A critical look at Avernum 5 difficulty

[vois2 {at} yhoo {dt} cm]

Hello,

 

I hope the replies will be of a measured, conversationalist and non-accusatory nature...

 

I have enjoyed three previous SW games, and now I have been playing Avernum 5 for a week or so.

 

The first time I went through Avernum 5 recently, I sort of blasted through it and missed out on some quests by this poor method. So, I started again - I put the difficulty this second time on "Hard".

 

Only this time, I went through it very carefully but decided to see how much I could do in the game without "advancing" my characters' statistics. That is, I didn't increase any skill or attribute (I just let the skill/train points rack up), I did not buy any new spells, etc. I basically just kept the characters in the form they were from the moment I started this new game.

 

Now I have made it through all of the areas in the non-registered portion, and I am disappointed that the game has not been tougher. Keep in mind that the only advancement my characters have done is that which comes naturally, being an increase in hit points and an increase in spell points. Nothing else has been advanced by me, except for where a couple of quests completions did the deed. [Edit: I also did not buy any items, I just kept on accumulating coinage.]

 

Yes, there have been a few doors I could not unlock. And yes, there were a couple of monster bosses I could not defeat. But frankly, I don't think I could have defeated them yet without being much higher in skill in the game anyway.

 

I know the argument could be made that *because* there are some portions of the non-registered areas of the game which I could not yet defeat, that this is in fact evidence of the game getting harder. I am wondering what others who are checking the forums have thought about the overall challenge of A5? If you are playing on Normal or Hard, have you ran into some serious challenges later in the game which took quite a bit of attempts and tactical variation to defeat?

 

Thanks to all.

[Toby-Linn]

Umm....I play on Easy all the time and I still find the game hard in some points.

 

There's like the dungeons or quests which are too hard for your characters to finish, or monsters that are too hard and you have to come back later once you've gone up a couple of levels.

 

Sometimes I get killed multiple times and have to rethink my strategy or come back later.

 

Personally, I am quite happy with the difficulty levels of the games.

[Synergy]

The demo area is 1/9 of the game, and designed not to be too discouragingly difficult to those trying it out. The game ramps up in difficulty with some seriously challenging bosses and bonus dungeons. Hraithe Lord, the Black Horror, Gashlah the Lich, Melanchion...have you fought these? Not challenging enough? Try it on torment with a duo or singleton. Or even on Normal or Hard. Because familiarity and skill with these games is all over the spectrum, Jeff designs the games so a typical party of four on Normal shouldn't have too much trouble playing. But Torment is very notably more difficult than Normal. Sounds like you've outgrown Normal, and maybe Hard.

 

-S-

[Randomizer]

The demo is designed to have most of it playable with the default party on normal. The harder monsters always require some thought and usually spells that you can't get at the start of the game. As you get into the game there are fights that respond better to a particular strategy rather than hack and slash.

 

Increasing the game difficulty level really makes a difference. A fight on normal where you kill monsters with one blow becomes longer and harder when on torment the monsters have 4 times the health and few go in one blow. Now you want area effect spells so you can kill swarms of monsters before they overwhelm a character with many weak blows. Also monsters have a better chance of hitting on harder difficulties, so you no longer can wade into a swarm secure in the knowledge that they won't hit you.

[Lilith]

Something else to keep in mind is that the main plot is always going to be much easier than most of the optional areas, because Jeff wants people to be able to actually finish the game even if they're not good at it. So if on a given difficulty level you can finish the main quests but have difficulty with some of the optional areas, that's not a bug: it's a feature.

 

Having said that, if you find Hard too easy it's probably time to start playing on Torment.

 

(By the way, it is possible to beat all the optional bosses the first time you get to their area, even on Torment. Yes, even the Slith Horror. When you can do this, then you're allowed to complain about the game being too easy.)

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Thuryl

(By the way, it is possible to beat all the optional bosses the first time you get to their area, even on Torment. Yes, even the Slith Horror. When you can do this, then you're allowed to complain about the game being too easy.)

