Two handed swords

[Archmage Silver]

Did any1 ever meet a player who had flail or mace as a favorite weapon?

I've done many a BG2 playthrough with Grandmastery in Flails. Flail of the Ages, you know. Very useful weapon in that game.

 

And in IWD2, Mace was probably the best weapon-type to specialize in.

Don't forget Mace of Disruption +2 in BG II. The +1 version could be upgraded by Cromwell if you kept the Illithium Ore.

[Tsuga C]

Did any1 ever meet a player who had flail or mace as a favorite weapon?

 

As a person favorite, no. Were I going into combat I'd likely select something else, but some of my characters have had them as their favorite weapons. I also like halberds for tripping and spetums/ranseurs for disarming opponents as I see this as adding to the enjoyment of combat. Having a variety of options for your melee-oriented characters is always a good thing.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Tsuga C

[Boatmurder]

I think the option for using oversize weapons should be given. With encumbrance penalties, or simply bad initiative (ad&d, don't know if we'll see this here) for the wielder.

 

About the "slung across the back" thing: slitted scabbard, custom harness. Don't say it's not viable to carry one on your back just because it would be impossible to remove from a full-length scabbard on your back.

[Starglider]

Did any1 ever meet a player who had flail or mace as a favorite weapon?

 

Flail of the Ages was my favourite weapon in BG2

[jezz555]

If you want finesse use a rapier, if you want defense use a sword and shield, if you want offense and power use a two-handed weapon, if you want offense and speed dual wield. Thats how its always been, and imo that's how it should stay. A two-handed weapon doesn't have to be a gigantic sword, it could be a smaller one so long as you wield it with two hands. I don't really see the point here tbh

[Merlkir]

If you want finesse use a rapier, if you want defense use a sword and shield, if you want offense and power use a two-handed weapon, if you want offense and speed dual wield. Thats how its always been, and imo that's how it should stay. A two-handed weapon doesn't have to be a gigantic sword, it could be a smaller one so long as you wield it with two hands. I don't really see the point here tbh

 

*sigh* yeah, dem awesome false stereotypes.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Merlkir

[Chilloutman]

If you want finesse use a rapier, if you want defense use a sword and shield, if you want offense and power use a two-handed weapon, if you want offense and speed dual wield. Thats how its always been, and imo that's how it should stay. A two-handed weapon doesn't have to be a gigantic sword, it could be a smaller one so long as you wield it with two hands. I don't really see the point here tbh

 

*sigh* yeah, dem awesome false stereotypes.

 

And isnt it true? I mean if I put aside man vs man fight and put in man vs eg. minotaur than it makes perfect sense. You will do more damage with 2h, you will attack more times with 2 weapons and you will have better defense with shield. I still see here people lamenting about how was 2H used in history but well, this is not historically accurate world or fencing simulator. Live with it or kill it with fire.

[Merlkir]

If you want finesse use a rapier, if you want defense use a sword and shield, if you want offense and power use a two-handed weapon, if you want offense and speed dual wield. Thats how its always been, and imo that's how it should stay. A two-handed weapon doesn't have to be a gigantic sword, it could be a smaller one so long as you wield it with two hands. I don't really see the point here tbh

 

*sigh* yeah, dem awesome false stereotypes.

 

And isnt it true? I mean if I put aside man vs man fight and put in man vs eg. minotaur than it makes perfect sense. You will do more damage with 2h, you will attack more times with 2 weapons and you will have better defense with shield. I still see here people lamenting about how was 2H used in history but well, this is not historically accurate world or fencing simulator. Live with it or kill it with fire.

 

No, it really isn't true.

 

1) 2h swords were only a bit heavier than 1h ones and the power added by the other hand was more for better control than significantly more damage. A rapier stab could inflict a much more serious wound than a longsword slice, so how do you measure damage?

2) 2 weapons weren't a very common thing used in history. And certainly it doesn't mean you attack twice as many times in the same time as with just one weapon, it's much more complex than that. It was something unusual, something not everyone would be prepared to and expect in a fight, that gave you some advantage. (similarly to being left handed)

3) you have different kind of defense with a shield and it protects you from projectiles.

