Weapon type freedom with backstab/poison

[Dresan]

I've mentioned this in another thread but I wanted to make a new thread for this idea.

I think every bladed weapon that isn't bludgeon should be able to "backstab" and hold poison. The only RP requirements should be size/weight (controlled by allow_poison, allow_backstab flags).

The reason is mostly for variety and to allow more freedom when using weapon types. It would be nice to see slashing/chopping weapons specifically designed to hold poisons and to be designed with concealed attacks in mind.

[Synthesis]

Agreed.

Every weapon with a point or edge should be poisonable, regardless of size.

Every weapon 5 stones and under, excluding non-sharp types, should be usable for backstab.

Backstab messages should be modified so that either every weapon type has its own set of backstab echos, or gets a generic echo that makes sense.

Aggressors, berserkers, slipknives, rejoice.

[bardlyone]

I think the gif below sums up all my feelings about the above ideas pretty concisely.

[Armaddict]

I'd rather see the poison rework -first- to make potent poisons less available, then I'd be okay with this.

Until that point, nuh-uh.

[Synthesis]

I'd rather see the poison rework -first- to make potent poisons less available, then I'd be okay with this.

Until that point, nuh-uh.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

[Reiloth]

I think perhaps the concern of the relative 'weakness' of a stabbing weapon, compared to the relative 'strength' of chopping, slashing weapons, etc.

[Desertman]

Also on board with seeing edged weapons added to the "Backstab" category.

I'm also completely and fully in support of changing the name from Backstab to Critical Strike.

I also want to see the messages for Critical Strike changed to be more vague to allow more interpretation and roleplay in regards to how you are going about critically striking your opponent.



If I want to aim a slice of my scimitar at someone's throat as my critical strike, I should be able to.

If I want to aim my dagger at the gap in their armor in their armpit instead of the stock "Behind between their ribs" message, I should be able to.




I DO think that daggers/knives should give you a bonus to critical strike.

I just don't think they should be the only allowed options.


I wouldn't even mind opening it up to axes with more of a negative.



(I don't think it's much of a balance issue. Even with Master Backstab in my experience Backstab is pretty underwhelming. Throw is a lot more dangerous many times over IMO.)


Also, we need that poison rework to make the rare and more dangerous poisons less accessible.

Whoever thought to make that one type super cheap and readily available........What were you thinking?

My assumption was some staffer was playing an assassin at the time and wanted a cheap source but forgot to remove that thing from that place when their PC died and so it has lingered there.

[Inks]

Making backstab more dangerous is a bad idea. I have played a reasonably dangerous assassin called  Zuun a couple of years ago and he only had good strength. I only ever dropped someone (NPC included) in one backstab twice, though with the follow up attacks is what is relied on to drop a target usually.

If instead of a shitty halfsword I had been wielding a massive two handed spear it would have changed a reasonably dangerous assassin into a god of death, they all would be. I love the assassin class even though it is codedly inferior to ranger by far, but the planning of assassinations would take about two seconds with thia change "I'll equip the warspear and the follow up attacks will drop him gg".

[Desertman]

Making backstab more dangerous is a bad idea. I have played a reasonably dangerous assassin called  Zuun a couple of years ago and he only had good strength. I only ever dropped someone (NPC included) in one backstab twice, though with the follow up attacks is what is relied on to drop a target usually.

If instead of a shitty halfsword I had been wielding a massive two handed spear it would have changed a reasonably dangerous assassin into a god of death, they all would be.

If they are a Master Assassin there is a pretty good argument that they should be.

IMO as it stands you are a lot more dangerous of you go Warrior Slipknife.

[Inks]

I would disagree in the context of backstab and delay and also this would benefit slipknives even more due to alternate weapon skills.

[Synthesis]

Making backstab more dangerous is a bad idea. I have played a reasonably dangerous assassin called  Zuun a couple of years ago and he only had good strength. I only ever dropped someone (NPC included) in one backstab twice, though with the follow up attacks is what is relied on to drop a target usually.

