Bludgeoning weapons

[Tisiphone]

This bothers me. In my estimation, they shouldn't give an automatic stun loss anytime you get hit with one, no matter where. I understand that the amount of stun scales depending on the part of the body, but really, if you get hit on the foot, it shouldn't stun (in the sense of jarring you) any more than getting sliced. Plus, this property makes them codedly superior to other sorts of weapons, unless you want to execute a backstab.

[Lizzie]

Having experienced heavy blunt objects dropping on my foot, and almost slicing my finger clear to the bone, I'm going to have to disagree.

Getting a sharp blade against skin, if it's sharp enough (like obsidian for example) doesn't hurt at all at first. In fact you might not even notice that you were cut for for many moments, until you realize there's blood pooling up on the kitchen counter and the blood doesn't belong to the raw steak you're cutting up.

But when that knife falls out of your hand, and the handle slams down on your big toe, you feel it *immediately* and it takes several minutes for the wave of pain to subside before you can think clearly again.

Blunt = immediate pain and potential for momentary loss of reason/sanity/clear thought.

Sharp = immediate damage, but most often no loss of mental faculties until the pain sets in, which is usually delayed.

L. Stanson

[mansa]

Every weapon has benefits and drawbacks.  I'm sure the code is very similiar to other pen and paper games.

[Pale Horse]

I agree that blunted weapons have something of an advantage that the others just don't have, that of dealing both "hard" damage and stun damage with each hit, and there's a small, twinkish part of my soul that is drawn to that.  But..that's one of the very reasons for wielding a "basher" in the first place, be it in game or real life.

And as was said, each weapon type has it's advantages.  Bladed weapons, in my experience, do more damage to hp.  Blunted weapons deal stun damage as well.  Ranged weapons...you get the picture.

If you really want to get into a debate on which weapon-type is superior, I'd place my bet on piercing-damage weapons.  From what I've found, they penetrate armor better, thus dealing more damage; they take a little stun away as well(not as much as blunted); many of them can double as ranged weapons, provided you've got skill_throw(and even if you don't) and they can be retrieved where as arrows have a high chance of disappearing...

Anyway, my two 'sids.

[Rindan]

Even if blunted weapons are more effective putting someone out of a fight quicker (and to be honest, I really question if this is true), they have one serious disadvantage.  Stun regenerates really fast.  Slice someone up and they are going to be hurting for a while.  Stun someone, and they just need a few seconds to get their stun back.

Personally, I have seen pretty decent balance with weapons.  Blunted weapons do do superior stun damage, but on average seem to do less damage.  Slicing weapons do great damage, some stun, but seem a little easier to defend against with armor.  Piercing seems to do good damage and get around armor easier, but seems to do less stun damage then most weapons.  I really don't have much experience with chopping weapons because the selection of chopping weapons frankly suck.  That said, they do have the advantage of being useful these days as many tools double as chopping weapons.

Even then, these are all just generalizations and probably do not hold true for all weapons.  The truth is that skill has far more to do with how much pain you put out then anything.  I recall a certain old Kuraci mul that could beat to death most people with his bare hands, and who could murder my 30 day old bad ass warrior in seconds with a training club.

[Hymwen]

A heavy bludgeoning weapon and a high strength means insane stun damage if you hit someone in one of the good spots (there are several). I've seen dwarves knock people out in one hit to the head with a club, which I've never heard of happening with a sword or spear, and if someone wants to kill you, being unconcious before them will result in certain death.

Yeah, there are advantages and disadvantages to each weapon type. Bludgeon's advantage seems to be that the damage it deals to health, it deals times two to stun. It's not so bad in the hands of a character who has moderate strength, but give a good hammer to even a human with exceptional strength and you do have the possibility of a knock-out from just a two or three blows. And that can be done by a warrior fresh from the Hall of Kings. It's realistic, but I always hated it.

[Dresan]

As it has been said weapons have strengths and weaknesses.

