Loren Tyr

Try (saving and) reloading. This occasionally happens (it's a general glitch, it's not specific to this sword), and should resolve itself when loading the game from a save.

I would expect GoG works on roughly the same principle, so it should be just a matter of installing WM. I would expect it just applies the latest update immediately, otherwise you should be able to just hit wherever the 'update' button in GoG is. Expert mode doesn't change stats actually, it's the Path of the Damned difficulty setting you're thinking of. That upgrades the enemy stats (and just adds more and stronger ones generally). Your own party doesn't get this upgrade though. What expert mode does is to hide various helper features. I never used it myself so I don't know exactly which ones, but persumably stuff like the hit chance you see when you hover the cursor over an enemy, the friendly part of spell AOE (or maybe the whole AOE, actually), etc.

Did you happen to have a pulsing AOE effect active at the time on that character (like Consecrated Ground)? It seems vaguely reminiscent of the Consecrated Knock Down issue (https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/88371-303-issue-with-knock-down-and-necrotic-lance/), where Knock Down (or Strike abilities, etc.) piggy-backs onto a concurrent Consecrated Ground pulse (or Black Path / Strange Mercy AOE, actually). It could also be a random glitch though, happens sometimes as well. If it doesn't happen again (I'm presuming this didn't happen before, anyway) it might well be that; if it does happen again, you should definitely post this in the Tech forum as well, so the cause can be sussed out. To add images by the way, you can click on "More Reply Options" below to the right, there's an image uploader there.

I figured, it's just due to the 18DR vs 8DR difference on the lashes, then. It's 21.3% for Rain actually; but otherwise we now get the same attack and recovery duration, so that clears that discrepancy up as well. You do still need the +0.2s idle time (or wherever it's coming from, it's annoyingly difficult to trace in the code) to compute DPS though.

See attached. This is the same default settings as the first plot (ie. without Chanting). I also ran a quick test for damage output with Chanting (10 minutes each). Expected damage against the 17.5/14 DR armour are 981.7 and 961.5 for Persistence and Rain respectively for 30 seconds. Observed values are slightly higher, 1002.8 and 992.6; this is well within the margin of error though. So still not sure what was different in your initial tests.

Like I said, I'm no sure if you've factored in the minimum damage component. But aside from that, the 2.1 / 3.7 Lash damage after DR is the amount I get when I plug in DR = 18, whereas for Burn/Corrode it was 8. Under 18 DR, the expected damage overall over 30s drops to 903.2 for Persistence and 870.1. I'm also getting other attack durations though. Durgan +15%, Gauntlet +15% and Rain +20% speed enchantment all fall in the same attack speed category, so those are multiplicative and yield a bonus of 1.15*1.15 = +32.25% and 1.15*1.15*1.2 = +58.7% respectively. Add the +20% bonus from Ila and the -50% penalty from not dual-wielding, and we end up with +2.25% for Persistence and +28.7% for Rain, ie. S = 0.0225 and S = 0.287. For Persistence the attack/animation duration T = 1, so the recovery duration R = (1-2*S)/1.2 * T = 0.995/1.2 = 0.796 and the duration of a full attack cycle is 0.2 + 1.796/1.51 = 1.389 seconds. For Rain T = 1.5, R = (1-2*S)/1.2 * T = 0.426/1.2*1.5 = 0.5325 and the full attack cycle 0.2 + 1.5325/1.51 = 1.546 seconds. I can't quite place how you are computing the attack durations, though the unscaled idle time seems to be missing. I have previously estimated it at about 0.2; there's a slight uncertainty in it (and it doesn't seem entirely constant), but for practical purposes it is close enough: timing 10 attacks each for Persistence and Rain under the above speed bonuses I get 13.8 seconds and 15.5 seconds respectively.