If instead of a shitty halfsword I had been wielding a massive two handed spear it would have changed a reasonably dangerous assassin into a god of death, they all would be. I love the assassin class even though it is codedly inferior to ranger by far, but the planning of assassinations would take about two seconds with thia change "I'll equip the warspear and the follow up attacks will drop him gg".

Did you miss the part where we said only small weapons should be usable for backstabs?

[Inks]

Perhaps. What does small mean though? Code wise I quite like the limitations of the poison code. It is pretty potent otherwise and I am not sure I would like every single weapon (small or whatever) poisonable.

Icly there isn't really a justification for non poisonable weapons but balance wise I think there is.

[Armaddict]

Uhm.

If you don't see why it's kind of a drastic shift for very strong, fairly available poisons to be applied to whole bunch more weapons, making it more viable for those who didn't want to sacrifice stun damage or overall damage for ability to reliably deliver poison, then I don't know what to say.

As is, if you want to use poisons, you know you will have to have some amount of skill in a certain area.  Take that away and there are no tradeoffs for it.  But if you weaken poisons that are available, make it harder to stockpile these dangerous poisons, then it becomes a moot point.

Hence...after we make strong poisons much harder to put into use, as I think we should...I'm in support.  But only in that order.

[Dresan]

Its kind of why i suggested backstab_allowed and Poison_Alllowed flags for weapons so that the staff can decide what should be used to backstab/poison based on  RP design, damage value, weight, size or theme instead of the actual coded attributes. This could mean that future weapons could be created more that allow to carry poison, or that can aren't too heavy and large (eg. obscenely damaging) that would impede a swift critical strike if that is an issue.

I don't think the rare poison thing is relevant because there are still quite a number of good weapons you can currently that poison with already without issue, they just all happen to be that one weapon type with makes things kinda bleh. So if poison is your thing, well guess you are stuck using that one type at the moment. I don't think the weapon type is all that bad at all in terms of damage to be honest, seems as effective as anything else.  All that said, i agree rare poisons should be rare and an adventure to find.

As for the name backstab...how about we call it assassinate? In order to better illustrate that you are trying to kill someone instantly; whether thats a knife to the back, slitting their throat, running them through with your sword or beheading them with your axe?

[Jihelu]

Assessing a weapon while having the backstab skill should allow you to tell if you can backstab with it.

[Armaddict]

I will note that poison can already be applied to slashing weapons.  Just not every slashing weapon.  So something like this 'Can_be_poisoned' flag already exists, or it exists via size parameters.

[Dresan]

Just because you can poison a slashing weapon, doesn't mean it will apply the poison to your target using slashing attacks.

Thinking those weapons can be used in another way.

[Inks]

Assessing a weapon while having the backstab skill should allow you to tell if you can backstab with it.

Do you play assassins or slipknife? It already works this way. You can use any stabbing weapon to backstab.

[Lizzie]

Assessing a weapon while having the backstab skill should allow you to tell if you can backstab with it.

Do you play assassins or slipknife? It already works this way. You can use any stabbing weapon to backstab.

Unless it's been changed, not all "piercing" weapons are also "stabbing" weapons. If it's a piercing weapon but NOT a stabbing weapon, then you won't be able to use the backstab skill with it.
Assess does definitely let you know whether or not your piercing weapon is also a backstab weapon, if you have the backstab skill. You're right about that.

[Inks]

Sorry if I wasn't more clear, that is what I meant.

[Majikal]

I like the idea of backstab being more of a critical strike and being viable to backstab with more than one weapon style.

However, Armageddon works off a damage dice system (think DnD) and I'm fairly certain that stabbing weapons are skewed and balanced with backstab in mind. Other weapons are not. Backstabbing with a two-handed sexy axe of damage +7 would likely make assassins the most broken creation in the game.

[Jihelu]

I thought it only told you if it was a piercing/stabbing weapon?
Not "you can backstab with it"
If more weapons were made to be able to backstab this would be a reason for it.
"Oh I have a cool sword"
assess sword
"This is a slashing weapon"
"This weapon can be used for backstabs/assassinations"
That would be what I would want.

[Dar]

I'm really not a fan of the idea about allowing every weapon to use for backstab/assassinate/whatever.  The difference in power between some of these weapons is vast, add to it that a vast majority of backstab victims are unarmed, and it just becomes too quick and too sudden and too easy.

