Weapon Classes

[Dalmeth]

You know, the current division of weapons seems kind of strange to me.  We have bludgeoning, piercing, slashing, and chopping.  It occurs to me that the criteria the weapons are classified under have nothing to do with how the weapon is used.  It also bugs me, so I'm going to suggest a new scheme by which to classify weapons.

Balanced : Mostly swords, maybe light clubs, more like sticks really.

Unbalanced : Weapons with a heavy head, like axes, maces. and flails.

Knife : Any weapon primarily used up close.

Long : Spears, halberds, and the longest of the swords.

Any thoughts?

[Cuusardo]

What's wrong with classifying weapons according to how you make use of the blade?

[Rindan]

I think the current weapons classes are fairly good and make perfect sense.  The only place where they get screwy is around spears and daggers.  In my opinion, those are two very different weapons.  Learning how to fight with a six foot long spear really is not going to prepare me to fight with a six inch long dagger.

That said, while a change would be nice, it wouldn't be nice enough to justify the coding pain and the redoing of all weapons that goes along with it.  I would rather see an improved weather system, brewing of alcohol, law code, brewing of alcohol, more subtle dangers in the desert, brewing of alcohol, exc.

[sarahjc]

I think the current system makes sense.

They are classified with how you would use them and the motion in which you would use them. The only one that really needs changing is piercing because of spears and daggers. You would use two very different styles to fight with those two kinds of weapons.

Heh, Rindan read my mind. Mind BENDER!!

[Dalmeth]

My contention is that the current system does not reflect how the weapons are used.  Using a spear should be similar in many respects to wielding a halberd.  Knives, claws, and other close-in weapons cannot be used the same as swords, axes, and spears.

The only difference between an axe and a mace is the head.  The weight characteristics are quite similar, and the grips, stances, and the way you would swing them are also probably quite similar.  The same goes for picks, as they are simply an axe with a more focused.  In fact, most people consider picks a form of the axe.

Still, maces are considered bludgeoning, axes chopping, and picks are piercing.  To me, it doesn't make sense that the use of these weapons is considered so different.

[Dakurus]

They do seem to be more damage types, then styles and ways of using a weapon. However I image a revamp wouldn't be easy, and besides possibly offending some sensibilities, I'm not sure how neccessary it is.

[Dalmeth]

They do seem to be more damage types, then styles and ways of using a weapon. However I image a revamp wouldn't be easy, and besides possibly offending some sensibilities, I'm not sure how neccessary it is.

Yeah, it would be work, and I'm just putting out ideas.  However, it would change the current way things work, where almost everybody dual wields.  With most people using a larger weapon combined a knife, with this would be disrupted as they would have to learn to use the knife as well, encouraging some to go two-handed or with a shield.

Personally, I like the idea of that.  I hate seeing people dual-wielding two relatively heavy weapons and getting an extra attack and a parry bonus for it.

[Ritley]

They do seem to be more damage types, then styles and ways of using a weapon. However I image a revamp wouldn't be easy, and besides possibly offending some sensibilities, I'm not sure how neccessary it is.

Yeah, it would be work, and I'm just putting out ideas.  However, it would change the current way things work, where almost everybody dual wields.  With most people using a larger weapon combined a knife, with this would be disrupted as they would have to learn to use the knife as well, encouraging some to go two-handed or with a shield.

Personally, I like the idea of that.  I hate seeing people dual-wielding two relatively heavy weapons and getting an extra attack and a parry bonus for it.

Two handed get's two or three bonuses as well. So does sword and shield style. I almost always use two handed.

[Cuusardo]

How the hell do you know whether they're getting any kind of bonuses for it or not?

[Dalmeth]

I know from the help files.  Besides, I'm referring to things like using two obsidian axes.  That sort of thing.

[Anael]

If there's a weapon that's obviously too heavy to be es'ed, but your feeble elf can es it... that's when you use the bug command.

[Agent_137]

help files say:

Dual Wield = more parry, but less defense compared to shield, two attacks.
Shield = best defense. only one attack.
two handed = attack faster, parry better than shield. big weapon.
one handed = stupid.

[Maybe42or54]

Isn't chopping and slashing damn near the same thing anyway ICly?
Closer together than what spears and daggers do, I think.

[Maybe42or54]

They do seem to be more damage types, then styles and ways of using a weapon. However I image a revamp wouldn't be easy, and besides possibly offending some sensibilities, I'm not sure how neccessary it is.

Yeah, it would be work, and I'm just putting out ideas.  However, it would change the current way things work, where almost everybody dual wields.  With most people using a larger weapon combined a knife, with this would be disrupted as they would have to learn to use the knife as well, encouraging some to go two-handed or with a shield.

Personally, I like the idea of that.  I hate seeing people dual-wielding two relatively heavy weapons and getting an extra attack and a parry bonus for it.

Tell those Tulukians to be northern for a change and not be like a little allanaki bitch with two weapons.

[Xygax]

Be really careful here with talking about what weapons you think codedly work better than others, please.  This thread is making my spidey sense tingle.

-- X

[Cale_Knight]

Isn't chopping and slashing damn near the same thing anyway ICly?

Not really. Slashing is what Zorro does when he cuts a "Z" onto your chest. Chopping is what Astaroth does in Soul Calibur.

[Dalmeth]

Isn't chopping and slashing damn near the same thing anyway ICly?
Closer together than what spears and daggers do, I think.

A slash is where you draw an edge across a surface.  A chop is where you ram that edge into the surface.

