I wasn't saying they make GWW *better*, (it's certainly worse) just that it isn't AS FAR behind IH+CS as it appears to be. And I absolutely agree about the fact that you waste time using three HLA's in quick succession, but damage per second isn't that big because literally any creature you attack using that combo can only stand up to it for a few seconds. And the staff of the ram is a ridiculously good weapon under critical strike, simply because SO MUCH of its damage gets doubled on a crit (this is also why it makes a great backstab weapon).
Again I'm confused; both scenarios contain use of CS and that's the only thing that is affected by helmets. So it shouldn't matter for the comparison of IH vs. GWW, should it? IH is pretty much always superior, except in cases where your fighter can't get to high enough APR to offset the penalty of having to use a HLA instead of a longer-lasting spell. Whether they wear helmets or not is irrelevant, really.
What's not irrelevant is the use of 2hs, like Staff of the Ram. You are right in that it deals a huge amount of damage. In fact, it is on my to-do list in terms of testing, and it would definitely be something I'd strongly consider for use with GWW - provided I can't use it with the Gauntlets of Extraordinary Specialization (which are wasted on +APR dualwielders anyway). This matter e.g. for Kensais.
DPS matters to me because I run with fairly meaty and dangerous mobs (SCS/Tactics with max HP on all enemies, Insane difficulty), as well as some beefed-up bosses (Melanthium from the Planar Sphere Mod has 600HP iirc, others have high damage resistances). If you run on lower difficulties and with less mods, these things matter less, of course.
I don't know off the top of my head any weapons that mod Crommy's damage, but I've no doubt there is one. are you just basing your perception off of its description (which I previously mentioned is wrong wrong wrong) or have you actually confirmed this in your game. And if you send me your WeiDU log I might be able to find out which mod is nerfing Crom.
I actually tested it, i.e. attacked one of my party with it and checked the amount of damage it dealt. Then I SKed in a Hammer of Thunderbolts and checked that, too, and ended up with pretty much the same damage.
About spreading STR items around, obviously for the whole party to have a higher average strength is nice, but personally I usually only have 3 or 4 melee fighters.
If you only have so few melee fighters, then CF shouldn't really matter, should it, since there's more damaging weapons out there. And even if you go with the full complement, it should be a rare case that nobody can make use of the 19 STR belt at least. Though of course I would not exclude that scenario, and as I said, it depends on the setup you run with.
Me personally, I usually run full melee at all times because it's the highest and most consistent damage. If i can fix CF's damage, I'll definitely consider it somewhere in my setup; though I'm not sure I can find a use for it. Ironically, your post has brought another item to my attention that I completely overlooked, namely the Club of Detonation - boy does this do a lot of damage! I'll have to shuffle around some setups (and figure out my 6th char) but you've definitely given me some interesting stuff to think about.
CS removes the attack roll completely (because all hits are criticals...they can't deal extra damage if the target has a helmet, but it retains the fact you can't miss), so it's impossible to roll a 1. That's the difference, minor yes, depending on what you're swinging at, but it's there.
GWW is only useful for 2hded weapons...that's it...IH is flatout superior otherwise, purely through it's duration alone (1 cast is worth 20 GWW), and the ability to combine it with other actions, even if you don't get the full 10 attacks, it's still superior (quite true for Kensai, since it allows them to get full benefit of their kai for the full 9 seconds, instead of just 3 if you use GWW, and the difference in damage easily offsets even if you only get 8+ attacks per round).
I've already acknowledged the superiority of Improved Haste, and never meant to indicate otherwise, sorry for the confusion. And yeah, the Club of Detonation is a freaking awesome weapon, possibly my favorite in terms of RP/being awesome without being so predictable (after beating the game 10+ times and using FoA so many, it's refreshing to use something else). Plus, if you get lucky with the bonus fire damage and/or the bonus fireball, it's easily one of, if not THE, most devastating weapons in the game. Factoring in the chance for +15 fire damage (but NOT the chance for fireball), it does the same average damage as the Staff of the Ram, but 1-handed!
If you only have so few melee fighters, then CF shouldn't really matter, should it, since there's more damaging weapons out there. And even if you go with the full complement, it should be a rare case that nobody can make use of the 19 STR belt at least. Though of course I would not exclude that scenario, and as I said, it depends on the setup you run with.
I agree with you here, except that CF's 25 STR provides a huge boost to damage. If EVERYONE has 25 STR, those other 3 weapons outdamage it, but CF with 25 STR does, for example, more average damage than Foebane with 24 STR. Basically, if you assume the flail of ages is on someone with 25 STR, Crom Faeyr is the next most damaging main hander UNLESS the wielder of Foebane/Club of Detonation has 25 STR. It's just THAT good.
Going from 24 to 25 STR is "only" a +1hit/+2dmg bonus. Going from 18 to 19 STR is +2/+6. Even with exceptional STR, anything below 18/91 -> 19 is already +1/+3 *at worst*, and thus more of a gain than 24 -> 25. So yeah, it very much depends on your setup, and if you have some low STR characters, then spreading around the STR boosting items can be a substantial increase to overall party output. The STR damage increase is anything but linear!
Crommy is WAY worth it! It's excellent as an off-hand weapon for any non-cleric/barbarian/half-orc who lines up as many STR boosts as possible for himself including being evil in hell. Especially if you use the True Grandmastery tweak, which gives fighters an extra APR for reaching GM, nullifying the benefit of dual-wielding belm/kundane/SNT.
Also, many people don't realize (because even after the GTU from the G3 BG2 Fixpack, the error remains), CF does (2d4+3, +5 Elec) damage! This is huge! It ties for the 4th best damage mainhand weapon!
Flail of Ages: 19.5 (1d6+6+2+2+2+2+2) Club of Detonation 13.5+ (1d6+5+5+30% chance for 15+) Foebane: 14 (2d4+5+4) CF: 13 (2d4+3+5)
is this medium damage?
staff of ram 1d6 +12 , +1d4 (14-22 damage) Spear +3, Impaler 1d6+3 +10 so not bad (14-19 damage)
Flail of Ages: 19.5 (1d6+6+2+2+2+2+2) (17-22) Club of Detonation 13.5+ (1d6+5+5+30% chance for 15+) (11-16 +30% chance for 15+) Foebane: 14 (2d4+5+4) (11-17) CF: 13 (2d4+3+5)(10-16)
The Equalizer - heard it is pretty good for offhand because adds damage to main weapon
I love that the Internet is still arguing about Crom Faeyr a decade later. Testament to a good game that this is happening. Blizzard should be paying attention.
Anyhow: Crom Faeyr is worth it. I mostly come down on this side because I like shiny new weapons more than I like gloves and belts (what can I say? I'm a dude: I'm not too big on accessorizing). Also, it's a legendary Dwarven warhammer. How badass is that?
Some more points with numbers (in no particular or rhetorically significant order):
1) Yes, you have to give up two Str boosting items to get one Crom Faeyr. But so what? Games are about making meaningful choices; if you could have it every which way you wanted, it wouldn't be much of a game. Either way you fall on this decision is a legitimate choice: if you'd rather spread around the Str boosts with two items, that's fine. But if you give them up to get a bigger Str boost (whose bonuses roughly equate to giving both those items to one character *and* having them stack [which, btw, they don't normally]), I see no reason why this is in any way wasteful. Bear in mind: you only control, at any given time, six people. I just don't see how it's such a gigantic loss to burn two Str+ items to get one better Str+ item, especially when one of the Str+ items gives you a Strength 18/00, which you *can* have naturally anyway.
2) It's worth noting that, in the damage calculations above, most people are leaving off the +14 you get from the Str 25. (actually, I'll be honest: I didn't really read all three pages of replies before posting. I read the first page and skimmed the second before I decided I just HAD to jump in with my own opinions) Why? The +14 you get from Crom Faeyr's Strength boost might as well be inherent to the weapon. So if, for example, we set CF's damage range at 10-16 as in @Zur312 's post, we have to (if we're being honest) up that to 24-30. That's without considering that you might put the hammer on a Fighter with five slots in hammering things. Or on a Kensai with the same.