When a warrior crit hits someone on the neck and that 40 hp damage drops them to -20, killing them instantly, that warrior can rp it out as if he's severed their head, or cut their throat, or whatever else.

Assassinate is assassinate is assassinate and yes, you should be able to kill someone with broken glasses like in god father, but thematic cloak and dagger assassins should be using fucking small knives.

[Synthesis]

The most powerful mundane piercing weapon I ever owned was a dagger, so the "power level difference" is entirely debatable.  In fact, that dagger was only marginally less effective than some two-handed swords.

Of course, it was a dagger I got off a gypsy  .  But...there are plenty of halfswords that have high damage crits.  They just don't seem that way very often because most warriors either roll with slashing or chopping or bludgeoning, because of the regional starting bonuses or stun damage, and most "piercey" guilds just suck total balls forever and never get to the point where they're rocking the head and neckshots.

On topic for the backstab element:  there aren't many chopping or slashing weapons that are 5 stones or less that are so out-of-range powerful that they'd be unbalanced.  I'd say if you put them stone-for-stone against similar halfswords, they would generally be less powerful, honestly.

On topic for the poisoning element:  it's kind of gamey to say "oh, well, the downside of using poison is that you have to train your favorite weapon -and- train piercing in order to deliver the poison," when there isn't any other good reason.

[Dresan]

With the new changes to poison and cure code, I just wanted to resurrect this idea. I feel the way poisons are going, it is sad to restrict it to just piercing weapon type.

Similarly still feel it sucks to be restricted to weapon type with backstab.

Since the discussion here was solid, didn't want to start a new thread on the subject. (Hopefully people won't get too angry because of that)

[nauta]

With the new changes to poison and cure code, I just wanted to resurrect this idea. I feel the way poisons are going, it is sad to restrict it to just piercing weapon type.

Similarly still feel it sucks to be restricted to weapon type with backstab.

Since the discussion here was solid, didn't want to start a new thread on the subject. (Hopefully people won't get too angry because of that)

So I was thinking about this, and take this with a grain of salt since I don't know the code, but...

I like the idea that each 'weapon skill' kind has a slightly different thing that those who specialize in it can take advantage of.  I hope this isn't giving too much away but:

(a) piercing weapons - can get laced with poisons
(b) bludgeoning weapons - you can knock your opponent out
(c) slashing weapons - not sure (maybe they do more damage)
(d) chopping weapons - not sure (maybe they do more damage)

Hence, a character when training has to pick and choose and can't just be good at all of them (at least initially): you want to be the guy who knocks people out -- train bludgeoning; want to be the gal that poisons fuckers, pick piercing, etc.

Another thing to think about is that if everyone focuses on piercing (so they can poison), then those with chopping have a little advantage since everyone's defense will also be checked against piercing and not chopping.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the gameplay reasoning behind keeping poisoning limited to just a single weapon type.

[perfecto]

I agree the weapon type shouldn't matter when it comes to poison, in fact realistically you should be able to poison anything in the game if you wanted to.  The game has always tried to mimic the realism of life but in this manner with how the poison code works it would be a massive overhaul which I don't see a major call for at this time.  Also I feel backstab should work with any weapon type as well, I think being backstabbed with hachet should hurt just as much as a knife. As a general (sneak attack) but then that would outsource the sap command which has its own potential.

[Miradus]

Backstab is a specific thing. That's why they call it backstab.

What you're wanting is a positional attack from a hidden position using any weapon, which I believe you already get some sort of bonus for.

[Delirium]

^^ yep.

[roughneck]

I like that poisoning/backstab only works for stabbing weapons. It makes sense.

That's cold war spies hid knives with them, not hatchets.

There's a million points to argue really, but it's hard to axe the axe-swing you have coming out of the shadows. You can stab someone from a few inches away.

[SuchDragonWow]

Backstab is fine.  Extend poison to chopping and slashing.

[Dar]

Are you guys having a laugh?

I'm sure all of you read about poisoned arrows.

