warriors and weapons

Feedback, bugs, and general gameplay related discussion.
Gura
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Yer girlfriend's bed

warriors and weapons

Postby Gura » Mon May 02, 2005 10:11 am

Main topic: Why do 2h weapons not compare to 1handers and a shield?

This needs some serious looking into. Aside from 3 2h weapons currently available...none of them are really worth using. Those 3 being holy avenger, unholy avenger, and pestilence. 2 restricted to 1 class each and pestilence is useful only in certain situations.

Warriors should have a reason to 2hand. Our damage sucks. It could be an idea to upgrade 2handers to put us on par with rogue damage. Or give us something that improves our tanking ability with 2h weapons.

Nomosolol mentioned there are "feats" in the new d&d...adding feats to warriors could also make them unique also. Feats for damage dealers, tanks, etc..

Tired now and will finish this later but had to write something up before i forgot about it entirely. Feedback welcome please stay on topic.
Dornax says 'And for the right amount of information ye might get some nookie out of Nokie..'

Nokie wiggles his bottom.
Teba tells you 'let me do my job you volo twinker!'
Bobidibble GCC: 'yeah i admit gura is a better warrior then i am, no shame in it... perhaps someday i shall be as pimp'
Sangdraxus
Sojourner
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 6:27 pm
Location: Dallas, TX - Portland, OR
Contact:

Postby Sangdraxus » Mon May 02, 2005 2:33 pm

Although I have not been in the game for a long time... I think I can add some insight:

When you are talking about 2-Handed weapons you are generally talking about HUGE ammounts of damage at the expense of defense and speed.

I remember in my haydays of Toril there were quite a few two-handed weapons, but still arguably more 1 handed weapons.

From a gaming and roleplaying aspect this is frustrating because people don't like to be cookie cutter templates. The entire fabric of a text mud is to make your character how you see fit... all the way down to the descirption when looked at. So this makes it difficult if you have to use the same weapon as 10 other warriors in the same raiding party.

So the short of it is, I agree with you... there should be more of a variety of weapons...
Sangdraxus Blackfire - 50th Level Anti-Paladin
Sangdraxus - 60th Undead Warrior - Whisperwind
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Mon May 02, 2005 2:38 pm

A Sangdraxus!
Vaprak
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 5:46 pm
Location: Midwest

Postby Vaprak » Mon May 02, 2005 2:40 pm

2h weapons are on my list of things to look at for balance. I've got an awful long list though and I haven't even started to do anything with this other than to realize that it doesn't seem quite right how the calcer does these. No time frame implied.
Vaprak, the Destroyer
-Formerly Tempus of HomelandMUD -- pre-merger
Sangdraxus
Sojourner
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 6:27 pm
Location: Dallas, TX - Portland, OR
Contact:

Postby Sangdraxus » Mon May 02, 2005 3:19 pm

Ragorn wrote:A Sangdraxus!


One and only :wink:
Sangdraxus Blackfire - 50th Level Anti-Paladin

Sangdraxus - 60th Undead Warrior - Whisperwind
Yasden
Sojourner
Posts: 1597
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Lake Stevens, WA, USA

Postby Yasden » Mon May 02, 2005 3:25 pm

I think the option of 1-handing a 2-handed weapon should be an option for any race based on their accumulative strength, on the racial notching system. This should also work the opposite way...in that heavier 1-handers would have to be 2-handed for the weaker folks. Of course, this end of the spectrum should get a bonus too...like using light daggers increases their attack speed and gives them an extra attack (yes even more than what they get now), and the heavier weapons would potentially lower the speed, depending on how you used them (an ogre dual-wielding twilights might do some serious damage but he'd possibly lose 1 attack every 2 rounds or so).

Just some thoughts based on the weight/speed system of 2nd edition...
Support Your Addiction! Vote for TorilMUD Today!

Top Mud Sites: http://www.topmudsites.com/cgi-bin/topmuds/rankem.cgi?id=shev

Why Nerox is jealous of me:

Nerox tells you 'man this thing is kicking my ass and i have blisters!'
Nerox tells you 'ok attempting it again put tape on my fingers for easier sliding'
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Mon May 02, 2005 5:39 pm

Brought this up long before. Has been an issue for quite some time now.
Warriors really do have no reason to 2h. Potentially why rogues dominate
the melee damage so much is that warriors DONT 2h. Reason for that,
2h weapons are the suck on a number of levels. 1 the dice on most
of the 2h weapons in the game are very similar to top of the line 1h weapon
dice. 2 1h weapons offer much more significant hit/dam and other bonuses
as well as a larger variety. As it stands, it's definately not balanced.

