Sil 1.1.1 no-artefacts, polearm master

[taptap]

I went the other way with blocking, the idea is that I was going to wait a lot with a polearm anyway which defeats the idea of running around with flanking. The problem is synergy remains rare that way - blocking is very much situational when using a normal spear one handed (great w/ spear of Boldog or if you are lucky to find Aeglos). With flanking I always want sprinting as well... this gets expensive very fast.

[bron]

Does this mean you can get both the flanking and the controlled retreat bonus one turn, and zoc and polearm mastery the next turn (both with focus?) when resting?

AFAIK, no, you don't get flanking and controlled retreat in a single move. I took flanking because I find it to be very powerful, not because it particularly has synergies with polearms (other than being a prerequisite for Controlled Retreat).
You don't get the polearm mastery free hit unless you rested the previous turn (any sort of movement, including flanking, does not count). But you do get the ZOC free hit any time the opponent moves past you, regardless of what you did the previous turn.

[taptap]

I am recently trying to get polearm mastery working and I am intrigued by Bron combining it with flanking, which would never occur to me in the first place. I did flanking with subtlety / zoc etc. but I thought this doesn't go well with the whole resting for polearm mastery / focus etc. Does this mean you can get both the flanking and the controlled retreat bonus one turn, and zoc and polearm mastery the next turn (both with focus?) when resting?

[Scatha]

Maybe I shouldn't dare to disagree with the makers of the game, imho 2d11 = 3d7 but 2d11 - 2d4 > 3d7 - 2d4, high variance weapons are always somewhat better than it seems against armored targets because hits never heal the opponent. Most targets have at least some armour.

You're exactly right. In fact this is accounted for in the spreadsheet we used to help balance weapons, but I was going for a simpler approximation to make the argument easier. I have it in mind that the high variance effect is normally relatively small (rather less than (+1), say), but I should check this.

Note as well that high variance can also sometimes be a disadvantage. For example against lightly armoured enemies with little health you're more likely to connect and not kill with a glaive than a greatsword. But this is probably smaller than the armour penetration effect.

But of course one could argue that nobody uses a greatsword anymore, because usually a lighter 2-handed bastard sword is strictly superior.

Of course it isn't that nobody ever prefers the heavier sword, but it has moved in that direction. How much of an issue do you think this is?

[taptap]

The most natural comparison is glaives (-2, 2d9)[+1] with greatswords (-2, 3d5)[+1]. The glaive loses a damage die and gets 4 extra damage sides to compensate. If you have 2 extra damage sides (normally coming from points of strength, but could be a superior weapon, rings of damage, or the ability Power), their expected damage on a regular hit is equal. If you have less than 2 extra sides, the glaive is better; more and the sword is better. This will go well for low strength melee characters.

Maybe I shouldn't dare to disagree with the makers of the game, imho 2d11 = 3d7 but 2d11 - 2d4 > 3d7 - 2d4, high variance weapons are always somewhat better than it seems against armored targets because hits never heal the opponent. Most targets have at least some armour. But of course one could argue that nobody uses a greatsword anymore, because usually a lighter 2-handed bastard sword is strictly superior.

I would love a polearm competition - though polearm mastery isn't as much investment as the 7 points archery in the last one so people may not necessarily stick to polearms.

[debo]

I'm not sure I entirely believe you! It sounds like you'd prefer a ring of accuracy (+1) to a ring of damage <+2>.

Glaives used to be at (-1,2d8) and halberds at (-3,2d10). The new glaive splits the difference. This was in fact partially because halberds seemed to be just a little too strong.

Well when you put it that way...

Edit: FWIW I forgot that Glaives used to be (-1) too -- I knew there was a reason I preferred them in the early game in 1.0.2 or whatever

[Scatha]

I'd rather have (-2) 2d8 at any weight than (-3) 2d10, but that's just me I'm sure HM will disagree

I'm not sure I entirely believe you! It sounds like you'd prefer a ring of accuracy (+1) to a ring of damage <+2>.

