Trade off

[Mordea]

How much are you willing to inconvenience yourself in order to gain a more powerful character at the end? Ergo. How long are you willing to hold off training in a skill so that you can buy those first three points from a trainer?

[Dantius]

It's absolutely ridiculous to not train in Mage spells for your mage (or priest spells for your priest) until the Dark River. However, that Eyebeast is exceptionally useful for giving a few PS levels to your fighters, in case emergency healing is needed.

[Randomizer]

You can hold off on some training until you get to a trainer. Weapons for a fighter are needed, but if you only train in one weapon then you can save skill points for other things.

[Mordea]

I guess I should clarify. The poll options refer to a character who will eventually aim to invest heavily in that skill (eg. A mage planning to invest heavily in spellcraft/magery, an archer planning to invest heavily in bows/sharpshooter).

 

Originally Posted By: Dantius

It's absolutely ridiculous to not train in Mage spells for your mage (or priest spells for your priest) until the Dark River.

 

Even if you end up with a slightly more powerful character?

 

I'm trying to gauge by what degree players are willing to inconvenience themselves in the former portion of the game to enhance power in the latter portion of the game.

 

I suspect that a lot of players would avoid investing in magery before getting those three points from Shanker, and maybe spellcraft. Holding off investing in melee/pole before reaching Tranquility is insane, as is not training in priest/mage spells before the Dark River.

 

Waiting for sharpshooter doesn't sound plausible. Not training in Blademaster until reaching Tholmen at the end might be worth it, since you get oodles of BM from Divine Blood and Elite Warrior.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Mordea

Waiting for sharpshooter doesn't sound plausible.

Honestly, I don't see why not. Sharpshooter doesn't do much except slightly increase the damage of your missile weapons. There are better things to spend skill points on. I guess a pure archer might want it early on, but who makes a pure archer in the first place?

[Randomizer]

Also some skills like Blademaster take a long time to unlock with their hefty prerequisite skills.

 

Spellcraft, Magery, Arcane Lore, Nature Lore, and Resistance are early enough in the game that you can wait for all your characters. The weapons skills can wait for everyone that isn't using it from the start.

[Mordea]

Would you wait until the end to purchase Blademaster for warriors?

[Randomizer]

I waited until the end for Blademaster and Quick Strike. I don't think I even could unlock Blademaster because I never increased both Melee and Pole Weapons. Avernum 6 changed it so it's easier to unlock skills without wasting skill points in things that you will rarely or never use.

[madrigan]

This is what I love about Avernum 4-6. I make no effort to conserve skill points. When I find a trainer, I spend huge amounts of cash to buy skills I already have, or to buy spell levels. I do everything the wrong way, and I still end up with characters I like who can beat the final boss.

[Mordea]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: Mordea

Waiting for sharpshooter doesn't sound plausible.

Honestly, I don't see why not. Sharpshooter doesn't do much except slightly increase the damage of your missile weapons. There are better things to spend skill points on. I guess a pure archer might want it early on, but who makes a pure archer in the first place?

What's wrong with a pure archer?

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Mordea

What's wrong with a pure archer?

It doesn't take very many skill points to make a good archer, since the only specific skills they need are, well, archery skills. But the other side of that coin is that there are only a few skills that a pure archer benefits from raising, and those skills get very expensive after the first few points. So trying to make a pure archer means you end up wasting a lot of skill points on expensive skills that no longer give you much benefit, all to have a character who can't do as much damage as either a fighter or a mage. Archery is useful as a backup to other skills, but as a primary source of damage it sucks.

[Mea Tulpa]

The other issue is that archery damage ramps up less quickly than any other kind of damage. Its multipliers (x2 and x3) and puny compared to magic multipliers (x3 through x6) and melee/pole multipliers (x2 through x4) benefit hugely from skills like Quick Action. The skills for magic and melee also provide side benefits aside from damage (utility magic, fatigue reduction, encumbrance, etc) which cannot be said for archery skills.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Mordea

Even if you end up with a slightly more powerful character?

At the disadvantage of not being able to use any spells beyond Firebolt and Minor Heal for the first 90% of the game? Absolutely not worth it.

