Too many blows?

[Tiburon Silverflame]

It doesn't work in D&D, and it wouldn't work here...the latter attacks start getting too penalized, which means they're notably less likely to hit (and, independently, probably less likely to crit...certainly true in D&D).

The math works like this. Say, with my full base attack values, I'm 90% likely to hit the critter. When each attack is at the same value, then my average damage is a simple

NumAttacks * ChanceToHit * AverageDamPerHit == 5.4 * ADPH for a warrior, or 3.6 * ADPH for a mage.

But now let's say that each iterative attack reduces my chance to hit by 10%. Over 4 swings, I've got 90, 80, 70, and 60% chances to hit...so the mage's average damage would be 3 * ADPH. The warrior's 5th and 6th swings would be at 50 and 40% chances...so he drops from 5.4 * ADPH to less than 4 * ADPH. His advantage in damage per round, over the mage, has dropped from 50% to 33%.

Extra swings suffers a similar variability in its value. A 7th or 8th swing (base 6, 1 or 2 extra)...is pretty much just extra misses.

[dos350]

hi and sorry again as usual, ee i read buzzkill but rest is bla bla to my doggy, heres wat i think i try to keep it short,

NOT ENOUGH BLOWS!!!!/???? why are people sad their chars are good at start?
NO LONGER can you start and get 4 blows with a spear @!!!!!

why go crazy with blows, they are good and were maybe better in 3.12v2

[ewert]

It doesn't work in D&D, and it wouldn't work here...the latter attacks start getting too penalized, which means they're notably less likely to hit (and, independently, probably less likely to crit...certainly true in D&D).

The math works like this. Say, with my full base attack values, I'm 90% likely to hit the critter. When each attack is at the same value, then my average damage is a simple

NumAttacks * ChanceToHit * AverageDamPerHit == 5.4 * ADPH for a warrior, or 3.6 * ADPH for a mage.

But now let's say that each iterative attack reduces my chance to hit by 10%. Over 4 swings, I've got 90, 80, 70, and 60% chances to hit...so the mage's average damage would be 3 * ADPH. The warrior's 5th and 6th swings would be at 50 and 40% chances...so he drops from 5.4 * ADPH to less than 4 * ADPH. His advantage in damage per round, over the mage, has dropped from 50% to 33%.

Extra swings suffers a similar variability in its value. A 7th or 8th swing (base 6, 1 or 2 extra)...is pretty much just extra misses.

Yeah I know how it works in D&D, that means naught for how it could work in Angband though.

Currently a character has a chance of 1/(fighting power / monster ac) of hitting. That means with twice the fighting skill than AC, 50%, 3 times 66%, 4 times 75%, et cetera. It means you can go insanely high and still not have 95% (that requires 20 times). This means that an iterative malus per hit could very easily be made to work, because the hit% formula is so markedly different from D&D's straight "-5 per extra blow" (okay talking 3rd ed, not sure if 4th edition kept the combat number of hits and penalties intact can not remember).

Lets say each iterative hit is at -10% times hit number. Lets say we have a good chance of hitting (75%, that is 4 times the skill versus AC). So hits come at 75%, 72%, 69%, 64%, 58% and 50% from one to 6 blows.

If we had a not so good initial hit chance, like 50%:
50%, 44%, 37%, 29%, 17% and 5%

So one would definitely want a great +hit if one had lots of blows. And having a lot of blows would be quite weak if you had only a minor +hit.

Just saying it could definitely be an option. Dunno if it is what ought to be done tbh even though I suggested it myself. =P Just an idea.

[buzzkill]

In a game with 100 levels (which nobody seems to want to get rid of), safely-skippable levels are if anything a blessing. Also, in a game that frequently forces you back to the start, anything but the most diverse of starts quickly becomes boring. A diverse beginning is a better solution to this than an easy one, but an easy beginning is a better solution than a hard one, since hard just means spending even MORE time repeatedly consuming much the same gaming diet.

I agree that there are too many levels or to put it another way, not enough variety in the end game. However, the early game actually works well if you start out with a character that isn't insanely powerful. Insta-death lurks constantly. You speak of a diverse start, but don't seem to include character creation as part of that start.

Skipping levels isn't the answer. It's a hack. The underlying problem will remain and perpetuate itself through development and IMO will eventually lead to the call to skip even more levels.

The solution is straightforward. If the level you are on is too easy, take the stairs down.

And I embrace and support this advice, but much like the last 40 levels, the early game with this character is every bit as boring. I've been taking the down stairs for hours now, and quite ill-prepared to boot. It's ridiculous.

Allow me to clarify the OP. I believe that someone commented that full-fighter shouldn't be limited to a single blow (as I suggested), even at CL1. I did suggest all characters starting with a single blow, and fractional increases every CL gain until the current max_blows is reached.

This is what I had in mind, full-casters get +.1 blows per CL, half-casters +.2, and full-fighters +.3. Thus a fighter would reach nearly 2 (1.9) blows at CL4, which should take most players all of 5 or 10 minutes IRL. That same character would achieve nearly full (3.7) blows upon CL10, which shouldn't take much longer. It's certainly not a terrible or insurmountable handicap. It's just a way to smooth the power curve a little. To continue, half-casters reach 2 blows (weapon/stats permitting) at CL6 and 3 blows at CL11. Full casters wouldn't reach a full 2nd blow until CL11, as it should be.

I'm not really pushing for change here, just publishing my thoughts in conjunction with the other melee combat threads. I long ago decided to always use the standard roller to avoid exactly this situation. I don't normally suffer from it. Just throwing out suggestions that I feel will make the game as a whole better.