It's a known bug, see this thread: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/88092-psychic-backlash-bug-cipher-use-it-on-himself-at-the-begining-of-battle/

Well, it does depend on various factors as well, so it is difficult to draw a general conclusion. Just for further illustration, I have expanded the figure slightly, adding a line for the Persistence without Wounding with Penetrating Shot. You can see that there the gap is much more pronounced. By a rough estimate, for that bow in the best case it is equivalent to something like a +20% damage bonus, maybe +25% (again, also dependent on various factors what the net effect of those is, but just as a general indication). This, I think you'll agree, is certainly worth it. The main reason why it's not doing nearly so much for Persistence is that the Wounding is not affected by DR, so that part is only hindered by the -20% speed penalty. For further illustration, see also the second attached plot where I stripped away the Durgan and Gauntlet +15% attack speed bonuses. Reason for this is that if you're already fast, the -20% penalty has more impact than if you're slower (due to the additive nature of how those combine). Recovery duration is computed as C/1.2 * (attack duration), where C = 1 - 2*S and S is the attack speed component (so S=0.5 is 0 recovery). When attacking with a ranged weapon, S essentially starts out as -0.5. Bonuses increase S, penalties decrease it, so ranged weapon + leather armour would get you S = -0.5 - 0.3 = -0.8. For the above scenarios with Persistance, we have a 15% attack speed bonus from Durganized and from Gauntlets. These are, as it happens, multiplicative with each other, so combine into 1.15*1.15 = 1.3225, so a +32.25% attack speed bonus. This results in S = -0.5 + 0.3225 = -0.1775 and C = 1.355. With the Penetrating Shot penalty, S = -0.1775 - 0.2 = 0.3775 and becomes C = 1.755; this is about a 30% increase in recovery duration. But now look at the situation where that initial +32.25% bonus isn't there (or almost equivalently, it is there but you are also wearing Leather armour). Without Penetrating Shot, S = -0.5 and C = 2. With Penetrating Shot, S = -0.5 - 0.2 = -0.7 and C = 2.4; this is now only a 20% increase in recovery duration, and therefore the negative impact on DPS is smaller as well. Anyway, to amble back in the direction of your question: I certainly wouldn't recommend not taking Penetrating Shot (or Vulnerable Attack, same kind of deal) in a general sense. There are definitely plenty of scenarios where it can increase damage quite a bit (and more than other talents would). But it is quite conditional on other factors though, so it won't always be useful. Going by the data in this thread, in combination with Persistence in particular it probably isn't going to help all that much (though it does a little). And also good to keep in mind is that at very high DR it will eventually start becoming counterproductive (because at that point you'll often hit the MIN damage cut-off even with the -5 DR so the DR reduction doesn't help (much) anymore, but the speed penalty does still slow you down).That's something to keep an eye on, so you can turn it off against those enemies.

For the set-up Arranvin used the numbers are a bit different actually. Damage per shot after DR comes to 8.4 Pierce + 8.4 Raw + 4.3 Corrode + 4.3 Burn = 25.3 total for Persistance, and 14.9 Pierce + 6.2 Burn + 6.2 Corrode = 27.3 total damage for Rain. At the very least you seem to be missing the +20% hit-to-crit conversion, but I'm also not sure whether you are accounting for the 20% minimum damage after DR reduction. I have attack durations at 1.39 and 1.55 seconds respectively, and 60 * 25.3 / 1.39 = 1094.6 and 60 * 27.3 / 1.55 = 1059.5 damage output for 30 seconds I reported above as well (I'm using the underlying unrounded values for computation, obviously). My computations are not for fast mode, just normal mode; and Arranvin couldn't have used Fast mode either, since he tested during combat. I computed the expected damage for my own tests in the same way as well, which as noted matched the observed results very well and suggests that my computations are sound.