[Mordea]

Originally Posted By: Rex Romanum Cryptogrammaticon

The other issue is that archery damage ramps up less quickly than any other kind of damage. Its multipliers (x2 and x3) and puny compared to magic multipliers (x3 through x6) and melee/pole multipliers (x2 through x4) benefit hugely from skills like Quick Action. The skills for magic and melee also provide side benefits aside from damage (utility magic, fatigue reduction, encumbrance, etc) which cannot be said for archery skills.

I performed a little in game simulation, where I allocated 120 skill points to create an archer, melee warrior, and pole warrior.

With the heartstriker bow, I was averaging 69 dmg per hit.

With the radiant soulblade, I was averaging 69 dmg per hit.

With the slitb bloodspear, I was averaging 77 dmg per hit.

Note that I didn't take into account the 'lost' hits from not always being able to make two attacks per round. I only averaged successful strikes.

Of course, the simulation is far from perfect. I'm not exactly sure how many skill points you'd have available to invest in battle skills. I also neglected to consider the bonuses for nephil and slith, as well as from trainers and other equipment.

[Lilith]

The problem is that once you've spent those first 120 skill points on Bows and Sharpshooter, there's not much else to do with an archer, while a melee fighter can benefit more from peripheral skills like Quick Action, Anatomy and Lethal Blow.

[Mordea]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

The problem is that once you've spent those first 120 skill points on Bows and Sharpshooter, there's not much else to do with an archer,

Parry? Riposte?

Quote:

while a melee fighter can benefit more from peripheral skills like Quick Action, Anatomy and Lethal Blow.

In my simulation, I invested in Quick Action. Not in Anatomy or Lethal Blow, since you couldn't unlock those skills without blowing most (all?) of your skill points.

BTW, how many skill points do you feel is reasonable to allocate in such a simulation?

[Mea Tulpa]

What Thuryl may be forgetting -- because I just realized I had forgotten it -- is that melee and archery were balanced very different in A5 than in A6. In A6, melee is stronger due to several mechanics changes (mainly Dual Wielding and better Quick Action value). In A5, melee sucks horribly, while the Heartstriker bow is available early enough to not be irrelevant. Back in the day, I did some theoretical calculations and got similar results to Mordea.

 

Archery's heyday was in A4, really the one game where dedicated archers were viable (if still not optimal) and pumping everyone's archery stats was helpful. In A5, magic damage is clearly the way to go. And in A6, melee damage is king, at least for single targets.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Mordea

Parry? Riposte?

Parry, maybe, but how do you intend to get Riposte on an archer when Riposte requires Blademaster skill, and Blademaster requires Melee and Pole skill?

Quote:

BTW, how many skill points do you feel is reasonable to allocate in such a simulation?

Well, what part of the game are you optimising for? The general rule with archers is that they're good early on when fighters haven't yet filled out all the skills they need and spellcasters have to conserve their spell points, but by the endgame archery is mostly obsolete.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Rex Romanum Cryptogrammaticon

What Thuryl may be forgetting -- because I just realized I had forgotten it -- is that melee and archery were balanced very different in A5 than in A6. In A6, melee is stronger due to several mechanics changes (mainly Dual Wielding and better Quick Action value). In A5, melee sucks horribly, while the Heartstriker bow is available early enough to not be irrelevant. Back in the day, I did some theoretical calculations and got similar results to Mordea.

Uh, your own analysis says a bow does about 40% less damage than a halberd. I guess the Heartstriker probably closes the gap a bit, but still.

[Mordea]

Originally Posted By: Rex Romanum Cryptogrammaticon

What Thuryl may be forgetting -- because I just realized I had forgotten it -- is that melee and archery were balanced very different in A5 than in A6. In A6, melee is stronger due to several mechanics changes (mainly Dual Wielding and better Quick Action value). In A5, melee sucks horribly, while the Heartstriker bow is available early enough to not be irrelevant. Back in the day, I did some theoretical calculations and got similar results to Mordea.

Archery's heyday was in A4, really the one game where dedicated archers were viable (if still not optimal) and pumping everyone's archery stats was helpful. In A5, magic damage is clearly the way to go. And in A6, melee damage is king, at least for single targets.