 

This "2h do more damage, rapiers are about finesse (whatever that means mechanically) and shields give you better defense" is just a simplification of reality to fit in a specific ruleset, not a very accurate one at that. It mostly stems from wrong assumptions and ideas people have about medieval combat.

 

But I know, people don't care about learning something about reality, let's just keep doing what everyone's done in the past.

 

You know what? I'd rather kill it with fire then. "This is not a fencing simulator, it's just a game..." - this makes me sick. Yes, it IS a fencing simulator, you're having characters fight with swords and you simulate the result. You're just using it as excuse for familiarity, laziness and ignorance.

 

It's not like anyone is asking to turn PE into a Mount and Blade kind of game, or CLANG. If we have that knowledge and if we have some understanding of those principles, why not apply them? Why not do things slightly differently and possibly better?

Edited October 30, 2012 by Merlkir

[Chilloutman]

If you want finesse use a rapier, if you want defense use a sword and shield, if you want offense and power use a two-handed weapon, if you want offense and speed dual wield. Thats how its always been, and imo that's how it should stay. A two-handed weapon doesn't have to be a gigantic sword, it could be a smaller one so long as you wield it with two hands. I don't really see the point here tbh

 

*sigh* yeah, dem awesome false stereotypes.

 

And isnt it true? I mean if I put aside man vs man fight and put in man vs eg. minotaur than it makes perfect sense. You will do more damage with 2h, you will attack more times with 2 weapons and you will have better defense with shield. I still see here people lamenting about how was 2H used in history but well, this is not historically accurate world or fencing simulator. Live with it or kill it with fire.

 

No, it really isn't true.

 

1) 2h swords were only a bit heavier than 1h ones and the power added by the other hand was more for better control than significantly more damage. A rapier stab could inflict a much more serious wound than a longsword slice, so how do you measure damage?

2) 2 weapons weren't a very common thing used in history. And certainly it doesn't mean you attack twice as many times in the same time as with just one weapon, it's much more complex than that. It was something unusual, something not everyone would be prepared to and expect in a fight, that gave you some advantage. (similarly to being left handed)

3) you have different kind of defense with a shield and it protects you from projectiles.

 

This "2h do more damage, rapiers are about finesse (whatever that means mechanically) and shields give you better defense" is just a simplification of reality to fit in a specific ruleset, not a very accurate one at that. It mostly stems from wrong assumptions and ideas people have about medieval combat.

 

But I know, people don't care about learning something about reality, let's just keep doing what everyone's done in the past.

 

You know what? I'd rather kill it with fire then. "This is not a fencing simulator, it's just a game..." - this makes me sick. Yes, it IS a fencing simulator, you're having characters fight with swords and you simulate the result. You're just using it as excuse for familiarity, laziness and ignorance.

 

It's not like anyone is asking to turn PE into a Mount and Blade kind of game, or CLANG. If we have that knowledge and if we have some understanding of those principles, why not apply them? Why not do things slightly differently and possibly better?

 

You are still overlooking that its a game, and it have to have some rules. If all weapons have same damage what will distinguish one from another? And no its not fencing simulator because you can cast fireball in middle of fight (and that fight is isometric and you cant choose which way your character will swing/thrust his sword/rapier). What hoplites would do in this situation in Greek history? No one knows because its fantasy. And yes rapier require more dexterity than two handed sword. And yes you can do devastating attack with it. But if I look it as game vs reality its much easier to hit something hard with sword than with rapier. Scoring killing blow with it should be transfered to scoring critical hit. So this is covered as well.Its not lazyness or ignorance. Its just how it works in games with rules (which have to be consistend or developers would go crazy). You cant expect them to copy all real world rules to isometric game. geez

 

Also for your blog/paintings

[Elerond]

You are still overlooking that its a game, and it have to have some rules. If all weapons have same damage what will distinguish one from another? And no its not fencing simulator because you can cast fireball in middle of fight (and that fight is isometric and you cant choose which way your character will swing/thrust his sword/rapier). What hoplites would do in this situation in Greek history? No one knows because its fantasy. And yes rapier require more dexterity than two handed sword. And yes you can do devastating attack with it. But if I look it as game vs reality its much easier to hit something hard with sword than with rapier. Scoring killing blow with it should be transfered to scoring critical hit. So this is covered as well.Its not lazyness or ignorance. Its just how it works in games with rules (which have to be consistend or developers would go crazy). You cant expect them to copy all real world rules to isometric game. geez

