplines. Adrenaline rush will give you a 100% damage increase when activated (due to gaining approx. double AP.)Battle Fury will give you an extra attack (equates to an extra 33% damage) + a flat 40% damage bonus on top of that. That's *huge*. The added perk is that these bonuses also apply to ranged and melee attacks, if you are ever forced to resort to them.

However, at the end of the day, the battle disciplines are being unlocked for the purpose of increasing spell damage. So essentially, the mage is remaining specialised.

Quote:

Elite Warrior for spell casters sounds out of place as well. Mind you I don't argue the benefits; it just sounds dichotomous.

Personally, I don't agree with Elite Warrior on mages. You could make a good argument for priests though, since you'll want them robust enough to survive a few hits and cast 'Raise Dead', and additional Blademaster is good for anyone because of the fatigue reduction.

Quote:

Pure Spirit for priests and Natural Mage for mages sound more appropriate.

Pure Spirit is OK for priests. However, Priest spell skill is relatively cheap, and magical efficiency is gravy. If you select Divine Blood + Elite Warrior, you'll have enough Blademaster by the end of the game to guarantee an extra point of fatigue reduction each round.

Mages are a different story. Mage spells are just too expensive, and the negation of encumbrance allows for more flexibility when it comes to armour selection.

Quote:

Divinely Touched is indeed a good trait to have, but is it really worth the XP penalty?

Yes. Divinely Touched is indeed worth the penalty. I'd argue that Divinely Touched is so overpowered, it shouldn't be in the game.

Quote:

gaining levels increases so many stats and is a factor in so many algorithms.

Gaining levels increases spell points, health points, and the bonus you obtain from endurance (the last is probably the most significant!), that's it.

Quote:

One additional note about why I chose my style; much of my experience comes from the Exile series including Blades.

Apples and oranges.

Quote:

On the other hand, the strategy I have always used proved adequate for the first pass. You can't argue with success.

To paraphrase a particular Vahnatai from Exile 2. You can kill a monster with a rock if you throw it hard enough. That doesn't mean rock throwing is the best solution.

[Micawber]

Originally Posted By: Brocktree

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Divinely Touched is indeed a good trait to have, but is it really worth the XP penalty?

Yes. Divinely Touched is indeed worth the penalty. I'd argue that Divinely Touched is so overpowered, it shouldn't be in the game.

I agree 100%. I put Divinely Touched on all my PCs. In fact, the only reason not to do so is masochism. As others have said before me, The XP is penalty is meaningless, and Divinely Touched makes all characters considerably better even early in the game. By the end of the game, the advantages are priceless (or at least, worth several levels).

[Slawbug]

+8 or +9 levels of damage and accuracy to all possible attacks plus 40-45% fatigue reduction is worth far, far more than several levels.

[Harehunter]

Quote:

The philosophy isn't so much to specialise in a certain skill, but to specialise in a *role*. For example, a mage who is a bombadier. At a certain point, the skill point cost to increase spell damage by investing in mage spells/magery/spellcraft becomes prohibitive.

This has been part of my strategy from the very git-go, yet it seems that some have not gotten that point. That would be my fault since I said that in Exile I would maximize Priest spells across the board in order to take advantage of the more powerful spells in that spectrum. Like you say, Exile/Avernum, apples/oranges. The paucity of spells in the Avernum series renders that tactic pointless, and I regret that I did not emphasize enough how I have had to adapt my style to the new game engines to allow for this.

Quote:

For a (far) smaller investment in weapon skills, you can unlock battle disciplines.

But even before Battle Disciplines, I have found that middle to late game improvement in melee, strength, etc. has been beneficial to the survivability of my team (refer to my examples above). The existence of Battle Disciplines and their effect for spell users just adds incentive to train in those skills.

Quote:

Adrenaline rush will give you a 100% damage increase when activated (due to gaining approx. double AP.)Battle Fury will give you an extra attack (equates to an extra 33% damage) + a flat 40% damage bonus on top of that.

Sounds like the perfect replacement for the Avatar spell I was so fond of in Exile. If that is the case, then the game has not really changed all that much; you just have to access certain abilities in a different manner.

Quote:

However, at the end of the day, the battle disciplines are being unlocked for the purpose of increasing spell damage. So essentially, the mage is remaining specialised.

I always assign a primary specialty to each PC along with a development strategy for supporting skills so that I have no single point of failure. On the other hand, I have just spent an hour reviewing Slarties work on Strategy Central and I seem to keep missing the reference as to how battle disciplines affect spell use. I will happily dig some more, but later.

