has this been proposed before? Seems like it has.
I was thinking about it. Using a longsword to pierce someone would be nice. I hear there are some exceptions, but I'd want to be able to stab with any weapon. Unless I was using a hammer or something, then it would be like a prod. And I don't mean just stab. I want to be able to bludgeon a person with a longsword too.
With a longsword you could just use the flat side to bludgeon someone with or use the handle. But it wouldn't just change how you're attacking. But how much damage you're doing and your accuracy and speed.
For a certain longsword:
slashing- normal stats
bludgeoning- less accuracy, attacks less, more stun damage
piercing- simply do less damage, attacks more often
chopping- more damage, less accuracy
Like different styles of fighting. It would make combat, if you're interested in combat, more interesting. You wouldn't have to carry around one of every weapon everywhere you go just in case. With just one weapon, if your opponent was lacking in that weapon skill, you could find the advantage by just using a different kind of attack.
thoughts?
I don't know what your last semi-paragraph was about, but I do wish all weapons were useable like the way you proposed.
With the way the code works now, probably not possible to do this. Perhaps for Arm 2.
Also, it would take a lot of work to implement.
But good idea. It would be neat if it was possible.
Quote from: Semper on March 29, 2009, 11:15:02 AM
With the way the code works now, probably not possible to do this. Perhaps for Arm 2.
Also, it would take a lot of work to implement.
But good idea. It would be neat if it was possible.
There are some weapons that are 'flippable' between different styles. It's certainly doable with this code, but probably not very efficient.
Not very realistic either. Longsword..
Slashing - Normal, yes
Bludgeoning - 5-10% damage
No balance for it, and you'll likely snap it in half with the quality of Zalanthan weapons. Unless you do a mordhau, which makes complete sense (though no Zalanthan would be caught gripping the blade part of obsidian).
Piercing - maybe 70%, but trying to balance it for is pretty damn tough because of the weight.
Chopping - ?
Exactly the same damage, I'd assume, but you're swinging it a lot more awkwardly.
I suppose it could work with halberds, certain axes, but heck, those are only very few weapons. Best choice would be something like the chinese ji, which was designed for thrusting, slashing, chopping, even hooking, though obviously those kinds of weapons haven't made it into the game because its not codedly possible.
I've always found it annoying that foot-long knives and daggers and shortswords could be used only for piercing.
Even if slashing would take a negative on piercing weapons or vice-versa, if I'm maxxed out at slashing, it'd likely override that negative.
And I'd imagine trying to use a sword as a chopping weapon would increase the damage a little more (I've always thought of chopping as putting ass-loads of weight into the swings), but greatly increase the chance of breaking. And I wouldn't think that a slashing weapon would ever be a good substitute for an axe or what-have-you. But like I said, if I'm maxxed at chopping and all I have is a sword, it'd probably still be worth a shot.
Just my two cents on the matter.
Technically, the way things work now, this could be roleplayed out and backed up reasonably well by the code.
It's not like you can't attempt to use a weapon that isn't your primary choice.
I assumed that daggers and shortswords and longknives weren't slashing, because they don't have a cutting edge. Dull edges don't cut. Cutting edges cut. Pointy things poke/pierce/stab. Big broad surfaces bludgeon. Now, a spiked mace, should be both bludgeoning AND piercing, at the same time. It -should- have two attack effects per hit. Because you're smacking something with a big heavy object, that -also- has really sharp protrusions sticking out of it.
Other than that, I don't see any problem with pointy things not being able to slice something, and cutting edges that don't come to a point, not being able to pierce something.
The right tool for the right job, I always say! And when in doubt, use a fork.
Quote from: Lizzie on March 29, 2009, 08:45:06 PM
I assumed that daggers and shortswords and longknives weren't slashing, because they don't have a cutting edge. Dull edges don't cut. Cutting edges cut. Pointy things poke/pierce/stab. Big broad surfaces bludgeon. Now, a spiked mace, should be both bludgeoning AND piercing, at the same time. It -should- have two attack effects per hit. Because you're smacking something with a big heavy object, that -also- has really sharp protrusions sticking out of it.
Other than that, I don't see any problem with pointy things not being able to slice something, and cutting edges that don't come to a point, not being able to pierce something.
The right tool for the right job, I always say! And when in doubt, use a fork.
Most piercing weapons also serve as skinning tools as well. So I'd imagine there's -some- sort of edge on them.
