A6 - Anatomy, Lethal Blow, and Quick Action

[Slawbug]

These don't work exactly as we have assumed.

 

Avg Dmg 28 (Range 21-35) - Baseline

Avg Dmg 37 (Range 30-46) - 10 Anatomy (+33%)

Avg Dmg 47 (Range 42-53) - 20 Anatomy (+67%)

 

Avg Dmg 28 (Range 21-35) - Baseline

Avg Dmg 39 (Range 30-47) - 10 Lethal Blow (+39%, activated 50% of the time)

Avg Dmg 39 (Range 26-57) - 20 Lethal Blow (+39%, activated 60% of the time)

 

10 Quick Action - activated 11/30 trials = 37%

20 Quick Action - activated 18/30 trials = 60%

 

Anatomy and Lethal Blow have full effects on QA strikes, and all three skills have full effects on for both strikes of dual-wielder attacks. [Lethal Blow affects a QA strike iff it affected the first strike, although it makes separate checks for dual-wielded weapons.]

 

Anatomy is very consistent, although it only affects humanoids, and is about as powerful as Quick Action is. Lethal Blow appears to be weaker since only the activation chance increases, so is probably not worth investing in as much. Quick Action is a bit weaker than I remembered (although in retrospect it was like this in A5, too). However, the important note is that all these skills effectively multiply, rather than add, to damage. Between Strength, Melee Weapons, Blademaster, Dual Wielding, Quick Action, Anatomy, and Lethal Blow, there is a LOT for a dual-wielder to add to before they start to see ANY diminishing returns whatsoever! Crazy.

[Synergy]

Yes! Melee warriors rock in A6. I found Lethal Blow quite gratifying. Note that you can get a decent dispersing of LB from items even magicians will use, and so without or before investing into Lethal Blow for anyone, you can enjoy some magnified attacks, magical or physical. Lethal Blow appears to add between 50-100% damage above the normal amount. Do you know the actual math? I'm usually too busy playing to pay very close attention to get a really clear notion of the actual numbers involved. I think LB is more fun and useful than Riposte. Attack investement seems to trump defensive investment, if you are not neglecting your ability to armor up and add some levels of endurance.

 

-S-

[Slawbug]

Wait, Lethal Blow adds to magical attacks? Crazy, and neat.

 

It doesn't add 50-100% though. It adds less than 50% on average. This may LOOK like 100% because you get a crappy roll on a regular attack, followed by a good roll on a LB attack. It isn't.

[Oskar]

Does anatomy increase dmg to humanoids by a percentage or does it act like another +melee weapons skill point (like strength, blademaster or melee/pole weapons) vs. humanoids?

[Slawbug]

By a percentage. I meant to clarify that. The percentages above hold true with other baseline levels of damage as well.

[Lilith]

By the way, do we know exactly what counts as a humanoid? My assumption is that humans, goblins, vahnatai, sliths and giants all do, while undead and demons don't. But that could be wildly wrong.

[ĐªгŦĦ Єяŋϊε]

i always wondered also

[Slawbug]

I would bet that this is based on the creature_type variable in the creature definitions. Interestingly, gazers have the same type as goblins and gremlins (type 1).

 

Luckily, this is easy to test. I'll try to remember to test it as I go through the game.

[Alorael at Large]

Either goblins aren't humanoids or gazers are? Excellent.

 

—Alorael, who somehow imagines that giants aren't humanoids. They're the wrong size, so all your anatomical knowledge is irrelevant. You just can't reach anything above the knees.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Littlest Traveler

?Alorael, who somehow imagines that giants aren't humanoids. They're the wrong size, so all your anatomical knowledge is irrelevant. You just can't reach anything above the knees.

Sure you can after you cut them down to your level.

The bigger they are, the bigger the target.

[Slawbug]

Important update:

 

Lethal Blow DOES NOT add anything to magical attacks. I've tried repeatedly and have never gotten it to activate even with 40 Lethal Blow.

[Synergy]

It definitely used to. Jeff nixed it?

 

-S-

[Slawbug]

Again, it may look like it does because you get a crappy roll followed by a great roll. It doesn't. As always, I welcome proof otherwise.

[Randomizer]

I'll have to check, but I remember getting the specific message that you do a lethal blow.

