Weapons

[Gunnerblaster]

I agree with this. There are weapons that could probably be flippable but aren't in the current system. Also note that you can actually flip a flippable weapon in combat using the 'use' command instead of 'flip'.

Oh, really? That doesn't really make alot of coded sense. If you can use 'flip' to flip it out of combat, why can't you use it during combat? Not many think to type 'use' instead of 'flip' since 'use' is a rarely used syntax (For me, atleast).

[Riev]

I agree with this. There are weapons that could probably be flippable but aren't in the current system. Also note that you can actually flip a flippable weapon in combat using the 'use' command instead of 'flip'.

Oh, really? That doesn't really make alot of coded sense. If you can use 'flip' to flip it out of combat, why can't you use it during combat? Not many think to type 'use' instead of 'flip' since 'use' is a rarely used syntax (For me, atleast).

It doesn't make sense to me, either. I once spent like two RL days trying to figure out how to flip a weapon, because I KNEW it did something different the last time I'd used it. I'll have to try 'use' tonight to see if it actually works to flip in combat, because that'd make things MUCH easier on me.

The tall, skinny man says:
    Hold on. I need to grab the other end of this knife, so I can club you to death.

[Mood]

Have you ever skinned a creature in the real-world, Lizzie?

[Xio]

Hmm, this is kind of on topic, but I guess its a derail. Don't feel like starting a new thread while this one is right here unless you folks really feel the need to.
Personally, I do not understand non-offhand weapons. I have not be able to hold something in my left hand, than I can in my right. I'm a righty, but there are certain things I find easier to do with my left hand. Maybe thats a rarity, *shrug*, regardless it doesn't make any sense in my mind. I'm had a few offhand stylists who use a shield in their main hand, because its easier to protect themselves and allies that way, and exclusively hold weapons in their offhand. While this may handicap how effective they are with said weapon in and of itself, I don't see why they can hold a weapon in their main-hand but not the offhand. If anything an echo like 'You struggle to keep <weapon> aloft and find it hard to properly swing with this hand' plus a penalty, would be better.

[SMuz]

Hmm, this is kind of on topic, but I guess its a derail. Don't feel like starting a new thread while this one is right here unless you folks really feel the need to.
Personally, I do not understand non-offhand weapons. I have not be able to hold something in my left hand, than I can in my right. I'm a righty, but there are certain things I find easier to do with my left hand. Maybe thats a rarity, *shrug*, regardless it doesn't make any sense in my mind. I'm had a few offhand stylists who use a shield in their main hand, because its easier to protect themselves and allies that way, and exclusively hold weapons in their offhand. While this may handicap how effective they are with said weapon in and of itself, I don't see why they can hold a weapon in their main-hand but not the offhand. If anything an echo like 'You struggle to keep <weapon> aloft and find it hard to properly swing with this hand' plus a penalty, would be better.

Um, what? You could use a weapon offhand if that's what you mean I think you do get a penalty to swinging it properly too. And I thought everyone figured that, so you don't need an echo. *scratches head*

[Xio]

I've come across certain weapons the code will not let you use in your offhand, that you can in your primary hand. That's what that whole post is pertaining to.

[SMuz]

I've come across certain weapons the code will not let you use in your offhand, that you can in your primary hand. That's what that whole post is pertaining to.

Ohhh.. good point

[RogueGunslinger]

Off hand doesn't mean left hand, does it? Nor does primary mean right?

[BuNutzCola]

Off hand could be right or left...whichever hand is your character's off hand. Allows for players to be righties or lefties, I guess.

[SmashedTregil]

Off hand could be right or left...whichever hand is your character's off hand. Allows for players to be righties or lefties, I guess.

Left or right, for most people one of your hands is stronger then the others. The weapons that cant be used in offhand are usually all very heavy and very powerful, therefore ... no use by a weaker hand.

[RogueGunslinger]

Right, so you all get my point then?

[Synthesis]

Off hand could be right or left...whichever hand is your character's off hand. Allows for players to be righties or lefties, I guess.

Left or right, for most people one of your hands is stronger then the others. The weapons that cant be used in offhand are usually all very heavy and very powerful, therefore ... no use by a weaker hand.