3) People like to point out that Crom Faeyr is redundant because it's a blunt weapon (which means it automatically must be wielded by a cleric), and its Str boost is wasted because Clerics have a spell that does that already. I guess things that do things that someone can do already don't have a place in this world anymore. Sorry, Swashbuckler, the Fighter-Thief was here first! This is another instance where providing a player with a *choice* is a smart game design move. Especially when so many games these days are all about funnelling players into increasingly more restrictive options for building a character. Yes, I'm looking at you, Diablo 3. You steaming mound of horse poo. Sure, your party cleric can cast Holy Might to become a front-line rock god and make your Fighter feel a little redundant for a while. Or, if you're into going take it in a different direction, you can put Crom Faeyr on your cleric, have a constant 25 Str for so long as the hammer is in hand, and free up however many spell slots you were going to devote to DUHM (Duhm?... Dumb?... Oh my!) and instead have the ability to pop out some of the Cleric's more useful 2nd level spells (Hold Person, Charm, Chant, Aid, Silence, Slow Poison). In my view, either way is fine: in fact, since you get DUHM so much earlier in the game (being that it's a 2nd level spell), you could consider acquiring Crom Faeyr an upgrade of sorts: you no longer need to take up spell slots with this spell, since you can have the same effect constantly.
4) Related to point number 2, don't forget the attack bonus from Strength 25 is +7. Which means, in effect, that this is a +12 to-hit weapon. I know that, for endgame, being able to hit things is not that big of an issue, but it might be worth mentioning anyway.
5) With such a high-damage-potential weapon equipped on a good fighter, you would be totally justified making "It's Hammer Time!" your battle cry at the start of every combat. You can't really say that with any other weapon in the game -- or, perhaps, not quite as much (The Hammer of Thunderbolts doesn't quite get you all the way to "Hammer Time"; it has maybe half of the "Hammer Time" quotient as Crom Faeyr does).
6) This is less a point of rhetoric and more a confused inquiry. In the many years since BG2 was first published, I've found that the people who don't like Crom Faeyr appear to sometimes hold two incongruent points of view: on the one hand, Crom Faeyr is useless because it has specials which are too specific in application (e.g. hurting golems and giants) and its main benefit (Str 25) is easily replicated by Priest magic anyway (and, again, it's blunt, so it *must* go to a Cleric, you have no choice in this, ever); but then, on the other hand, Crom Faeyr is a bad weapon because it's too powerful with its instakill abilities and 25 Strength bump. Huh? So, which is it? Is it useless, or overpowered?
7) I think I'm sort of scraping the bottom of the barrel with my numbered points, but let me finish off by saying this: in general, I tend to favor consolidation of equipment over lots of little things put together to cumulative effect. Crom Faeyr combines three pieces of your equipment (Hammer, Belt, and Gloves) and gives you one really good weapon in return. I promise you, some use can be found in any given runthrough of BG for a Crom Faeyr. Especially if you're soloing: in a solo run, there really is no reason not to make Crom Faeyr, because you can't wear the belt and the gloves together anyway.
EDIT: Point 8) It just occured to me that you CAN have Crom Faeyr and still acquire both the Ogre Gauntlets and Giant Belt by exporting and starting a new game. Which is ridiculous, of course, but then again, so is this argument. I mean, crap, it's noon on a Sunday and I have spent almost the entire middle of my weekend up to now writing on the internet about a magic hammer that doesn't really exist. Now I'm sad.
EDIT 2: Point 9) HOLY CRAP. It just occured to me this time that not only can you have Crom Faeyr and still keep the component parts... you could also, if you were feeling it, get TWO CROM FAEYRS. Of course, doing this would destroy the space time continuum and send you back in time to become your own grandfather, but it would totally be worth it to dual-wield matching Crom Faeyrs. Unless you are of the opinion somehow that Crom Faeyr isn't worth destroying linear time to acquire it twice. In which case... I dunno, man. I don't think I can help you.
Thanks for your detailed post, @Sixheadeddog! Some comments on your arguments:
1) and 2) The reason the STR bonuses matter is because they do are highly non-linear. Going from 24 to 25 STR gives you a LOT LESS of a benefit than going from 18 to 19. Since the components of CF actually set STR to certain values, they can translate to substantial STR increases, depending on your party composition - then again, they can also be potentially worthless. It is definitely not as simple as saying that stacking or spreading comes out the same. Also, about the whole "meaningful choices" thing: this is very much true. But what we are trying to figure out here is WHAT choice to make, and WHAT makes that choice "meaningful". Otherwise it's just a (uninformed) choice.
3) Again, choices yes, but this is about the logic behind the choice, not about having choices or no-choices. The reason clerics matter is that they indirectly pigeon-hole non-clerics into using non-blunt weapons, simply because they themselves cannot. Equipment is limited after all. Also, DuHM is a spell that doesn't really compete with anything else that is particularly important (especially later on), while being very strong and easy to use/maintain.
7) It's not a question of finding any use for it, but the *best* use. Whether that is the hammer itself or its component, depends on your party setup, in particular class composition and STR values.
Thanks for your detailed post, @Sixheadeddog! Some comments on your arguments:
1) and 2) The reason the STR bonuses matter is because they do are highly non-linear. Going from 24 to 25 STR gives you a LOT LESS of a benefit than going from 18 to 19.
One quick thing worth noting here: going from Str 18 to 19 is huge-er (more huge?) than going 24 to 25 because the range from 18-19 actually encompasses 5 Strength points rather than just one. This is because of the way 1st-2nd edition AD&D was conceived, and it's just something we have to live with. IIRC, using the Strength Manual if you're at 18 Str bumps you to 18/01, rather than sending you straight to 19. ... Or, I could be wrong about that. It's been a while.
A better comparison is going 18/00 to 19, but in this case the bump from 24-25 actually does give you more: at 18/00 your bonuses are +3/+6, and for jumping to Str 19 you only get a +1 to the damage bonus (+3/+7). Meanwhile, at Str 24, you have +6/+12, then when you jump to Str 25 you get +7/+14 -- an increase of +1/+2.
On the other points: I think we can boil it down to "depends on your choices/party config," and just agree to disagree.
Using the Strength Tome takes you directly from 18 to 19, no stops in between.
I usually give the Crom Faeyr to Viconia as her Str is reallllllly low yet she can equip really great armor so boosting her up to 25 makes her a wrecking ball and I don't have to cast any spells to do it. If I need to throw a cleric in as a backup tank, I don't usually want to take the time to cast a buff first to get them ready to party. I just want to order them into melee to pin down the extra guy that broke through my lines.
You are right that exceptional STR bonuses make things weird, but do keep in mind that these only apply to fighters, not anyone else. As such, the 18->19 jump is actually quite relevant, as it represents a non-fighter with 18 STR using the CF-component girdle. As soon as you give that to someone with even lower STR, the bonuses you gain are even more relevant. Also, anything below 18/91->19 is still a higher gain than 24-25 (but I believe that was mentioned earlier anyway).
And by the way: "Agree to disagree" is a cop-out. If you go into a discussion with that mindset, why talk at all. Discussion is about presenting arguments and counter-arguments, not about sides entrenching in their opinion "respecting" each other's.
Eh~ If a topic has already been talked to death, and both sides have made good points, sometimes it is best to agree to disagree. Alternately if neither side is going to budge and they have or are about to alienate third parties who they are trying to convince its also a good idea to just agree to stop.
One important point, people keep talking about going from 24 to 25 strength (i know, i was the first one to mention it, so I'm at fault) but MOST characters won't be at 24 strength. And the distance from 22 (a much more common strength) to 25 STR is +3 Thac0, +4 damage. That IS a big jump.
But again....depending on party composition, it's potentially costing you +7 hit (matters less) and +15 more damage (matters A LOT more)....keep that in mind.
Most of BG2's fighters are 17 or less str (Valygar, Keldorn, and Haerdaelis all gain +2 hit +5 damage from the ogre gauntlets alone, while Massy and Jaheria gain +3 + 6, and because BS multiplies str, even thieves GREATLY magnify the results when adding more str)...the frost giant belt is even more). Minsc and Sarevok are the only ones who don't get a whole lot of benefit from the gauntlets (Anomen can buff 25 while wearing the 19+ belt or his cleric ring), and Korgan gains only 1 point less then going from 22-25 (none in S's case) while the frost belt is a mere +1 hit +3 for Sarevok, or a +2 hit +4 for Minsc or +2 +6 for Korgan).
And given the number of ranged weapons that allow a str bonus (2 slings, thrown axes/daggers, some low tier darts), even your back row people can add a lot of damage for buffing to 18/00+.
