Unfair advantage to some weapon talents due to quest design

[Mikolaj]

It doesn't happen very often but there are some quests unfairly skewed towards some choices in weapons. Let me give an example:

I created a character specializing in two handed weapons (especially swords). Happy that I can buy desired equipment I started playing and:

1. We lose the weapons in the prison and there and throughout the first city there are no twohanded weapons.

2. Arena quest - becoming a gladiator my character got a one handed sword. It's very funny considering that he has no points in it (he has some in onehanded axes but so what?). There is a merchant in the middle of this quest but he too doesn't have two-handed weapons.

Maybe this is just an oversight, but as it is the game seems to suggest that going for one-handed weapons is the only correct choice. I think this should be rectified, a big part of fun in this game is being able to create a character you like, not just "one correct option"

[steelcoresoviet]

2 is a nonissue. I went for a zweihander build too, and was able to buy a sword called the
Great Slavedeath from the gladiator trader.

Due to how the game is structured, I suggest a modest investment in Blunt 1Hs for those moments when you may be forced to make do.

[gjx469]

I think 2 is referring to the Dwarf Games quest, not the chapter 2 arena quests.

One thing to bear in mind - spending to get 8 skill in swords or 1h bashing only costs 300ap, which is a very small investment overall. Additionally, if you're aiming to get weaponmaster, you need 3 melee skills at 16 anyway, so its not even wasted investment as such.

My advice would be to pick the one or two major weapon types you want to use (on a dedicated melee specialist) and then put the 3rd choice into swords or 1h bash if not already chosen. I would tend to pick one of either 2h swords or 2h bashing as the main weapon for a warrior, and then put points into both swords and 1h bashing as I think the tactical option to use a shield is quite nice to have (as is feint with swords for mobs that are tough to hit).

[Mikolaj]

Originally posted by gjx469:

I think 2 is referring to the Dwarf Games quest, not the chapter 2 arena quests.

One thing to bear in mind - spending to get 8 skill in swords or 1h bashing only costs 300ap, which is a very small investment overall. Additionally, if you're aiming to get weaponmaster, you need 3 melee skills at 16 anyway, so its not even wasted investment as such.

My advice would be to pick the one or two major weapon types you want to use (on a dedicated melee specialist) and then put the 3rd choice into swords or 1h bash if not already chosen. I would tend to pick one of either 2h swords or 2h bashing as the main weapon for a warrior, and then put points into both swords and 1h bashing as I think the tactical option to use a shield is quite nice to have (as is feint with swords for mobs that are tough to hit).

Yes, I meant the dwarves' games quest. Sure I can work around it. But it seems if I have chosen 1 handed weapons there would no need to do so, so hardly seems fair...

[UR|Dialetheia]

The game, the setting, and the Dark Eye system in general kinda promotes the idea that a warrior who chose to overspecialize in just one weapon type and ignore all the others - is not a warrior, but a cripple. You can treat the prerequisites to the "Weaponmaster" talent as an oh so subtle hint.

[Mikolaj]

Originally posted by UR|PointMaid:

The game, the setting, and the Dark Eye system in general kinda promotes the idea that a warrior who chose to overspecialize in just one weapon type and ignore all the others - is not a warrior, but a cripple. You can treat the prerequisites to the "Weaponmaster" talent as an oh so subtle hint.

I do understand that. But - are there any quests that favour in the same way players specializing in 2handed weapons?

[Gany]

Yes, there are.

Almost the entire Chapter 4 and 5. One handed weapons lack the damage capacity of the two handed ones and the small benefits in toHit and parry ane bearly usefull after chapter 1.

If i had to compare weapon classes i would say fencing is the weakest in this game closly followd by daggers (same problmes with low damage ond onlt piercing but daggers sacrfice even more damage for utility in the late game as there are some nice special effect daggers).

Throwing weapons is even worth but they are clearly pure utility.