 

Also for your blog/paintings

 

 

They would probably try do same thing what they did when they got hit from flaming oil shot from siege weapon. Dodge and hope that they don't die.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Elerond

[Merlkir]

I still think the simplification, or rule-ification could be done better. One of the points is - you don't need more dexterity to thrust a rapier correctly than you need to swing a 2h sword correctly. If you look at how they're used and what techniques there exist for their use, it's about the same complexity and both require considerable dexterity. And of course a rapier doesn't deal much damage if you swing it, that'd be like beating someone with the shaft of the spear. Sure it's possible and you should be able to do it. But the weapon is primarily designed to do something else. How do I fight differently with a spear than I fight with a sword, in the game? That's what the devs should be figuring out.

 

Of course you have to abstract this into numbers and game mechanics, but I suspect it could be done better (and in a more interesting way to play) than "this and that give you 2 more attacks per round" or "X has Y% chance of critical hit". Just giving the weapons different amount of damage or critical range is boring.

 

Also thanks.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Merlkir

[Chilloutman]

You guys trying to convice me that if there are 2 guys standing next to tree and one have 1 weapon and another one have 2 weapons and booth will be bashing that tree for 1 minut that the guy with 2 weapons will not score more hits? really? are you trying to point that? OK then there is no more point of arguing about it.

 

About that fireball it was just example, what about shield type spells? entangling roots? Because something is set in out real world history doesnt mean that all of it have to apply to Fantasy world and this saying ME who is quite nitpicky about inconsistecy in fantasy games.

[Chilloutman]

I still think the simplification, or rule-ification could be done better. One of the points is - you don't need more dexterity to thrust a rapier correctly than you need to swing a 2h sword correctly. If you look at how they're used and what techniques there exist for their use, it's about the same complexity and both require considerable dexterity. And of course a rapier doesn't deal much damage if you swing it, that'd be like beating someone with the shaft of the spear. Sure it's possible and you should be able to do it. But the weapon is primarily designed to do something else. How do I fight differently with a spear than I fight with a sword, in the game? That's what the devs should be figuring out.

 

Of course you have to abstract this into numbers and game mechanics, but I suspect it could be done better (and in a more interesting way to play) than "this and that give you 2 more attacks per round" or "X has Y% chance of critical hit". Just giving the weapons different amount of damage or critical range is boring.

 

Also thanks.

 

Ok so how? That is a question. I can argue that I dont like loading screens in games but you then have to point out how differently YOU would do it. Same easy way to tell that I dont like cars running on gas but I dont know how to make better car running on water so I dont argue on car provider forum that car on water would be better

[Merlkir]

You guys trying to convice me that if there are 2 guys standing next to tree and one have 1 weapon and another one have 2 weapons and booth will be bashing that tree for 1 minut that the guy with 2 weapons will not score more hits? really? are you trying to point that? OK then there is no more point of arguing about it.

 

About that fireball it was just example, what about shield type spells? entangling roots? Because something is set in out real world history doesnt mean that all of it have to apply to Fantasy world and this saying ME who is quite nitpicky about inconsistecy in fantasy games.

 

What do "hits" mean? Does a number of hits determine who wins the combat? This kind of contest doesn't really give any results you could use to judge the efficiency of weapons in combat.

 

Hey, if there's logic to these spells, if we know HOW they work, we can speculate quite successfuly about what a real life warrior would've done with them. Is the shield spell a literal shield? Then the hoplite doesn't need a shield. Is it a ball of protective energy? Is it the same shape as his body, protecting it whole? etc. etc..

 

As for how - sure I'd come up with a solution, if you paid me to be a systems designer. I've worked on a commercial RPG before btw, it's not like I'm trying to imagine cars running on water.