Crom concentrates a lot of damage into one character, but you could potentially get FAR more overall, depending on the number of party mates. If you have 4 or less, you can probably justify making it, due to a surplus of stronger str items (losing the bracers doesn't hurt), but if you go with a full party, you're better off not making it, and spreading the items around, since you'll end up with more overall damage that way.
You are right that exceptional STR bonuses make things weird, but do keep in mind that these only apply to fighters, not anyone else. As such, the 18->19 jump is actually quite relevant, as it represents a non-fighter with 18 STR using the CF-component girdle.
Well, by that reasoning, the jump from 18 (+1/+2) to 25 (+7/+14) is also rather relevant, as it would represent, say, a Cleric with 18 Str using CF itself, n'est-ce pas?
As soon as you give that to someone with even lower STR, the bonuses you gain are even more relevant. Also, anything below 18/91->19 is still a higher gain than 24-25 (but I believe that was mentioned earlier anyway).
Str 25 has *double* the bonuses in both hit and damage that 18/00 does. This works for any character, regardless of their starting Strength score. If you want to look at it comparatively, though, I think that looking at starting Strength is much less useful than looking at class THAC0. And even then, it becomes a question of whether you, as a player, like stacking all your big-boom damage bonuses on one kick-ass Fighter, or spreading things out among your less-well-endowed Priests and Rogues.
And by the way: "Agree to disagree" is a cop-out. If you go into a discussion with that mindset, why talk at all. Discussion is about presenting arguments and counter-arguments, not about sides entrenching in their opinion "respecting" each other's.
lol No, it's not. Discussion is about exchanging ideas, not about being dead-set on converting people to your mode of thinking. This is about choice, and it's a matter of subjectivity: there is no objectively correct answer to the question of whether or not Crom Faeyr is worth it. If that's what you've been looking for out of this discussion... well. Not sure what to tell you. Other than I have my opinion, you have yours, and I am just fine with those opinions being different.
Well, by that reasoning, the jump from 18 (+1/+2) to 25 (+7/+14) is also rather relevant, as it would represent, say, a Cleric with 18 Str using CF itself, n'est-ce pas?
Except a cleric already has 25 STR through DuHM. See the discussion above. The question is not that whoever gets CF gains a big boost, but how much of a damage increase it would be compared to spreading components around for other, potentially far less STR-laden party members. This includes members you don't actually want to have CF on in the alternate scenario.
Str 25 has *double* the bonuses in both hit and damage that 18/00 does. This works for any character, regardless of their starting Strength score. If you want to look at it comparatively, though, I think that looking at starting Strength is much less useful than looking at class THAC0. And even then, it becomes a question of whether you, as a player, like stacking all your big-boom damage bonuses on one kick-ass Fighter, or spreading things out among your less-well-endowed Priests and Rogues.
That's most of the issue right there, though THAC0 is in fact less relevant towards the end of the game (there's several effects that make it less relevant, such Critical Strike HLA or Timestop) than damage is. Using CF favors individual performance, while spreading the components favors overall output.
lol No, it's not. Discussion is about exchanging ideas, not about being dead-set on converting people to your mode of thinking. This is about choice, and it's a matter of subjectivity: there is no objectively correct answer to the question of whether or not Crom Faeyr is worth it. If that's what you've been looking for out of this discussion... well. Not sure what to tell you. Other than I have my opinion, you have yours, and I am just fine with those opinions being different.
It's not about conversion. Neither extreme is desirable, and either precludes a consensus. Besides, these issues are, in fact, very much objectively answerable. It's a matter of math, not a matter of opinion; check STR values for your party, check equipment, calculate damage output for all scenarios (CF vs. components) - then pick the higher number. That's not the discussion, really. The discussion is about the process that gets you there, and the variables involved. Opinions don't really enter into this, because "It's Hammertime!" isn't really an argument.
It's not about conversion. Neither extreme is desirable, and either precludes a consensus. Besides, these issues are, in fact, very much objectively answerable. It's a matter of math, not a matter of opinion; check STR values for your party, check equipment, calculate damage output for all scenarios (CF vs. components) - then pick the higher number. That's not the discussion, really. The discussion is about the process that gets you there, and the variables involved. Opinions don't really enter into this, because "It's Hammertime!" isn't really an argument.
Actually, "It's Hammertime!" is by far the most compelling argument anyone in this thread has offered -- speaking objectively, that is.
And it is, in fact, a subjective thing and very much dependent upon opinion: as you yourself said, using Crom Faeyr favors individual performance, while spreading the components favors overall output. Well, which is "better"? That depends on what you want and how you play. Checking the Strength scores of your party members is an indirect byproduct of opinion, because the size and make-up of one's party is entirely dependent on opinion. This is, as you say, the "process that gets you there, and the variables involved" -- all of them opinions.
Opinions are entirely at the heart of providing anything resembling an answer to this question -- because you can't just go from point A ("Is Crom Faeyr worth it?") and then objectively arrive at a yes-or-no point B answer.
This game has the inherent problem of being incredibly variable, due to the large number of mods available. Any "objective" answer is naturally contingent on these variables, but it's still an objective answer.
For the sake of the argument, it *has* to be assumed that the goal is objectively measurable efficiency; if that premise is not fulfilled, the entire discussion is pointless and falls apart (because "I like it like this" trumps any logical argument). As such, "It's Hammertime!" really isn't an argument per se, as it doesn't follow the premise; same goes for any RP argument, really. RP is fine and all, but when someone asks for advice, it is assumed that illogical arguments are discounted - after all, why bother asking other people if you only end up saying "but this is what *I* like".
"yes-or-no answers" as you put it, are very rarely a result of such discussion; answers contingent on variables (i.e. "if X and Y, then yes") on the other hand are very common. This doesn't only hold true for BG, or video games in general, by the way. Most issues are naturally complex enough to make easy A-or-B decisions a rare thing indeed.
It really depends on your party I feel, in your particular case I would avoid it because as other have said those items can really help beef up mazzy and valygar however that said I very fondly remember playing my Berserker with the Axe of unyielding in my main hand and Crom fayer in the off hand needless to say it was a slaughter fest.
This game has the inherent problem of being incredibly variable, due to the large number of mods available. Any "objective" answer is naturally contingent on these variables, but it's still an objective answer.
For the sake of the argument, it *has* to be assumed that the goal is objectively measurable efficiency; if that premise is not fulfilled, the entire discussion is pointless and falls apart (because "I like it like this" trumps any logical argument). As such, "It's Hammertime!" really isn't an argument per se, as it doesn't follow the premise; same goes for any RP argument, really. RP is fine and all, but when someone asks for advice, it is assumed that illogical arguments are discounted - after all, why bother asking other people if you only end up saying "but this is what *I* like".
You're really hung-up on "It's Hammertime!" Did someone in parachute pants cause you some irrevocable trauma as a child?... It may be healing to talk about it.
I think the false assumption you are making, here, is that any opinion-based argument is either illogical or invalid. Which isn't so. If I would prefer to keep Ogre Gauntlets and a Giant Belt to strap on two of my party members, that's a valid opinion. The math will hold that keeping those two items will tender some benefit to my party overall, and to the two characters sporting them in particular, and a reasonable argument can be found in support of going in that direction. On the other hand, if I would rather have one character jacked up to Str 25, and this character happens to be a Cleric, and I would rather slot spells other than DUHM, again that's a valid choice.
Yes, there *are* so many variables in play when you ask this question, and nearly all of them are determined by opinion. "I like it like this" is the foundation of each and every variable that comes into considering an answer to this question: if you are playing a custom party of all Fighters, becuase you like it like this, that may factor into how one answers this question; or, if the only Fighter in your party is your Charname; or if you like having Viconia in your party and have a specific non-combat reason to give her some sort of Strength-boosting item (because you want the increased carrying capacity for deep dungeon looting).
It's *all* about opinion, and because you have as many different opinions as there are players of the game, I don't see how it can be considered anything but subjective. After all, why bother asking other people if there's only one acceptable answer that anyone with a calculator can arrive at?
You're really hung-up on "It's Hammertime!" Did someone in parachute pants cause you some irrevocable trauma as a child?... It may be healing to talk about it.
It illustrates the prototype "RP" argument, i.e. one that is founded in preferences other than objective in-game performance.
I think the false assumption you are making, here, is that any opinion-based argument is either illogical or invalid. Which isn't so. If I would prefer to keep Ogre Gauntlets and a Giant Belt to strap on two of my party members, that's a valid opinion. The math will hold that keeping those two items will tender some benefit to my party overall, and to the two characters sporting them in particular, and a reasonable argument can be found in support of going in that direction. On the other hand, if I would rather have one character jacked up to Str 25, and this character happens to be a Cleric, and I would rather slot spells other than DUHM, again that's a valid choice.