One handed swords are astonishing bad in blackguards as there are almost none special versions of them comming up lategame and the only benefit is the the availability of all attack skills (what is also true for two handed sords).
One haded bashing at least get some interesting weapons over the entire game, all with advantages and disadvantages but mostly on par.

The problem with any onehanded build is the low use of shields and bucklers in the later game and the problem with dual wielding as it prevents any other special attaks (beeing a special atack on its own).

In the end single quest dont reflect the usability of weapons as it is very easy to level several talants up to 8-10 at the same time without suffering at all. The issue all over the game is the damage potential of the weapons themselfs and the availabe special abilitys give a very clear preference.

Bow > Crossbow simply coz of tripple shot (but also as Crossbow suffers much more from close range panalitys in the late game)

2H bashing > 2H sword simply coz of the damage types as infanty damage is the single most usefull damage type in the game, and the one non slashing 2H-sword is not that great on the damage stats.

2H > 1H cuz dual wield looses against other special abilitys and parry (buckler/shield advantage) is not very usefull (acually in my first playthrough i would have loved to disable parry to my party as every member had much better doge chances than parry chances.

[gjx469]

2d6+2 Magic damage Rondracomb (-1AV,-1PV,-1Initiative) vs. 2d6+4 Infantry damage Pailos (-1AV,-2PV,-4Initiative) isn't a huge difference in damage. The Neetha ax meanwhile has the same damage dice as Rondracomb but much steeper penalties. Now, the key advantage of Rondracomb is that you get all the special attacks you get with 2h bashing, but with the addition of feint. Feint is extremely useful vs. high defense mobs, so this is a very desirable attribute. Feint is pretty much a guaranteed hit, and much more reliable than a normal attack with a 2h bashing weapon.

My view is that you're best off specialising one of your melee in 2h swords, one in 2h bashing, and if you have 3 (i.e. MC is a warrior type) then have Naurim built as a tank (i.e. 1h + shield) with the ability to switch to 2h bashing.

[UR|Dialetheia]

Originally posted by Mikolaj:

I do understand that. But - are there any quests that favour in the same way players specializing in 2handed weapons?

Those quests are not as much about favoring certain builds, but about putting the player at a distinct disadvantage for story-telling and tension-building reasons. A disadvantage you can partially avoid being subjected to by investing in learning how to fight with the simplest weapon in existence, that is, a club.

Further

Originally posted by Böc:

One handed swords are astonishing bad in blackguards as there are almost none special versions of them comming up lategame and the only benefit is the the availability of all attack skills (what is also true for two handed sords).
One haded bashing at least get some interesting weapons over the entire game, all with advantages and disadvantages but mostly on par.

The problem with any onehanded build is the low use of shields and bucklers in the later game and the problem with dual wielding as it prevents any other special attaks (beeing a special atack on its own).

In the end single quest dont reflect the usability of weapons as it is very easy to level several talants up to 8-10 at the same time without suffering at all. The issue all over the game is the damage potential of the weapons themselfs and the availabe special abilitys give a very clear preference.

Bow > Crossbow simply coz of tripple shot (but also as Crossbow suffers much more from close range panalitys in the late game)

2H bashing > 2H sword simply coz of the damage types as infanty damage is the single most usefull damage type in the game, and the one non slashing 2H-sword is not that great on the damage stats.

2H > 1H cuz dual wield looses against other special abilitys and parry (buckler/shield advantage) is not very usefull (acually in my first playthrough i would have loved to disable parry to my party as every member had much better doge chances than parry chances.

The main disadvantage of most one-handed weapon types is their inability to be used with Hammer Blow. In terms of consistent damage, however, one-handed weapons possess a much lower Strength treshhold, and start to benefit from a higher Str score sooner, and benefit from it more. The damage difference outside of Hammer Blow use turns out to be not that dramatic.

The advantage that one-handed swords present is having little or no penalties to attack, parry and initiative, and dealing realiable though not spectacular damage. Unlike with Piercing or Magic damage, there are no enemies completely immune or significantly resistant to Slashing damage.