[Slawbug]

So I just did some math. I put the expected damage increases for each skill into a spreadsheet, along with skill costs, to figure out how much % increase to damage you can expect from each individual bought point of a skill. The results were interesting:

 

Code:

% Increase in Expected Average Total DamagePer Skill Point Spent on a Given Skill IncreaseSkill	QA	LB	Anat	DW-----	----	----	----	----1	4.00 	0.40 	0.75 	1.19 2	3.85 	0.38 	0.73 	1.16 3	1.85 	0.30 	0.57 	0.76 4	1.79 	0.29 	0.55 	0.74 5	1.15 	0.23 	0.45 	0.54 6	1.11 	0.22 	0.43 	0.53 7	0.81 	0.18 	0.36 	0.42 8	0.78 	0.18 	0.35 	0.41 9	0.61 	0.15 	0.30 	0.33 10	0.59 	0.15 	0.30 	0.33 11	—	—	0.26 	0.27?12	0.24 	0.06 	0.25 	0.27?13	—	—	0.22 	0.23?14	0.20 	0.06 	0.22 	0.23?15	—	—	0.19 	0.20?16	0.17 	0.07 	0.19 	0.19?17	—	—	0.17 	0.17?18	0.15 	0.06 	0.17 	0.17?19	—	—	0.15 	0.15?20	0.13 	0.05 	0.15 	0.15?

 

Note that the shrinking numbers do not indicate that pumping these skills is useless. They continue to increase damage at a steady rate, and the main reason for the precipitous drop at the top of the table is increasing skill point costs. I am showing the numbers this way, rather to compare which skills are most cost-effective to grab, in terms of skill points. This does not take into account points from items, but those don't make much of a difference -- again, the bulk of the shrinking comes from increasing SP costs; the effect of already acquired skill is smaller, outside of the 10-cap.

 

Quick Action is the obvious winner up to 10 QA -- very convenient since it's the only skill here that doesn't have to be unlocked, and has no trainer. After that getting Dual Wielding and Anatomy up to about 10 is probably worthwhile. Lethal Blow stops being cost-effective after just a few points -- it probably isn't worth chasing after too hard.

 

Of course, also not taken into account is the fact that Anatomy doesn't boost damage against everything.

 

Comparing the impact of pumping the basic skills (Strength, Melee/Pole Weapons, Blademaster) can't be done flat-out like this, but you can do it for your situation. For example, say you have the Jade Halberd (20-80) and 24 points total in those skills. Your base average damage before modifiers is 95. So adding a point to one of those stats will increase your damage by about 1.9%. Say it will cost you at least 7 skill points to do so; you can then get a result of 0.28 per sp -- making it worth doing before pumping Lethal Blow, but probably not before getting QA and Anatomy to 10.

 

Alternately, let's say you have a Blessed Broadsword (12-36) and the Frozen Blade (11-33), and your total from the basic skills is still 24. Your base average damage before modifiers is 91. Adding a point to one of those stats will increase your damage by about 3.3%. Say it will cost you 7 sp, again; you can get a result of 0.47 per sp -- moving it a bit higher on the list, though not substantially.

 

The impact of these basic skills is higher with dual-wielded blades than with poles, and it is also higher at the start of the game when base damage from weapons is lower.

[Slawbug]

New thought: is it possible that Lethal Blow depends on XP level? That's how Assassination worked in Exile, and it would explain its craptacular value. I don't think this has much relevance for a regular game, but for when you are at level 61 from skribbane trafficking, it becomes quite relevant.

[Lilith]

Possibly. There are a few other effects that depend on level, like slowing. I think it's just not a very good skill, though.

[Nekobasu]

For anyone just wanting to know what order to train in to maximize damage per turn, here's the program to follow. Damage per turn amounts assume you started doing 100 damage per turn without any skills.

 

The optimal program is affected by how many +APs you have from equipment. If you have +0AP, then quick strike is basically the only thing to bother to invest in; if you have +1AP, things are more interesting. +2AP would follow the +1AP pattern with all Quick Strike omitted.

 

Percent increases here are given per skill point of investment. So, for example, the first point of Anatomy increases damage by 3%, but costs 3 points; (1.03)^(1/3) - 1 = .74% per skill point.

