Noob AvD question.

[Asha]

I assume raving lunatics are wearing 'skin' armour, so since I have a flail and a battle axe I thought I should use the battle axe becouse of the higher DF against skin.
Thing is I'm getting a higher number next to the AvD: with the flail, is that supposed to be?
And the final dumb question is, is it better for the AvD number to be higher than lower. I don't deny I've never given a shit about mechanics till now.

[landy]

Higher AvD is better. I believe some creatures have hidden armor via DF resistance, but I don't know about it's effects on AvD.

[Trouble]

DF is independent of AvD as far as I can remember (it's been years since I've played). It is possible/normal to have a AvD be higher for a lower DF weapon in some weapon/armor combos.

Higher AvD is better but DF is more important IMO.

[Asha]

Excellent. Thanks for your input.


Higher AvD is better but DF is more important IMO.

Going on this, the battle axe it is then.

[Latrinsorm]

Some creatures have skin that is the equivalent of a certain AsG. For instance, crystal golems have augmented chain "skin". It is possible for creatures to have redux as well, but I know of only one that does and it's those earth elementals from the bowels, so I doubt very much that lunatics have redux.

A weapon's DF and AvD are determined arbitrarily. As a result, it is possible for a weapon to have a higher DF and a lower AvD than another. In this case, a battle axe always has a higher DF and a lower AvD than a flail. (This is not a typical case.)

.

AvD is a completely meaningless number. It has nothing to do with how easy it is to hit a target: most weapons have a lower AvD versus full plate than naked. It has nothing to do with how easy it is to penetrate armor: almost all weapons have a lower AvD versus hauberk than metal breastplate. It has nothing to do with anything and as near as I can figure is used solely to balance out certain weapon bases: if you compare short swords to katars vs. skin, the short sword has a 10 AvD advantage and a .025 DF disadvantage: this works out to the short sword being better until a 240 endroll.

This really doesn't do much in the long term though, which makes me see this as a relic of a bygone GemStone. I'm not saying we need to get rid of AvD or something but it would be nice if a GM just admitted it was a fudge number.

/rant

[Drew]

Well AvD isn't totally unrelated to piercing the armour. Especially if you take the armour system the way it works (that is, someone wearing metal breastplate is actually wearing hauberk over the rest of their body). But it does make some sense, if you follow the AvD from skin to plate it generally goes lower and lower.

It also makes sense against entire armour classes, for instance mauls and mattocks have insane AvDs against chain class armours (most blunts do in fact) because chain is meant to stop slashing and piercing, but does very little against blunt force trauma. It's only when you consider partial armour classes that it can get a bit confusing, and I imagine the impreciseness of that is what bothers you Eric.

[Drunken Durfin]

AvD is a completely meaningless number. It has nothing to do with how easy it is to hit a target: most weapons have a lower AvD versus full plate than naked. It has nothing to do with how easy it is to penetrate armor: almost all weapons have a lower AvD versus hauberk than metal breastplate. It has nothing to do with anything and as near as I can figure is used solely to balance out certain weapon bases: if you compare short swords to katars vs. skin, the short sword has a 10 AvD advantage and a .025 DF disadvantage: this works out to the short sword being better until a 240 endroll.

This really doesn't do much in the long term though, which makes me see this as a relic of a bygone GemStone. I'm not saying we need to get rid of AvD or something but it would be nice if a GM just admitted it was a fudge number.


I am going to have to disagree with you on this. If AvD is such a meaningless number why is it the major difference between off-the-shelf and player forged weapons? The changes to player forged weapons are pretty recent in the greater scheme of things and elegant/superior/perfect weapons have a higher AvD than their store bought counter parts.

All things being equal, the perfect mattock with a higher AvD will always be more effective than an off the shelf one with a lower AvD.

To answer Ash's original question, from a mechanical standpoint go with the higher AvD. Play the number match game below with the AvD numbers you are seeing with your battle axe and flail, then determine what the best weapon of choice is for that particular critter.