Are you on Steam? If so, it should just grab the relevant 3.03 updates for White March and install them as well. If you're running it via something else you might need to do that manually (not sure how GoG does it, or other platforms (if any)), but it should be fine either way. You can start a regular game without WM and add it later. There are a couple of abilities you can select (the "cross-class" ones) early on, but other than that the added content first becomes unlocked a bit into Act 2 / Defiance Bay. If you're going to start a new game I would just install first, but if you have a game already in progress you can add it into that as well.

Made a plot with some results, just to get an idea. This is with the same settings as used above in my own test (ie. no Chanting), varying DR. For simplicity, I set DR to the same value for all damage types. I computed Persistence and Rain both with and without Penetrating Shot active. I also included the damage output for Persistence with the Wounding effect removed, to show how much of a difference that makes.

I've set up some scripts to calculate the expected damage output given various parameters; have been planning to do this anyway, so this gave me a nice excuse to do so. However, I'm finding a discrepancy between my calculations and your results. The expected damage for 30 seconds according to the parameters above should be 1094.6 for Persistence and 1059.5 for Rain, still suggesting a small advantage for Persistence. The latter value is consistent with the mean value you found, but such a big gap for Persistence between expected and observed value (I didn't compute the variance yet, but going by your observed SD) would be very unlikely to be due to stochastic noise. I have first verified the correctness of my computations with some tests of my own. I didn't quite replicate the above, I omitted the Chanter since it is more convenient to test outside of combat. I also had slightly different DR values: 17.5 Pierce, 14 Corrode (Fine Plate). I modified Sagani and Pallegina (the target) to get the same Might, Dex, accuracy and deflection as above, gave Sagani the Gauntlets and Cloak and Durganized Legendary bows with Corrode Lash. Expected damage under these settings is 740.9 for Persistence and 641.9 for Rain over 30 seconds. I tested each for 10 minutes, which gave me mean damage per 30 seconds of 729.9 and 646.5 respectively; very close to the expected values, and thus pretty much confirming the correctness of my calculations. Adding the Burning Lash and speed-up from Ila are simple changes to the script and therefore are unlikely to contain errors (though I did recheck, obviously). The small gap in Aefyllath coverage I omitted from the calculations also can't be the explanation, since it would affect both bows; if anything, it affects Rain more since the Lash damage accounts for a greater proportion of the total expected damage (22.6%, vs 17.0% for Persistence). Anyway, this suggests that either we missed some relevant parameter or effect that affected your simulations but that we didn't think of here; or there was some sort of glitch. I actually did get one of those during my own test, with some accuracy effects not applying to Rain when they should (though the drop in DPS wasn't *that* big). In any case, the computations are shown to be accurate, so I'll wrap them up in some more convenient functions and whip up some more results (effect of DR, Penetrating Shot, etc.).

"Didn't check the spell list..." Sure, typical. Note that I said "offensive single target spells", neither the Staff nor defensive spells qualify. Minoletta's Missiles, Shocking Grasp, Kalakoth's Sunless Grasp and Thrust of Tattered Veils. And now you can't grasp the usefulness of single-target spells you were previously complaining there weren't enough of in the first place? But apparently you live in a kind of alternate reality where actually verifying the claims you make or coherently expounding and substantiating your views (which your claim to the contrary does not require "objective" reasons; just reasons, and the ability to articulate them) are a fanciful irrelevance; and apparently, where getting cut to shreds is eminently survivable and not even slightly debilitating, but recovering from such an ordeal must be entirely believable. Anyway, I'm done with this nonsense. Talking to you is about as meaningful as conversing with a brick wall, and I can no longer be bothered.