In my last game, I played through with an entirely magic using party. As you point out, magic users have the greatest damage potential, and energy isn't really a problem since you can return to town. I rarely ever touched an energy potion.

There is also no reason why a priest (or even a mage) cannot function as a tank. When all is said and done, the difference between a well armoured fighter, and a slightly less armoured mage is minor.

The only real fly in the ointment was that there were a significant number of monsters (especially demi-bosses) with high resistance to magic, fire, and/or ice. And by late game, everything has at least 80% resistance to acid damage.

Physical damage is the most common resistance amongst foes. However, it rarely exceeds 50% (it's usually about 35%). As such, I was using archery on a number of sub-bosses, because the damage output was the same or more than an arcane blow/fireblast when the resistances were factored. This was despite having invested no skill points in archery, yet having about 40 spell strength.

So maybe, maybe you could justify the existence of a warrior, if only to deal with those highly resistant opponents. Which raises the question of whether melee, pole, or bows are preferable. Even if the damage output for bows is lower, I'd argue that they offer increased survivability and tactical flexibility that melee/pole does not.

I experienced first hand how tactical flexibility can make seemingly impossible battles seem dead easy. In all games except my last one, I had not been able to beat those Sentinels where you receive the experimental blessing. However, with four ranged attacks (ergo. mages) in my party, it was dead easy. Each character was positioned directly next to a sentinel. They then focus fired on each Sentinel in turn. This resulted in the sentinels only attacking in melee, and also evenly distributing the damage across my entire party. I won the battle in no time.

Granted, I was using firebolt and smite, but there's no reason why the same concept could not be applied to an archer.

[Mea Tulpa]

The issue is "magic, fire, and/or ice" -- there are almost no enemies that resist all three, and mages have access to all three. A mage with 40 spellcasting skill and no investment in archery should never ever have to resort to archery, except maybe against pylons and the like.

[Mordea]

Originally Posted By: Rex Romanum Cryptogrammaticon

The issue is "magic, fire, and/or ice" -- there are almost no enemies that resist all three, and mages have access to all three. A mage with 40 spellcasting skill and no investment in archery should never ever have to resort to archery, except maybe against pylons and the like.

But I was resorting to archery. This is from game-play experience.

[Mea Tulpa]

Yeah, but is that because you encountered one or two enemies and got used to it, and are running a Nephil with the Heartstriker, etc., or because you actually checked methodically and have encountered enemy after enemy with 50%+ resistance to every castable element?

[Mordea]

Originally Posted By: Rex Romanum Cryptogrammaticon

Yeah, but is that because you encountered one or two enemies and got used to it, and are running a Nephil with the Heartstriker, etc., or because you actually checked methodically and have encountered enemy after enemy with 50%+ resistance to every castable element?

Since I was running four casters, it's only natural that I would probe the enemy with each element to determine what their weak point is. I wouldn't invest 200 skill points in magic related skills and then resort to archery for the fun of it.

[Mea Tulpa]

Hm. I'm still skeptical. Did anyone else have this experience?

[Randomizer]

From my A5 singleton games there were only a few things like unstable masses that are highly resistant to spells and are best attacked by physical damage. Morbo under Muck and a few other are highly resistant to everything, but those are boss encounters where control foes on the boss' summoned monsters is a better tactic than direct attacks.

 

Archery was for spell energy conservation when I wasn't taking more damage than regeneration was replacing or I was almost out and wanted to avoid using an energy potion.

[Lilith]

The real issue is that, say, a priest with some archery skills as a backup will still do almost as much damage as a pure archer, and will also be able to cast priest spells. So there's not much reason to make a pure archer when you can make something more versatile without giving up very much effectiveness at archery.

[Mea Tulpa]

Right, and then the corresponding issue is that Magical Efficiency is good starting in A5, so for 98% of fights in the game you're better off just pumping priest skills more and spamming Smite rather than bothering with archery at all.

[Mordea]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

From my A5 singleton games there were only a few things like unstable masses that are highly resistant to spells and are best attacked by physical damage. Morbo under Muck and a few other are highly resistant to everything, but those are boss encounters where control foes on the boss' summoned monsters is a better tactic than direct attacks.