Shields, especially tha unique one you can find towards the end of Chapter 3, significantly up the surviveability of users, even against late-game foes: +3 or +4 or even +5 to Parry is not something to frown upon.

Fencing weapons do suffer not only in this game, but in the Dark Eyes system in general it would seem. However, in Blackguards, advanced and rather rare(i can remember only 3 in the game) types of fencing weapons allow for a pretty high critical hit rate, which, combined with certain buffs, can make for an interesting late-game builds. That also fits into the setting's position on fencing weapons being the purview of nobility and mages.

Dual-wielding provides an ability to consistently do higher-than-average damage without investing in advanced combat talents past Dual Wield 1 and 2, all without subjecting oneself to penalties to Parry and Dodge one would naturally incur for a failed special attack. Dual-wielding can also work as an effective poison delivery system.

Also regarding dual-wield - there is at least one weapon providing significant bonus to parry and initiative. While it's a dagger, and it's damage is not that great, no one says that a sufficiently developed character can't have a mace or an ax in the off-hand.

2-Handed bashing weapons can't be used to Feint, which will prove to be a disadvantage from the very beginning to the very end of the game.

[Mikolaj]

Originally posted by UR|PointMaid:

Originally posted by Mikolaj:

I do understand that. But - are there any quests that favour in the same way players specializing in 2handed weapons?

Those quests are not as much about favoring certain builds, but about putting the player at a distinct disadvantage for story-telling and tension-building reasons. A disadvantage you can partially avoid being subjected to by investing in learning how to fight with the simplest weapon in existence, that is, a club.

Actually I do have points in 1h axes/maces for exactly this reason. But the dwarves' quest gives me a sword... and that's something different.

Originally posted by Böc:

Yes, there are.

Almost the entire Chapter 4 and 5. One handed weapons lack the damage capacity of the two handed ones and the small benefits in toHit and parry ane bearly usefull after chapter 1.

Ok, but that's different. I do not mean what is better 1h or 2h. What I mean is that some quests do the following:

a) you specialized in 1h - great, you lose nothing
b) you specialized in 2h - too bad, you are at a disadvantage.

And this disadvantage is outside of player's control.

Unless there are quests that do the same for 1h builds than this a really biased and bad design. True, just a few quests, but the player should not be punished for perfectly good choices in this way (true, this may happen in life, but a game should actually be more balanced than reality).

[UR|Dialetheia]

Originally posted by Mikolaj:

but a game should actually be more balanced than reality

That is a rather arguable statement.

Also, for some reason, i was sure that in all occurences when you are put in such situations, the entire party is given cudgels. Now i remember that is not the case. However, prior to combat proper in Dwarf Games, you are given an opportunity to acces your inventory and perhaps re-arange some of the given equipment to better suit your needs.

Also, i might add, that allowing two unscrupulous dwarf merchants to drug you - is perhaps not a "perfectly good choice".

[Gany]

Thx to gjx469 and UR|PointMaid for your comments on my weapon comparrison. I think there is a lot room for discussions on the weapon viabilitys and i guess it's at least possible with any weaponcoise on the MC. I finished the game only once so far and now attepmt to play again with and try to beat the game with the so far weak classified weapons to reevaluate my current positios.

For Mikoiaj i can see your frustration with the Dwarfen Games quest as i got frustrated on it at my first attempts too. But looking back i have to admid i came to the comclusion it's one of the best design decitions in the entire game. It teaches you, you might not be able to complete a quest just cause it is availible in the game. (what is true for most quests in the beginning of chapter 3)
It teaches you to prepare for unexpected situatios so avoid full specialised characters. The overall idea is to build characters with specialasation but also keep up one or two aditional options on a viable level. You will face tons of fights where damage mages are no use, where ranged (bow/crossbow) characters are no use and even those where melee fightes have a hard time.
It allows you to progress as you can avoid both fights of the quest by just giving up the gold loot witch wont matter that much in the game process (You can save money so easy in this game i endet up with 1300 gold when i reached chapter 5 as i found no non-consumeable items to spend it on).