I'm sure all of you read about poisoned daggers

Poisoned Spears are a little rarer, but there is some literature about it. Like aboriginals keeping their spears inside dead animals and all that.


Have you "ever' heard 'any' what so ever mention of a poisoned axe !?

Poisoned sword is feasable, but there 'are' slashing weapons that allow for poisoning.

This whole thread is silly in my opinion.

[Armaddict]

I have no qualms with things as they are.  I believe that there are sensible crossovers to the 'rules' on poisons (i.e. Poisonable slashing weapons etc), but they are harder to find but not so hard that if you're looking for them, you won't find them.

[SuchDragonWow]

Have you "ever' heard 'any' what so ever mention of a poisoned axe !?

Poisoned sword is feasable, but there 'are' slashing weapons that allow for poisoning.

Why would you need to poison someone with something when you can just split their skull open with it? 

It doesn't change the fact that you can apply poison to a wooden dildo if you wanted, and as long as a lethal dose gets dry-humped into the bloodstream, that's all she wrote, sonny boy.  But of course, you might say poisoning an axe is INCONCEIVABLE. 

In my most excellent opinion, let anything with an edge be poisoned, and variate their effectiveness by weapon type and strength of hit.

Are you guys having a laugh?

...

This whole thread is silly in my opinion.

[solera]

There are dildos in game?! Where???

[Hauwke]

It honestly wouldnt surprise me that there is if its true. If it was a weapon it would come under piercing or stabbing...

[SuchDragonWow]

It honestly wouldnt surprise me that there is if its true. If it was a weapon it would come under piercing or stabbing...

Obviously I was being facetious with the dildo thing, but I think you must be referencing a needle. 

[Lutagar]

be the change and mastercraft one

[Jihelu]

Bludgeoning dildo that transfers poisons.

[Hauwke]

Maybe I will make it a pike weapon. Be super fancy with that shit. So only the truly masterful should bother using them (or the really old combat pcs that are just ridiculous with any old weapon anyway but thats not the point!)

But in all seriousness, I dont see a problem with a slashing weapon being used to poison someone. A longsword is classed a slashing weapon, but that doesnt mean you can stab a fool with it for example.

[Miradus]

A human body's response to toxins is bleeding. Bleed out the toxin. If you get bitten by a poisonous snake, that's the time-honored remedy ... to open up the wound so it bleeds out the poison as much as possible.

It's why doctors use hypodermic NEEDLES and not a hypodermic battle axe.

Anything that's going to cause a lot of bleeding is going to reduce the efficacy of any toxin. The toxin has to remain in the body to work, not washed out when you opened up a slashing wound that would take 200 stitches to close.

If you want to argue that some of the longknives and such in the game should also suffice for a stabbing weapon, then that's a decent argument. But trying to equate administering a lethal dose of kryl venom with some primitive smearing shit on the edge of his sharpened bone is not a decent argument.

There are weapons in the game you can "flip" and turn from a slasher to a bludgeon. I can see where some knives would be both long, and short enough to be either a stabber or a slasher.

[Alizerin]

be the change and mastercraft one

Queue incoming dwarf with the focus to make the first Zalanthan sex-toy merchant house.

[RogueGunslinger]

A human body's response to toxins is bleeding. Bleed out the toxin. If you get bitten by a poisonous snake, that's the time-honored remedy ... to open up the wound so it bleeds out the poison as much as possible.

It's why doctors use hypodermic NEEDLES and not a hypodermic battle axe.

Anything that's going to cause a lot of bleeding is going to reduce the efficacy of any toxin. The toxin has to remain in the body to work, not washed out when you opened up a slashing wound that would take 200 stitches to close.

I'm not a doctor or anything but...

[Armaddict]

Again.  Slashing weapons can already be poisoned.

Look for those items that you, once upon a time, were surprised they were slashing instead of piercing or stabbing.  Most of those can be poisoned.

[Jihelu]

Again.  Slashing weapons can already be poisoned.

Look for those items that you, once upon a time, were surprised they were slashing instead of piercing or stabbing.  Most of those can be poisoned.

Iirc any item can be poisoned but not all items transfer poison?