 

If you have +1AP from equipment:

Train 2 Quick Action for 1 each (108/turn, +3.92%/sp)

Train 2 Quick Strike for 3 each (129/turn, +2.94%/sp)

Train 2 Quick Action for 2 each (138/turn, +1.80%/sp)

Train 2 Quick Strike for 4 each (158/turn, +1.68%/sp)

Train 2 Quick Action for 3 each (169/turn, +1.12%/sp)

Train 2 Quick Strike for 5 each (187/turn, +1.05%/sp)

Train 2 Quick Action for 4 each (199/turn, +0.78%/sp)

Train 2 Anatomy for 4 each (211/turn, +0.73%/sp)

Train 2 Quick Strike for 6 each (229/turn, +0.69%/sp)

Train 2 Quick Action for 5 each (243/turn, +0.59%/sp)

Train 2 Anatomy for 5 each (257/turn, +0.55%/sp)

Train 2 Quick Strike for 7 each (274/turn, +0.46%/sp)

Train 2 Anatomy for 6 each (289/turn, 0.44%/sp)

Train 2 Lethal Blow for 4 each (298/turn, 0.39%/sp)

Train 2 Anatomy for 7 each (314/turn, +0.35%/sp)

Train 2 Quick Strike for 8 each (330/turn, +0.31%/sp)

Train 2 Lethal Blow for 5 each (340/turn, +0.31%/sp)

Train 2 Anatomy for 8 each (356/turn, +0.30%/sp)

Train 2 Lethal Blow for 6 each (367/turn, +0.25%/sp)

Train 2 Anatomy for 9 each (384/turn, +0.25%/sp)

Train 2 Quick Action for 6 each (395/turn, +0.24%/sp)

Train 2 Anatomy for 10 each (412/turn, +0.22%/sp)

Train 2 Quick Strike for 9 each (428/turn, +0.21%/sp)

Train 2 Lethal Blow for 7 each (441/turn, +0.21%/sp)

Train 2 Quick Action for 7 each (453/turn, +0.20%/sp)

Train 2 Anatomy for 11 each (472/turn, +0.19%/sp)

 

If you have +0 AP from equipment:

Train 10 Quick Action, spending up to 5 per point (140/turn, +1.13%/sp)

Train 6 Anatomy, spending up to 6 per point (165/turn, +.55%/sp)

Train 20 Quick Strike, spending up to 12 per point (330/turn, +.46/sp)

Train 2 Lethal Blow for 4 each (341/turn, +.39%/sp)

Train 2 Anatomy for 7 each (358/turn, +.35%/sp)

Train 2 Lethal Blow for 5 each (369/turn, +.31%/sp)

Train 2 Anatomy for 8 each (387/turn, +.30%/sp)

Train 2 Lethal Blow for 6 each (399/turn, +.25%/sp)

Train 2 Anatomy for 9 each (417/turn, +.25%/sp)

Train 2 Quick Action for 6 each (429/turn, +.24%/sp)

 

Both of these assume a total budget of 300 skill points. Training to strength, blademaster, and melee or pole would be inserted at a point dependent on how much skill you already have in these categories. You will probably be at the point where these cost 8 points for the next level; this means that training this will get you...

 

+.41%/sp if your combined combat skill is 30

+.31%/sp if your combined combat skill is 40

+.25%/sp if your combined combat skill is 50

+.21%/sp if your combined combat skill is 60

+.18%/sp if your combined combat skill is 70

+.16%/sp if your combined combat skill is 80

 

Here "combined combat skill" means Strength + (Melee or Pole) + Blademaster + Dice count of your weapon.

[Slawbug]

Pretty cool. One small problem:

 

You can't even compare Str/Blademaster/Melee/Pole as you have done in the last section due to the fact that base weapon damage is not affected by those skills, but IS affected by Quick Action and Quick Strike and (I assume) Anatomy and Lethal Blow. Since S/B/M/P do not affect the base damage, the actual amount they increase your damage is basically subject to a reduction dependent on the base damage and multiplier of your weapon. For comparison with, e.g., Quick Action increases, you need to multiply the S/B/M/P contribution by:

 

(SBMP * 0.75 * Multiplier) / ( (SBMP * 0.75 * Multiplier) + (Avg Base Damage) )

 

where Multiplier is 2 for halberds, 1.5 for broadswords, 3 for dual-wielded broadswords, etc. In practice, this reduction will vary. With 33 in attack skills, wielding the Jade Halberd will give 0.5. With dual-wielded broadswords or early game weapons, it is likely to be higher and with lower skills, it is likely to be lower.

[Harehunter]

Quote:

ou can't even compare Str/Blademaster/Melee/Pole as you have done in the last section due to the fact that base weapon damage is not affected by those skills,

This statement is true as far as it goes. But in reading it I had a mild case of mental flatulence.