Two-Handed Weapons Attack vs. Defense
Damage Base Speed Leather Scale Chain Plate
Type DU/ST 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Bastard Sword S,P 200/75 6 42 45 44 43 42 41 39 37 35 44 40 36 32 43 37 31 25
Battle Axe S,C 155/70 8 35 39 38 37 36 43 41 39 37 50 46 42 38 50 44 38 32
Claidhmore S,C 200/75 8 31 35 34 33 32 34 32 30 28 38 34 30 26 37 31 25 19
Flail C,P 150/60 7 40 45 44 43 42 46 44 42 40 51 47 43 39 52 46 40 34
Flamberge S,C 190/70 7 39 43 42 41 40 48 46 44 42 50 46 42 38 44 38 32 26
Military Pick C,P 150/60 7 25 30 29 28 27 40 38 36 34 40 36 32 28 47 41 35 29
Quarter Staff C,P 140/20 5 25 26 25 24 23 25 23 21 19 26 22 18 14 24 18 12 6
Twohanded Sword S,C 200/75 8 41 45 44 43 42 44 42 40 38 48 44 40 36 47 41 35 29
War Mattock C 145/60 7 32 37 36 35 34 44 42 40 38 48 44 40 36 53 47 41 35
Katana S 225/75 6 39 41 40 39 38 40 38 36 34 41 37 33 29 39 33 27 21
Maul C 145/60 7 31 36 35 34 33 44 42 40 38 52 48 44 40 54 48 42 36

[Bobmuhthol]

DF is way more important, and perfect weapons have an advantage of +6% DF. It's not the +3 AvD that people care about - half an enchant doesn't mean anything when enchanting is as easy as it is.

[Halstein]

and yet, look at how much people pay for an extra enchant on a weapon.

[Drew]

and yet, look at how much people pay for an extra enchant on a weapon.

They don't really pay much though. Let's say they pay 3 million for that extra enchant. 3 million = 30 dollars. For someone making a measly 10 dollars an hour that's 3 hours of work. For someone with a white collar job they are likely trading in less than an hour of their life to upgrade their weapon. Unless you consider trading 3 hours or less of your life for an enchant to be a lot.

[thefarmer]

Equating GS silvers to RL cash doesn't work that well, in my opinion.

Three million is a lot to the average player (average excluding people who spend rl cash). Especially when they don't pull in that much in 3 hours of their time.

Points to Drew for the DD avatar.

[Drew]

I equate it with real life dollars because that's real work. If you gained the money through in-game means you were having fun (Presumably. You should be) so you it's hard to quantify what you actually spend by looking at in-game hours.

[Latrinsorm]

I am going to have to disagree with you on this. If AvD is such a meaningless number why is it the major difference between off-the-shelf and player forged weapons? The changes to player forged weapons are pretty recent in the greater scheme of things and elegant/superior/perfect weapons have a higher AvD than their store bought counter parts.I didn't say that AvD had no mechanical worth. (I specifically said I suspected it was used to balance out certain weapon bases: this necessarily implies that it does have some mechanical impact.)

What I said was that it was meaningless: given the rest of my post this word indicates that AvD does not correspond to any physical reality IG.
But it does make some sense, if you follow the AvD from skin to plate it generally goes lower and lower. The trouble is if you go from skin to metal breastplate (rather than full plate) the AvD is sometimes higher. Even if we only look at "full coverage" armors we see some inconsistencies: sai, katar, handaxe, every blunt except the crowbill. It's admittedly not as cockamamie if we ignore "partial coverage", but still.

[Bobmuhthol]

and yet, look at how much people pay for an extra enchant on a weapon.

Do you even begin to realize how much more money people would pay for DF enhancements?

[Halstein]

Of course. I was simply stating that +3 to a the end roll, via AvD or enchant is not something to ignore in the marketplace. Mechanically it may be another story...

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

Do you even begin to realize how much more money people would pay for DF enhancements?

Approximately 2m... assuming a 4x vultite longsword is 50k, and a perfect vultite longsword (also 4x) runs about 2.5-3m... the small AvD difference would account for a third of that price point, IMHO.

[thefarmer]

I equate it with real life dollars because that's real work. If you gained the money through in-game means you were having fun (Presumably. You should be) so you it's hard to quantify what you actually spend by looking at in-game hours.

I can agree with that.

However I still think that for a large majority, 3 mill is a fairly big chunk of change that's not easily replaced (excluding re-selling the weapon they used to buy in the first place)

[Drunken Durfin]

>I didn't say that AvD had no mechanical worth...What I said was that it was meaningless.

[being Shatner impression]

Try to follow logic...must hang on...pain...the pain

[end Shatner impression]