It would be doable, sure. Though I would need a couple more values. Lets see... in terms of shared/identical stats for both weapons we have: - -50% recovery (Ila + Swift Action + Durganized) - +33% (might), +55% (Legendary) damage - +15 (Legendary), -10 (Twinned Arrows) accuracy - +20% hit to crit, +30% crit damage (Durganized) - +25% Fire (Aesfyllath), +25% Corrode (Lash) damage - two hits per attack (Twinned Arrows) For simplicity I'm assuming both chants are continuously active. Weapon-specific we then also have: - Persistance: +20% graze to hit, 25% damage as raw DOT - Rain: -20% recovery That should be the complete list of what I have (and need) from the above, I believe. So what is still missing? Primarily just Dexterity and Accuracy I think (either with or without Twinned Arrows and Legendary, so long as I know which; was it the same for both, or did you have any Weapon Focus?); ah, and Burn/Corrode DR, if they were different from the 18 DR for piercing. And were there any other relevant effects/abilities/whatever active on the ranger at the time?

To be honest, does it matter? It'll be done when it's done, and it'll certainly be quite a while from now (and there are various other interesting releases in the meantime). Doesn't seem much point in speculating about it now.

Having inflicted damage do more than just reduce HP, having it reduce your performance in some way, that certainly could be an interesting mechanic if done right (though it also has the potential to work out horribly). But even a system with "hindrances" of some kind does not change the fundamental fact that this is an inherently unrealistic system. You'd still have characters taking hit after hit and still keep going. Real combat is and always has been more about not getting hit in the first place, because it works more on a "one (good) hit and you're done" kind of principle. And that's just with your basic melee weapons. Throw in a Fireball in someone's face, there's really no getting back from that (it would be equivalent to, say, a hand grenade going off next to you). But since that's just no fun in a computer game, we accept the unrealistic gameplay mechanic to have an enjoyable game. Yet having accepted unrealistic amounts of damage, you are now complaining about unrealistic amounts of healing to get rid of that damage. You have yet to explain why unrealistic damage is fine, but unrealistic healing is not. Because although there are certainly good arguments you might make against it from a gameplay perspective, it seems deeply inconsistent to reject one but not the other on grounds of it being unrealistic. Considering the Dispel Magic vs Suppress Affliction, that doesn't really clarify it much. Dispel Magic is permanent (if successful) whereas Suppress Affliction is only a temporary measure. This is indeed the defining difference, but that doesn't really tell me why (according to you) it being permanent or not is a better mechanic. Obviously D&D style games were much more all-or-nothing in this regard, whereas PoE allows more for a continuous range. Suppress Affliction and its ilk fits well into that philosophy. And if anything, from a perspective of believability it seems better: if regular weapon attacks can be more or less successful, then why not magical (non-damaging) attacks as well? And yeah, there are a couple of offensive single target level 1 wizard spells in BG2. It's 8 out of 22 by my count, that's 36%. In PoE it's 4 out of 14, so 29%. That's not that big a gap. And as I said, that number drops off rather quickly for BG2 as you go up some levels, particularly in the CC category it's mostly AOE except for the charm-type spells. And this is even moreso if you limit it to spells that could reasonably be considered useful (ie. not gunk like Chill Touch or Minor Drain). So again, I just don't see where this notion that PoE is much more focused on AOE than BG2 is based on. Especially since, again, PoE is treating it much more like a continuous scale, going from single-target spells to very small AOE spells to very large AOE spells. For example Blindness has a very small AOE, it's just a small step above true single-target. And for that matter, it hardly suffers from the problem you mention of having the effect being watered down to account for it being AOE; it has a long duration and Blindness is a strong debuff. And sure, there are things you can't do with magic in PoE, or which are much more confined to certain classes (summoning for Chanters, charming for Ciphers). Wizards don't have familiars; then again, rangers do have an animal, which is much more useful and integral to gameplay than familiars ever were. On the other hand, many of the spells you mention (self-transformation, priest self-buffing) do have equivalents in PoE or where never very useful in the first place (Knock, Detect Traps, divination), and PoE offers possibilities and lore of its own that BG2 didn't have (and frankly, many of the changes in PoE relative to BG2 result in a far more balanced game). So again, the overall impression I get is that you dislike things in PoE because that's not how they were in BG and their ilk. You're mostly just pointing out differences, things you liked in BG that were in your view changed for the worse in PoE. So far that's just stating your preference. Which is fine by me, but it hardly makes it a very compelling argument against PoE. What is lacking is some clear articulation of *why* the one approach or mechanic or whatever is better or worse. You can say that in BG2 you had wizard familiars, divination spells and spell stacking... sure, so what? You don't give clear reasons for why this matters, why having those is a good thing. It offers no opening for any kind of discussion or exchange of views. There's nothing wrong with comparing games with BG2 as such, but if that comparison doesn't transcend the level of mere personal preference there is little point to it (and frankly, those comparisons often do have a strong smell of nostalgia to them).