Yes, there *are* so many variables in play when you ask this question, and nearly all of them are determined by opinion. "I like it like this" is the foundation of each and every variable that comes into considering an answer to this question: if you are playing a custom party of all Fighters, becuase you like it like this, that may factor into how one answers this question; or, if the only Fighter in your party is your Charname; or if you like having Viconia in your party and have a specific non-combat reason to give her some sort of Strength-boosting item (because you want the increased carrying capacity for deep dungeon looting)
It's *all* about opinion, and because you have as many different opinions as there are players of the game, I don't see how it can be considered anything but subjective. After all, why bother asking other people if there's only one acceptable answer that anyone with a calculator can arrive at?
The reason you discount personal preference is BECAUSE it is so subjective. Opinions are a good thing, and everyone is entitled to them. However, in the context of many discussion (this thread included), people seek to modify their opinions according to other factors. Your example is quite well-suited to illustrate this: of course you are perfectly fine equipping your items any way you like, and for whatever reasons you like - as long as you understand the respective ramifications.
Now, the reason people make threads in forums and ask questions such as "what is the best X" or "is Y worth it" is purely because they do NOT understand the ramifications fully. The answers, consequently, are not intended to convince or "convert" people to a choice - they are intended to illustrate and explain the objective factors behind the issue. Not to dictate an opinion, but to HELP FORM ONE. To that end, answering with an own, subjective opinion is not very helpful. If someone asks you "is a BWW good car to buy?", responding with "I like BMWs, they have cool designs" may be an opinion that is perfectly valid (subjectively), but it won't help the OP much in forming an opinion of their own. Listing objective values, on the other hand (such as technical specs, security statistics, value analyses, etc.) will help. That does not serve as a die-hard attempt to convince someone to buy a BMW - it merely adds information on which an opinion can then be formed.
After you explain things to people, they are always free to make their choice. That can be the "wrong" choice (objectively speaking), it doesn't really matter. What matters is that you presented the choice objectively and without bias. That's the core behind the issue, and the whole reason we talk so much - not just in this thread, but in life in general as well.
I'm not sure why everyone seems to treat DUHM and improved haste as pretty much permanent effects which are in place for every battle.
Personally I don't rest that often, so it's a rare battle that I actually get to fully buff up for. Plus for the harder fights the enemies tend to cast remove magic anyway (I have SCS installed) so even when I do buff up I can't rely on the buffs staying there. (the enemies are generally higher level than me so their remove magic is very effective).
So I value actual permanent effects which can't be dispelled.
For me Crom Faeyr is a trade off between the +22 strength belt and the +25 strength hammer. So if I have someone in my party who can be made to use a hammer then I usually make it. If not then I stick with the strength belt.
Also I don't put much value in the gloves of ogre power. The 2 giant belts (or belt + crom) cover 2 melee characters, and if I have a 3rd melee character then typically one of them will have sufficient strength to get away with their natural strength e.g. in a party of Minsc, Keldorn and Jaheira then I can give Keldorn & Jaheira the strength boosts with Minsc relying on his natural strength. I'd rather give Minsc the specialisation gauntlets.
While buffs are certainly far from permanent, they can be managed to be up a considerable amount of time, especially on fights were they are needed most. Dispelling is an issue to be sure, but it doesn't happen constantly, and can be played around. IH certainly is a powerful enough effect to warrant it; in fact, IH is so powerful it warrants building your entire game around it. Resting doesn't really come with any downsides in BG, so you can easily afford to be gratuitous in your spellcasting.
Of course, if you prefer a different play style, adjust your decisions accordingly. As pointed out before, all these assertion assume "optimal" conditions in the sense of mathematical maximization. This is quite theoretical and often not applicable to the individual game; always consider your subjective variables in these decisions!
While buffs are certainly far from permanent, they can be managed to be up a considerable amount of time, especially on fights were they are needed most. Dispelling is an issue to be sure, but it doesn't happen constantly, and can be played around. IH certainly is a powerful enough effect to warrant it; in fact, IH is so powerful it warrants building your entire game around it. Resting doesn't really come with any downsides in BG, so you can easily afford to be gratuitous in your spellcasting.
Of course, if you prefer a different play style, adjust your decisions accordingly. As pointed out before, all these assertion assume "optimal" conditions in the sense of mathematical maximization. This is quite theoretical and often not applicable to the individual game; always consider your subjective variables in these decisions!
lol You seem to keep going back and forth between acknowledging the subjective nature of this question, and then claiming that objectivity is still a thing.
To your analogy about the car: OP comes in, looks around, and calls out to any who would answer: "Is a BMW worth buying?"
No one in the thread answers directly that "I like BMWs, therefore yes," or "I hate BMWs, therefore no." But clearly, everyone who offers up a response has a preferential bias that informs their opinion. If you like cars that are fast, perhaps Car X would be better because it is faster than a BMW. If you don't like fast cars, then Car X is not the car for you, and perhaps then you might consider a BMW. Or, if you like gas mileage, the BMW has better gas mileage than Car Z, so definitely get a BMW. OP responds: "Well, I actually don't drive much, so gas mileage is not a big factor for me." Oh, well, in that case, perhaps Car Z might be more worthwhile because it comes in a color you like, while BMW does not.
In fact, looking at the BMW analogy more closely, it seems to entirely justify my position much more than yours. Your position would seem to rely upon there being one singular mathematical estimation by which a single type of car could be said to be definitively and objectively the Best Car. This is, of course, not the case: we judge cars by a range of variables. Which variable is most important to you is a matter of opinion.
If I decide to buy a BMW because it comes in taupe, or because it is faster, or because it tends to have a lower maintenance cost, or because it tends to get better gas mileage, or because it has heated seat cushions and a revolutionary new NeverSpill™ cupholder, that may be entirely against your recommendation, because you've based your assessment on some other variable that just isn't as important to me as it is to you.
Also, my license plate would be: HAMMRTM. And maybe they'd make a little graphic of a hammer on it somewhere, like on those new vanity plates where people get little stars or hearts or hands, or things like that. I think that'd be cool if they did that.
While buffs are certainly far from permanent, they can be managed to be up a considerable amount of time, especially on fights were they are needed most. Dispelling is an issue to be sure, but it doesn't happen constantly, and can be played around. IH certainly is a powerful enough effect to warrant it; in fact, IH is so powerful it warrants building your entire game around it. Resting doesn't really come with any downsides in BG, so you can easily afford to be gratuitous in your spellcasting.
Of course, if you prefer a different play style, adjust your decisions accordingly. As pointed out before, all these assertion assume "optimal" conditions in the sense of mathematical maximization. This is quite theoretical and often not applicable to the individual game; always consider your subjective variables in these decisions!
... and I got so caught up in the car analogy I totally did not respond to the quoted text the way I had initially intended to!
I sort of think that the way you have phrased the above is demonstrative of my main point. Assuming "optimal" conditions is a choice that you are making that necessarily skews your ultimate assessment. A truly objective assessment would take into account all of the weals and woes of a given course of action. But the choice you've made here is that the problems with relying upon buffs are negligible; their impermanence and ability to be negated by enemy casters is something that you judged to be not significant enough to sway your opinion.
Which is fine and completely valid! It fits your playstyle, and would make it unnecessary to forge Crom Faeyr. But others might arrive at a different conclusion: some people might prefer to have their casters with different spell selections, or prefer to fight battles with a minimum of reliance upon buffs. Which, again, I feel is valid, and it inherently presents a much stronger argument for using Crom Faeyr in your active party's loadout. Then again, perhaps not: perhaps even the buff-less player would rather have the two Str boosting items rather than just the one. That's valid, as well, and it probably even has a logical, well-reasoned methodology to back it up.
lol You seem to keep going back and forth between acknowledging the subjective nature of this question, and then claiming that objectivity is still a thing.
To your analogy about the car: OP comes in, looks around, and calls out to any who would answer: "Is a BMW worth buying?"