[PowerDiver]

And I embrace and support this advice, but much like the last 40 levels, the early game with this character is every bit as boring. I've been taking the down stairs for hours now, and quite ill-prepared to boot. It's ridiculous.

I don't understand. If you are ill-prepared, you ought to be in sufficient danger of instakill for it not to be boring.

I assume you are talking about the comp character. One problem is that warriors are a lot more powerful than other chars, until such time as the other chars can consistently cast teleport other, haste self, and/or heal. It is only then that lack of spellcasting starts to be significant.

Another problem is that the comp is with selling. There is too much useful stuff in town that is too easy to buy. There is still too much money with no_selling, but it is a good step in the right direction.

Next time, try a rogue or mage [neither Dunadan nor High-elf] with no selling. Use the point based approach just to see if I am crazy. Perhaps you won't find it so boring.

[Atarlost]

This is probably not going to be done because it actually nicely solves several problems. It solves the light weapon problem by making additional blows less valuable. It solves the OP's problem with warriors being too powerful at the start. If applied to extra shots it solves the overpowered ranger problem. It even makes an archery fix possible without removing the extra shots mechanic entirely.

And so anyone who favors an alternate solution to any of those problems will help squash it.

[Tiburon Silverflame]

ewert, I understand the computations are different, but it's easier to do the math with a straightforward -10%. And, note, in D&D, -5 usually means -25%...so I *wasn't* using D&D numbers.

The point is, the effect of the decreasing chance to hit, *regardless* of how we do it, is going to significantly alter the value of extra swings *from all sources*...and will do so throughout the game. Different mechanisms for such a penalty will have different problems, but ALL of them will share this issue.

[Tiburon Silverflame]

I think much of my problem here is, buzz's proposed solution does not address the real issues. No, that's not quite right; I think it's better to say, the issues have not been correctly isolated and identified. There are several things that are interrelated, it would appear.

1. The multi-swings weapon computation probably has issues with VERY light weapons, in particular *extremely* light weapons (dagger, main gauche). Cap cap the SWI (Strength-Weapon Index) at 5, but rework the whole SWI/Dex table. Anything less than *14* Dex...1 attack. It's not simply the fact that the weapon's very light for you, you need the agility to move fast enough to get the multiple attacks. The table we have now, over-favors brute Str, and I think that's creating the light weapons problem.

2. The races need some reconsideration; Dunadan stat boosts are probably too good, and comments from other threads suggest that the racial XP penalty just doesn't work very well. (This latter is also borne out by winners' posts that show beating Morgoth around level 45.)

3. Point-based birth. The method we have now, could be reconsidered. It shouldn't cost as much to go from a 5 to a 9, as it does to go from a 12 to a 16. The value of the 16 is, you're at the point where race/class bonuses get you into 18/X country...cheap.

Options:
--fewer points. How about all scores start at 12, and you get only 12 purchase points?

--Purchase point costs are based on the value AFTER race and class, instead of BEFORE. Here, you'll probably need to add more purchase points.

[Derakon]

--Purchase point costs are based on the value AFTER race and class, instead of BEFORE. Here, you'll probably need to add more purchase points.

I don't agree with this. When you do point-buy, you're saying how exceptional your character is for its demographics. It is fully expected that a half-troll warrior be massively strong, so it doesn't make sense that you'd have to make a huge investment in your potential to raise that strength only a small amount away from the expected baseline. On the flipside, it also doesn't make sense that that half-troll warrior should be able to cheaply buy up his intelligence.

I suspect that moving to such a system would result in players picking the race/class combos that get them the best stats they can for their chosen class, and then spending most of their stat points bringing their dump stats up. The net result is a character that's not as good at their class specialties as they should be, but is also better at their class deficiencies than they should be. Mediocre, in other words. Which isn't to say that characters should be amazing right after birth; more that their stats should match up with their chosen professions.

If you want to weaken birth stats, I'd say simply ditch the class stat modifiers. All half-trolls start from the same base stats, and if you want a warrior you buy up STR/DEX/CON, while if you want a mage...you also buy up STR/DEX/CON, because you rolled a half-troll mage, you silly goose.

[Tregonsee]

This is probably not going to be done because it actually nicely solves several problems. It solves the light weapon problem by making additional blows less valuable. It solves the OP's problem with warriors being too powerful at the start. If applied to extra shots it solves the overpowered ranger problem. It even makes an archery fix possible without removing the extra shots mechanic entirely.

And so anyone who favors an alternate solution to any of those problems will help squash it.

I guess not a lot of people here have played the old Chivalry and Sorcery (C&S). There weapons' damage/probability are based on type of weapon vs. AC. A two-handed sword is good against high armor classes, but have low blows; a main gouche has many blows, but is totally ineffective against high armor class. In C&S, a table is made for each type of weapon vs. each AC. Of course this is modified by magic plusses in the weapon. Of course this could be made transparent to the player, but in the manual it should be made known that certain weapons are not that good against high AC.

[fizzix]

I guess not a lot of people here have played the old Chivalry and Sorcery (C&S). There weapons' damage/probability are based on type of weapon vs. AC. A two-handed sword is good against high armor classes, but have low blows; a main gouche has many blows, but is totally ineffective against high armor class. In C&S, a table is made for each type of weapon vs. each AC. Of course this is modified by magic plusses in the weapon. Of course this could be made transparent to the player, but in the manual it should be made known that certain weapons are not that good against high AC.

I did make an attempt to split AC into an absorption/evasion values. This captures the main idea that you describe, although my first attempt wasn't very effective. There is still talk of going to O style combat where plusses and minus to weapons become multipliers to the dice. That's when you'll see an absorption/evasion effect become useful.

If you want to tinker with it, there's still a branch for it up on my github including a pre-compiled windows binary. (fizzix/angband)