The whole Blights + Blast thing is rather cheesy though. A pity they never fixed it really; can't imagine it was intended that way. As for the OPs questions: in general, I'd say Wand/Scepter is better. Total attack duration for Rods is 1.5 times as long, and the increase in damage doesn't really compensate for that with or without Dangerous Implements. If you have Blast as well the faster Wand and Scepter certainly have the edge, since that isn't affected by the base damage of the implement you're using. Another advantage of Wands and Scepters (and Hunting Bow) is that it has a shorter recovery time, so if you suddenly need to cast a spell you won't on average have to wait as long before you can do so. It does also depend on what particular Rod you have though. Once you get into the unique ones, it might still be well worth it if it has nice additional abilities or enchantments. Whether blast maging is better than other weapons however, is hard to say. It depends on other things and what you want to accomplish. Implements and blast do fairly low-level damage, which may not always be very useful (compared to, say, the high damage spikes of a gun). Though I do like the synergy with Combusting Wounds, especially with Curoc's Brand. Comparing it to melee weapons in particular gets tricky though, since it also requires a different play style with your mage. That Staff does pack a nice punch, and it's focused on a single enemy rather than diffused over a group, but you do need to be much closer to the action as well.

It increases quadratically with Might, surely. Though it'll make a reasonable difference anyway. Especially against high DR targets, since the Wounding is not reduced by it. With that standard deviation you get a p-value of about 0.042 by the way (simple two-sided t-test), so it is significantly different. A bit more data is always nice of course, but this seems reliable enough. Though in this case it would ultimately be better to simply compute the damage output. All the variables are known (or knowable) as far as I can see, so the rest is just basic math. Also makes it easier to get to stuff like at what DR Penetrating Shot should be turned on and turned off again. Speed bonuses were 30% + 20% Ila + 20% for Rain, right? What were your armour penalty and INT?

Actually, ten runs of 30 seconds each might well be enough to be statistically significant, what were your standard deviations? Looks nice, but I would have concerns about the generalizability. Different weapons respond differently to different parameters, such as deflection and in this case particularly DR. After all, Hunting Bows are more susceptible to high DR than War Bows, so which will win out will depend very much on what you're trying to hit. The effectiveness of Penetrating Shot is also dependent on target's DR relative to your weapon damage (base + damage bonuses); perhaps counter-intuitively, it is no longer effective if DR gets too high. For any future testing you might do, I can also strongly recommend using the console. Just grab one of your regular NPCs and set Constitution to 1000 and do Healparty, and you have yourself a handy target. Similarly, you can much more easily vary stats on the attacker as needed (keep in mind that the console sets the base values, before modifiers; also, I've never gotten it to work for hirelings, so you'd need regular NPCs/the protagonist for this), add experience, talents and abilities, items, etc.

Usually you'll also need to be in stealth/scouting mode to detect them; though if a character has high enough mechanics skill (s)he can detect it even when not scouting.