In short, i agree with gura in the fact that 2h weapons aren't really worth
wielding for warriors. 2h dice in general are significantly less than they
should be. Adding a 1.5X your strength bonus or something along those
lines would be a relatively quick and easy fix for this, and is something
used in 3rd edition. As far as your idea, yasden, regarding speed and
damage. I think the idea is quite sound, but the amount of coding and
time spent balancing this would be prohibitive to other things that i think
myself, along with the rest of the mud would consider more important
at this juncture.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Mon May 02, 2005 8:03 pm

i heard twilight can proc on proc now so should be a pretty decent 2h. dragonlance and cp volgue have some really good dice and if 2h weapons keep going in this direction I think it'll be great.

i heard spob axe was downgraded which was good since it was 1h with 75% of a 2h damage dice. However, even with the great dice it didn't do any more damage than other 1h weapons in the game (damage is in the procs).

--------

warriors 2h doing same damage as rogues... thats pretty insane idea. However if you consider that rogues still have a lot of strengths in addition to their damage then it could be reasonable.

Warriors 2h make bad tanks, but it would give them additional versatility that they don't presently have and would broaden the class quite a bit (as well as creating more real options for warrior kits other than the maxhp/ac).

The increased damage output wouldn't have to be considered too much because we don't currently take any extra tanks to zone (you need a certain # of tanks to rescue against certain # of mobs). You would see zones being completed faster as fights get closer to finished, warriors would switch out to 2h, however it didn't really make anything "easier" as by the time your switching you've already won. Warriors for the large part still wouldnt be able to target too effectively because of switch lag.

You might have to consider the effect on pal/anti. If pal/anti start doing rogue damage and tanking very effectively (in some situations) it might make you question bringing tanks (1h warriors at an estimated 10% of rogue damage when dressed as a tank)

and of course there is ranger/dire. If everyone starts doing rogue damage then rangers would have to start doing at least 1.5 and probably 2x rogue damage or be completely redesigned since they are very very deficient tanks and dont have a skill base that makes them attractive to groups like rogues.

it sounds like an interesting idea.

but with a major change like this you have to ask what exactly is this "solution" an answer to? What is the game problem we are trying to address?

The 1 dimensionality of the warrior class? (is this really a big problem?)
The non linear damage scale between 1h weapons and 2h? (so what?)
The dominating position rogues and rangers have in single target melee damage (how is this a problem?)
The dramatic influx of rogues (better ways to solve this if it is indeed a problem to see people enjoying a new class).
Lahgen
Sojourner
Posts: 542
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:58 am

Postby Lahgen » Tue May 03, 2005 1:10 am

I'm a noob as far as straight melee classes go, so take my opinion for what it's worth:

1. In a normal 1 warrior tanking xp run, it would be dumb to 2 hand. But if you have two warriors, would it really be so bad to let one of them go two handed? If the complaint is about warriors not using 2 handers during zoning, then perhaps there really is some room for improvement. Two ideas would be an enhanced critical strike skill, and perhaps a bonus to hitall for using a bigger weapon.

2. Damage may be part of it, but even with the avengers, the real value is their spanky procs. The same holds true for other 2 handers, to a lesser degree. With gythka you have major para. With darksteel you have blind and wither. With gleaming 2 handed bastagesword you have scarlet outline. So, if you look at them more as proc delivery systems rather than their raw damage value, seems to me that their value in battle becomes more evident.

3. Do warriors do less damage than rogues? Over the short run, sure. But generally speaking, a good warrior will outlast a good rogue defensively, thus their damage will add up.
Kesena OOC: 'i wish my daddy bought me power tools'
Dorgh group-says 'damn, even with Cofen helping Mori, they STILL can't kill someone
Hekanut says 'I know level doesn't matter much, but most won't take seriously if a level 2 claims to be the best thing before, during, and after sliced bread.'

Rather than seeing "subpar race/class," see "challenge."
Gura
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Yer girlfriend's bed

Postby Gura » Tue May 03, 2005 8:31 am

thx for the response vaprak. have some ideas if u wanna drop me a line in game to discuss.
Dornax says 'And for the right amount of information ye might get some nookie out of Nokie..'



Nokie wiggles his bottom.

Teba tells you 'let me do my job you volo twinker!'

Bobidibble GCC: 'yeah i admit gura is a better warrior then i am, no shame in it... perhaps someday i shall be as pimp'
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Tue May 03, 2005 1:33 pm

Kiryan, you said:
"The non linear damage scale between 1h weapons and 2h? (so what?)"

