Poll: do you want to change combat mechanics for heavy weapons?

[Timo Pietilä]

No way. It was the best master of the time using the best equipment. It was not unbelievable when you read it. Whether it was 50% I don't know, but it should not be modeled as extreme luck.

Isn't one-in-a-million shot something that always happens?

[Magnate]

Isn't one-in-a-million shot something that always happens?

Exactly. We're talking the Roy Rogers metric here (old RPG adage for never missing when it matters) - the reason it was believable in the book was because it needed to be. If you implemented it as 50% in a game like Angband, you'd have an awful lot of characters one-shotting very big wyrms. So I reckon the extreme luck model has a lot going for it in a game context.

[fizzix]

I don't think it requires a poll so much as a branch to playtest. Let's get 3.2 up on rephial.org and I'll get to work on it.

I'm willing to help on this. I have no problems with going through the monster edit files and adding the extra data in.

[PowerDiver]

Exactly. We're talking the Roy Rogers metric here (old RPG adage for never missing when it matters) - the reason it was believable in the book was because it needed to be. If you implemented it as 50% in a game like Angband, you'd have an awful lot of characters one-shotting very big wyrms. So I reckon the extreme luck model has a lot going for it in a game context.

You just have to allow for breakage on artifacts, or perhaps make it an extremely rare ego. Bard saved the black arrow for last. Clearly he wasn't willing to use it until all else failed for fear of losing it.

[Magnate]

You just have to allow for breakage on artifacts, or perhaps make it an extremely rare ego. Bard saved the black arrow for last. Clearly he wasn't willing to use it until all else failed for fear of losing it.

Artifact ammo is definitely a good way to deal with this ...

[Magnate]

I'm willing to help on this. I have no problems with going through the monster edit files and adding the extra data in.

Excellent. If you do a first pass through monster.txt adding an additional argument to the I: line of each monster for its evasion rating, and adjust the "armour class" to reflect only absorption of damage, that would be a great start. Since AC currently goes up to 200, why not split each monster's AC into what you think represents the right balance between its evasiveness and its armour, without changing the total. That way we're not fundamentally altering the balance of any monster at this stage, just apportioning the existing number between two separate concepts.

You get bonus points if you can then edit the parser to parse the extra argument, and edit the monster structure to store it.

[jevansau]

Probably redundant now but another vote of approval for the evasion/adsorption split.

[Estie]

Ok, since we are digressing....

The split of evasion/absorbtion gets my vote too, but it is a bit irrelevant. The reason is that physical damage is dominated in importance to deal with by elemental one. This is a consequence of the monster setup.

Basically I think the game is missing archer monsters - i.e. ranged physical damage dealers. Given that most all physical damage is melee and thus avoidable, the basic winning strategy is to protect against elemental damage and ignore AC. I think something like the classic setup:

melee fighter > archer > wizard > melee fighter

would be better.

I am not asking for any changes, nor expecting them. I am just observing and thinking out loudly. And before anyone points it out...yes I know that some orcs shoot arrows sometimes and I, too, try to get high AC for the M fight. Yet my statement holds for the majority of the game.

[buzzkill]

Artifact ammo is definitely a good way to deal with this ...

Ammo, singular. One arrow, One bolt, One shot. Not stacks and stacks of them.
ONE-in-a-million. Twenty-two-in-million just doesn't have the same ring.

[Magnate]

Ammo, singular. One arrow, One bolt, One shot. Not stacks and stacks of them.
ONE-in-a-million. Twenty-two-in-million just doesn't have the same ring.

Agreed. The Arrow of Bard, for example.

[Derakon]

The Seeker Arrow of Bard (5d5) (+40, +40)
It is especially deadly against dragons. It cannot be harmed by the elements.

With an x5, +20-to-damage launcher, this would deal 9 * (40 + 20 + 15) = 675 average damage in one hit. And with the quiver, you wouldn't have to sacrifice an entire inventory slot, so it'd actually be worth carrying!

[Timo Pietilä]

The Seeker Arrow of Bard (5d5) (+40, +40)
It is especially deadly against dragons. It cannot be harmed by the elements.

With an x5, +20-to-damage launcher, this would deal 9 * (40 + 20 + 15) = 675 average damage in one hit. And with the quiver, you wouldn't have to sacrifice an entire inventory slot, so it'd actually be worth carrying!

From Bard that is (with additive multipliers) 10 * (40 + 19 + 15) = 740, with critical shot double to 1480 (+ some arbitrary tiny bonus). Can actually kill a Ancient Dragon with single shot, but not anything greater. Requires either of the two weaker criticals possible with arrows (the superb critical is not possible unless you throw Grond or large steel/iron/wood chest). Difference between those two possible criticals is 5 points of damage: good adds +5, great adds +10 after multiplication of damage, both multiply by 2.

With old system that would have been 25 * ... so I'd say now that works, but in previous system it would have been too much.

[PowerDiver]

Probably redundant now but another vote of approval for the evasion/adsorption split.

Hey guys, this is radical and an enormous amount of work. It's a lot more rebalancing than would be required to move to O combat, without the benefit of someone already having done it once. Keep in mind this is a digression.

[TJS]

I think splitting AC into absorption and evasion is the best idea I've heard in a long time.

In answer to the original question, changing it so you get more blows earlier with heavier weapons is probably enough to fix the problem as Powerdiver says.

I still have a bit of an issue with lighter weapons able to get most of their damage from enchantments instead of the damage dice though.

[fizzix]

Hey guys, this is radical and an enormous amount of work. It's a lot more rebalancing than would be required to move to O combat, without the benefit of someone already having done it once. Keep in mind this is a digression.

yes, but it is a fun one.