[Chilloutman]

You guys trying to convice me that if there are 2 guys standing next to tree and one have 1 weapon and another one have 2 weapons and booth will be bashing that tree for 1 minut that the guy with 2 weapons will not score more hits? really? are you trying to point that? OK then there is no more point of arguing about it.

 

About that fireball it was just example, what about shield type spells? entangling roots? Because something is set in out real world history doesnt mean that all of it have to apply to Fantasy world and this saying ME who is quite nitpicky about inconsistecy in fantasy games.

 

What do "hits" mean? Does a number of hits determine who wins the combat? This kind of contest doesn't really give any results you could use to judge the efficiency of weapons in combat.

 

Hey, if there's logic to these spells, if we know HOW they work, we can speculate quite successfuly about what a real life warrior would've done with them. Is the shield spell a literal shield? Then the hoplite doesn't need a shield. Is it a ball of protective energy? Is it the same shape as his body, protecting it whole? etc. etc..

 

As for how - sure I'd come up with a solution, if you paid me to be a systems designer. I've worked on a commercial RPG before btw, it's not like I'm trying to imagine cars running on water.

 

You still talking about man vs man fight, yeah if you fighting ogre that yes, more hits is always better. I am not now going to argue about how sword+1 is better than simple sword because this would end up that we dont have new games, lets just playe die-by-the-sword and everyone is happy

 

And I worked in game industry as well and i know that some request are just imposible due to time/money/gain factor

 

Jestli chces muzem se o tom pobavit privatne, ale myslim ze to nema moc cenu, kazdy mame svuj nazor evidentne

[Elerond]

You guys trying to convice me that if there are 2 guys standing next to tree and one have 1 weapon and another one have 2 weapons and booth will be bashing that tree for 1 minut that the guy with 2 weapons will not score more hits? really? are you trying to point that? OK then there is no more point of arguing about it.

 

 

That is probably true if there is no need to hit on specific area. But in fight you must take account what your opponent does and where you need to hit him, her or it. Because if you wave your weapons like weather vane you will probably die.

 

If I design fighting, weapon and armour system in the game. I probably would take approach where every fighting style gives it benefits to blocking, dodging and attacking. Character could use weapons with different styles, but weapons will give plus or minus to styles benefits depending on how good they fit on that style. Each weapon should probably also have damage types what it can inflict (for example slashing, blunt, piercing, thrust). Armours should have damage thresholds for each damage type and they should give plus and minus points to blocking, dodging and maybe even in attacking. And damage which character can inflict depends about his, her or its attributes, skills and feats. So character's damage dealing ability would mainly depend about his, her or its know-how and equipment and fighting styles only gives character bonuses or minuses on different aspects.

 

In my opinion such approach would give more realistic feel and it's relatively easy to balance.

[Chilloutman]

You guys trying to convice me that if there are 2 guys standing next to tree and one have 1 weapon and another one have 2 weapons and booth will be bashing that tree for 1 minut that the guy with 2 weapons will not score more hits? really? are you trying to point that? OK then there is no more point of arguing about it.

 

 

That is probably true if there is no need to hit on specific area. But in fight you must take account what your opponent does and where you need to hit him, her or it. Because if you wave your weapons like weather vane you will probably die.

 

 

 

True, but same apply for one weapon

 

 

If I design fighting, weapon and armour system in the game. I probably would take approach where every fighting style gives it benefits to blocking, dodging and attacking. Character could use weapons with different styles, but weapons will give plus or minus to styles benefits depending on how good they fit on that style. Each weapon should probably also have damage types what it can inflict (for example slashing, blunt, piercing, thrust). Armours should have damage thresholds for each damage type and they should give plus and minus points to blocking, dodging and maybe even in attacking. And damage which character can inflict depends about his, her or its attributes, skills and feats. So character's damage dealing ability would mainly depend about his, her or its know-how and equipment and fighting styles only gives character bonuses or minuses on different aspects.

 

In my opinion such approach would give more realistic feel and it's relatively easy to balance.