Not looking at a linear scale, but ultimately, other than procs there is no
reason to wield a 2h weapon over a 1h weapon. "Since warriors don't do
much damage when properly dressed" they could use somethin to help
them out. That is my concern. Should they do as much damage as rogues?
No. But with khanjari being rogue only, don't really run the risk of a
warrior outdamaging a rogue anytime soon. Ultimately what i want to see
is a significant damage increase when a warrior wields a 2h weapon
over a 1h weapon. Partially to make up for the lack of tanking skills while
not wearing a shield. Partially because it just makes sense.

As far as the effect on paladins and antis, they are much like warriors
EXCEPT that their class-specific weapons are 2h, and they don't
require a shield to use all of their tanking abilities. There still is some
benefit to them using a shield, although it is SIGNIFICANTLY less than
a warriors use of a shield. There are negatives to having to be mounted
as well. This is definately something that would have to be tested before
a full implimentation, but shouldn't be too hard to find a workable
solution.

And thank you Vaprak, was nice to get a status update =)

Del
Disoputlip
Sojourner
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Copenhagen

Postby Disoputlip » Tue May 03, 2005 9:11 pm

Ok, I don't play warrior a whole lot. (got a 50 wa though).

But. If I was in an xp group, and it wasn't me that tanked, then right at this point I would remove my shield and sword, and wield a two-handed weapon.

I think many would.
Raiwen
Sojourner
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, Ga USA
Contact:

Postby Raiwen » Tue May 03, 2005 9:19 pm

Disoputlip wrote:But. If I was in an xp group, and it wasn't me that tanked, then right at this point I would remove my shield and sword, and wield a two-handed weapon.


I still 2hand it on xp groups, and zonelets even when main tank. Of course, I'm using a gythka, and the para proc is soo sweet! :)

I'm also an ogre, and enjoy the abuse the mobs dish out on me.
Nurpy Fuzzyfeet
Sojourner
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 12:28 am

Postby Nurpy Fuzzyfeet » Tue May 03, 2005 9:50 pm

Raiwen wrote:
Disoputlip wrote:But. If I was in an xp group, and it wasn't me that tanked, then right at this point I would remove my shield and sword, and wield a two-handed weapon.


I still 2hand it on xp groups, and zonelets even when main tank. Of course, I'm using a gythka, and the para proc is soo sweet! :)

I'm also an ogre, and enjoy the abuse the mobs dish out on me.



Ogres cannot tank with a 1 hander and a shield anyway.
Aristan group-says 'nurpy=tripod'

Shevarash GCC: 'Tiamat stands here, fighting Nurpy.'
Raiwen
Sojourner
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, Ga USA
Contact:

Postby Raiwen » Tue May 03, 2005 10:13 pm

Nurpy Fuzzyfeet wrote:
Raiwen wrote:I still 2hand it on xp groups, and zonelets even when main tank. Of course, I'm using a gythka, and the para proc is soo sweet! :)

I'm also an ogre, and enjoy the abuse the mobs dish out on me.

Ogres cannot tank with a 1 hander and a shield anyway.


you heard it from the half-fling folks! upgrade ogre warriors! :)
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Tue May 03, 2005 11:06 pm

He is right :P

Ogres are not traditionally tanks .. few exceptions to the rule of course
fotex
Sojourner
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 12:23 am

Postby fotex » Tue May 03, 2005 11:21 pm

Yeah, throw ogres a bone. :P
Gura
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Yer girlfriend's bed

Re: warriors and weapons

Postby Gura » Wed May 04, 2005 12:37 am

Gura wrote:Main topic: Why do 2h weapons not compare to 1handers and a shield?
Feedback welcome please stay on topic.
Dornax says 'And for the right amount of information ye might get some nookie out of Nokie..'



Nokie wiggles his bottom.

Teba tells you 'let me do my job you volo twinker!'

Bobidibble GCC: 'yeah i admit gura is a better warrior then i am, no shame in it... perhaps someday i shall be as pimp'
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Wed May 04, 2005 3:54 am

sorry =(
Llaaldara
Sojourner
Posts: 998
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Dobluth Kyor

Re: warriors and weapons

Postby Llaaldara » Wed May 04, 2005 8:23 pm

Gura wrote:Main topic: Why do 2h weapons not compare to 1handers and a shield?


Basically because Shield-Block destroyed variety for Warriors. The 'tweak' to making bashing better with a shield didn't help either.