Rindan pointed out a few. Keep in mind weapons have both defensive and offensive capabilities. Piercing does slightly less damage then slashing but against a heavily armoured foe it would do more on average. Axes are insanely offensive weapons....whenever i've seen an axe fighter i gone 'oh shit' honestly, they get through armour better then slashing and do as much if not slightly more damage. For the most part they all mostly do very little stun damage compared to blunt however blunt in return does slightly less damge then any of them.

Defensively i would say its rated:

slashing
piercing
blunt
axes


On top of everything else there is another big weakness to blunt weapons (axes too i believe)... something you can have with the other weapons you can't do with these.

In short a verteran player who knows what they need accomplished and what to expect in the fights they will engage in, will benifit from some weapons and styles more then others since they all have have merits and demerits depending on the situation..

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

Basically, I trust the staff. Arm's been running for over a decade now, and if clubs were unbalanced, I'm sure they would've done something to fix it by now.
Really, if you think that clubs are overpowered, then why not use them? Might as well, right? But, seeing as I don't see everyone running around with clubs, I think it's safe to say not everyone agrees with your analysis.
Or you could not worry about it, and choose the weapon your character would choose. You know, roleplay. Wild idea, I know.
Besides, some characters are just "club" folk, while others are "dagger" folk, while others are "scimitar, but not straight-blade" folk, and yet others are "point at them and summon the fires of Suk-Krath to sear the flesh from their bones" folk. One of my favorite things about creating a new character is figuring out how they're going to defend themselves...
But I ramble. Point is, I respectfully disagree. Bludgeons are fine, in my opinion.

[Dresan]

The person above me speaks the truth. Trust me, in the end your going to die anyways, no matter how good your weapons, armour or style is so your character might as well look cool while its alive.

[Anael]

I've seen dwarves knock people out in one hit to the head with a club, which I've never heard of happening with a sword or spear, and if someone wants to kill you, being unconcious before them will result in certain death.

Seen a one-shot stunner (even a one-shot killer) multiple times with a spear or sword, from a not-too-strong (but skilled) human.

Each weapon has its strong points. I believe the whole problem is that the bludgeoning weapons' special quirk is just much more obvious and visible than those others - that doesn't mean it's more effective, though.

[bloodfromstone]

I'd like to see blunts changed, myself. It is way too easy for a 0 day warrior with a pair of blunts to get the jump on someone and ko them/kill them due to the disadvantages of being unarmed. It's great that all of the weapons have balances and downfalls and all that, but I think the stun damage on blunts is too much.
I'm hoping that a lot of the weapon code, subdue code, all of the code balance gets gutted and reworked for Arm 2. Not that all of it is broken, but it'd be nice for it to all be a little different, so everyone is starting on a clean slate.

[Fiona Deathspike]

What I would like to see is people not min/maxing their weapons choice but following the in-game documentation about which weapons they are most likely to use.

Tuluk and Allanak have very different weapons styles, but no one seems to respect that and would rather power-game their choices.

Let me just add that I've been guilty of doing the same.

[Marauder Moe]

I don't think it's a matter of min/maxing, I think people just choose a personal preference over any documented cultural ones.  The only time I ever heard about people trying to min-max was a story of one particular long-lived badass warrior who fought with a particular style and characters started to emulate him, possibly thinking his style was the best because he was the best.

[Gimfalisette]

Tuluk and Allanak have very different weapons styles, but no one seems to respect that and would rather power-game their choices.

While I don't disagree that there seems to usually be very little actual difference between Tuluki and 'Nakki styles being played out in game, I'd also comment that I think it's partly because there are no PCs embodying the documentation in game. What I mean by that is, that, you can't decide as a young lass in Tuluk, "I want to learn how to fight, I'll find a Tuluki master to help me do that"...unless you go VNPC, in which case you really kinda have to already know what you're doing in terms of outfitting yourself with armor/weapons and learning the style. This may be true of Allanak too, I don't really know, although it seems like the Byn is really the major influence there combat-wise, and the Byn doesn't impart any kind of stylistic/cultural knowledge. (Which makes sense, since hey, it's the Byn.)