No one in the thread answers directly that "I like BMWs, therefore yes," or "I hate BMWs, therefore no." But clearly, everyone who offers up a response has a preferential bias that informs their opinion. If you like cars that are fast, perhaps Car X would be better because it is faster than a BMW. If you don't like fast cars, then Car X is not the car for you, and perhaps then you might consider a BMW. Or, if you like gas mileage, the BMW has better gas mileage than Car Z, so definitely get a BMW. OP responds: "Well, I actually don't drive much, so gas mileage is not a big factor for me." Oh, well, in that case, perhaps Car Z might be more worthwhile because it comes in a color you like, while BMW does not.
This is where you misunderstand. You already assume objective arguments in your example, i.e. the speed of the car, or the mileage. THESE are the objective factors. Something like the design of the car is not. Nobody HAS to make their eventual decision based on these objective factors, but they MUST be presented in an objective fashion to make for an INFORMED DECISION. That is the important thing here. You are free to choose whatever in the end, who knows, maybe design, or color, or prestige trumps all the objective factors in the end - in fact, they often do. But that is up to YOU, and it does not invalidate the need to present all the factors, objective and not, if you want to make your decision properly. And that you do want to do that is the premise set forth by the very fact that you came and asked.
The reason I chose my example the way I did was because this is exactly how this thread evolved; instead of saying "Well, there's X, Y, and Z to consider, so make your choice based around that", people said "Viconia rocks with it!", "I give it to CHARNAME and it's awesome!", and "Hammertime!" - which, while perfectly valid opinions, does very little to help make the OP an informed decision, and thus arrive at his own opinion. Objective factors are presented and used to make a recommendation - logically, this is the correct course to follow. Logically, people shouldn't smoke - but obviously, they still do. But that doesn't mean they don't have to be aware of the underlying objective factors, which though recommended, still allow for a personal decision in either way.
I sort of think that the way you have phrased the above is demonstrative of my main point. Assuming "optimal" conditions is a choice that you are making that necessarily skews your ultimate assessment. A truly objective assessment would take into account all of the weals and woes of a given course of action. But the choice you've made here is that the problems with relying upon buffs are negligible; their impermanence and ability to be negated by enemy casters is something that you judged to be not significant enough to sway your opinion.
Again, for the argument you have to take into account a certain degree of abstraction. Of course you can't assume "optimal" conditions - you assume "average" conditions. Optimal would be "I never get dispelled" - average is "I know who tries to dispel me, and play accordingly". The assumption is made, much in the above argument, that players play "well", i.e. in a way that maximizes benefits and minimizes detriment. Of course, if you play poorly, then you'll have more trouble. If you play very well, you will have less. But that's another variable that unnecessarily complicates the discussion, as you can't really make statements that hold true and still account for the entire range of player skill that's out there.
Extenuating circumstances are always implied. Things are rarely presented as absolutes, in any discussion. You can regularly find specific scenarios that invalidate entire arguments because of their narrow application - that doesn't make the original argument meaningless, though, because it still applies to a wide range. And as I said before, if you argue in a way that takes into account every variable, you quickly arrive at a jumble that is incomprehensible. But, you also don't want to brush things away with blanket statements like "whatever floats your boat", because these have very little information value. And in the end, every discussion has to be approached with critical discretion when it is to be translated into actual application - that's how these things work. But the arguments presented are there to help make that personal assessment; not to DICTATE it, but to GUIDE it at best.
I used crom on a berzerker duals to Mage. Off handed and used foebane. No complaints. It works best as a off hander. But you can use that one fire long sword that gives 22 str AND immunity to negative levels instead later. Besides, long swords seem to be preferred for its variety throughout game. I can't think of a war hammer other than crom that doesn't suck
This is where you misunderstand. You already assume objective arguments in your example, i.e. the speed of the car, or the mileage. THESE are the objective factors. Something like the design of the car is not. Nobody HAS to make their eventual decision based on these objective factors, but they MUST be presented in an objective fashion to make for an INFORMED DECISION. That is the important thing here. You are free to choose whatever in the end, who knows, maybe design, or color, or prestige trumps all the objective factors in the end - in fact, they often do. But that is up to YOU, and it does not invalidate the need to present all the factors, objective and not, if you want to make your decision properly. And that you do want to do that is the premise set forth by the very fact that you came and asked.
But, the choice of which objective factors are decisive in choosing whether or not to make Crom Faeyr is ultimately subjective and based on opinion and taste. Which is why it's entirely reasonable to, after presenting all of the factors involved, leave the discussion off as "Agree to disagree": if you and I both acknowledge sets A, B and C of objective evidence as true, but set C suits my playstyle better, while set A suits your playstyle, the discussion is essentially over. It is in no way a cop-out to, at that point in the discussion, back down and leave each party to his/her own respective opinions: there is no "correct" answer to this question, since the matrix of variables involved in arriving at an answer is so complex and diverse. Otherwise the discussion would never end -- as this one seems not to want to. Damn.
The reason I chose my example the way I did was because this is exactly how this thread evolved; instead of saying "Well, there's X, Y, and Z to consider, so make your choice based around that", people said "Viconia rocks with it!", "I give it to CHARNAME and it's awesome!", and "Hammertime!" - which, while perfectly valid opinions, does very little to help make the OP an informed decision, and thus arrive at his own opinion. Objective factors are presented and used to make a recommendation - logically, this is the correct course to follow. Logically, people shouldn't smoke - but obviously, they still do. But that doesn't mean they don't have to be aware of the underlying objective factors, which though recommended, still allow for a personal decision in either way.
First of all, when it's "Hammertime," it's OBJECTIVELY "Hammertime," and none can deny that it is so. Ever. Period. Agree to disagree.
Secondly, while there were a few posters who offered opinions that had not a lot of reasoning behind them, there were many of them who offered that Viconia rocks with it because her natural Strength score sucks, or that they give it to CHARNAME because the benefits on the weapon help out their main character tremendously (again, variables, especially re: CHARNAME, vary quite a bit).
And even that person who first invoked the phrase "It's Hammertime!" had quite a lot of well-reasoned argument swirling all around the declaration that it is, in fact, the Time of Hammers. So, like, double word score on that one, right?
Again, for the argument you have to take into account a certain degree of abstraction. Of course you can't assume "optimal" conditions - you assume "average" conditions. Optimal would be "I never get dispelled" - average is "I know who tries to dispel me, and play accordingly". The assumption is made, much in the above argument, that players play "well", i.e. in a way that maximizes benefits and minimizes detriment. Of course, if you play poorly, then you'll have more trouble. If you play very well, you will have less. But that's another variable that unnecessarily complicates the discussion, as you can't really make statements that hold true and still account for the entire range of player skill that's out there.
Well, I feel the need to point out that you, in fact, were the one who said you were assuming "optimal" conditions. Which, I think, is a perfectly fine position to take, if it backs up one's preference for using the DUHM buff instead of forging Crom Faeyr (as, in some arguments, this has been set up as a dichotomous choice). It strikes me that those who assume "average" conditions (that is, acnkowledging that buffs can expire, or get dispelled, and would thereafter need to be re-cast) might just as readily opt to forge Crom Faeyr so as not to even have to bother with re-casting buffs -- which is just as fine an option as sticking with a strategy revolving around DUHM.
Extenuating circumstances are always implied. Things are rarely presented as absolutes, in any discussion. You can regularly find specific scenarios that invalidate entire arguments because of their narrow application - that doesn't make the original argument meaningless, though, because it still applies to a wide range.
Acknowledging that one's recommendation might prove flawed seems to once again play toward the position I'm advocating: that there are multiple solutions to this problem, that no single solution is any better than any of the others absent a comparison of specific variables -- of which there are many, so many that it almost makes the "wide range" of any given recommendation seem comparatively narrow.
Given that this discussion, in particular, has a multitude of variables with which we both seem to be reasonably familiar, it really does not at all seem like an untennable position to hold to when we close with something like "your mileage may vary," or "IMHO," or "agree to disagree."
And as I said before, if you argue in a way that takes into account every variable, you quickly arrive at a jumble that is incomprehensible. But, you also don't want to brush things away with blanket statements like "whatever floats your boat", because these have very little information value.
To me, the choice does not seem to boil down to either dismissal or Lovecraftian madness in the face of infinity. I actually think there is a vast range of middle ground between these two propositions.
In the end, the answer really is "whatever floats your boat," because the variables that you use in making an objective estimation of the worth of forging Crom Faeyr is determined by a player's choices, which are in turn determined by player preferences that may, at times, be entirely subjective.
