The Adventurers' Guild

Does it matter how much armor you have past LO? If I am LO without a shield, does it benefit me to keep the shield?

Hamburglar Time wrote:Does it matter how much armor you have past LO? If I am LO without a shield, does it benefit me to keep the shield?

I do believe that the game tracks armor class values below what's displayed, at least to a certain point.

Hamburglar Time wrote:Does it matter how much armor you have past LO? If I am LO without a shield, does it benefit me to keep the shield?

In the DOS version it does not. Any armor class lower than L0 is rounded to L0. I doubt the 8 bit versions are different.

The DOS versions have many inconsistencies with the 8 bit versions, so I'd contend that it's possible that this varies depending on which OS you're using.

Darendor wrote:The DOS versions have many inconsistencies with the 8 bit versions, so I'd contend that it's possible that this varies depending on which OS you're using.

It is possible but based on my experience with disassembling them the logic used is generally consistent between the 8 bit and 16 bit versions. So for something like this I would be ~95% confident that they would be the same.

Do you have examples of inconsistencies between the two? BT I and II only. The 16 bit Thief is a POS. Genuinely curious. I never played the 8 bit versions.

I don't have solid evidence, no. I suspect ZeroZero may have an inkling as he's the one who examined the C64 code in fairly deep detail...

I should have mentioned I am using the IIgs version from GOG emulated to MESSUI.

I know when I tried transferring my characters from BT1 to BT2, some were LO8 and some just LO. Not sure what that means. I'd hate to have a lot of equipment spots taken if it doesn't get better than LO.

Hamburglar Time wrote:I should have mentioned I am using the IIgs version from GOG emulated to MESSUI.

I know when I tried transferring my characters from BT1 to BT2, some were LO8 and some just LO. Not sure what that means. I'd hate to have a lot of equipment spots taken if it doesn't get better than LO.

Ah. BT2 goes up to L+ which winds up being -21. When you import your BT1 characters into BT2 the AC is recalculated.

One point to note here - whether or not AC gets calculated past L0, it's worth having the best protective equipment you can because if you get withered, your Dex drops to 1, and having the extra AC capacity from equipment might be the difference between staying alive or getting killed. (And also, remember the weird to-hit mechanics in BT are based on your AC vs your opponent's.)

I often wondered about this and am almost convinced that yes, it does make a difference. This I noticed by doing a MYSH on a -8 to get to LO and the other two were at LO already but the -8 guy was getting hit a lot more.

Ras

This is an interesting and actually useful question. If lowering your armor class beyond LO helps, you should use more inventory slots for AC lowering equipment. If it doesn't actually help, you shouldn't waste inventory carrying around useless stuff. So I found a pretty easy way to check.

Some monsters can hit you even with LO armor class. For example, Ghouls (barely). So I ran down to the ghoul square in level 3 of the cats and experimented. Yes, I got hit a few times, but not many. So then I defended for a few rounds, playing Traveler's Tune and casting Mithril Might. I still got hit. I sang the song some more until my Bard's voice ran out. Even after playing Traveler's Tune 37 times and casting Mithril Might ten times, I was still getting hit. Even my level 38 Monk got hit.

I would have thought that if the game tracks beyond LO, there would be a point (theoretically within the first couple of AC lowering spells) where the Ghouls could no longer hit. Especially the Monk. There is no way he should get hit if AC tracking beyond LO is working.

I considered this pretty good evidence that in the MS-DOS version it doesn't do you any good to carry extra AC lowering gear or waste spells or songs once you get to LO.