Observations: The base damage of a weapon is in most cases a range. Increasing a PC's level will never change the upper or lower bounds of that range. However I have observed that when a PC gains enough XP to reach the next level, monsters seem to take more damage than before. Upon closer observation, the maximum damage inflicted does not exceed the maximum damage of the weapon. What is observed is that at a lower PC level, the amount of damage inflicted does not reach the amount of damage inflicted at a higher PC level.

Question: Does experience level factor into the probability that a weapon will inflict an amount of damage proportional to the level of the PC; the higher the level of the PC, the greater the probability that the weapon will inflict a higher amount of damage, limited by the maximum amount as defined by the weapon itself?

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Question: Does experience level factor into the probability that a weapon will inflict an amount of damage proportional to the level of the PC; the higher the level of the PC, the greater the probability that the weapon will inflict a higher amount of damage, limited by the maximum amount as defined by the weapon itself?

Someone went into the source code to look at the equation for weapon damage. There was no mention of PC level in the calculation.

I don't remember the topic since it was a few years since the discussion. Maybe Slarty might remember.

[Harehunter]

I do not mean to offend, but as I am sure you have noticed, Slarty and I are having a rather lively discussion on the Second Avernum Trilogy page. I am certain of my observations that PC level affects damage, but all the work Slarty has done in Strategy Central contradicts that. I merely seek an explanation for the 'observed' effect, and/or proof that I may be completely off base while thinking about a different game.

[Lilith]

If you want to test this rigorously and eliminate the possibility of confirmation bias or confounding variables, I'd say the thing to do would be to start the game, make a PC with no traits (so there are no skills that auto-increase with level to confound the analysis), make 20 or so attacks with a weapon against goblins or rats or something, then use the iwanttobestronger cheat to level up to 30 or so and once again record how much damage they do for each of 20 or so attacks with the same weapon against the same enemy type. I seriously doubt you'll see a significant difference.

[Slawbug]

PC level does not affect damage directly. If PC level gives you skill points that you use to buy a damage-related skill, that can change it; likewise if it triggers a bonus from a skill like Divinely Touched. But it does not directly affect damage.

 

(Minor possible exception: we're not sure of the mechanics for Lethal Blow, and it's possible although very unlikely that level affects damage output there. It's more likely either that level is irrelevant, or level affects chance to trigger.)

 

Seriously, there has been lots of testing done on this. If you really think it is wrong, the burden of proof is on you: do more tests and bring your data to the table. Make a human character with no traits, attack a single enemy (ideally something with lots of HP so you don't have to reload too frequently) and write down every single damage figure. Make sure it's an enemy with no armor and no buffs, and don't use any buffs yourself. Then, use "iwanttobestronger" to add 10 or 20 levels, and repeat the exercise. Average the results and tell us if you see any difference.

[Lilith]

9 seconds. niiiice

[Harehunter]

Sounds like a good plan of attack, so to speak. Like I said, it could be I am remembering another game. I will run your experiment in the other games to see if that is the source of my delusions.

 

I apologize for being such a pain in the mule and beating a dead horse, but the past few years have been a fog.

[Bhima]

Originally Posted By: Synergy

Yes! Melee warriors rock in A6. I found Lethal Blow quite gratifying. Note that you can get a decent dispersing of LB from items even magicians will use, and so without or before investing into Lethal Blow for anyone, you can enjoy some magnified attacks, magical or physical. Lethal Blow appears to add between 50-100% damage above the normal amount. Do you know the actual math? I'm usually too busy playing to pay very close attention to get a really clear notion of the actual numbers involved. I think LB is more fun and useful than Riposte. Attack investement seems to trump defensive investment, if you are not neglecting your ability to armor up and add some levels of endurance.

-S-

Would you mind clarifying if "melee" as used in the first sentence refers to melee and pole weapons training, or just melee (as explicitly referred to in the statistics screen)?

[Triumph]

It refers to both "melee" and "pole" weapons, i.e. melee in the sense of hand-to-hand, up-close combat, as opposed to ranged combat.

[Lilith]

Having said that, if you're going for maximum damage output, dual-wielding sword users have the advantage over pole users later in the game. Pole users do more damage on average in the early game, but once you reach Slith lands you get access to broadswords that can be wielded in the off-hand, giving dual-wielders the edge.