It is not so much brushing anything away to say "whatever floats your boat," or "agree to disagree"; rather, it's to admit to the questioner that any answer he receives in the course of this discussion is informed mostly by a player's preferences. Many people who answered the OP gave their preferences, and many gave reasonable justification for the same. Some, depending on how you judge them (if you were so inclined to judge), may not have offered such reasoning. I think it's fair to say that nobody who posted here can claim that they provided an objectively correct answer to the very, very broad question: "Is it worth it to forge Crom Faeyr?" Any answer given must be offered with an asterisk and footnotes. Because it is based, ultimately, in opinion -- even if that opinion is backed up by fact.
And in the end, every discussion has to be approached with critical discretion when it is to be translated into actual application - that's how these things work. But the arguments presented are there to help make that personal assessment; not to DICTATE it, but to GUIDE it at best.
Yes. GUIDE; a reader reading our discussions would be GUIDED to whatever it is that would float his boat. And, if someone thought that that boat would be floated best by something else... they might just have to agree to disagree. But all would readily be able to agree that, according to my watch, at least, it is HAMMERTIME.
Comments
What's not irrelevant is the use of 2hs, like Staff of the Ram. You are right in that it deals a huge amount of damage. In fact, it is on my to-do list in terms of testing, and it would definitely be something I'd strongly consider for use with GWW - provided I can't use it with the Gauntlets of Extraordinary Specialization (which are wasted on +APR dualwielders anyway). This matter e.g. for Kensais.
DPS matters to me because I run with fairly meaty and dangerous mobs (SCS/Tactics with max HP on all enemies, Insane difficulty), as well as some beefed-up bosses (Melanthium from the Planar Sphere Mod has 600HP iirc, others have high damage resistances). If you run on lower difficulties and with less mods, these things matter less, of course.
I actually tested it, i.e. attacked one of my party with it and checked the amount of damage it dealt. Then I SKed in a Hammer of Thunderbolts and checked that, too, and ended up with pretty much the same damage. If you only have so few melee fighters, then CF shouldn't really matter, should it, since there's more damaging weapons out there. And even if you go with the full complement, it should be a rare case that nobody can make use of the 19 STR belt at least. Though of course I would not exclude that scenario, and as I said, it depends on the setup you run with.
Me personally, I usually run full melee at all times because it's the highest and most consistent damage. If i can fix CF's damage, I'll definitely consider it somewhere in my setup; though I'm not sure I can find a use for it. Ironically, your post has brought another item to my attention that I completely overlooked, namely the Club of Detonation - boy does this do a lot of damage! I'll have to shuffle around some setups (and figure out my 6th char) but you've definitely given me some interesting stuff to think about.
GWW is only useful for 2hded weapons...that's it...IH is flatout superior otherwise, purely through it's duration alone (1 cast is worth 20 GWW), and the ability to combine it with other actions, even if you don't get the full 10 attacks, it's still superior (quite true for Kensai, since it allows them to get full benefit of their kai for the full 9 seconds, instead of just 3 if you use GWW, and the difference in damage easily offsets even if you only get 8+ attacks per round).
staff of ram 1d6 +12 , +1d4 (14-22 damage)
Spear +3, Impaler 1d6+3 +10 so not bad (14-19 damage)
Flail of Ages: 19.5 (1d6+6+2+2+2+2+2) (17-22)
Club of Detonation 13.5+ (1d6+5+5+30% chance for 15+) (11-16 +30% chance for 15+)
Foebane: 14 (2d4+5+4) (11-17)
CF: 13 (2d4+3+5)(10-16)
The Equalizer - heard it is pretty good for offhand because adds damage to main weapon
Anyhow: Crom Faeyr is worth it. I mostly come down on this side because I like shiny new weapons more than I like gloves and belts (what can I say? I'm a dude: I'm not too big on accessorizing). Also, it's a legendary Dwarven warhammer. How badass is that?
Some more points with numbers (in no particular or rhetorically significant order):
1) Yes, you have to give up two Str boosting items to get one Crom Faeyr. But so what? Games are about making meaningful choices; if you could have it every which way you wanted, it wouldn't be much of a game. Either way you fall on this decision is a legitimate choice: if you'd rather spread around the Str boosts with two items, that's fine. But if you give them up to get a bigger Str boost (whose bonuses roughly equate to giving both those items to one character *and* having them stack [which, btw, they don't normally]), I see no reason why this is in any way wasteful. Bear in mind: you only control, at any given time, six people. I just don't see how it's such a gigantic loss to burn two Str+ items to get one better Str+ item, especially when one of the Str+ items gives you a Strength 18/00, which you *can* have naturally anyway.
2) It's worth noting that, in the damage calculations above, most people are leaving off the +14 you get from the Str 25. (actually, I'll be honest: I didn't really read all three pages of replies before posting. I read the first page and skimmed the second before I decided I just HAD to jump in with my own opinions) Why? The +14 you get from Crom Faeyr's Strength boost might as well be inherent to the weapon. So if, for example, we set CF's damage range at 10-16 as in @Zur312 's post, we have to (if we're being honest) up that to 24-30. That's without considering that you might put the hammer on a Fighter with five slots in hammering things. Or on a Kensai with the same.
3) People like to point out that Crom Faeyr is redundant because it's a blunt weapon (which means it automatically must be wielded by a cleric), and its Str boost is wasted because Clerics have a spell that does that already.
I guess things that do things that someone can do already don't have a place in this world anymore. Sorry, Swashbuckler, the Fighter-Thief was here first!
This is another instance where providing a player with a *choice* is a smart game design move. Especially when so many games these days are all about funnelling players into increasingly more restrictive options for building a character. Yes, I'm looking at you, Diablo 3. You steaming mound of horse poo.
Sure, your party cleric can cast Holy Might to become a front-line rock god and make your Fighter feel a little redundant for a while. Or, if you're into going take it in a different direction, you can put Crom Faeyr on your cleric, have a constant 25 Str for so long as the hammer is in hand, and free up however many spell slots you were going to devote to DUHM (Duhm?... Dumb?... Oh my!) and instead have the ability to pop out some of the Cleric's more useful 2nd level spells (Hold Person, Charm, Chant, Aid, Silence, Slow Poison). In my view, either way is fine: in fact, since you get DUHM so much earlier in the game (being that it's a 2nd level spell), you could consider acquiring Crom Faeyr an upgrade of sorts: you no longer need to take up spell slots with this spell, since you can have the same effect constantly.
4) Related to point number 2, don't forget the attack bonus from Strength 25 is +7. Which means, in effect, that this is a +12 to-hit weapon. I know that, for endgame, being able to hit things is not that big of an issue, but it might be worth mentioning anyway.
5) With such a high-damage-potential weapon equipped on a good fighter, you would be totally justified making "It's Hammer Time!" your battle cry at the start of every combat. You can't really say that with any other weapon in the game -- or, perhaps, not quite as much (The Hammer of Thunderbolts doesn't quite get you all the way to "Hammer Time"; it has maybe half of the "Hammer Time" quotient as Crom Faeyr does).
6) This is less a point of rhetoric and more a confused inquiry. In the many years since BG2 was first published, I've found that the people who don't like Crom Faeyr appear to sometimes hold two incongruent points of view: on the one hand, Crom Faeyr is useless because it has specials which are too specific in application (e.g. hurting golems and giants) and its main benefit (Str 25) is easily replicated by Priest magic anyway (and, again, it's blunt, so it *must* go to a Cleric, you have no choice in this, ever); but then, on the other hand, Crom Faeyr is a bad weapon because it's too powerful with its instakill abilities and 25 Strength bump. Huh? So, which is it? Is it useless, or overpowered?
7) I think I'm sort of scraping the bottom of the barrel with my numbered points, but let me finish off by saying this: in general, I tend to favor consolidation of equipment over lots of little things put together to cumulative effect. Crom Faeyr combines three pieces of your equipment (Hammer, Belt, and Gloves) and gives you one really good weapon in return. I promise you, some use can be found in any given runthrough of BG for a Crom Faeyr. Especially if you're soloing: in a solo run, there really is no reason not to make Crom Faeyr, because you can't wear the belt and the gloves together anyway.
EDIT: Point 8) It just occured to me that you CAN have Crom Faeyr and still acquire both the Ogre Gauntlets and Giant Belt by exporting and starting a new game. Which is ridiculous, of course, but then again, so is this argument. I mean, crap, it's noon on a Sunday and I have spent almost the entire middle of my weekend up to now writing on the internet about a magic hammer that doesn't really exist. Now I'm sad.