I think from a code perspective, these weapons are coded thusly because it would be unwieldy to fight with two of them.  If you allowed bastard swords (for example) to be wielded in either hand, to accommodate persons who wished to ep a shield, you would soon enough have people running around wielding a bastard sword in each hand.

It would be interesting if the flags were changed (in 2.Arm) from "ep-only" to "wield-one-only," so that you could hold it in whichever hand you wished, but only one at a time.

(It would also be nice if many current weapons were re-coded so that you couldn't wield two of them.  There are quite a few out there that sort of leave you scratching your head like, "huh...how is that even possible....")

Running off on a tangent, it would be interesting if you could only handle a set amount of weight between two weapons, to amend this situation.  For example, if your strength is average, you can wield 10 stone worth of weapons...so you can wield a 10-stone warhammer and use a shield, use an 8-stone bastard sword and wield a 2-stone longknife, or use 2 five-stone shortswords.  Using two 10-stone warhammers would thusly be impossible, unless you were truly mighty.

[SMuz]

Running off on a tangent, it would be interesting if you could only handle a set amount of weight between two weapons, to amend this situation.  For example, if your strength is average, you can wield 10 stone worth of weapons...so you can wield a 10-stone warhammer and use a shield, use an 8-stone bastard sword and wield a 2-stone longknife, or use 2 five-stone shortswords.  Using two 10-stone warhammers would thusly be impossible, unless you were truly mighty.

I like that idea, but I'd say that off-hand weapons would count as 1.5 times heavier and that shields should also count as weight. And two-handed equipping would work the same.

[Synthesis]

Running off on a tangent, it would be interesting if you could only handle a set amount of weight between two weapons, to amend this situation.  For example, if your strength is average, you can wield 10 stone worth of weapons...so you can wield a 10-stone warhammer and use a shield, use an 8-stone bastard sword and wield a 2-stone longknife, or use 2 five-stone shortswords.  Using two 10-stone warhammers would thusly be impossible, unless you were truly mighty.

I like that idea, but I'd say that off-hand weapons would count as 1.5 times heavier and that shields should also count as weight. And two-handed equipping would work the same.

Shields shouldn't count as weight for two reasons:

1.  You generally aren't swinging your shield around willy nilly.
2.  Ever weighed a shield? Yeah, that would throw off the entire system as proposed.

As far as off-hand weapons counting 1.5 x heavier, I don't really see the point.  If you fight with two weapons, you're already going to be limited in your choices.  Further, some "small" off-hand weapons are actually rather heavy, due to building inconsistencies.  (I know of at least one short sword (bone) that weighs two stone more than a certain bastard sword (also bone).  Of course, this is convenient for not having your short swords pickpocketed, heh.)

[SMuz]

So you can't wield a big shield in one hand and a big sword in the other. I don't mean shields should be the standard weight, maybe count as 20% or 10% as heavy, otherwise half-elves would be carrying around 20-stone shields with one hand and a short sword in the other hand.

[5 day lifespan]

First off, lefties are mutie freaks, deformed by magick.

Second, I found a few items that were a certain handedness due to the shape of the blade of handle only working on that hand.  It really sucked, given one item REALLY needed to be a main hander for it's obvious purpose, but no matter.

[Qzzrbl]

The weights for weapons are bloody ridiculous in many cases.

It's said that a stone could roughly be translated to a kilogram, about 2.2 pounds.

I've seen weapons weighing 14 stones, that's around 30 pounds.

Now two-handing a 30 pound weapon-- sure, I could see that with really high-strength dwarves, or one-handing with half-giants and stronger muls.

I read that most metal medieval swords weighed under five pounds, and compensating for zalanthan building materials I wouldn't reckon that any weapons would weigh over ten pounds.... Yet IG one can swing around a 30-40 pound chunk of wood and stone one-handed as if it were nothing.

It confounds me.

[Synthesis]

The weights for weapons are bloody ridiculous in many cases.

It's said that a stone could roughly be translated to a kilogram, about 2.2 pounds.

I've seen weapons weighing 14 stones, that's around 30 pounds.

Now two-handing a 30 pound weapon-- sure, I could see that with really high-strength dwarves, or one-handing with half-giants and stronger muls.

