[ister]

Well the thing I didn't realize is that strength affects sling damage and not dart damage. (I think BG is different on that front). This clearly makes slings a better choice for anyone with exceptional strngth (and if you're powergaming it's hard to see why you wouldn't have exceptional strength). I did say that darts present very serious logistical problems, and I'm glad to see you've observed that I wasn't joking!

>There is only one viable powergamer build that can not use Bow,
>can use Darts and also can not get to 3 PP in Missile: MC F/D.
>This build CAN get to 2 PP in missile weapons. I should have
>researched this, to make the analysis complete; but this analysis
>is already quite long, and I have temporarily run out of interest.
>My expectation (not verified) is that the F/D would
>theoretically do better at Darts as beginner; but would find
>Slings to be a better choice in the mid to late game (CLVL 7+)
>as enchanted slings became available, enchanted ammo becomes
>more plentiful, and opponent AC gets much lower.

I think the real issue with why the advantage goes to slings at higher levels is simple APR. A low level fighter gets 1.5 attacks with a sling, 3.5 with a dart. That ratio of 2 1/3 means the dart can easily overcome the greater damage from the sling - even with decent strength. Add 1/2 an APR and that ratio goes from 2 1/3 to 2, and I think that's where the darts won't stand a chance.

I'd still argue that darts are better for an SC druid or mage. Such a character can't have exceptional strength and can't stack proficiency points. Therefore 3 attacks per round at 1-3 damage will cream 1 attack at 2-5. Pure powergamers are unlikely to choose to play such characters, but if they are going to DC them later on darts are definitely a better choice.

I'd also suggest that early on any pre-DC druid or cleric should consider darts and only switch to slings as magical slings and ammo become available. (Definitely before level 7 as your results show).

>Woo Hoo! the Dartists won half the battles! ... But it appears
>that this is just a fluke of how the damage was distributed:
>the Slingers still dished out 15% more damage than the Dartists,
>exactly as it was with the helmets on; and the matches which
>the Slingers did win, they won with an average of 12.4 more HP
>than the Dartists had when they won.

I don't think this is a fluke. It is inevitable that the slingers will "waste" more damage, as they do it in 12 point chunks rather than the 5 point chunks of the darts. Basically dart damage is steady and predictable, sling damage is more erratic. Everythign else being equal, in battles that you expect to lose you'd rather have luck play a bigger factor (i.e., choose the sling) in battles that you expect to win you'd prefer luck to matter less (chhose the darts).

Overall it's an impressive test. I'm surprised the darts did so well now that I know that slings DO add strength damage. I'm a bit surprised you bothered with the level 13 test after seeing the results of the level 7 test - if slings are even close to parity at level 7 common sense and APR tell you they will be dominant at level 13. A level 1 test would be more interesting to me - should powergamers use darts and switch to slings later (as I suggest)? It would also be interesting to test what's better for the roleplayer who has a character that only stacks one point in missile weapons.

Anyway, as I've said before I agree that darts are pretty awful weapons. My point was always that slings are pretty dreadful too. And throwing daggers are significantly worse than both.

But I'll concede the point. In IWD slings are defintiely better than darts. I think I've let my BG experience colour my observations in IWD.

[ 06-09-2005, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: ister ]