EDIT 2: Point 9) HOLY CRAP. It just occured to me this time that not only can you have Crom Faeyr and still keep the component parts... you could also, if you were feeling it, get TWO CROM FAEYRS. Of course, doing this would destroy the space time continuum and send you back in time to become your own grandfather, but it would totally be worth it to dual-wield matching Crom Faeyrs. Unless you are of the opinion somehow that Crom Faeyr isn't worth destroying linear time to acquire it twice. In which case... I dunno, man. I don't think I can help you.
1) and 2) The reason the STR bonuses matter is because they do are highly non-linear. Going from 24 to 25 STR gives you a LOT LESS of a benefit than going from 18 to 19. Since the components of CF actually set STR to certain values, they can translate to substantial STR increases, depending on your party composition - then again, they can also be potentially worthless. It is definitely not as simple as saying that stacking or spreading comes out the same. Also, about the whole "meaningful choices" thing: this is very much true. But what we are trying to figure out here is WHAT choice to make, and WHAT makes that choice "meaningful". Otherwise it's just a (uninformed) choice.
3) Again, choices yes, but this is about the logic behind the choice, not about having choices or no-choices. The reason clerics matter is that they indirectly pigeon-hole non-clerics into using non-blunt weapons, simply because they themselves cannot. Equipment is limited after all. Also, DuHM is a spell that doesn't really compete with anything else that is particularly important (especially later on), while being very strong and easy to use/maintain.
7) It's not a question of finding any use for it, but the *best* use. Whether that is the hammer itself or its component, depends on your party setup, in particular class composition and STR values.
A better comparison is going 18/00 to 19, but in this case the bump from 24-25 actually does give you more: at 18/00 your bonuses are +3/+6, and for jumping to Str 19 you only get a +1 to the damage bonus (+3/+7). Meanwhile, at Str 24, you have +6/+12, then when you jump to Str 25 you get +7/+14 -- an increase of +1/+2.
On the other points: I think we can boil it down to "depends on your choices/party config," and just agree to disagree.
I usually give the Crom Faeyr to Viconia as her Str is reallllllly low yet she can equip really great armor so boosting her up to 25 makes her a wrecking ball and I don't have to cast any spells to do it. If I need to throw a cleric in as a backup tank, I don't usually want to take the time to cast a buff first to get them ready to party. I just want to order them into melee to pin down the extra guy that broke through my lines.
And by the way: "Agree to disagree" is a cop-out. If you go into a discussion with that mindset, why talk at all. Discussion is about presenting arguments and counter-arguments, not about sides entrenching in their opinion "respecting" each other's.
Eh~ If a topic has already been talked to death, and both sides have made good points, sometimes it is best to agree to disagree. Alternately if neither side is going to budge and they have or are about to alienate third parties who they are trying to convince its also a good idea to just agree to stop.
Most of BG2's fighters are 17 or less str (Valygar, Keldorn, and Haerdaelis all gain +2 hit +5 damage from the ogre gauntlets alone, while Massy and Jaheria gain +3 + 6, and because BS multiplies str, even thieves GREATLY magnify the results when adding more str)...the frost giant belt is even more). Minsc and Sarevok are the only ones who don't get a whole lot of benefit from the gauntlets (Anomen can buff 25 while wearing the 19+ belt or his cleric ring), and Korgan gains only 1 point less then going from 22-25 (none in S's case) while the frost belt is a mere +1 hit +3 for Sarevok, or a +2 hit +4 for Minsc or +2 +6 for Korgan).
And given the number of ranged weapons that allow a str bonus (2 slings, thrown axes/daggers, some low tier darts), even your back row people can add a lot of damage for buffing to 18/00+.
Crom concentrates a lot of damage into one character, but you could potentially get FAR more overall, depending on the number of party mates. If you have 4 or less, you can probably justify making it, due to a surplus of stronger str items (losing the bracers doesn't hurt), but if you go with a full party, you're better off not making it, and spreading the items around, since you'll end up with more overall damage that way.
make powergaming party
give them weapons
add damage per round
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/17960/powergaming-party-bg2-tobnpc-and-multiplayer#latest
profit!
crom can be good depending on your party size and options so actually there was agreement(?)
That's most of the issue right there, though THAC0 is in fact less relevant towards the end of the game (there's several effects that make it less relevant, such Critical Strike HLA or Timestop) than damage is. Using CF favors individual performance, while spreading the components favors overall output.
It's not about conversion. Neither extreme is desirable, and either precludes a consensus. Besides, these issues are, in fact, very much objectively answerable. It's a matter of math, not a matter of opinion; check STR values for your party, check equipment, calculate damage output for all scenarios (CF vs. components) - then pick the higher number. That's not the discussion, really. The discussion is about the process that gets you there, and the variables involved. Opinions don't really enter into this, because "It's Hammertime!" isn't really an argument.
And it is, in fact, a subjective thing and very much dependent upon opinion: as you yourself said, using Crom Faeyr favors individual performance, while spreading the components favors overall output. Well, which is "better"? That depends on what you want and how you play. Checking the Strength scores of your party members is an indirect byproduct of opinion, because the size and make-up of one's party is entirely dependent on opinion. This is, as you say, the "process that gets you there, and the variables involved" -- all of them opinions.
Opinions are entirely at the heart of providing anything resembling an answer to this question -- because you can't just go from point A ("Is Crom Faeyr worth it?") and then objectively arrive at a yes-or-no point B answer.
For the sake of the argument, it *has* to be assumed that the goal is objectively measurable efficiency; if that premise is not fulfilled, the entire discussion is pointless and falls apart (because "I like it like this" trumps any logical argument). As such, "It's Hammertime!" really isn't an argument per se, as it doesn't follow the premise; same goes for any RP argument, really. RP is fine and all, but when someone asks for advice, it is assumed that illogical arguments are discounted - after all, why bother asking other people if you only end up saying "but this is what *I* like".
"yes-or-no answers" as you put it, are very rarely a result of such discussion; answers contingent on variables (i.e. "if X and Y, then yes") on the other hand are very common. This doesn't only hold true for BG, or video games in general, by the way. Most issues are naturally complex enough to make easy A-or-B decisions a rare thing indeed.
I think the false assumption you are making, here, is that any opinion-based argument is either illogical or invalid. Which isn't so. If I would prefer to keep Ogre Gauntlets and a Giant Belt to strap on two of my party members, that's a valid opinion. The math will hold that keeping those two items will tender some benefit to my party overall, and to the two characters sporting them in particular, and a reasonable argument can be found in support of going in that direction. On the other hand, if I would rather have one character jacked up to Str 25, and this character happens to be a Cleric, and I would rather slot spells other than DUHM, again that's a valid choice.
Yes, there *are* so many variables in play when you ask this question, and nearly all of them are determined by opinion. "I like it like this" is the foundation of each and every variable that comes into considering an answer to this question: if you are playing a custom party of all Fighters, becuase you like it like this, that may factor into how one answers this question; or, if the only Fighter in your party is your Charname; or if you like having Viconia in your party and have a specific non-combat reason to give her some sort of Strength-boosting item (because you want the increased carrying capacity for deep dungeon looting).
It's *all* about opinion, and because you have as many different opinions as there are players of the game, I don't see how it can be considered anything but subjective. After all, why bother asking other people if there's only one acceptable answer that anyone with a calculator can arrive at?
The reason you discount personal preference is BECAUSE it is so subjective. Opinions are a good thing, and everyone is entitled to them. However, in the context of many discussion (this thread included), people seek to modify their opinions according to other factors. Your example is quite well-suited to illustrate this: of course you are perfectly fine equipping your items any way you like, and for whatever reasons you like - as long as you understand the respective ramifications.
Now, the reason people make threads in forums and ask questions such as "what is the best X" or "is Y worth it" is purely because they do NOT understand the ramifications fully. The answers, consequently, are not intended to convince or "convert" people to a choice - they are intended to illustrate and explain the objective factors behind the issue. Not to dictate an opinion, but to HELP FORM ONE. To that end, answering with an own, subjective opinion is not very helpful. If someone asks you "is a BWW good car to buy?", responding with "I like BMWs, they have cool designs" may be an opinion that is perfectly valid (subjectively), but it won't help the OP much in forming an opinion of their own. Listing objective values, on the other hand (such as technical specs, security statistics, value analyses, etc.) will help. That does not serve as a die-hard attempt to convince someone to buy a BMW - it merely adds information on which an opinion can then be formed.