Before shieldblock, 3 of the 4 fighting styles were more or less the same. They each had their own advantages, but none of these were so dramatically better then the others.

4 Fighting Styles are:
Single 1h weapon style
1h weapon + shield style
2h weapon style
Two 1h weapon style (Dualing)

Back before Shield-Block, warriors would use a shield for the extra ac, or to bash slightly better. Back then, 2h bashing wasn't so bad compared to bashing with shield. It wasn't as good, but it was atleast close to it then. Unlike now.

So warriors got Shield-Block. In essence, they received a BONUS to fighting in one particular fighting style. So, why didn't the other 3 styles also get bonuses of equal proportion?

Sing 1h weapon style, with no shield, could have used something like "advanced dodge" or "armor optimization" wutever the hell you wanna call it. They should be harder to hit, as they are bending and dancing more. A dodge bonus in essence.

2h weapon style would have used some type of bonus to riposte. Perhaps a 'bonus' skill like 'bat weapon' that has a chance to disarm, or do crit (or stun) like damage (effect) with a riposte. Bashing with 2h weapon should be right under bashing with 1h+shield style.

Two 1h weapon style (dualing) should have received a bonus to parry.

But they didn't. So 1h+shield style dominates the fighting styles for warriors, leaving it the only viable option in zones because it was the only one to receive a significant bonus.
Llaaldara
Sojourner
Posts: 998
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Dobluth Kyor

Postby Llaaldara » Wed May 04, 2005 8:29 pm

Now I have a question on this matter.

Why does it appear that warrior tanking skills are checked AFTER the AC is checked?

For instance. Get -100 ac on. Go hitall in Splint Shield or DK slave area. Watch as the mobs just miss you. You only parry/dodge/shieldblock if they actually hit your -100 ac.

Why is that? Why is the code going in the oppossite direction of reality?

I'd think I'd use all my warrior abilities FIRST before wondering if my enemies sword/axe/attack is going to make it thru my full plate/elven plate/dragonscale armor. Wouldn't you?

Oh hey, that giant has a mean axe, i'm sure my dragonscale armor will turn it aside. No wait, it didn't. I guess I better parry. Dam. I failed. Guess I better dodge. Dam. I failed that too. Ok come on shield block...

Heck, you don't even have to be a warrior to see this absurdity. You can just be a simple mage trying to get her last dodge notches. :P
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Wed May 04, 2005 10:23 pm

hey thats an interesting question llaaldara. It does seem backwards from that point of view.

I'm sure the answer is because you can only block so many attacks or parry so many times per round. something about reducing successive chances to defend with skills, so it makes sense to save these precious defense chances for times when your AC doesnt come through.

-----

ok few things about your "fighting" styles post.

1. warriors before shieldblock were not tanks. 2k fire elementals were tanks

2. the only reason to wear shields in teh past was if your gear wasnt good enough to hit max ac.

3. um bashing with a shield was always >>>> than without by an insane margin. My first char was a paladin and they supposedly had the "best" 2h bash and it was abysmal, maybe 70% against a 25 level mob at 50. regardless of whether it was more consistent once upon a time anyhting less than a 100% bash is pretty much useless in today's dynamics. This is especially true in exp, you cant afford to fail a bash, have the mob switch and wait to get out of lag to rescue. Bash must be near 100% if your going to use it in exp or zone really.

4. your missing the major advantages to two of the fighting styles.

a. 2h, If your tanking this is preferred as when you riposte your ripstoing with a much more powerful weapon. With riposte you might get 4 or 5 attacks with a 2h weapon vs 6 or 7 with a puny 1h. Of course 1h arent so puny these days compared to 2h. but were discussing the past right?

b. dual wielding, once upon a time people had 80 damrolls, bigger damrolls favor more attacks. the old standard for 2h was 8d4 or avg 20. 3 attacks with an 80 dam roll is 240 + 60 or 300 total damage vs 4 attacks dual wielding minimum of 320 damage before you even figure in weapon damage. your looking at about 15% damage bonus if you had an exceptional damroll. when insane 1hdrs (4d5 4/5) were nerfed and top eq'd damroll was nerfed to 30, dual wielding disappeared.