[Armaddict]

That would be a significant code change I don't recall happening.

I'm afraid I can only give my anecdotal word from within the past 3-4 months, then.

[Jihelu]

That would be a significant code change I don't recall happening.

I'm afraid I can only give my anecdotal word from within the past 3-4 months, then.

I should play an assassin sometime and actually test out my theories.
But  thats gross.

[SuchDragonWow]

A human body's response to toxins is bleeding. Bleed out the toxin. If you get bitten by a poisonous snake, that's the time-honored remedy ... to open up the wound so it bleeds out the poison as much as possible.

It's why doctors use hypodermic NEEDLES and not a hypodermic battle axe.

Anything that's going to cause a lot of bleeding is going to reduce the efficacy of any toxin. The toxin has to remain in the body to work, not washed out when you opened up a slashing wound that would take 200 stitches to close.

I'm not a doctor or anything but...

There are poisons in the game that would seem to act within seconds, but it does open up a level of nuance that seems tedious. I could really take it or leave it.

[Armaddict]

Yeeeah, I think this is kind of going into the area of more work than it's worth for the questionable boon of 'now my axes can poison too'.

[SuchDragonWow]

Yeeeah, I think this is kind of going into the area of more work than it's worth for the questionable boon of 'now my axes can poison too'.

I think making poisons deadlier and much rarer is a noble cause, but it's really fine.  It'd be cool.

[Armaddict]

Well.  Honestly, it would take a look at the code to see how much work it would even be (i.e. Is this a flag, or a simple check on the poison skill).  But I find that particular boon not really a boon.   Some people want it, some don't.

I am all for poison rework though, which has been discussed in multiple threads now.  Just that I think having poisons on big two handed swords and battle axes is kind of a meh idea.

[Riev]

I'm with Armaddict, I think the number of people out there using clubs and axes that just REALLY NEED TO USE POISON RIGHT NOW are few and far between. And if you have axes, you PROBABLY can use the piercing and/or slashing weapons that poison works on.

(this is all conjecture) Axes deal a higher range of damage, but are slow. Clubs deal stun damage. Swords are middling as the most common type, and piercing/stabbing allow for poisons and fast attack speed. If you're using an axe, you have your advantage. Going through the code so your hatchet can deliver a dose of poison seems unnecessary. Use throw/archery/piercing/slashing/any other type of method than "but axes are the best and should be better".

[SuchDragonWow]

I bought For Honor and my enthusiasm for text weapons melted like ice cream on a hot summer day.

[Miradus]

Heh. Yeah, but can you mudsex in For Honor?

[Synthesis]

I don't think it's any more preposterous to poison a hatchet than it is to poison a longknife.

Two (not mutually-exclusive) possibilities:

1.  Re-work the poisoning skill so that difficulty also takes weapon weight (size) into account.  (Yes, this would result in some crying about heavy spears that have relatively small blades, but OH WELL.)  A small hatchet (3-4 stone):  easy.  A massive two-handed sword:  almost impossible, even for the most talented.

2.  Re-work the poisoning code such that probability of being successfully poisoned by a hit from a poisoned weapon takes the weapon's weight into account.  Stabbed with a small knife? Maximum current probability.  Chopped with a double-bladed axe? Next to zero.

[Armaddict]

That's exactly where my mind was going when I said too much work for too little benefit.  Where we essentially have to not only come up with a viable criteria to deal with the new desire, but also figure out how to best code it within boundaries that were set up for another approach altogether.

Revamping the code just because you like to use hatchets -and- poison is pretty over the top.  If we can slip it in with changes already in progress, then that's a different story, but this is seriously a non-issue as it stands and not worth any time when we have much cooler ideas/higher priority things as we are.

[RogueGunslinger]

Pretty much every change made to the game is a non-issue. Seems rather pointless to talk about the difficulty of implementing ideas and what the staff should focus on. Staff seem to just pick what they feel like working on at random.

[Armaddict]

They choose the projects they want to, which is exactly why I choose to think of code additions and tweaks in terms of cost to benefit and speak about it in those terms.