After you explain things to people, they are always free to make their choice. That can be the "wrong" choice (objectively speaking), it doesn't really matter. What matters is that you presented the choice objectively and without bias. That's the core behind the issue, and the whole reason we talk so much - not just in this thread, but in life in general as well.
Personally I don't rest that often, so it's a rare battle that I actually get to fully buff up for. Plus for the harder fights the enemies tend to cast remove magic anyway (I have SCS installed) so even when I do buff up I can't rely on the buffs staying there. (the enemies are generally higher level than me so their remove magic is very effective).
So I value actual permanent effects which can't be dispelled.
For me Crom Faeyr is a trade off between the +22 strength belt and the +25 strength hammer. So if I have someone in my party who can be made to use a hammer then I usually make it. If not then I stick with the strength belt.
Also I don't put much value in the gloves of ogre power. The 2 giant belts (or belt + crom) cover 2 melee characters, and if I have a 3rd melee character then typically one of them will have sufficient strength to get away with their natural strength e.g. in a party of Minsc, Keldorn and Jaheira then I can give Keldorn & Jaheira the strength boosts with Minsc relying on his natural strength. I'd rather give Minsc the specialisation gauntlets.
Of course, if you prefer a different play style, adjust your decisions accordingly. As pointed out before, all these assertion assume "optimal" conditions in the sense of mathematical maximization. This is quite theoretical and often not applicable to the individual game; always consider your subjective variables in these decisions!
To your analogy about the car: OP comes in, looks around, and calls out to any who would answer: "Is a BMW worth buying?"
No one in the thread answers directly that "I like BMWs, therefore yes," or "I hate BMWs, therefore no." But clearly, everyone who offers up a response has a preferential bias that informs their opinion. If you like cars that are fast, perhaps Car X would be better because it is faster than a BMW. If you don't like fast cars, then Car X is not the car for you, and perhaps then you might consider a BMW. Or, if you like gas mileage, the BMW has better gas mileage than Car Z, so definitely get a BMW. OP responds: "Well, I actually don't drive much, so gas mileage is not a big factor for me." Oh, well, in that case, perhaps Car Z might be more worthwhile because it comes in a color you like, while BMW does not.
In fact, looking at the BMW analogy more closely, it seems to entirely justify my position much more than yours. Your position would seem to rely upon there being one singular mathematical estimation by which a single type of car could be said to be definitively and objectively the Best Car. This is, of course, not the case: we judge cars by a range of variables. Which variable is most important to you is a matter of opinion.
If I decide to buy a BMW because it comes in taupe, or because it is faster, or because it tends to have a lower maintenance cost, or because it tends to get better gas mileage, or because it has heated seat cushions and a revolutionary new NeverSpill™ cupholder, that may be entirely against your recommendation, because you've based your assessment on some other variable that just isn't as important to me as it is to you.
Also, my license plate would be: HAMMRTM. And maybe they'd make a little graphic of a hammer on it somewhere, like on those new vanity plates where people get little stars or hearts or hands, or things like that. I think that'd be cool if they did that.
I sort of think that the way you have phrased the above is demonstrative of my main point. Assuming "optimal" conditions is a choice that you are making that necessarily skews your ultimate assessment. A truly objective assessment would take into account all of the weals and woes of a given course of action. But the choice you've made here is that the problems with relying upon buffs are negligible; their impermanence and ability to be negated by enemy casters is something that you judged to be not significant enough to sway your opinion.
Which is fine and completely valid! It fits your playstyle, and would make it unnecessary to forge Crom Faeyr. But others might arrive at a different conclusion: some people might prefer to have their casters with different spell selections, or prefer to fight battles with a minimum of reliance upon buffs. Which, again, I feel is valid, and it inherently presents a much stronger argument for using Crom Faeyr in your active party's loadout. Then again, perhaps not: perhaps even the buff-less player would rather have the two Str boosting items rather than just the one. That's valid, as well, and it probably even has a logical, well-reasoned methodology to back it up.
The reason I chose my example the way I did was because this is exactly how this thread evolved; instead of saying "Well, there's X, Y, and Z to consider, so make your choice based around that", people said "Viconia rocks with it!", "I give it to CHARNAME and it's awesome!", and "Hammertime!" - which, while perfectly valid opinions, does very little to help make the OP an informed decision, and thus arrive at his own opinion. Objective factors are presented and used to make a recommendation - logically, this is the correct course to follow. Logically, people shouldn't smoke - but obviously, they still do. But that doesn't mean they don't have to be aware of the underlying objective factors, which though recommended, still allow for a personal decision in either way. Again, for the argument you have to take into account a certain degree of abstraction. Of course you can't assume "optimal" conditions - you assume "average" conditions. Optimal would be "I never get dispelled" - average is "I know who tries to dispel me, and play accordingly". The assumption is made, much in the above argument, that players play "well", i.e. in a way that maximizes benefits and minimizes detriment. Of course, if you play poorly, then you'll have more trouble. If you play very well, you will have less. But that's another variable that unnecessarily complicates the discussion, as you can't really make statements that hold true and still account for the entire range of player skill that's out there.
Extenuating circumstances are always implied. Things are rarely presented as absolutes, in any discussion. You can regularly find specific scenarios that invalidate entire arguments because of their narrow application - that doesn't make the original argument meaningless, though, because it still applies to a wide range. And as I said before, if you argue in a way that takes into account every variable, you quickly arrive at a jumble that is incomprehensible. But, you also don't want to brush things away with blanket statements like "whatever floats your boat", because these have very little information value. And in the end, every discussion has to be approached with critical discretion when it is to be translated into actual application - that's how these things work. But the arguments presented are there to help make that personal assessment; not to DICTATE it, but to GUIDE it at best.
Secondly, while there were a few posters who offered opinions that had not a lot of reasoning behind them, there were many of them who offered that Viconia rocks with it because her natural Strength score sucks, or that they give it to CHARNAME because the benefits on the weapon help out their main character tremendously (again, variables, especially re: CHARNAME, vary quite a bit).
And even that person who first invoked the phrase "It's Hammertime!" had quite a lot of well-reasoned argument swirling all around the declaration that it is, in fact, the Time of Hammers. So, like, double word score on that one, right? Well, I feel the need to point out that you, in fact, were the one who said you were assuming "optimal" conditions. Which, I think, is a perfectly fine position to take, if it backs up one's preference for using the DUHM buff instead of forging Crom Faeyr (as, in some arguments, this has been set up as a dichotomous choice). It strikes me that those who assume "average" conditions (that is, acnkowledging that buffs can expire, or get dispelled, and would thereafter need to be re-cast) might just as readily opt to forge Crom Faeyr so as not to even have to bother with re-casting buffs -- which is just as fine an option as sticking with a strategy revolving around DUHM. Acknowledging that one's recommendation might prove flawed seems to once again play toward the position I'm advocating: that there are multiple solutions to this problem, that no single solution is any better than any of the others absent a comparison of specific variables -- of which there are many, so many that it almost makes the "wide range" of any given recommendation seem comparatively narrow.
Given that this discussion, in particular, has a multitude of variables with which we both seem to be reasonably familiar, it really does not at all seem like an untennable position to hold to when we close with something like "your mileage may vary," or "IMHO," or "agree to disagree." To me, the choice does not seem to boil down to either dismissal or Lovecraftian madness in the face of infinity. I actually think there is a vast range of middle ground between these two propositions.
In the end, the answer really is "whatever floats your boat," because the variables that you use in making an objective estimation of the worth of forging Crom Faeyr is determined by a player's choices, which are in turn determined by player preferences that may, at times, be entirely subjective.
It is not so much brushing anything away to say "whatever floats your boat," or "agree to disagree"; rather, it's to admit to the questioner that any answer he receives in the course of this discussion is informed mostly by a player's preferences. Many people who answered the OP gave their preferences, and many gave reasonable justification for the same. Some, depending on how you judge them (if you were so inclined to judge), may not have offered such reasoning. I think it's fair to say that nobody who posted here can claim that they provided an objectively correct answer to the very, very broad question: "Is it worth it to forge Crom Faeyr?" Any answer given must be offered with an asterisk and footnotes. Because it is based, ultimately, in opinion -- even if that opinion is backed up by fact. Yes. GUIDE; a reader reading our discussions would be GUIDED to whatever it is that would float his boat. And, if someone thought that that boat would be floated best by something else... they might just have to agree to disagree. But all would readily be able to agree that, according to my watch, at least, it is HAMMERTIME.