-
-
That's a lot. Really really huge. I remember when people were thinking that I have huge damage when I had ~100/5 against Morgoth using Doomcaller (with pretty much every possible damage-boosting item game had back then except one ring slot). You were doing 1/3 more damage and have two blows more.
Must have been really short fight.Comment
-
1064 damage/turn in melee.. Hey, that's one way to balance archery (for rangers) and melee!Comment
-
It is partly the change to Haradrim and Hammerhand. Those changes mean (+14,+14) and +1 attack on common items. The +1 is 1/6 additional damage for a warrior and I'd guess the plusses are worth more than another 1/6. People always ignore the hit plusses for obvious reasons when reporting, but they do matter.Comment
-
Haradrim is insane overkill (totally unbalancing).
Hammerhand is a major bonus, but not quite overkill.
This character has near max +damage from all the possible slots except one:
* Hammerhand
* Elessar
* Vilya
* Fingolfin
* Haradrim
along with a really uber ego-weapon. (superego weapon?)
So it's not unreasonable that he is doing ~800 damage/turn as a warrior.
But the extra blow from Haradrim just makes it over the top.Comment
-
It could have been even worse with BoC Fury +2 weapon. 9 blows with +20+ to_dam and those bonuses would have made it just insane killing machine. I once had SoS +24 of Fury +2 with acid-ring against Sauron. It felt a bit unfair for poor Sauron. That weapon alone made ((8d4*3) +24) * 7 = 588 points of damage / turn. Add something like +40 from STR and gear and you have 868. With non-warrior. And not counting criticals (or misses).
But OTOH it feels right that those weapons do exist. They just need to be rare enough that fast player probably wont find them at all.
Haradrim shots and blows need to be removed, otherwise it is OK.Comment
-
Don't forget that crits multiply multiplicately the base dmg. That is x6 base dmg with x3 crit and x2 slay evil. So with a warrior, a fury weapon might not even be better than that slay evil BoC. Last time I played a warrior with a heavy weapon, I regularly saw rounds of 4-5 x3 crit hits, if with a slay that is some MASSIVE base dmg dice.Comment
-
Haradrim is definitely overpowered, but without this extra shot/blow it's hardly worth aggravation. And I'm not sure that (+5, +5) is enough to prefer it to Thorin if you're already aggravating.
Code displaying average damage already takes critical hits into account.
Subject character is already retired, but I've cheated an exact copy to see how SoS of Fury compares to BoC (Holy Avenger):
Code:a Blade of Chaos (Holy Avenger) (6d5) (+22,+23) [+2] (+2) {!d!k} +2 wisdom. Slays evil creatures, undead, demons. Provides resistance to fear, chaos. Sustains charisma. Blessed by the gods. Grants the ability to see invisible things. Combat info: 7 blows/round. Average damage/hit: 152.2 vs. evil creatures, 173.4 vs. undead, 173.4 vs. demons, and 109.7 vs. others.Looks like SoS is too heavy. It will require +40 to-dam to get the same damage output, which is pretty much impossible to roll.Code:a Scythe of Slicing of Fury (8d4) (+22,+23) (+2) {!d!k} +2 strength, attack speed. Provides resistance to fear. Cannot be harmed by acid, fire. Aggravates creatures nearby. Combat info: 8 blows/round. Average damage/hit: 113.9.Comment
-
For warrior that should obviously be BoC of Fury (which just feels wrong).
That's actually a change that has been discussed a long time. I propose a simple change: Use ranger calc for warrior but give warrior +1 blow from start of the game.
Should be easy to do. Keep that until we have a smarter way to count blows and criticals.Comment
-
As an aside, only rogue and warrior (maybe those who should the least be affected actually?) can't get max blows with the heaviest weapons. Ranger and paladin are unaffected. Rangers forte is ranged, and paladins have almost unarguably the strongest combat related spell list of these four, so IMHO the formulas should be so that if any it is rangers rather than rogues who can't get max blows with the heaviest weapons, and definitely NOT warrior. As for paladin, just as long the warrior gets his 6th I'd be okay that paladins get their 5 with the heaviest weapons.Comment
-
+1
I have thought this for a long time. It's a strong argument in favour of Timo's idea that warriors should use exactly the same blows calculations as (e.g.) paladins, but get +1 blow all along. IMO rangers and rogues should be switched, so that rogues can get max blows with heavy melee weapons but rangers can't. But in fact I'd rather get fractional blows done than muck with any of this."Been away so long I hardly knew the place, gee it's good to be back home" - The BeatlesComment
-
[QUOTE=Magnate;36907But in fact I'd rather get fractional blows done than muck with any of this.[/QUOTE]
I posted a complicated formula for blows, and no one uttered a peep about whether they liked it or how to improve it. The disparity in weapon weights vs dice and the strange current behavior made it hard to even come close.
It would be a lot easier to get excited about implementing something if people got interested in helping out with the details.
FWIW, I am opposed to the whole multiplier effect that tries to force different classes to use different weights. I think perhaps the stats should be more different and everything should be stats, but that seems too hard to do right now. I think I suggested that mages should use 20% more energy per blow and warriors 20% less, compared to mixed classes, or something like that.Comment
-
Well, I see the issue of weapon balance (dice vs. weight) as orthogonal to the issue of class balance (who get more blows with what sort of weapon).
On the former, heavy weapons should have much wider variation in damage, i.e. bigger dice. Light weapons should all be d1, d2 or d3 for much less variation. So I would make a rapier 3d2 and a great hammer 2d9, for example. (Ok so that's a bit more average damage for the rapier.) I'd also re-work criticals so that they were tied to the die size not the average damage (so more like O combat).
On the latter, I'm afraid I either missed your post or saw it during a particularly busy period and didn't have the brain space to think about it properly. Personally I like the fact that certain classes should use lighter weapons than others: mages and rogues at one end, warriors and paladins at the other, and priests/rangers in between. Warriors of course should do better with any sort of weapon.
Or I could just go off and play an O-combat variant ..."Been away so long I hardly knew the place, gee it's good to be back home" - The BeatlesComment
-
One problem is, e.g., that the current system mean that mages prefer heavy weapons and warriors prefer light weapons. That is true at the start for mace vs dagger and tru at the end for MoD vs BoC.
The real problem is that, at the end, everybody has essentially the same stats. Now if an endgame mage had a maximum of STR 18/100 things could be different. It might be enough to extend the stat tables to 18/300 since warriors could get there and maybe mages couldn't. Either approach is a massive amount of work.
Look at the end of http://angband.oook.cz/forum/showthr...ght=sqrt+blows for my formula.Comment
Tweet
Very neat.
Comment