Deadly Archery

[Glorelendil]

Balance that's too precise would be boring (because it could be achieved with boring rules) but my ideal is for rules that don't point to obvious choices. I.e., one choice shouldn't be vastly better than another.

[Falenthal]

Balance that's too precise would be boring (because it could be achieved with boring rules) but my ideal is for rules that don't point to obvious choices. I.e., one choice shouldn't be vastly better than another.

Right. Maybe in this particular case the concept I have about both types of archers makes them be "balanced": I really see the elf as better against the lower end of the adversaries, and worse against the higher end (worse means less damaging and with less injury, although hitting them more often than the barding).
If I was to compare a hobbit archer against a barding or elven archer, I wouldn't be expecting any kind of balance.

[Glorelendil]

Eventually I will add other versions of the 1d6 rule*, but first I want to get RAW working smoothly.

*what I really want to do is figure out a way to make it customizable, so that you all can invent and test rules without having to ask me to write code. But I don't have a satisfactory solution to that yet.

[Deadmanwalking]

Balance that's too precise would be boring (because it could be achieved with boring rules) but my ideal is for rules that don't point to obvious choices. I.e., one choice shouldn't be vastly better than another.

Right. Maybe in this particular case the concept I have about both types of archers makes them be "balanced": I really see the elf as better against the lower end of the adversaries, and worse against the higher end (worse means less damaging and with less injury, although hitting them more often than the barding).
If I was to compare a hobbit archer against a barding or elven archer, I wouldn't be expecting any kind of balance.

Amusingly, I think Hobbit archers are actually balanced. Their high defenses (with Small Folk), absurd accuracy, and nearly doubled chance to pierce compensates nicely for the ridiculous Endurance damage Bardings can throw out (or the very high defenses and solid damage available to Woodmen).

Elves lacking something that can legitimately be said to balance this is my current issue. As is Lakemen lacking such a thing, actually, but that's a somewhat lesser issue just because Lakemen aren't as thematically tied to archery as the Elves (well, and Lakemen having a leg up from their Great Bows).

But yeah, 'perfect' balance is impossible. I'm looking for something closer than their is right now, is all.

[Angelalex242]

If Bardings focus on end damage, and elves focus on pierces, then the opposite will be true. Bardings mop up low end foes with one hit, one kill, but can only slowly whittle down high end foes.

Although we do need to make sure which 3 rewards do best for a Barding, since they must choose any 3 of dalish, grievous, keen, fell. One option should be optimal of the 4 possible.

[Glorelendil]

Although we do need to make sure which 3 rewards do best for a Barding, since they must choose any 3 of dalish, grievous, keen, fell. One option should be optimal of the 4 possible.

Optimal for what?

I hope what we learn is that "optimal" changes depending on circumstances.

[Angelalex242]

Optimal for maximizing what a Barding does best. Which is end damage.

Though Dalish Longbow...

I predict the best results overall will prove to be Dalish/Grievous/Fell. Backed by Fierce Shot, of course.

We can save the Barding on his experience point costs if he has King's Man and Woeful Foresight.

6/6/2 setup, favored body 3... base damage of 9 on the bow, +9 per extra success level...18 on great, 27 on extraordinary. 18 and/or 27 end damage is as good as a pierce, most of the time.

[Glorelendil]

If you are optimizing for End damage you don't need Fell or Keen at all, right?

...

See the problem with optimizing?

[Angelalex242]

Ah, yes. But since Dalish is meant to help with protection rolls, but only on a G-rune, you maximize effect by adding Fell. Keen won't increase the frequency of Dalish.

[Glorelendil]

Ok, my new simulator is finally complete enough for some public stress-testing.

Simulator 2.0

Notes:
1) There is no validation. You can combine any cultural rewards and virtues, use bows from Forward Stance, add a volley to Great Axes, use Shield-fighting with a 2H weapon, etc. So it's up to you to create a hero that's possible.
2) The single iteration setting is for debugging: inspecting the fight log can reveal errors in the sim logic. Sometimes you have to run it several times before you get the condition you're looking for. (I.e., does Axe of Azanulbizar work properly on a Gandalf?) Please help me find bugs! And tell me if the combat log needs more detail to enable that.
3) Combat ends after 50 rounds, so if you're seeing averages close to that it means the true average would probably be much larger.
4) "Conditions" are not implemented
5) The numbers I posted earlier in this thread are way off. Especially on the Great Orc.
6) Yes, the UI is hideously ugly and a pain to use. That will get fixed....eventually.