Elite Warrior on a mage is a waste, because as you point out (inverse logic applied) mage skill is more expensive than priest; you need to squeeze every skill level into that as much as possible. But since EW benefits priests and fighters, why not shaman's? Personally, I like that bit of inspiration of giving EW to my PS hedge wizard. Unless I am completely missing the mark, Slarties math seems based in maximizing battle disciplines, but as with training in many other skills, it would seem to me that at some level you reach a point of diminishing returns. Quantitatively, just how much is more than sufficient and how much is over-kill?

I am inclined to agree that magical efficiency is just gravy. If I want to extend spell points, I would take advantage of those skill points you recommend putting into combat skills (to unlock your battle disciplines) and give them a set of good arms and armor. If a weak foe presents itself, let my tank move on to engage the major threat, and let the back rank deal with the wimps.

There does seem to be some consensus as to the advantages of Divinely Touched vs the XP penalty. I will have to experiment with it.

I know Slarties has done extensive work analyzing the mechanics and mathematics of the game engine, which is greatly appreciated; however I still have the impression of PC level affecting other stats such as damage inflicted. I have posed the question on another thread as to whether level acts as a weighting factor in some of the probability calculations as to where in the range of possible values a certain outcome is most likely. Since Slarty has looked at the source code, I will shut up on this question once answered.

True, it machs nicht that I developed my generalized strategy back in 1998, but that it has been versatile enough to be adapted to several different game engines with little change or efficacy is all the point I am trying to make.

You don't have to throw a stone very hard if you are throwing it from a sufficient height.
-- Robert Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Quote:

Adrenaline rush will give you a 100% damage increase when activated (due to gaining approx. double AP.)Battle Fury will give you an extra attack (equates to an extra 33% damage) + a flat 40% damage bonus on top of that.

Sounds like the perfect replacement for the Avatar spell I was so fond of in Exile. If that is the case, then the game has not really changed all that much; you just have to access certain abilities in a different manner.

1) If you think that having similar abilities in 2 games with completely different engines means that "the game has not really changed all that much," you are nuts.
2) Those abilities are not a replacement for Avatar. In particular, it's very difficult to use both at the same time (and impossible to do so consistently) due to fatigue. Also, however, Avatar granted massive defensive bonuses: massive bonuses from bless, magic resistance (I think), *and* temporary invulnerability. Those abilities do nothing for defense. Avatar also gave hasting which was way more powerful than Battle Fury's, but which unlike Adrenaline Rush's extra AP, did not take effect until the next turn. Finally, the damage increase (from blessing) was additive and not percentile.

Quote:

On the other hand, I have just spent an hour reviewing Slarties work on Strategy Central and I seem to keep missing the reference as to how battle disciplines affect spell use. I will happily dig some more, but later.

I'm confused. It says in the instructions that battle disciplines affect spell damage, and you can test it yourself in 5 seconds. What reference are you expecting?

Quote:

Since Slarty has looked at the source code, I will shut up on this question once answered.

I have not looked at the source code (well, the BoE source, but that's irrelevant). What I *have* done is to execute empirical tests when I suspect something works differently than expected. In fact, I have typically done that before posting anything at all about my suspicions, rather than just making a big flapping fuss over them.

Quote:

True, it machs nicht that I developed my generalized strategy back in 1998, but that it has been versatile enough to be adapted to several different game engines with little change or efficacy is all the point I am trying to make.

You have made this point abundantly clear. The point certainly provides support for employing your strategy on a new, unexplored game, or better yet, a new, unanalyzed game engine. However, it provides absolutely zero support for employing that strategy on a specific game, once you already know how the bulk of that game's engine functions.

Quote:

You don't have to throw a stone very hard if you are throwing it from a sufficient height.

You're not throwing it from a sufficient height, you're just standing on a soapbox.

I'm not arguing these points further. I think that I and others have made our logic pretty clear and I'm pretty sick of this debate.

[Harehunter]

Then let us belabor this discussion no further. After all, this is just a game, written for the purpose of individual entertainment. To continue in this vein detracts from that purpose.

 

Just as I took enjoyment out of reverse-engineering the BoE scenario file and writing my own editor, long before the source code was released, I can see you take equal pride in your study of the mechanics of the game. Your diligence is a credit to the Spiderweb community.

 

Pax?

[Brocktree]

Harehunter, do you have your point allocation for each character mid-end game available?

