For some people, it's a RP thing. Short swords are more stabby than long swords (though I don't think short swords are really very stabby either, honestly).
For others, it's because that long sword is more in demand by the other members of your party. Gotta spread those top end items around.
Also piercing (short swords) gets better THAC0 against heavily armoured targets than slashing (long swords), though more enemies have partial or full resistance to piercing
My current game has Baeloth, Edwin and a Quarterstaff-wielding Assassin. If anything staves are now the hot commodity in my party (I also have Dorn w/2HS and Long Bows, Kagain with Axes and Vicky with Maces).
Why wouldn't you use the +2 longsword (with cold damage) over any of the short swords? I am not sure I follow the logic on that. I can get behind using the dagger of venom which incapacitates spellcasters but there isn't any such advantage for BG1 shortswords and the longsword is available before the mines so you have it for almost the entire game.
While the average damage of a shortsword +3 is the same as the average damage of a longsword +2 (ignoring the cold damage), the shortsword has a lower speed factor and, more importantly, a higher minimum damage, which can help avoid those frustrating backstabs where you do pitiful damage. That being said, I don't think the difference is that significant, and would maybe go with the longsword myself.
As you point out, the average damage is less than the long sword (with the cold damage), the lower speed factor isn't much of a factor in my book (speed factor 2 with high mastery and 0 speed factor with the long sword with grand mastery) and is pretty much negligible for backstabbing where you always get the first attack, and the minimum damage (for backstabbing multiplier) is LS 3 versus SS 4 while the maximum damage is LS 10 versus SS 9 so that would be a wash but for the fact that you add 1 cold damage which pushes the LS above again.
I would understand the scarcity argument but it is a bit of a red herring. Any character that can use a longsword can use a shortsword so it isn't like you are talking about the only good blunt weapons for multiple clerics.
Given that the shortsword +3 can be used for about 5-25% of the game and the longsword can be used for 95% of the game, I don't see anything other than RP reasons (which are a fine justification). This is the reason my F/T will be dual wielding daggers.
I've been tempted to try a Fighter with grandmastery in Darts, just to see how wicked it is. Or I might make it a dual-classed Fighter/Mage perhaps. But anyway, throwing darts of wounding and stunning after consuming an oil of speed or when hasted would probably make quick work of a lot of enemy mages.
I've been tempted to try a Fighter with grandmastery in Darts, just to see how wicked it is. Or I might make it a dual-classed Fighter/Mage perhaps. But anyway, throwing darts of wounding and stunning after consuming an oil of speed or when hasted would probably make quick work of a lot of enemy mages.
At best you can deal 1d3 + 5 (Grandmastery) + 2 (Guantlets) damage, average = 9 You'll get 4,5 attacks per round ( 3 base + 1 from mastery + 0,5 at level 7)
Per round, you'll deal about 38 damage if all your attacks connect.
For comparison, a +2 longsword GM fighter with STR 19 would deal : 1d8 + 5 (GM) + 7 (STR) + 2 (Guantlets) = avg 18,5 It gets 2,5 attacks per round, so about 46 damage per round.
@Aranthys Well, yes, but it's the stunning and continued poison damage from the darts that makes this attractive. I.e., stun first then wound with poison. Or just wound with poison, really. Darts of Wounding add up to an additional 15 points of poison per dart in successive rounds. And if it's a Fighter dualed to Mage you can also cast spells to strip the enemy's buffs (are any enemies in BG:EE significantly protected from stun and poison? other than the ones with MR?). With a Fighter's low THAC0 that is enhanced with the Bracers of Archery in theory it should prove deadly effective.
I also get the impression that items like darts of stunning or wounding and/or other higher end ranged items (arrows of biting, ice etc) may be more limited in availablility than they used to be - but thats mostly conjecture on my part based on numbers noted for sales in early chapter stores.
I also get the impression that items like darts of stunning or wounding and/or other higher end ranged items (arrows of biting, ice etc) may be more limited in availablility than they used to be - but thats mostly conjecture on my part based on numbers noted for sales in early chapter stores.
Note that they are usually sold 5 by 5, so if you see a quantity of, say 40, you'll actually be able to buy 200 of them.
That, and you don't ALWAYS have to use darts of stunning or darts of wounding, you can also use regular +1 darts.
I also get the impression that items like darts of stunning or wounding and/or other higher end ranged items (arrows of biting, ice etc) may be more limited in availablility than they used to be - but thats mostly conjecture on my part based on numbers noted for sales in early chapter stores.
Note that they are usually sold 5 by 5, so if you see a quantity of, say 40, you'll actually be able to buy 200 of them.
That, and you don't ALWAYS have to use darts of stunning or darts of wounding, you can also use regular +1 darts.
Yeah I understood the math in the shops - I guess my point was more about recalling no limits to some of them in BG1 vanilla.
on the other hand while 200 darts sounds like a healthy number with 3 attacks per round that only covers 66 rounds - so if a fight for instance was over in 6 rounds (which is relatively quick)- this would cover only 11 encounters - (assuming my "old math" is working properly).
Yeah, that's a good point about availability of darts of wounding and stunning. I'd definitely want to check to make sure that enough reasonably powerful darts are available. There are now darts +1 fire/ice/acid too.
Comments
Baeloth and Edwin do not require weapons, least of all melee ones.
I would understand the scarcity argument but it is a bit of a red herring. Any character that can use a longsword can use a shortsword so it isn't like you are talking about the only good blunt weapons for multiple clerics.
Given that the shortsword +3 can be used for about 5-25% of the game and the longsword can be used for 95% of the game, I don't see anything other than RP reasons (which are a fine justification). This is the reason my F/T will be dual wielding daggers.
I haven't got any good slings yet, though. They just stand back and cast spells right now.
Darts of stunning can stun the target for 7! rounds after a failed save. Darts of wounding practically make spellcasters inoffensive.
You'll get 4,5 attacks per round ( 3 base + 1 from mastery + 0,5 at level 7)
Per round, you'll deal about 38 damage if all your attacks connect.
For comparison, a +2 longsword GM fighter with STR 19 would deal :
1d8 + 5 (GM) + 7 (STR) + 2 (Guantlets) = avg 18,5
It gets 2,5 attacks per round, so about 46 damage per round.
But I'd rather use the bracers of mastery for +2 damage over bracers of archery for +1 thaco.
That, and you don't ALWAYS have to use darts of stunning or darts of wounding, you can also use regular +1 darts.
on the other hand while 200 darts sounds like a healthy number with 3 attacks per round that only covers 66 rounds - so if a fight for instance was over in 6 rounds (which is relatively quick)- this would cover only 11 encounters - (assuming my "old math" is working properly).
I will say it is tougher to manage ammo for a dart thrower because you burn through them pretty quickly - even for a mage.