:'(
I don't think weapon skills have anything to do with how the weapon deals damage (e.g. spikes on a mace), but how the weapon is used. "Slashing" with an axe is like swinging a hockey stick like a baseball bat.
Slashing - most of the momentum is put into the middle of the blade, the 'sweet spot'. That's pretty much where a metal blade would be able to dish out the most damage. With a short sword, you don't really have a sweet spot. Try swinging a knife, then swing a sword. It's an entirely different concept. Not a cleaver/machete. Cleavers are designed for slashing motion.
Bludgeoning - there is basically a big load of mass on one tip, and your arm is swinging it in the form to deal the most force (torque?) on that heavy bit, thus dealing the strongest impact. Doesn't really matter whether it's blunt or has a spike on it.
Chopping - Somewhere of a cross between slashing and bludgeoning, but different. You have a mass on the tip. You try to swing the mass, but the point where you want it to hit is in the middle of the axe blade. A board with a nail can be considered chopping, but only if you're trying to hit specifically with that nail. You do not "chop" with a sword, unless it's one of those egyptian style swords, or possibly something like a military scythe.
Piercing - there is a sharp point. You put all the strength in your body and focus it on that point. It's a bit iffy that daggers and spears are both "piercing". But IRL, if you want to hurt someone with a knife, you definitely need to poke someone in the same form you'd use a spear. Foot to shoulder to forward thrust. Minimal waist movement.
Also, note that weapon skills aren't entirely about hitting. It's also about recovering from a miss or hit, balancing your body to suit the weapon style. Different weapons require different movement.
Quote from: SMuz on March 30, 2009, 02:21:47 AM
:'(
I don't think weapon skills have anything to do with how the weapon deals damage (e.g. spikes on a mace), but how the weapon is used. "Slashing" with an axe is like swinging a hockey stick like a baseball bat.
Slashing - most of the momentum is put into the middle of the blade, the 'sweet spot'. That's pretty much where a metal blade would be able to dish out the most damage. With a short sword, you don't really have a sweet spot. Try swinging a knife, then swing a sword. It's an entirely different concept. Not a cleaver/machete. Cleavers are designed for slashing motion.
Bludgeoning - there is basically a big load of mass on one tip, and your arm is swinging it in the form to deal the most force (torque?) on that heavy bit, thus dealing the strongest impact. Doesn't really matter whether it's blunt or has a spike on it.
Chopping - Somewhere of a cross between slashing and bludgeoning, but different. You have a mass on the tip. You try to swing the mass, but the point where you want it to hit is in the middle of the axe blade. A board with a nail can be considered chopping, but only if you're trying to hit specifically with that nail. You do not "chop" with a sword, unless it's one of those egyptian style swords, or possibly something like a military scythe.
Piercing - there is a sharp point. You put all the strength in your body and focus it on that point. It's a bit iffy that daggers and spears are both "piercing". But IRL, if you want to hurt someone with a knife, you definitely need to poke someone in the same form you'd use a spear. Foot to shoulder to forward thrust. Minimal waist movement.
Also, note that weapon skills aren't entirely about hitting. It's also about recovering from a miss or hit, balancing your body to suit the weapon style. Different weapons require different movement.
This.
You can also actually use all of the weapons differently than their designated type. It's called an emote.
>em thrusts his sword at ~man suddenly!
>kill man
You slash the tall, muscular man's neck, dealing horrendous damage. You can be creative and emote things besides kicking when using the kick command. There's no reason why the same can't apply to the basic combat echo.
I may be wrong, but pretty sure at some point the imms said specifically emoting an elbow to the face and then using the kick command was frowned upon.
Quote from: BuNutzCola on March 30, 2009, 09:03:14 PM
I may be wrong, but pretty sure at some point the imms said specifically emoting an elbow to the face and then using the kick command was frowned upon.
I seem to recall the opposite.
Quote from: Yam on March 30, 2009, 09:13:03 PM
Quote from: BuNutzCola on March 30, 2009, 09:03:14 PM
I may be wrong, but pretty sure at some point the imms said specifically emoting an elbow to the face and then using the kick command was frowned upon.
I seem to recall the opposite.
I seem to recall what Cola said...
::shrugs::
Brandon
QuoteQuote from: "Help kick"/Olgaris
Skill Kick (Combat)
This skill will cause you to attempt to kick the named person, or the
person you are currently fighting if no argument is given. Damage done by
a successful kick is dependent upon your strength.