 

Agree about armor, damage types and skills affecting fight. But how you make same fighting style for 2H sword and for rapier? You mean you will swing rapier same as you would do with 2H sword? not going to happend and its going agains your own philosophy. And again you just cant put out different damages on different weapons. A lot of people in cRPGs love to gather more powerfull weapons. If ''power'' of weapong doesnt exist it will be boring to finding still same stat sword only with different skin. You guys would be great at designing something like Demon Soul but this is old skool cRPG (mostly based on P&P)

[Merlkir]

And again you just cant put out different damages on different weapons.

 

Yeah you can. Depending on your skill level with axes, your distance from the enemy and his dodging skill, it may happen that you hit him with the haft of the axe, not the head. In that case you deal a smaller amount of blunt damage. (which may be reduced by his padded armor etc. etc.)

If you're better with axes and if you use proper distance, you'll hit with the head and deliver crushing+cutting type of damage instead more often.

 

Many people diss the first Witcher game's fighting system, but I think they were onto something with the combo system. Not saying that's something that should be in PE, but the idea you need to click at the right time to chain attacks successfuly is a good one. Different weapons would have different timing for example, based on the way they're used.

 

Just damage/speed/critrange are, as I said, a bit boring.

 

 

edit: and I just realized that's not what you were talking about. Nevermind about that, still I think the various damage types for weapons are a valid topic.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Merlkir

[Chilloutman]

And again you just cant put out different damages on different weapons.

 

Yeah you can. Depending on your skill level with axes, your distance from the enemy and his dodging skill, it may happen that you hit him with the haft of the axe, not the head. In that case you deal a smaller amount of blunt damage. (which may be reduced by his padded armor etc. etc.)

If you're better with axes and if you use proper distance, you'll hit with the head and deliver crushing+cutting type of damage instead more often.

 

 

Not going to happend, too hard to implement, too hard to manage in isometric view in realtime with party of 5-6 character under your control on the screen. Your super hit to head is called critical and is already in from BG1

 

 

Many people diss the first Witcher game's fighting system, but I think they were onto something with the combo system. Not saying that's something that should be in PE, but the idea you need to click at the right time to chain attacks successfuly is a good one. Different weapons would have different timing for example, based on the way they're used.

 

Just damage/speed/critrange are, as I said, a bit boring.

 

 

edit: and I just realized that's not what you were talking about. Nevermind about that, still I think the various damage types for weapons are a valid topic.

 

And yes I dont have anything against combat system in Witcher but you have to manage only one character in atime. Something completly different from IE games.

 

I am for variouse damage types (slashing etc.) as well as about variouse weapon power (1k6, 1d8, 2k6 etc) so we are on same boat here

Edited October 30, 2012 by Chilloutman

[Merlkir]

Not going to happend, too hard to implement, too hard to manage in isometric view in realtime with party of 5-6 character under your control on the screen. Your super hit to head is called critical and is already in from BG1

 

I would also dispute that. Like, come on, it's a couple of number checks and random rolls. Hardly impossible for modern computers. Also a critical is clearly something entirely different for axe combat.

[Elerond]

 

 

If I design fighting, weapon and armour system in the game. I probably would take approach where every fighting style gives it benefits to blocking, dodging and attacking. Character could use weapons with different styles, but weapons will give plus or minus to styles benefits depending on how good they fit on that style. Each weapon should probably also have damage types what it can inflict (for example slashing, blunt, piercing, thrust). Armours should have damage thresholds for each damage type and they should give plus and minus points to blocking, dodging and maybe even in attacking. And damage which character can inflict depends about his, her or its attributes, skills and feats. So character's damage dealing ability would mainly depend about his, her or its know-how and equipment and fighting styles only gives character bonuses or minuses on different aspects.

 

In my opinion such approach would give more realistic feel and it's relatively easy to balance.

 

Agree about armor, damage types and skills affecting fight. But how you make same fighting style for 2H sword and for rapier? You mean you will swing rapier same as you would do with 2H sword? not going to happend and its going agains your own philosophy. And again you just cant put out different damages on different weapons. A lot of people in cRPGs love to gather more powerfull weapons. If ''power'' of weapong doesnt exist it will be boring to finding still same stat sword only with different skin. You guys would be great at designing something like Demon Soul but this is old skool cRPG (mostly based on P&P)

 

Rapier with 2H style, character probably will get mostly negative bonuses from that as rapiers are not usually designed to be used with two hands, but if character wants to be stupid then why not?