Some of them just require a tactical trick like the one for the Slith Horror. Still Jeff did try to make it so you couldn't get away with this. No more using terror wands to make the Pit Crawler cringe in a corner *sigh*.

[Sleeping Dragon]

While we're on the topic of difficulty, are the Avernum games much easier than the old Exile games or is it just me? I played both on the same difficulty (normal).

[Randomizer]

Avernum and Exile have different strategies. It's harder to shield your spellcasters with 4 Avernum characters than the 6 Exile ones. It was easier for me with Exile because I could have 3 spellcasters using area of effect spells. Not much survives 2 hasted mages casting shockwave. The priest cleared the remains with divine thud. The fighters gathered the loot.

[Tcheedchee]

As a newcomer to this kind of game, I second what Toby-Linn says.

Originally Posted By: Toby-Linn

Umm....I play on Easy all the time and I still find the game hard in some points.

[…]

Personally, I am quite happy with the difficulty levels of the games.

The game should always be playable for newcomers as well. Otherwise SW will only have a very exclusive clientel. Would be a pity.

Jeff's way of game-design is really very nice.

I'd recommend Avernum 5 to others.

 

Tcheedchee

[Drayk Armitage]

Exile was probably harder if you didn't take advantage of the less balanced parts of the engine (bless, curse, haste, slow, armor bonuses, antimagic fields, simulacrums, silverlocke). If you did, it was pretty much a cake walk, although still one with a lot of tactical variety and points of interest.

[Sleeping Dragon]

I feel like Exile monsters were harder to kill. Even a single rakshasa ot eyebeasts was always a guaranteed tough battle, and the crystal soul fights were some of the longest fights ever. In Avernum, there are less summoned monsters and the enemies, even bosses, seem to die much quicker. Physical damage seems to be more effective Avernum, while in Exile I tried to avoid using it at all costs, which made magically immune enemies the worst. This could just be me having no idea what I was doing, though, as I'm no expert like all you guys all are.

[Drayk Armitage]

Somebody else will know this better, but I think physical and magical damage were balanced fairly differently in different Avernum games -- although the general formulae were similar, magic was more powerful in one, and weapons in another.

[Randomizer]

Rakshasas were not as bad for magic user parties in Exile since you still had the wound spell that worked on them. Still I tended to buff and have spellcasters retreat to avoid getting them hurt or drained of spell energy while fighters got some work for a change.

 

Jeff tried to have a few monsters that were fairly magic resistant through out the series and a few physical damage resistant ones in A4 and A5.

 

Over all spell casting was way more powerful than physical damage with weapons.

[Drakefyre]

I think that one of the main tactical differences between Exile and Avernum is the huge amount of disabling monster and spell attacks - slow, sleep, paralysis, webbing, etc.

 

Stun sucks when you don't get a turn, but it's not interesting or as devastating as one of the others. I guess Daze and Terror are similar, but they're much more effective in the party's hands than when monsters cast them. And they're also almost always spells, instead of attacks.

 

Personally, I think that the balance of attacks in Exile III was absolutely perfect. There were a ton of great spells, a ton of somewhat useless spells that became useful when SP dipped below 10, and the monsters were interesting and different without being contrived.

 

Some of my favorite dungeons have been the giant lair in Exile III, some Nephil forts, etc. I much prefer facing sentient beings with actual living quarters than a random cave of bats or rats or chitrachs.

[Callie]

I think the difficulty between the two series is pretty much equal. However, I found that some encounters were harder in the Exile series than in Avernum. For example, I spent several hours getting to the slith king in Exile while in Avernum I probably spent about twenty minutes. Exile 3 in particular is quite different in my opinion. I thought the rakshasha battle in Execa, Black Halberd dungeon, the undead infested inn in the Midori province, and the final battle with Rentar-Ihrno were all harder in Exile III than in Avernum 3.

 

As for general combat, the lack of spells in Avernum makes combat in a bit harder. In Exile you could simply bombard the enemy with divine thud, firestorm, wall of blades, and summmoned basilisks.