Archery was for spell energy conservation when I wasn't taking more damage than regeneration was replacing or I was almost out and wanted to avoid using an energy potion.

I remember tearing my hair out over the Doomguard, tribute Haaki, Altered Giant, Morbo and Ruth. Those are the enemies with whom I resorted to bows, and a presumptive glance at the monsters and objects file suggests that their physical resistances are reasonable low compared to energy/fire/ice. It doesn't help that they have 10,000 hp and/or splitting abilities!

I'm inclined to agree with what everyone is saying here, though. Make characters who are predominantly magic users, and invest a little in archery if a bit of a damage boost is needed.

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: madrigan

When I find a trainer, I spend huge amounts of cash to buy skills I already have, or to buy spell levels.

Same here. Ever since I bought the Exile trilogy, I've spent untold millions in gold to buy skills and spells/spell levels.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Minor Detaur

Right, and then the corresponding issue is that Magical Efficiency is good starting in A5, so for 98% of fights in the game you're better off just pumping priest skills more and spamming Smite rather than bothering with archery at all.

I distinctly remember that ME absolutely sucked in A5. You must be confusing it with A6.

[Mea Tulpa]

No, ME absolutely sucked in A4. A5 was the game in which somebody else -- I thought it was your previous incarnation, but I may be wrong -- tested it and found similar data as to my test of A6, so I assume it's the same or at least similar in both games.

 

Edit: Yes, it was UBS. Cough, cough. The topic is here, although I suspect that the line of best fit is off and it actually works the way I suggested for A6: A flat 5% reduction (calculated the same with damage reduction is) per point in the skill, with the 10-cap applied.

[Lilith]

oh okay slarty so we're not even trying to be subtle about it any more

 

ps. your new pdn rules

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

ps. your new pdn rules

I don't get it.

[Alorael at Large]

Consider yourself fortunate.

 

—Alorael, who won't google that for you. Google it yourself if you want an explanation. It isn't worth it, but the PDN is.

[Lilith]

slarty is caught in a bad ra-mance

[Mea Tulpa]

I want your monkeys

I want your cobras

I want your small melons

As long as they're ripe

I want your gold

Gold gold gold

I want your gold

 

I want your first aid

The touch of your poles

I want your anaesthetic darts in the dark

I want your gold

Gold gold gold

I want your gold

 

You know that I want you

And you know that I need you

I want it good

Your good roguelike

 

I want your gold and

I want your curses

You and me could write a good roguelike

I want your gold and

All your scarab’s curses

You and me could write a good roguelike

 

Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh

Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh

 

Caught in a good roguelike

Ra ra-ah-ah-ah

 

Pyra Pyra-mid

Exit

Oh la-la

Want your good roguelike

 

I want your lunch box

I want all your nets

‘Cuz you’re Anonymous

As long as you’re Bosch

I want your gold

Gold gold gold

I want your gold

 

I want your prestige

Your professorship

Want you in my Bank of Ra

Be my bullwhip

I want your gold

Gold gold gold

I want your gold

 

Map map charcoal baby write it

Make that note c-razy

Map map charcoal baby write it

Make that note c-razy

Map map charcoal baby write it

I’m an archaeologist baby

 

I want your gold

And I want your curses

I want your gold

I don’t wanna be dead

 

Caught in a good roguelike

[Lilith]

i am what is called a professor emeritus, from the latin e, "out", and meritus, "so he ought to be"

[Mordea]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

The problem is that once you've spent those first 120 skill points on Bows and Sharpshooter, there's not much else to do with an archer, while a melee fighter can benefit more from peripheral skills like Quick Action, Anatomy and Lethal Blow.

I decided to test this in-game by investing 220 skills points in melee, pole and missile respectively

Radiant soulblade + assassin's shield = Min: 57, Avg: 108, Max: 207

Heartstriker = Min: 69, Avg: 84, Max: 97

Slith bloodspear = Min: 67, Avg: 108, Max: 182


So it seems you're right. At higher levels, damage output for melee and pole is much higher than that for the bows.

Interestingly, damage output for melee users is equivalent to that of the Slith Bloodspear. Those extra points in quick action, anatomy and lethal blow help close the damage die gap.