 

And of course there can be better weapons, for example steel sword would give more bonus to armor penetration than iron sword. So good sword don't make character become a swordmaster, but makes swordmaster work much easier.

 

There are P&P systems that have more complex and realistic combat systems than that which I designed in 5 minutes (so it's far from perfect). And in my opinion old school don't mean that you must follow in D&D footsteps, in my opinion when you design entirely new rpg system you should probably take account what things you love in old systems and what things in your opinion are ridiculous or could been done better and then try to do fix them.

[Chilloutman]

Not going to happend, too hard to implement, too hard to manage in isometric view in realtime with party of 5-6 character under your control on the screen. Your super hit to head is called critical and is already in from BG1

 

I would also dispute that. Like, come on, it's a couple of number checks and random rolls. Hardly impossible for modern computers. Also a critical is clearly something entirely different for axe combat.

 

No arguments, no discussion, what is critical in axe combat than? Seriously you starting to be too nitpicky

[Merlkir]

Well, I would assume quite similar to what a critical strike with other weapons:

 

This could represent an attack that hits harder, a lucky strike or damaging a weak area on an opponent.

 

Notice I didn't write about a strike TO the head (headshot? location damage was in the Fallout games, right?), but WITH the head, the head of the axe. (the metal cutting bit, as opposed to the wooden haft bit)

[Chilloutman]

If I design fighting, weapon and armour system in the game. I probably would take approach where every fighting style gives it benefits to blocking, dodging and attacking. Character could use weapons with different styles, but weapons will give plus or minus to styles benefits depending on how good they fit on that style. Each weapon should probably also have damage types what it can inflict (for example slashing, blunt, piercing, thrust). Armours should have damage thresholds for each damage type and they should give plus and minus points to blocking, dodging and maybe even in attacking. And damage which character can inflict depends about his, her or its attributes, skills and feats. So character's damage dealing ability would mainly depend about his, her or its know-how and equipment and fighting styles only gives character bonuses or minuses on different aspects.

 

In my opinion such approach would give more realistic feel and it's relatively easy to balance.

 

Agree about armor, damage types and skills affecting fight. But how you make same fighting style for 2H sword and for rapier? You mean you will swing rapier same as you would do with 2H sword? not going to happend and its going agains your own philosophy. And again you just cant put out different damages on different weapons. A lot of people in cRPGs love to gather more powerfull weapons. If ''power'' of weapong doesnt exist it will be boring to finding still same stat sword only with different skin. You guys would be great at designing something like Demon Soul but this is old skool cRPG (mostly based on P&P)

 

Rapier with 2H style, character probably will get mostly negative bonuses from that as rapiers are not usually designed to be used with two hands, but if character wants to be stupid then why not?

 

 

And why yes? spend preciouse developer time on something which will noone use. absurd.

 

 

And of course there can be better weapons, for example steel sword would give more bonus to armor penetration than iron sword. So good sword don't make character become a swordmaster, but makes swordmaster work much easier.

 

 

yeah and enchanted flaming blade will add damage and its lighter so its easier to hit, where is problem with that?

 

 

There are P&P systems that have more complex and realistic combat systems than that which I designed in 5 minutes (so it's far from perfect). And in my opinion old school don't mean that you must follow in D&D footsteps, in my opinion when you design entirely new rpg system you should probably take account what things you love in old systems and what things in your opinion are ridiculous or could been done better and then try to do fix them.

 

no problem with this, just have to have on mind that its still game and it have to have some understandable rules.

[Chilloutman]

Well, I would assume quite similar to what a critical strike with other weapons:

 

This could represent an attack that hits harder, a lucky strike or damaging a weak area on an opponent.

 

Notice I didn't write about a strike TO the head (headshot? location damage was in the Fallout games, right?), but WITH the head, the head of the axe. (the metal cutting bit, as opposed to the wooden haft bit)

 

Sorry missunderstanding, but its still same thats why we have damage treshold, 1-6 if you hit for 1dmg than bad luck you hit him with hilt, if you score 6 than good, you place good and precise strike. What are we talking about now?