Glaives used to be at (-1,2d8) and halberds at (-3,2d10). The new glaive splits the difference. This was in fact partially because halberds seemed to be just a little too strong.

[Psi]

Haha, if we're reverting, I want 6d mattocks. Does the artifact mattock even exist anymore? I present scummed 2000 presents and didn't see it. Burkfelek, that was its name. It was beautiful. The Mattock 'Burkfelek' (-4,6d2) <+3> 11.0 lb

ISTR that it still exists and is the one mattock that retained 6 sides.

[debo]

Haha, if we're reverting, I want 6d mattocks. Does the artifact mattock even exist anymore? I present scummed 2000 presents and didn't see it. Burkfelek, that was its name. It was beautiful. The Mattock 'Burkfelek' (-4,6d2) <+3> 11.0 lb

I'm pretty sure that's still in there. I think half and Scatha would have mentioned in the release notes if Burkfelek got axed. (No pun intended.) I've never found it, personally.

Edit: Remember when vanilla mattocks were 6dx?

[HallucinationMushroom]

Haha, if we're reverting, I want 6d mattocks. Does the artifact mattock even exist anymore? I present scummed 2000 presents and didn't see it. Burkfelek, that was its name. It was beautiful. The Mattock 'Burkfelek' (-4,6d2) <+3> 11.0 lb

[debo]

AFAIK, halberds were dropped just because they were not part of the Silmarilion canon, not because anyone thought they were overpowered. So it seems that the top end polearm dropped from 2d10 @ 6lbs, to 2d9 @7lbs, without any particular reason or offsetting buff. (yes?) I'm just saying that I think you were right in the first place, and 2d10@6lbs is good and should be re-instated. And if you want to call it a "glaive" rather than a "halberd", well, that's fine with me. I think the weight change would be a good "conservative" choice, if you're leary of going all the way back to 2d10.

The halberds also had (-3) instead of (-2), IIRC. So it's not just weight and damage die you're talking about here. I'd rather have (-2) 2d8 at any weight than (-3) 2d10, but that's just me I'm sure HM will disagree

[bron]

... minor buff of dropping the default weight on glaives from 7lb to 6lb. This is where halberds used to be ...

AFAIK, halberds were dropped just because they were not part of the Silmarilion canon, not because anyone thought they were overpowered. So it seems that the top end polearm dropped from 2d10 @ 6lbs, to 2d9 @7lbs, without any particular reason or offsetting buff. (yes?) I'm just saying that I think you were right in the first place, and 2d10@6lbs is good and should be re-instated. And if you want to call it a "glaive" rather than a "halberd", well, that's fine with me. I think the weight change would be a good "conservative" choice, if you're leary of going all the way back to 2d10.

[HallucinationMushroom]

From memory, Debo, I think they are 6 lbs. I had a similar idea a while back, but the other way, a double weight great spear. A poison and fire branded half weight great spear would be pretty ridiculously awesome... let me know when you break 60 in smithing with mastery...

[debo]

I think Bron did a good job of outlining the "tension" that exists between weight/dice/builds when trying to figure out how to use polearms effectively. I know I've struggled with the same thing before.

One thing I'd really like to try is creating a crit specialist that uses a great spear - what's the average weight on those? I seem to remember them being quite heavy. If you could reasonably go for an e.g. 4lb one with a brand or two or maybe extra damage sides, that could be quite entertaining

[Scatha]

Even if they're not super-light, going for criticals can be pretty effective with glaives (and other polearms) because the criticals are so worthwhile. And while you're right that for most purposes you can find a stronger weapon than a glaive, one of its advantages is that it's a good all-round weapon.

That said, we could consider the minor buff of dropping the default weight on glaives from 7lb to 6lb. This is where halberds used to be, and I don't think we really thought about weights when dropping halberds from the game.

What do you think about the other polearms? I'm pretty happy with spears as being a versatile weapon but not normally the strongest. Great spears are more of a specialist weapon than glaives, and I admit I don't use them that often.