Personally, having re-read the documentation now, I think I'm going to try adapting myself further to the proper cultural milieu and living it out in game as much as possible.

[ale six]

While I don't disagree that there seems to usually be very little actual difference between Tuluki and 'Nakki styles being played out in game, I'd also comment that I think it's partly because there are no PCs embodying the documentation in game. [...] This may be true of Allanak too, I don't really know, although it seems like the Byn is really the major influence there combat-wise, and the Byn doesn't impart any kind of stylistic/cultural knowledge. (Which makes sense, since hey, it's the Byn.)

The Allanaki militia and noble houses are bigger influences on 'nakki fighters than the Byn is; the Byn don't really influence much of anything culturally anywhere except maybe in the Gaj. Allanak also has arena events for people to watch the good fighters work in, Tuluk doesn't have anything publicly comparable.

There are probably buff fighters in both cities, but I imagine not all of them want to get into the teaching business, and some that want to probably can't (Chosen Lady X and Lord Templar Y probably want their buff guards and soldiers doing other things besides teaching somebody else's newbies.)

Plus... it feels like the fighting system documentation is way too simplified. "Allanakis use light armor and two weapons, Tulukis use heavy armor and a shield" doesn't give people many options to find their own style. I wish we had a little more depth than that.

[Hymwen]

There's also the problem with documented fighting styles not being equally good, thus inevitably affecting people's choices.

[Malken]

Didn't even know it existed until Gimfalisette pointed it out..

The problem with fighting using a shield, tho, is that a fight can take up to 10 minutes RL easily..

And unless you are fighting something really powerful, if you are anything but a warrior, you'll still go down fast, and if you are a warrior, you generally can do more than well with just parry.

[Fiona Deathspike]

There's also the problem with documented fighting styles not being equally good, thus inevitably affecting people's choices.

There is also the odd contrast between Tuluk's more "artistic" style and usage of heavy armors and Allanak's "straight forward" style and use of two weapons.

This is probably a design oversight when trying to marry Tuluk's resources for heavy armor with their (for some reason) unnatural ability with the arts.

I have, personally, always thought that this made Allanaki seem retarded, but that's mostly another topic (Notably: Southern artistic tradition which I once read should be dark, scary and disturbing).

If Tuluk is going to rely on heavy armor and shields, they are not going to have the beautiful sword dancers using paired weapons, etc.

If Allanak is going to rely on fast, quick weapon work, they WILL have paired weapon styles and beautiful (and deadly) techniques.

This was (and continues to be) the symptom of the disease "give everything to Tuluk."  

It is my hope (and perhaps I'll post this in the reborn forum) that in the future, when picking a starting city as a warrior, you'll get one or two skills (two-handed fighting OR shield use) that represents your culture.  If a character decides to pick up the alternate style make the learning process a long and difficult one.  

In addition, warriors should take the opportunity to laugh at other warriors from the same culture that do not abide by the cultural docs - they're freaks, after all.

[Tisiphone]

Sorry, have to point this out.

The 'give everything to Tuluk' symptom in the docs is compensation, since Tuluk doesn't have anything in the game.

Oh, sure, they get the forest and the grasslands, and generally all the good spot, but Tuluk's city design is fatally flawed, they always get the shit beat out of them (Croesus and Cyrus, anyone?) by Allanak, they don't get magickers (at least not officially), they don't have any player-borgable resources with which to stay just rich enough to buy water (there's no templar sitting around willing to give you 30 sid a log) and, in general, while Tuluk might seem like a nice place to be when you aren't there, once you've gone, the only good thing they have is tattoos.

[Hymwen]

Yet another problem is that some guilds' skills branch in stupid ways, forcing the player to pick a "fighting style" that doesn't necessarily suit what would be right culturally or personally for the character if they don't want to be severely disadvantaged later in life. How many assassins use a shield? How many rangers use a two-handed weapon? You know what I mean.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

Tisiphone, I just wanted to point out that the 'fighting styles' doc was written before New Tuluk, I'm pretty sure.