They'll choose it if they think it's enjoyable, but I'd rather not people get the impression that stacking more and more code ideas means that any of them are important or worth it, nor should they be disappointed if something doesn't get done if it's pointed out that it could be a lot more work than fun, even if they like the idea.

It's also why I'm a lot more accepting of ideas that can be 'tucked in' with other projects that have been talked about with interest.

[SuchDragonWow]

Heh. Yeah, but can you mudsex in For Honor?

It's got that going for it, too.

They choose the projects they want to, which is exactly why I choose to think of code additions and tweaks in terms of cost to benefit and speak about it in those terms.

They'll choose it if they think it's enjoyable, but I'd rather not people get the impression that stacking more and more code ideas means that any of them are important or worth it, nor should they be disappointed if something doesn't get done if it's pointed out that it could be a lot more work than fun, even if they like the idea.

It's also why I'm a lot more accepting of ideas that can be 'tucked in' with other projects that have been talked about with interest.

I realize you're just dropping your own insight, so don't take this as a slight, but it gets a little old when players try to dominate a code thread by defining how staff should spend their free time coding this game for us.  It's not our call, and we hardly have the applicable knowledge of the code to even have a valid opinion on that.  So while I think it's fine if you try to denegrate the ideas you don't like in a thread about code by saying "oh that's silly, silly thread you guys!!" ...  we probably should not be squelching the discussion because you think it's a waste of staff time.

Just say you don't like it.

[Armaddict]

Because 'This is a terrible idea' or 'I don't like it' or 'omg yes, I want it' aren't accurate.

I think the benefit of it is very small and based on a desire for something neat-o.  I'm more okay with it if it ends up being something minor, and I'm less okay with it if it's something major.  I'm not 'dominating' anything by referring to things as projects to undertake rather than just neat ideas or stupid ideas.

Edit:
Most ideas that are presented have some sort of value that can be gleaned from them.  I'm not sure what you find so out of line by trying to put my input in context as high, medium, low, or nil priority, but if it really bugs you that much I'd consider it something to PM about.  In no place did I claim to assert authority or power over how staff chooses projects by saying where I think each idea could fall in terms of priority.

[SuchDragonWow]

I guess I wasn't  very clear in my wording, I'm posting on the phone while at work. At some point I was not speaking about your posts, and was addressing that common tactic of trying to shoot down ideas while speaking for staffs time/interests.  I wouldn't take it personally.

[Shoka Windrunner]

I'd be happy if we could stick large weapons in massive piles of shit, giving a chance of making someone catch a disease if they get cut.

[roughneck]

My anecdotal experience of the current state of affairs:

Stabbing weapons are always poisonable and have a bonus to % to successfully deliver poison. Balanced, imo because stabbing weapons have other offensive and defensive drawbacks.

Piercing and slashing weapons may or may not be poison able, depending on size, weight, etc. I've found a much lower chance of delivering poison successfully with these weapon types. Imo this code option makes sense because some knives are slashing or piercing and it's cool to be able to poison all knives. We get the bonus of being able to poison some spears and shortswords while we're at it -)) yay.

A good hatchet in this game is already a great weapon with strong offensive and defensive advantages over stabbing weapons (from what I've gatheredĺ). Give stabbing weapons their province and reject the preposterous notion of poisoning a jagged, gushing axe wound with a bit of poison coated on the blade. Axes are already boss anyways.

[RogueGunslinger]

There is nothing perposterous about an axe delivering poison.

[whitt]

There is nothing perposterous about an axe delivering poison.

Actually, there is.  Poison works by entering the bloodstream and being drawn back to vital organs.  The less blood out away from the wound, the better the chance of the poison not being washed out of the system by the weapon delivering it.   Hence, piercing weapons which cause pooled bleeding inside the wound are the most efficient means of poisoning, especially in the immediate effects of poison way that Arm relates to.  Axes and other chopping implements create gaping wounds that result in large amount of blood flow and are therefore poor choices.  Small sharp slashing implements, scalpels and razors also create long thin wounds not prone to tremendous gouts of blood. 