Syntax:
kick (target)
Example:
> kick gith
Delay:
after
Kick is a kick. Don't use kick and emote something totally different than a kick. While I think a strike with an appended emote would be a great addition, or replacement for kick, I don't think kick should be used with emotes about throwing punches etc.
Oh. You're right. I just read that thread.
Silly. I think I'm going to still use kick as strike. Sorry Olgaris/Qetesh.
Quote from: BuNutzCola on March 30, 2009, 09:03:14 PM
I may be wrong, but pretty sure at some point the imms said specifically emoting an elbow to the face and then using the kick command was frowned upon.
Given that it happens all of the time and I've never seen any criticism, I'm going to assume it's safe enough to do so. We RP with the code, but sometimes we also must RP around the code. Combat is one of the situations where no matter how detailed the coded simulation is, there will be gaps. If I can't emote trying to smack someone with my shield and then use >kick, I'm going to be discouraged from anything of the sort at all, and it will suck the enjoyment out of combat for me.
Edit: but this is a derail belongs in Roleplaying Discussion, so I'll refrain from further discussion.
Quote from: Qzzrbl on March 29, 2009, 10:25:45 PM
Most piercing weapons also serve as skinning tools as well. So I'd imagine there's -some- sort of edge on them.
I've never understood this. Doesn't make sense. I also can't imagine a scrab's claw being sharp enough to skin properly.
Edit: Then again, I can't even imagine what a scrab looks like. I've read the descs of many, but just can't put the pieces togethor.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 31, 2009, 04:09:56 AM
Quote from: Qzzrbl on March 29, 2009, 10:25:45 PM
Most piercing weapons also serve as skinning tools as well. So I'd imagine there's -some- sort of edge on them.
I've never understood this. Doesn't make sense. I also can't imagine a scrab's claw being sharp enough to skin properly.
Edit: Then again, I can't even imagine what a scrab looks like. I've read the descs of many, but just can't put the pieces togethor.
The reason is this: most daggers and longknives are stabbing weapons. Realistically, you should be able to skin with most daggers and longknives. Instead of coding it so that only "daggers" and "longknives" can be used to skin, they coded it such that only "stabbing weapons," a subset of "piercing weapons," can be used to skin. The vast majority of "stabbing weapons" are in fact things you could probably skin with. I'm sure somewhere along the line, someone made the decision that correcting the code, and then going back in to add "skinning item" flags to every suitable object in the game would a) be a colossal pain in the ass and b) not worth the effort.
And realistically, if a longknife or dagger has an edge sharp enough to skin a mek, I should be able to effectively compensate it's use as a slashing weapon if I'm good enough with slashing weapons.
Not even close...because when you're skinning something, you are not *slicing* it. You are jabbing the tip of a blade into an already existing wound..and using the blade itself..not a cutting edge..as leverage to peel back the hide. When you're removing bone, you're not really using the knife at all. You're cracking the bone free, much like you would when you're seperating a roast chicken into parts. If you actually had to use an edged knife to cut a bone, you'd need ONLY a serrated edge..which would rule out every skinning knife in the game and most other weapons as well.
Remember we're not dealing with Henckels or Ginsu here. We're dealing with very crude tools made out of no-tech raw materials. You aren't using the edge of a paring knife to do delicate work on a skin. You're ripping, yanking, tearing, an untanned hide free of a dead, but raw carcass. If you've ever skinned an elk, you'd know this is not something you'd be able to do with ANY knife easily, but a whole lot easier if you could poke the blade under the skin first. And -that- requires a piercing weapon with a pointy sharp tip.
Quote from: Lizzie on March 31, 2009, 04:17:09 PM
Not even close...because when you're skinning something, you are not *slicing* it. You are jabbing the tip of a blade into an already existing wound..and using the blade itself..not a cutting edge..as leverage to peel back the hide. When you're removing bone, you're not really using the knife at all. You're cracking the bone free, much like you would when you're seperating a roast chicken into parts. If you actually had to use an edged knife to cut a bone, you'd need ONLY a serrated edge..which would rule out every skinning knife in the game and most other weapons as well.
Remember we're not dealing with Henckels or Ginsu here. We're dealing with very crude tools made out of no-tech raw materials. You aren't using the edge of a paring knife to do delicate work on a skin. You're ripping, yanking, tearing, an untanned hide free of a dead, but raw carcass. If you've ever skinned an elk, you'd know this is not something you'd be able to do with ANY knife easily, but a whole lot easier if you could poke the blade under the skin first. And -that- requires a piercing weapon with a pointy sharp tip.