[Harehunter]

Sorry it took me this long to get back to you. I got interrupted by work. Plus I had to dig into a few backups to find it.

Avernum 5 Level 32 stats

Note that the special skills have -not- been trained in; in fact most are untrainable. They are due to other skills being set high enough and by having achieved as many levels.

While looking at my stats in that game I noticed something that I was certain of, but everyone else said I was imagining it. For my first 2 characters, both have Elite Warrior as one of their traits. This gives them at level-1 2 points of parry and blademaster. When I looked at my first checkpoint (Harston Docks) I was level nine and those two special skills now show 3 points. I did not do anything to gain them, and I had no equipment to modify those stats.

Moral of the story: gaining experience levels does more than award skill points, and it does more than affect health and spell points. It also affects other PC stats, especially those conferred upon the character by traits.

Just to prove it to myself, I set up a tweak in the Blackcrag outpost where talking to Damien gave me 1000xp.

This would raise my characters level with out changing equipment. I did no training and sure enough, parry and blademaster skills improved, as well as magical efficiency for my hedge wizards. I did not take the time to get the exact level at which the change occurred; work got in the way again.

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

While looking at my stats in that game I noticed something that I was certain of, but everyone else said I was imagining it. For my first 2 characters, both have Elite Warrior as one of their traits. This gives them at level-1 2 points of parry and blademaster. When I looked at my first checkpoint (Harston Docks) I was level nine and those two special skills now show 3 points. I did not do anything to gain them, and I had no equipment to modify those stats.
Moral of the story: gaining experience levels does more than award skill points, and it does more than affect health and spell points. It also affects other PC stats, especially those conferred upon the character by traits.

...

...

*headdesk*

No, this is exactly what we've been saying all along, except that we've been stating it specifically and correctly rather than vaguely claiming that gaining levels improves your stats:

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

For example, you do not get any freebie points for doing mage and priest together, or for Intelligence. Freebie points only ever come from Advantages.

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

Certain traits go up at different levels depending on whether they are strong, medium, or weak... A strong trait like Divine Touch goes up every 4 levels. Natural Mage increases Mage Spells, Pure Spirit increases Priest Spells, Elite Warrior increases Blademaster and Parry.

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

Originally Posted By: Lilith

The free Parry comes at such a slow rate that it's mostly a non-issue

You get 2 points at level 1, 3 points at level 6, and 4 points at level 12.

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

damage inflicted, and chance to hit, and encumbrance limit, and resistances ...

For the record, levels don't actually improve any of those things except insofar as you have traits that give you bonuses as you level up.

So, to correct your statement, gaining levels will NEVER affect your stats directly, aside from desultory contributions to HP and SP. However, the stat bonuses you get from Advantages (and Races) will increase (slowly) as your level increases.

[Harehunter]

"I see" said the blind man. "Of course you do" said his deaf/mute daughter.

 

My apologies to you. I am not normally this dense.

[ĐªгŦĦ Єяŋϊε]

that looked like a lot of cut and paste to checkmate someone

[Harehunter]

Quote:

that looked like a lot of cut and paste to checkmate someone

I'm not sure I understand you.

I concede that the points gained by certain stats depending on level are dependent upon the bonuses gained by character type and traits; only those stats are affected, not all of them as I had originally presumed.

I still contend that training in multiple skills has its advantages as opposed to concentrating in a single skill. I will admit that there are certain disadvantages in multi-talented PC's, such as not gaining access to some special skill or battle discipline. On the other hand, the single specialty model also has its advantages and disadvantages. Which strategy is best? I think that the answer to that question is that it depends upon an individual players mind set; the way they think.

[Alorael at Large]

Ernie was talking to Slarty, who put a lot of effort into basically saying "we told you so" very firmly.

 

—Alorael, who doesn't think your contention is going to do much good. The major participants have bowed out. He, for his part, will maintain that you are wrong from an character optimization standpoint, but he'll freely admit that he doesn't optimize very hard and that, in fact, optimizing for fun is much more useful. If you find that a multi-talented party is the most fun, go with it.

[Harehunter]

Quote:

He, for his part, will maintain that you are wrong from an character optimization standpoint, but he'll freely admit that he doesn't optimize very hard

You noticed that as well. Some people you just can't convince, no matter what. I doff my cap to Slarties for his stick-to-itiveness.

While this little debate has been lively and, for me at least, entertaining, I think I shall return to the land of the living and to completing my cartography projects.