[RogueGunslinger]

Sounds like a bunch of arm-chair MD hogwash. I promise you stabbing weapons make you bleed a metric fuckton. And the difference between a bleeding axe-wound and a bleeding stab-wound doesn't amount to proportions that would make an axe delivering poisons "preposterous".

All that said we have no idea the potency of Zalanthan poisons or what type of "poison" they even are. Whether it takes a tablespoon or a nanogram matters a lot. If all it takes is a drop then it doesn't matter if it's a stab-wound or a full-blown decapitation, that poison is going to get into your system.

Also there's no accounting for how much poison each blade takes.' At the very best you can argue that an axe has less of a chance of delivering poison than a dagger, but you can't tell me you know for certain to what degree that chance is.

In real life you should NOT try to cut, bleed and/or suck out snake venom, despite what you may have seen in media.

In real life you can be poisoned by skin-contact alone and then die months later.

[SuchDragonWow]

I would be more apt to buy into the argument if there weren't poisons in the game that had instant and near-instant effects.

Also did you know Orochi can cancel Storm Rush after two steps and fake into a guard block and chain combo.  Epic.

[Shoka Windrunner]

There is nothing perposterous about an axe delivering poison.

Actually, there is.  Poison works by entering the bloodstream and being drawn back to vital organs.  The less blood out away from the wound, the better the chance of the poison not being washed out of the system by the weapon delivering it.   Hence, piercing weapons which cause pooled bleeding inside the wound are the most efficient means of poisoning, especially in the immediate effects of poison way that Arm relates to.  Axes and other chopping implements create gaping wounds that result in large amount of blood flow and are therefore poor choices.  Small sharp slashing implements, scalpels and razors also create long thin wounds not prone to tremendous gouts of blood.

Whitt...good point.

[RogueGunslinger]

Is it though?

[Armaddict]

Let's get cyclical!

[whitt]

Is it though?

Well technically, you have a good point too.  All weapons that enter and leave the wound are pretty lousy for delivery of toxins.  So the effectiveness should probably only be fairly good on bolts, arrows, and thrown weapons that stick in the target for any appreciable time.

[Synthesis]

omg it's a game mechanic, not a fucking fantasy physiology problem

We want to be able to poison people without having to exclusively train in one weapon style, or suddenly having our defense and offense magickally crippled because we switched to a longknife from a shortsword.

[Jihelu]

omg it's a game mechanic, not a fucking fantasy physiology problem

We want to be able to poison people without having to exclusively train in one weapon style, or suddenly having our defense and offense magickally crippled because we switched to a longknife from a shortsword.

Obviously you are power gaming because axes are too strong.
Even though piercing weapons tend to hit very hard in certain places and have a very good speed.

[Synthesis]

omg it's a game mechanic, not a fucking fantasy physiology problem

We want to be able to poison people without having to exclusively train in one weapon style, or suddenly having our defense and offense magickally crippled because we switched to a longknife from a shortsword.

Obviously you are power gaming because axes are too strong.
Even though piercing weapons tend to hit very hard in certain places and have a very good speed.

No idea what you're talking about.

[Jihelu]

omg it's a game mechanic, not a fucking fantasy physiology problem

We want to be able to poison people without having to exclusively train in one weapon style, or suddenly having our defense and offense magickally crippled because we switched to a longknife from a shortsword.

Obviously you are power gaming because axes are too strong.
Even though piercing weapons tend to hit very hard in certain places and have a very good speed.

No idea what you're talking about.

It's sarcasm.
I thought of throwing a /s on there but I thought it was obvious.

[Riev]

The 'powergaming' doesn't come because axes are too strong. Its because by the way the game is designed (whether purposefully or not), you DO have to take a hit to your combat effectiveness to switch to another weapon. If you want to poison people, use a weapon that is capable of poisoning. You just want to have maximum efficiency to poison on your chosen weapon style.

I just want full-guild magickers, but I guess we can't all eat our cake, and have it too. You chose axes or bludgeoning, you aren't capable of poisoning with them. In my eyes, changing the code because someone wants the best of both worlds is powergaming. Many guilds don't get chopping weapons, a larger number get piercing. You chose axes because they're a strong consideration in PVP, and now you want to be able to increase their potency.