This quest rather well introduces the challages the game will confront you with as you progress and allows you to bypass without any longterm disadvantages.

That said i recommend not to access the quest until you have at least a four man party (making it a lot easier) or even wait to access it with a full 5 man party much later in the game. This is for pure optimisation as you share the ap with more charakters but takes awai the challage of the quest. As said even bypassing it wont hurt much to the overall playtrough.

[Mikolaj]

Originally posted by UR|PointMaid:

Originally posted by Mikolaj:

but a game should actually be more balanced than reality

That is a rather arguable statement.

Also, for some reason, i was sure that in all occurences when you are put in such situations, the entire party is given cudgels. Now i remember that is not the case. However, prior to combat proper in Dwarf Games, you are given an opportunity to acces your inventory and perhaps re-arange some of the given equipment to better suit your needs.

Also, i might add, that allowing two unscrupulous dwarf merchants to drug you - is perhaps not a "perfectly good choice".

Well, yes, you're right - the situation is unfair and it should be unfair. But my point is (and I did not play through all the game so actually I'd like to be wrong) that these quests are more unfair to those who chose 2h as their primary weapons, and easier on those who went with 1h. If it was sometimes unfair for 2h sometimes 1h, then it would be great, but as it is there seems to be a bias, and I consider such a bias a bad design, that's the whole point.

[UR|Dialetheia]

It's a problem of gamedesign as a theoretical field, not only in relation to this game, that when you create systems and then set the scene for those systems to functuon in, it's sometimes(or rather, most of the times) exceedingly hard to not allow for existence of at least some first order strategies. Going for one-handed swords, one-handed bashing and two-handed bashing combination for weapon choices on your warrior main characters - can be looked at as a first order strategy for this game. It can be justified as quirk of the setting, specific locale or a time period within a setting, it can be seen as striving for realism, or treated like "bad design".

I do understand your point, but the point i am going for is this - the occurances where you are not allowed to use equipment you chose(however flawed that choice might have been) are rare and far between, and as soon as they fix tha flashbacks - will be become even rarer. Making far reaching conclusions about the quality of design, or game favouring certain choices over another, based exlusively on such occurances seems, well... let's say, hasty.

[Mikolaj]

Originally posted by UR|PointMaid:

It's a problem of gamedesign as a theoretical field, not only in relation to this game, that when you create systems and then set the scene for those systems to functuon in, it's sometimes(or rather, most of the times) exceedingly hard to not allow for existence of at least some first order strategies. Going for one-handed swords, one-handed bashing and two-handed bashing combination for weapon choices on your warrior main characters - can be looked at as a first order strategy for this game. It can be justified as quirk of the setting, specific locale or a time period within a setting, it can be seen as striving for realism, or treated like "bad design".

I do understand your point, but the point i am going for is this - the occurances where you are not allowed to use equipment you chose(however flawed that choice might have been) are rare and far between, and as soon as they fix tha flashbacks - will be become even rarer. Making far reaching conclusions about the quality of design, or game favouring certain choices over another, based exlusively on such occurances seems, well... let's say, hasty.

Generally I would think along the same lines, but blackguards has almost nothing except tactical combat and I think I approach it more like chess, so purely game without room for realism, the game is very good at showing the player that smart choices lead to victory, so those quest where you get punished not because the choices were bad, but simply because there was an arbitrary choice that is better stand out in a bad way.

Also I think the equipment selection at the start of the game should be removed, it gives a false sense of control (and frustration when you realize the choices you pondered over were meaningless).

[Dorok]

It's just two bugs, the game wasn't much tested with characters in expert mode. First bug is all Flashback should use the equipment given at creation and if it is too powerful then just reduce the choices.

The second bug is the game take care to provide an adapted weapon to companions when equipement is removed, for example Niam get a bow during Dwarves game. They just forgot manage it for custom characters, I doubt it's deliberate.