[Nao]

Isn't chopping and slashing damn near the same thing anyway ICly?
Closer together than what spears and daggers do, I think.

A slash is where you draw an edge across a surface.  A chop is where you ram that edge into the surface.

Then swords should be chopping, too, at least sometimes. but since fighting with an axe and fighting with a sword are two very different things, I think we're fine here. It would be weird if both were one stat.

[Anael]

Funny how commonly people think dual wield is a no no for Tuluki. So with this 'strict' approach, do you tell people from Allanak to stop using dual wield with two weapons of the same size? Because that's what the help file says: Few northern styles use two weapons, but when they do, they usually prefer two weapons of same size (think florentine, yay), unlike southrons, who use large+small weapon.
With that said, I agree that it'd be nice if people used shields more often.

[Maybe42or54]

Zorro didn't use a massive two handed greatsword.
That there is chopping, to me.

[Dalmeth]

Zorro didn't use a massive two handed greatsword.
That there is chopping, to me.

The weight characteristics are different.  With that greatsword, the middle point so far as weight balance is concerned is go to be either near the middle of the weapon or more towards the hilt, like most swords.  Axes are probably  almost always going to be balanced toward the head.

Not only that, but most axes used for war have curved blades, far more so than any curved sword.  This concentrates the force of a blow into a considerable smaller area, which is what gives axes their penetrating power.  A greatsword is still going to contact with a larger surface area, making it decidedly different from an axe.

[SewerRat_inTheOpen]

You know, the current division of weapons seems kind of strange to me.  We have bludgeoning, piercing, slashing, and chopping.  It occurs to me that the criteria the weapons are classified under have nothing to do with how the weapon is used.  It also bugs me, so I'm going to suggest a new scheme by which to classify weapons.

Balanced : Mostly swords, maybe light clubs, more like sticks really.

Unbalanced : Weapons with a heavy head, like axes, maces. and flails.

Knife : Any weapon primarily used up close.

Long : Spears, halberds, and the longest of the swords.

Any thoughts?

Actually this weapon classification system is somewhat flawed too. Basically, all weapons types are very different, and to be able to use them, you need to train with them.

Using a normal long sword for 30 years may make me a master with it, but I will not be as good with a curved one or a rapier or a two-handed.

Axes and maces are counted as similar because of their smashing capability, yet axes can be used to hook in and then finish off, while a mace can be used for smashing vitals like shields, helmeted heads, protected kneecaps and shoulder blades. Flails are altogether another weapon,  though it has a heavy head and can smash vitals, the art of it is different.

Knives when used as main weapons, tend to slice and dice till either one is weakened by loss of blood or carelessness, as secondary weapons, they tend to work for finishing or desperate moves when the main weapons are lost or tangled and the opponent is up close.

Spears, there are many kinds of spears. Throwing [which is under category of throwing], stabby spears [held like throwing, can be used with shield] and long spears [normally with two hands and good for impaling], and possibly other kinds. Halberds, normally with hooked axes and a spike at its tip. It can be used for hooking mounted combatants, just plain terror cleaving mounted armoured through the air and spike head for proding. Somewhat different from a spear. Not too sure if the longsword fits here.

Just trying to point out each weapon has its own style, and though they may move into another style, it seems that this classification is just like the present one, which does seem weird at some parts and needs some changing.

I don't have suggestions for making the classification IG better. If you have been using a knife all your life, even though you will be a expert at spears codedly, try to roleplay otherwise if using one. I don't know what to do if you kicked ass with it though, maybe roleplay you are a natural or just being lucky...

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

First of all, I'm pretty sure that adding the classifications into game would be no more complicated than adding the skill and the ability to label weapons as using that skill. A complete revamp isn't nessessary at that point. As the weapons that should use new skill are brought to light, a simple properties change fixes that. Besides adding the skill in, you'll also need to add a new bank of messages for them, and likely some good staff docs on them. But the actual addition shouldn't be too much of a problem.

[Agent_137]

I played a MUD for 8 years where there were quite a few weapon skills. Of course, their entire combat system was very intricate and very enjoyable:
http://www.play.net/dr/info/combat.asp


Anyway, their weapon skills follow:
Parry Ability
Multiple Engaged Opponents
Light edged
Medium edged
Heavy hedged
Two-Handed Edged
Light blunt
Medium blunt
Heavy blunt
Two-Handed Blunt
Sling, Staff Sling
Short Bows
Long bows
Composite Bows
Light Crossbows
Heavy Crossbows
Short Staff, Quarter Staff
Pikes, Halberds
Light Thrown (daggers)
Heavy Thrown (spears)
Brawling


They also had armor skills. So yea, armageddon is a little simplisitc. I don't think that's a bad thing unless people start abusing it or being grossly unrealistic.

p.s.
Dragonrealms sucks a rinthi's balls. It's a hack and slasher that you have to pay for. lawl.

[Morrolan]

help files say:

Dual Wield = more parry, but less defense compared to shield, two attacks.
Shield = best defense. only one attack.
two handed = attack faster, parry better than shield. big weapon.
one handed = stupid.

I would like to see a coded advantage (a small one) for fighting with one weapon.  Possibly a bonus to defense or parry, because the character can turn just one side to the opponent, especially with a piercing weapon like a knife or a stabbing sword.

Thoughts, anyone?

Morrolan

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I think speed would definately raise, because you're handling half the weight with less adjustment for thinking about two weapons.