Unless you're in the "No no I chose ranger, for axes, and I hunt with axes, and I need to be able to poison those scrab".

[Synthesis]

Where are people getting this idea that using spears as a primary in the first place is nerfing yourself?  If anything, the idea (as it pertains to rangers) is to make yourself -not- nerfed if you want to use chopping or slashing.

All rangers OUGHT to be using piercing as their primary style anyway, for very good reasons that have nothing to do with poison:  arrows, almost all throwing weapons, and almost all skinning weapons are piercing weapons, so if you get "caught" or forget you have one of those equipped, you can at least continue to parry at maximum effectiveness until you get your "real" weapon out.  Additionally, these are all light, so you can carry numerous backups--again, without taking a hit to your parry skill.

Many rangers now -don't- go with axes, because Northerners get a location-based starting bump to chopping, and Southerners get a similar bump to slashing, and given how difficult it is to train weapon skills, most people tend to start with that advantage and stay stuck in the rut.  Also, I'd wager that -most- rangers never branch parry at all, so switching to a weapon style that you're bad with only results in a noticeable hit to offense.

There are plenty of good primary spears and halfswords available that do just as much damage as axes.  This discussion revolving around trying to gain some sort of advantage that's inherent to axes just seems like bad theorycraft based on shadowboard nonsense, and maybe a smattering of a few very strong PCs in recent memory who happened to use axes, versus the endless stream of assassins that prioritize strength second or even third and are stuck using piercing.

[BadSkeelz]

Let's get cyclical!

You can infinite-chain the Conqueror's light attack by changing up its direction with each swing. Overwhelming an Orochi with it is fucking glorious.

btw spears are A) awesome and B) make a lot of thematic sense to use, especially for a hardscrabble rider.

[BadSkeelz]

Also axes are only "Strong" in PVP because most characters have low to nonexistent Chopping skill and consequently have worse defense against them. I don't think they actually have much higher or wider damage spreads compared to a sword or spear of equivalent value or craftsmanship.

I'm not sure if Bludgeoning weapons are powerful for the same reason (a relative lack of defense against them) or if they're actually better attacking heavily armored targets.

[BadSkeelz]

Also also poison is the tool of the weak and dishonorou anyway. Kill like god intended with extreme physical trauma.

[Armaddict]

Also axes are only "Strong" in PVP because most characters have low to nonexistent Chopping skill and consequently have worse defense against them.

That's what a certain group of people insist the mechanic is, but I've never had any anecdotal or real evidence stated for such.  They read the helpfile differently, because the wording is ambiguous on whether it means your skill in the weapon your opponent is using or your skill in the weapon you're holding.

[BadSkeelz]

Oh it's definitely a particular school of thought. I happen to subscribe to it because I do have anecdotal evidence to back it up so THERE.

I don't think I've ever been able to bait staff in to confirming whether your own Weapon Skill increases your Defense against that Weapon Skill, unfortunately.

[Armaddict]

Oh it's definitely a particular school of thought. I happen to subscribe to it because I do have anecdotal evidence to back it up so THERE.

I don't think I've ever been able to bait staff in to confirming whether your own Weapon Skill increases your Defense against that Weapon Skill, unfortunately.

We should try, right now.  Let's be subtle.

MAN.  I REMEMBER THAT TIME WHEN I WAS ETWOING AN AXE AND THE WAY THE CODE WORKS MADE IT SO NO ONE COULD DEFEND ME BECAUSE THEIR TWO HANDED SKILL SUCKED.  SO GLAD IT WORKS ON BOTH WEAPON SKILLS AND WEAPON STYLE SKILLS.

Edit:  This is why I could never succeed in Tuluk.

[BadSkeelz]

THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE TO GRIND ALL FOUR WEAPON SKILLS AND THE STYLES EQUALLY IN THE BYN U CASUL

(I'm not actually sure if the Combat skills of Dual Wielding and Two Handed have the same impact on your defense. I personally believe that the weapon skills themselves: Chopping, Slashing, Bludgeoning and Piercing/Stabbing (plus advanced) are what grant defense bonuses against themselves).

ETWO IS LOVE, ETWO IS LIFE