Harehunter

I like your tank; every corps needs one. This guy should always be the tip of your spear (pun intended). If he needs a ranged weapon, I like Smite. (Duck Harehunter, Slarties is coming for your head!) See our discussion on this very topic. Your shaman, or is he a hedge wizard is excellent; Artillery is the King of Battle. This guy is more expensive than a date with Erin Gray (Who the heck is she?) Keep to improving spell casting abilities. As to your third character; beware the lure of the jack of all trades. I am a strong and vociferous advocate of multiple skills training, but keep it down to a minimum. There is only so much XP to be earned, limiting the levels and skill points to be spent. I have to agree with Alorael as to development of your thief. He will have need of high levels of tool use and it gets very expensive skill point wise the higher you go. Swords are definitely superior to bows or thrown IMHO. The other skills needed to make your ability to conduct (and survive) close combat are useful in other respects. If a worthy bow presents itself, it should go to your thief, but train to it only after you have developed your primary and secondary skills; thief and backup fighter. Bows are cheaper than my preferred Smite, and this guy is as skill point hungry as your hedge wizard. In this circumstance, I will have to defer to bows provided your first two skills are thoroughly developed.

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.

Quote: In fact, I've played and beaten all three Exiles and all six Avernums. I know I'm not the only one who's done this. Hardcore, Dedicated, Foolish. I resemble that remark. And let us not forget the wealth of adventure to be discovered and re-discovered in the Blades of Exile scenarios. Just to show my gluttony for punishment, I will attempt to complete the Avernum 5-6 Annotated maps. But I will always keep All versions of all the Exile games on my hard drive, and on my backup drive, and on my backup CD of my backup drive... (Paranoia is a healthy attribute for DataBase Administrators). Now that I have the missing version 1 of Exile I, I am going to have to replay it just to experience the story in its most original form. ((Hardcore, Dedicated, Stupid...)) Just mumbling to myself.

I sympathize with you. The Crypt of Drath is just not possible in the current engine, and I truly miss Divine Thud and Null Magic Fields. The different party size between Exile and Avernum was not so big a deal to cope with. I do like some of the new weapons, but where is my beloved Orb of Thralni? And laying out the map for the two levels required a bit of redesigning my web pages. There seems to be a rather heated discussion on the value of battle disciplines.

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.

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.

Having come in from Ft. Saffron, you are at the west end of the map. The switch you need to use to deactivate the pylons is in the room at the southeast corner of the map. Don't try to get there on this floor. Use the stairs in the first room on the south, go across to the eastern stairs, then send your strongest character to the control room in the southeast. [img:left]http://hasenjs.byethost33.com/Avernum4/rawpics/M27L2_ScreeCaves.bmp[/img]

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.

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.

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.

Try as you might, there is just no way to win this one. The entire story plot is based on this portal being unusable until you complete your final quest. At that time the game is complete.

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

One of these days I will finish my annotations to my Avernum 6 Maps but with Matt P.s walkthrough, this link may help as well. Good work, Turtle.

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.

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.

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.

I believe the plot of the story indicates that there is no way to win back the Great Portal. Your only option is do as ordered and ensure the civilians get out safely, then get yourself out. Those who retreat from an unwinnable battle live to fight another day.

Alorael, I keep looking for a loupe hole in your reasoning, but I can't see one. The argument for causing suspicion to fall elsewhere, and causing the Avernites to attack other enemies of Rentar makes too much sense to ignore. By the way, I appreciate the change of my title. Thank you to whomever did that.

In my experience of playing shaman/elite warrior, rogue shaman/nimble fingers, hedge wizard (priest heavy) and hedge wizard (mage heavy), I have found that early in the game, the weaponry you find has been my greatest weakness. I would concentrate all the good arms and armor on my #1 shaman, and give the hand-me-downs to the rogue shaman. To make up for his weakness in close combat I would up his int a few points in order to carry more spell points. Strength, dexterity, endurance and melee get second priority; I wanted my rogue to be effective when the really good weapons become available. Is your hedge wizard pure spirit or natural mage?

Gadzooks! I just realized something. I have been playing a team of standard characters. A fighter/priest is known as a Shaman, and a priest/mage is known as a Hedge Wizard. So a team of two shamans and two hedge wizards is in fact not so abnormal as it seems.

I had forgotten that Win 3.1 was an app running on top of DOS. Elegant solution Tyranicus!

I have used DOS-Box on XP Professional (32-bit), and it works very well for 16-bit DOS games, such as Wolfenstein 3D and Doom. The Kings Quest series plays very nicely as well, all 7 episodes. It would be interesting to know if it runs on 64-bit Vista or Windows 7. However it is designed to play games written for Pre-Windows DOS. I don't think it will run Windows based games.

Actually I still have a print out of the source code we used on the university mainframe. Do you speak FORTRAN? "WATT IV?", he asked. "Oh I don't know, just because."

I sympathize with you Alorael. But these times they be a changin'. I still miss the days of thee 80-column punch cards. Well, no, not really. It's just that is when I first discovered computers and found my affinity for programming. Super Star Trek on a text-only console was also a big hit. Finding a job that you love to do is like having a life's paid vacation.

Thanks Brocktree. Snippy people don't really bother me. My boss is a true Cajun; 'nuff said. I am planning another excursion into Av5 in order to complete my Annotated Maps. I was going to run through with a juiced up party, but maybe I will try it with a "Normal" party. The last time I played "normal" was when I played Tatterdemalion. But that scenario forces the issue at its very beginning. I highly recommend that BoE scenario to any one playing any SW game. It is highly educational, and requires a minimum of three play-throughs; six times through is still not enough.