The problem isn't your English (who said English is *my* first language, anyway), it's that you don't clearly articulate your reasons or arguments. You do realize that my statement there follows your observation that you prefer Dispel Magic over Suppress Affliction, and I quote: "for some reason" (followed by your unspecificed declaration of love for Chromatic Orb over Slicken; not sure why you're even comparing those two). In what universe does that qualify as well-articulated? As for nonsensical arguments, seriously...? Washing machines and film sets, that's what you're bringing? In this game (and in many games), we have characters getting repeatedly stabbed, cut, bludgeoned, shot, blown up and otherwise mutilated with no ill effects; they are not hindered in the slightest by someone just having been roasted by a Dragon's fiery breath. Health is just like gasoline, the engine just keeps on running until the tank is empty. This, apparently you're fine with. But the notion that resting will fill up this magical gas/health tank, *that's* suddenly not believable? What's your criterium for 'believable' here? Having (something like) hit points is a completely artificial gameplay mechanic, it has nothing to do with any (real or fictional) reality. And you're essentially demanding that this utterly unrealistic quantity is somehow replenished in a realistic way. With regard to single-target vs AOE: what percentage of (wizard) spells in BG2 would you say are single-target disabling/control spells? Single-target damage/kill spells? Because it's really not that many, especially at the higher levels. There's a lot of summoning spells, a lot of AOE, a lot of (self-)buffing (most of it borderline useless). This notion that the BG2 wizard repertoire has a much stronger single-target focus simply doesn't hold up. PoE actually has more targeted damage spells than BG2, certainly proportionally (and probably in absolute numbers as well).

I quite agree in that respect. I think making resting more "expensive" would probably a good thing (also in relation to the per rest spells and abilities), because it forces you be a bit more strategic with your resources. But my point is that not having endurance regenerate after combat doesn't really do that. It would essentially revert back to the BG-style hitpoint system (Endurance become hitpoints, Health becomes essentially meaningless). There would then need to be some mechanic to restore Endurance between fights. If this is a function primarily filled by priests this essentially means that a) you know essentially *have* to have a priest, which I think would be a Bad Thing, b) it presumably takes away from other things priest would do (eg. it takes up spell slots/uses) and c) it just moves you from having to rest to restore Endurance (assuming it doesn't restore on rest either, like BG etc.) to having to rest to restore priest spells. On top of that, it doesn't really add much. Having to cast a whole bunch of healing spells isn't an interesting gameplay mechanic; it's just bookkeeping, a nuisance. This was always a problem in the BG games as well. Healing wasn't a finite resource because for the most part you could rest essentially whenever. There was no real cost other than perhaps having to slog back to a location where you can rest, and the chore of having to cast all the healing spells all the time (and having to weigh the usefulness of memorizing non-healing spells against this nuisance factor). It didn't really add challenge, it was just something you had to get through to get to the next fun bit.

I take it you never used healing potions and healing spells during combat in the BG games either, then? Again, how is this not just nostalgia? You prefer the old ways, for some reason that cannot be articulated.

This. Consider i think the exact opposite. Gameplay mechanics taking the upper hand everywhere in a RPG. I have a huge problem with this since... ever The useless spells you list... are ones i used a lot in BG . But i would agree that fireball was really convenient :D And you think a hit point system is believable? We have characters getting hit by an endless array of swords, arrows, bullets, arcane fire and frickin' bolts of lightning without so much as slowing down... that's not really how it works in the real world. Which useless spells are you referring to? I only listed Larloch's Minor Drain, really (though there's plenty of other gunk, obviously).

He's a murderous lunatic, there's very little reason there. Did you not see the tree full of corpses? The abominations in the basement? His dead wife? The whole Eothasian temple thing? Not that Kolsc is without his faults, and you have to wonder about the ratio of "desire for power" to "concern for the local population" in his motivations, but he's a definite improvement nonetheless. Honestly, that would be even worse than the BG system. You'd have the wonderful tedium of having to waste spells on healing all the time, but now there is also a maximum on how much you can actually heal per rest because of the separate health pool. If anything, this will just lead to people healing more often, because your priest is continuously running out of spells. Aside from that, it is also likely to result in a situation where you *have* to have a priest in your party, which is wholly undesirable as well.