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.

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

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.

Good for you! Just don't get discouraged by any issues A1 might have (lack of questlog, healthbars...). Really diving into the atmosphere of A1-3 and sucking all the story out of it is truly satisfying. Have fun!

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.

Depends on what you want to focus on. A2 is probably best if you want a good overview, because it sums up stuff that came up in A1 and stresses important aspects of the Empire, the Vahnatai and Avernum's political history. A1 definately gives you a better insight in Avernum's roots, its creatures and magicks - it feels more like a myth than history, you know? A3 is not a good choice. I strongly suggest you get the whole trilogy, though. You'll want it once you've played one of the games, and it's cheaper if you get the bundle right away.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

You can't complete every quest anyway, and that's true for all Avernums as far as I know. I think there's 2 bags of sugar in Avernum 1, and 3 people wanting them. Or maybe it's 1 bag of sugar for 2 people. Or maybe I'm wrong altogether.

I'll go for it, as soon as I've finally gotten around to actually buying BoA...

1. That'd be Ornotha Ziggurat for me as well. This offensive is the only thing giving an even more immediate feeling of being in the middle of an all-out war than charging against the Empire's frontline north of... was it Dharmon? 2. Toughy. In A1-3, nothing is difficult once you reach a certain level; things just take longer. A5 is alot harder, I'm not sure what particular fight to pick though. 3. Am I really the only one to answer this question? I think it's the best one! Anyway, I'm not in the mood to tell the tale in any detailed or interesting manner, but I do remember a particularly exciting battle from long ago. Years ago, when I first played E3, I wouldn't let the Troglos blocking the mountain pass between Kriszan and Sharimik mock me. I lacked the experience and the powerful party to do so effectively, but I fought them, for justice's sake! I lost, of course. But I tried again and again and again, and eventually, with a stroke of tactical genius (and alot of luck), I won! Oh yes, I slaughtered those muddy manpigs! 4. Rentar, A3. I should buy A4 just to be able to kill that old...

Great, just great! It really sounds like A6 is going the way I'm hoping for. I'm particularly happy to hear about the apocalyptic climax and some of the back-to-the-roots-stuff. I wonder what dual-weilding will do to Battle Disciplines?

Stalagmites and stalactytes take shape over milennia. A skeleton might be able to be fossilized that way, but not flesh or plant-matter. These materia would have to be sealed away quite fast, in the case of mushrooms and the like in a day or less if you want to preserve its form, and in Avernum, that's only doable with cavequakes, rockfall and so on. Underground, you can't lay another layer of sediment over the youngest existing one, at least it won't happen regularly over a large area. Whatever, that's not my point. If you put a body in the ground, it rots. You have to seal it airtight so it doesn't get eaten by bacteria or larger animals, and you have to keep it sealed for a very long time - in Avernum, the ground doesn't keep still as long, and it sure doesn't produce materials fit to seal something airtight and cool long enough. What would that material be? Lava? Rocks? How would it cover the mushroom without squishing it? Or the dragon, without airholes? Where would the fossilization take place, where would everything go? Fossilization is a very special phenomenon in nature, and Avernum simply doesn't have the prerequisites. (Is that English?) Damn, I've forgotten half of what I wanted to write. Oh well.

@Dikiyoba: I think you misunderstood me. What I said was that the described procedure is unlikely to occur in Avernum. Or what are you getting at?

You can do quite much anything you want, as Alorael has already pointed out. Be careful to maintain realism in the given setting, though. How would there be fossil fungus when most of the relevant flora was magically created not so long ago? More importantly, it's very unlikely any kind of life-form could be burrowed in cold (!) mud or a similar material long enough to turn into a fossil. You'll mainly have to rely on metals and gems. Volcanic activity and crystallisation are your friends here. Remember the Gemstone Cave in the Eastern Gallery, the various magical springs, etc. There also seems to be obsidian and uranium around. If you really want to use some kind of magical plant-matter, you can always let a tree have grown on a patch of rock containing mithril, or in the middle of a healing spring or whatever. That tree could produce wood, leaves, fruits or whatever with special properties. There is no such tree in any of the games though, so you would have to create some kind of mystery around it.

You can always turn the Editor off, of course. You won't be able to reactivate it without hacking the game files themselves, and you will probably have a much easier time playing the game the way it's supposed to be - but I don't advise you do it. If you should ever get stuck in a black wall or a town get angry at you for no reason, you'll need it. I'm surprised you can only store one character in A1. It's been a while, even for me! You could simply add the stored char back to your party and then delete it to make room in the repositories...

I'm not sure, but I think I added two NPCs using the same slot in one game. My memory often plays tricks on me, but I do think it's possible. Try leaving your first character in a char storeroom instead of deleting it, and it wouldn't hurt to re-install the game. You should do that once in a while, SpidWeb games get a little buggy after a while. If nothing helps and none of the great forum knowledge masters respond to your thread, consider emailing Jeff about it, he's vey helpful in that area.

Then he should simply try again, shouldn't he?

Weird. Are you sure it was not about you not having enough space? I mean actual tiles around your party?

Actually, I think it's possible to let Avernum and the Empire ally without conjuring a storyline like the aboveposted. Did you all see Kingdom of Heaven? The extended director's cut, maybe? Those who have will probably understand what I mean when I say: let the caves be Jerusalem!

Sorry, I don't have any savegames around to look into. I can safely say, though, that Divinely Touched (plus a second trait like Natural Mage or Elite Warrior) is essential in A5 (so I guess A4 too) and should not be dropped just for a little more Exp. In A1-3, Divinely Touched isn't that much of a burner, but still very good. Get it for characters who don't need Elite Warrior AND Natural Mage, or a similar combination which might be important for a special char/party build. It's fun to play around with positive and negative traits, the number of chars in a party etc, but in general, you can say that more positive traits is always a good thing.

How about a skill that only takes effect while you're in a particular state of mind? Like +50% dmg vs pedestrians while on Skribbane?

I've always been pro assassination for ranged weapons (not magic). It would make them significantly more powerful, and it doesn't really make sense to me why you would be able to assassinate someone using a sword, but not using a javelin? But then, it also doesn't make that much sense that you "assassinate" someone in an open battle, and that the assassinated doesn't die instantly but only takes more damage than from a normal attack.