Weapons and flags

[Callisto]

This is a question for the staff - if you aren't a member of the current or former staff, please do NOT post a reply. I'd really like to hear back from the coders/item builders if they have the time for it.

Why is it some single-handed weapons are 'wield' only and some aren't? If you can hold a weapon in one hand, you should be able to hold it in the other I'd think. Is it strength-based, or is it flag-based?

Thanks.

[Xygax]

For lighter weapons, daggers and such, this may simply be a typo... (ie. you can report the error with the typo command and it will be reviewed).  For heavier weapons, it may be intentional, but I would suspect that those weapons should actually be ETWO only....  you might consider typoing those also...  they'll all get reviewed eventually.

-- X

[Lazloth]

Sorry to bootstrap to this thread, Callisto -- corollary follows:

All weapons should be either one-handed [able to be ep/es'd] or two-handed only?

[Xygax]

Lazloth:  That's pretty much my feeling on the matter, yeah...  other imms may disagree....  Everything I've built for Salarr thus-far has met those criteria, though, and anything I fix as the result of a typo command probably will also, (assuming my HL approver agrees with me).

[Angela Christine]

Not staff, but I'm not good at keeping my opinions to myself, and at least one staffer has answered.

I believe that some items are ep only intentionally.  Most of the items I've seen like that were large, like long spears, long lances, or unweildy battle axes.  It is true that a strong character could use these weapons in one hand, but a non-halfgiant could not use _two_ of them at the same time.  If you could use that long spear in either hand, some people would use a long spear in each hand, and that looks foolish.  

For a non-Zalanthian example, you don't see a knight in a jousting match using two lances, one in each hand.  But the lance isn't a two handed weapon either, the knight does often carry a shield in his other hand.

EP-only weapons make sense to me.  It lets you use a shield or more modest weapon in your off hand, something that etwo-only does not allow, but without allowing to unrealistically use two large weapons at the same time.

AC

[Xygax]

Yeah, those seem like legitimate exceptions...  I'd personally rather see etwo/ep/es restrictions be determined by strength of the wielder v. the mass of the weapon.

[Anonymous]

What should I do again if there's a weapon that can only be wielded in your primary hand...and it's been bugging me as not very realistic for this weapon, and after seeing this post it doesn't seem to fit the critereria for why a weapon is this way?

[Delirium]

Typo it.

Fictional example:

typo cleaver It says this is so heavy it can be used only by half-giants or very strong muls, yet my dwarf can hold this in one hand.

[Callisto]

For heavier weapons, it may be intentional, but I would suspect that those weapons should actually be ETWO only ...

From that I'm going to go with that its much like normal Diku where you have a flag system to dictate item placement on a PC, though modified at least enough to allow added wear locations that the original code didn't support. If that's the case, then how difficult would it be to make the leap to a strength-based weapon equip system?

I was thinking about it and it stands to reason that what you can do should be directly related to how strong you are. Sure your average human couldn't handle the weight of a pair of battle-axes (the hand-axe type, not the two-handed type), where as a dwarf or a mul could more then likely handle the weight with the same ease an elf handles a pair of daggers or short spears.

With a strength-based system, the weight of a weapon could be checked against a strength roll to decide if you can WIELD or HOLD a single-handed weapon. When you attempt to WIELD or HOLD a second weapon, it would run a similar strength check with a -2 negative to decide if the weapon can be HELD/WIELDED. Two-handed weapons - great swords, two-handed swords and battle-axes, halberds, etc - would be excluded from such due to the fact they are, be design, two-handed weapons.

This would add a touch more realism to the realm of the warriors trade, not to mention allowing shield users more options when it comes to combat tactics. WIELD-ONLY weapons limit the use of the shield in that you must keep it in your secondary hand. One of the big perks of shields is that you can move from secondary to primary - from an offensive stance to a defensive stance - in the middle of a fight, allowing the shield user a little more control of the combat situation. With a strength-based system this wouldn't be a problem unless the character is too weak to handle it in their off-hand.

I have no clue how hard something such as this would be to code, but I feel the effort would pay off in the long run and be better for the game.

Just my thoughts/ideas on the matter.

I'd appreciate feed back on the idea when someone has the time for it.

[Savak]

Yes, some items are 'ep only'.  In most cases this is intentional, but feel free to typo anything you feel might be horked.

Yes, it would be nice if the wield/hold system were dependent on something other than flags, rather than requiring we set additional flag parameters manually.  That way things like strength, size, and possibly agility would be taken more fully into account and lead to different characters being able to use different weapons..differently.  As it stands, weapons can be too heavy to use at all, but there is no well coded middle ground -- it's pretty much either YES or NO, which is why a half-giant can wield a 2-inch toothpick as well as an elf and a strong enough halfling can wield a 12-foot halberd.  That doesn't make either IC'ly appropriate.

-Savak