I dunno, I've tried skinning deer and hogs with dull knives before, and those weren't happy times.
I just couldn't imagine those skinning knives IG being described as having sharp edges not actually having sharp edges.
That would just be confusing.
???
They're sharp, compared with other weapons in the world of Zalanthas. Obsidian knives would be probably the sharpest blade in the world..and a serrated obsidian knife would be the most likely choice for a skinning job, because obsidian, while very sharp, is also glass and shatters easily and trying to cut a hide off flesh would probably crack it on the first try. Serration is a support of sorts. Much like corrugated cardboard is sturdier than the same width and thickness of uncorrugated cardboard.
Other than obsidian and glass, there really aren't any *readily available, useful, efficient, and affordable* weapons that would be even close to comparable to "sharp" in the real world, as far as edges of blades go. ANYTHING can be made pointy. Not anything can hold a sharp edge.
This just sounds like a way to complicate a very simple game mechanic.
I would not want to see people trying to do anything with a bludgeoning weapon besides bludgeoning with it. Longswords should stay as 'slashing' type weapons.
I say just throw in more 'flip' able weapons.
There is already a 'flip <item>' syntax that works on specific objects. Just expand the range of 'flipable' items to long enough knives and/or daggers. Let people slash/pierce with rapiers or whatever. I think the weapons in armageddon are made with a very crude and specific use. Longswords aren't typically made to pierce and jab like spears.
I would like the ability to coded flip a weapon during combat, though. As it is, you can only flip the weapon out of combat. Sure - Give us a penalty to the next round of combat if we decide to flip the weapon but atleast give us the option to.
Quote from: Gunnerblaster on March 31, 2009, 05:47:44 PM
I say just throw in more 'flip' able weapons.
There is already a 'flip <item>' syntax that works on specific objects. Just expand the range of 'flipable' items to long enough knives and/or daggers. Let people slash/pierce with rapiers or whatever. I think the weapons in armageddon are made with a very crude and specific use. Longswords aren't typically made to pierce and jab like spears.
I would like the ability to coded flip a weapon during combat, though. As it is, you can only flip the weapon out of combat. Sure - Give us a penalty to the next round of combat if we decide to flip the weapon but atleast give us the option to.
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'.
Quote from: Cutthroat on March 31, 2009, 05:52:57 PM
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).
Quote from: Gunnerblaster on March 31, 2009, 05:57:21 PM
Quote from: Cutthroat on March 31, 2009, 05:52:57 PM
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.
Have you ever skinned a creature in the real-world, Lizzie?
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.
Quote from: Xio on April 02, 2009, 03:09:23 PM
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 :P 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*
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.
Quote from: Xio on April 03, 2009, 10:11:33 PM
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 :P
Off hand doesn't mean left hand, does it? Nor does primary mean right?
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.
Quote from: BuNutzCola on April 04, 2009, 12:58:41 AM
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.
Right, so you all get my point then?
Quote from: SmashedTregil on April 05, 2009, 10:32:32 PM
Quote from: BuNutzCola on April 04, 2009, 12:58:41 AM
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.
Quote from: Synthesis on April 06, 2009, 03:25:27 AM
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.
Quote from: SMuz on April 06, 2009, 07:58:05 AM
Quote from: Synthesis on April 06, 2009, 03:25:27 AM
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.)
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.
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.
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.
:(
Quote from: Qzzrbl on April 07, 2009, 02:42:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Synthesis on April 07, 2009, 07:23:53 PM
Quote from: Qzzrbl on April 07, 2009, 02:42:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Qzzrbl on April 07, 2009, 07:25:19 PM
Quote from: Synthesis on April 07, 2009, 07:23:53 PM
Quote from: Qzzrbl on April 07, 2009, 02:42:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Synthesis on April 07, 2009, 09:16:14 PM
Quote from: Qzzrbl on April 07, 2009, 07:25:19 PM
Quote from: Synthesis on April 07, 2009, 07:23:53 PM
Quote from: Qzzrbl on April 07, 2009, 02:42:20 PM
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.
(http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/uimages/ny/6-16%20cast%20iron%20boots.jpeg)I found where all the in-game metal went.
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.
Quote from: SMuz on April 08, 2009, 03:11:35 AM
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. :o