I read that most metal medieval swords weighed under five pounds, and compensating for zalanthan building materials I wouldn't reckon that any weapons would weigh over ten pounds.... Yet IG one can swing around a 30-40 pound chunk of wood and stone one-handed as if it were nothing.

It confounds me.

A human with "good" strength can only use a weapon up to 11 or 12 stones.  So yes, you  basically have to be as strong as a dwarf or a mul to wield a 14-stone weapon, already.

[Qzzrbl]

The weights for weapons are bloody ridiculous in many cases.

It's said that a stone could roughly be translated to a kilogram, about 2.2 pounds.

I've seen weapons weighing 14 stones, that's around 30 pounds.

Now two-handing a 30 pound weapon-- sure, I could see that with really high-strength dwarves, or one-handing with half-giants and stronger muls.

I read that most metal medieval swords weighed under five pounds, and compensating for zalanthan building materials I wouldn't reckon that any weapons would weigh over ten pounds.... Yet IG one can swing around a 30-40 pound chunk of wood and stone one-handed as if it were nothing.

It confounds me.

A human with "good" strength can only use a weapon up to 11 or 12 stones.  So yes, you  basically have to be as strong as a dwarf or a mul to wield a 14-stone weapon, already.

Still, even wielding something around ten pounds with one arm is a feat in and of itself.

[Synthesis]

The weights for weapons are bloody ridiculous in many cases.

It's said that a stone could roughly be translated to a kilogram, about 2.2 pounds.

I've seen weapons weighing 14 stones, that's around 30 pounds.

Now two-handing a 30 pound weapon-- sure, I could see that with really high-strength dwarves, or one-handing with half-giants and stronger muls.

I read that most metal medieval swords weighed under five pounds, and compensating for zalanthan building materials I wouldn't reckon that any weapons would weigh over ten pounds.... Yet IG one can swing around a 30-40 pound chunk of wood and stone one-handed as if it were nothing.

It confounds me.

A human with "good" strength can only use a weapon up to 11 or 12 stones.  So yes, you  basically have to be as strong as a dwarf or a mul to wield a 14-stone weapon, already.

Still, even wielding something around ten pounds with one arm is a feat in and of itself.

Yeah, it's mainly a building problem, though.

Hell, I found a 15 lb pair of boots ing-game the other day.  15 lbs?  Seriously?  Come on guys.

[Archbaron]

The weights for weapons are bloody ridiculous in many cases.

It's said that a stone could roughly be translated to a kilogram, about 2.2 pounds.

I've seen weapons weighing 14 stones, that's around 30 pounds.

Now two-handing a 30 pound weapon-- sure, I could see that with really high-strength dwarves, or one-handing with half-giants and stronger muls.

I read that most metal medieval swords weighed under five pounds, and compensating for zalanthan building materials I wouldn't reckon that any weapons would weigh over ten pounds.... Yet IG one can swing around a 30-40 pound chunk of wood and stone one-handed as if it were nothing.

It confounds me.

A human with "good" strength can only use a weapon up to 11 or 12 stones.  So yes, you  basically have to be as strong as a dwarf or a mul to wield a 14-stone weapon, already.

Still, even wielding something around ten pounds with one arm is a feat in and of itself.

Yeah, it's mainly a building problem, though.

Hell, I found a 15 lb pair of boots ing-game the other day.  15 lbs?  Seriously?  Come on guys.

I found where all the in-game metal went.

[SMuz]

It's a ridiculously tiring job trying to get all items to follow the same standards. I'd actually be surprised if there weren't any inconsistencies.

The reason Zalanthans can't "fight poorly" in sparring is because they're always swinging a heavy 5-kg bone, making it impossible to pull back from a hit.

[Synthesis]

It's a ridiculously tiring job trying to get all items to follow the same standards. I'd actually be surprised if there weren't any inconsistencies.

The reason Zalanthans can't "fight poorly" in sparring is because they're always swinging a heavy 5-kg bone, making it impossible to pull back from a hit.

Some sparring weapons actually are a reasonable weight.

A certain training club would seem to weigh 1 stone.

A certain training dagger would seem to weigh 1 stone.

A certain training axe would seem to weigh 1 stone.

A common sparring sword would seem to weigh 7 stones.