[Slawbug]

Also, pole users do great damage in the early game without any investment in the Pole Weapons skill, so melee fighters can easily use poles in the early game.

[Brocktree]

Just thought I'd jump in and point out that my own data has verified Slarty's results for lethal blow (+4% chance to LB for every point up to 10, then +2% for every point after that). However, unlike quick action, there is no cutoff point. This means that 40 points invested in LB results in a lethal hit every time. Of course you won't be getting that many in a normal game.

[Brocktree]

I have constructed my own table of % damage increase per skill point invested in quick action, quick strike (base AP 8 and 9), melee, pole, blademaster, anatomy, and lethal blow.

 

http://www.box.com/s/67dod6ejzsarosehkv46

 

I made several assumptions:

 

- In calculating % damage increase for melee, I assumed a base of *60*. This incorporated the base for the weapon, and other bonuses a PC would normally possess (blessing, base strength and melee, cloak of blades). I assumed a base of 80 for pole.

 

- For blademaster, I also considered its effects on fatigue, particularly how regularly it allowed you to use Mighty Blow. 20 blademaster allows you to use mighty blow every 2 round, resulting in a +20% damage output (excluding the die damage bonus you also obtain from BM). Therefore I added +1% to damage for each point of Blademaster, *on top of* the % damage increase due to the multiplier.

 

My findings pretty much match Slarty's to a tee.

[Slawbug]

I hate to argue with someone who is agreeing with me, bu-u-u-ut...

 

1) 60 and 80 sound like endgame bonus totals. Which is fine except that you've already done all your increases at that point. This table is far more useful for lower and medium levels, at which point the percent increse you get from strength and base weapon skills is much higher.

 

2) Why are 60 and 80 so different anyway? The only difference is the presence of racial bonuses, and weapon differences. Dual Wielding does use up a few skill points, but those skill points likely wouldn't have gone into the Str or Melee otherwise, instead into something with a better percent multiplier, so they are not really a difference for the bonus.

 

Also I note that you appear to have calculated percents very differently from how I did. I calculated the % difference from the PREVIOUS point: thus, 1 QA has a slightly higher % value than 2 QA despite having the same skill point cost and increasing it by about 4%. You calculated the % addition to the base damage.

[Brocktree]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

I hate to argue with someone who is agreeing with me, bu-u-u-ut...

Haha, that's OK. The very reason I post my results on a public forum is so that they can be scrutinised by the experts.

Quote:

1) 60 and 80 sound like endgame bonus totals. Which is fine except that you've already done all your increases at that point. This table is far more useful for lower and medium levels, at which point the percent increse you get from strength and base weapon skills is much higher.

What values would you find more appropriate?

Quote:

Also I note that you appear to have calculated percents very differently from how I did. I calculated the % difference from the PREVIOUS point: thus, 1 QA has a slightly higher % value than 2 QA despite having the same skill point cost and increasing it by about 4%.

Sorry, but I'm not following you. Could you provide a sample calculation (eg. for 1 and 2 points in quick strike)?

Furthermore, what is the advantage of presenting your data that way, vs. the way I have?

[Slawbug]

Re the last question:

For QA 1-9, we both assumed +4% chance per point of QA.

We both agreed the 1st point gives an extra 4% chance to hit twice.

However, for the 9th point, I looked at the increase in average damage (1.0 + QA activation chance) from the PREVIOUS level of QA. Thus, my math was (1.36 / 1.32) - 1.0 = about 1.03 - 1.0, so a 3% increase. You still used the 4% increase. Thus, my percent increase per skill point spent rounded up to about 0.61%, whereas yours is 0.80%.

 

In other words, say you already have 8 QA and 8 Dual Wielding, you can look at my chart and see which it will be more efficient to invest in, if you just want to improve current damage. Your math tells you what the cost per skill point would be if you were improving your damage output by 4%, but that is not what moving from 32% to 36% chance of getting what is essentially double damage, does.

 

This is one of the ways diminishing returns affects all damage-related skills. It isn't just in the increasing skill cost, it's also in the proportionately smaller (though objectively equally sized) return!

[Slawbug]

For the first question, it's not an issue of appropriate, it's an issue of useful. I would look for values from maybe around level 10 or 15. You get to those levels fairly quickly, and at that point you have weapon and trait bonuses that are nearly as high as they will be for a while; however, you still have the chance to buy a bunch of skills, as their prices haven't skyrocketed yet and you have many levels left to earn.