To make things equitable between 1h and 2h damage, 2hdrs need to gain about 8 average damage (avg up to 28) and get a better cost on procs vs 1hdrs. Its my opinion that this was the real shift over time between 1h and 2h. The old 2hdrs: twilight (big damage), duegar mithril (chain lightning), skullsmasher (bash wraiths), gyth (instakill), avenger (tons of procs), mistweave (area blind), frosty (haste + command word damage), flamberge (mid damage often). the old 1hdrs, ebony (blind+poison), gleaming mithril axe 4d5 4/5 no proc, flaming valk sword (small damage), lost sword of cymurgh hugh (very small damage), emerald longsword (haste), scorn 1h. Notice the huge disparity in # and damage of procs between 1h and 2h weapons in teh past. Now think about today.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Thu May 05, 2005 12:27 am

you know simply shifting the emphasis from shieldblock to parry or dodge (for specific classes like warriors) would go a long ways towards making 2h or dualing viable again.

For example if 90% of a warriros defensive skill is currently shieldblock, make it 20% shieldblock, parry 35%, and 35% dodge.

I'm sure shieldblock is so dominate because it was more logical to upgrade the unique warrior defensive skill rather than a bunch of special case scenarios within parry/dodge (since more classes get these skills).
Hyldryn
Sojourner
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Maryland

Postby Hyldryn » Thu May 05, 2005 3:13 am

Actually the rate of fire for each skill is approximately equal. The only difference is in the order they are checked. So it only appears that shieldblock occurs at a higher rate than dodge, but is is not really so.
daggaz
Sojourner
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:17 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Postby daggaz » Sat May 07, 2005 7:55 pm

I agree. 2h is basically pointless.

In regards to twilight, (mentioned earlier btw), yeah, it does proc on procs, sometimes. Doubles and even triples happen, which can be quite fun on an ogre with 50+ damroll.

But it pretty much only happens on mobs that are much lower than you. And just getting it to single proc on 50+ mobs is a real challenge, so basically the extra damage is a joke when you are in zones.

Used to be, it was kinda useful to wield in zones, cuz it had sense life on it. But the gods saw fit to remove that so now its, yeah, basically worthless. I never use the damn thing anymore, except for pillaging in dk. Too bad.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: warriors and weapons

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon May 09, 2005 3:14 pm

Gura wrote:Main topic: Why do 2h weapons not compare to 1handers and a shield?


There's a reason why many armies in the time of swords and shield retained the use of both two-handed weapons and the use of a smaller weapon and a shield. Each had a purpose and place in battle and it was smarter to pick which was more fitting.

From what I have seen on the mud there are very few instances (zones, situations) that would call for a 2hander over a 1h and a shield, and thus the one hander and the shield WOULD be a more natural choice.

Ultimately this is an argument about realism and to be honest, shield users are more versatile.

Furthermore, not every skill should have universal applicability, not every skill should be "useful" for as many situations as all other skills. Say, speak with plants should not be as useful as bash, and 1h miscellaenous should not be as useful as 1h slashing.

Think about it.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon May 09, 2005 3:21 pm

Llaaldara wrote:Now I have a question on this matter.

Why does it appear that warrior tanking skills are checked AFTER the AC is checked?

For instance. Get -100 ac on. Go hitall in Splint Shield or DK slave area. Watch as the mobs just miss you. You only parry/dodge/shieldblock if they actually hit your -100 ac.

Why is that? Why is the code going in the oppossite direction of reality?


If you did a hitall in Split Shield, WHY would you check parry/dodge/shieldblock first?

Or do you really believe a character can pull off 28 parry attempts in one round and then make attacks?

Another reason why AC should be checked before tanking skills, is that if a character realizes that an opponent is making an ineffectual attack (ie, trying to hit with short sword directly on the breastplate, or hell even a wild miss), a good warrior would chose to ignore that action (because it is ineffectual) and do something else in that time (like make an attack).

That's reality.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Mon May 09, 2005 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon May 09, 2005 3:26 pm

kiryan wrote:you know simply shifting the emphasis from shieldblock to parry or dodge (for specific classes like warriors) would go a long ways towards making 2h or dualing viable again.


How is it possible to shift emphasis from shieldblock? When you're wearing a shield, there is no dodging or parrying when you have this gigantic steel blocking object strapped to one arm and carried by that half of your body (how much does your shield weigh compared to the rest of your equipment?).

Another thing about shieldblock is that anyone that can use a shield should get the skill.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Mon May 09, 2005 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon May 09, 2005 3:28 pm

Best suggestion I could make (and it is impossible for us to know if it exists) is to have some sort of bonus to hit/damage against heavily armored mobs (low ac mobiles).

That way 2handers could see some use in zones like gith, jot, musp, etc.

Perhaps some sort of bonus against large creatures (over 1handers) like ogres and dragons, etc.

If there are bonuses of that nature currently existing, they probably could use a little bit of a nudge upwards.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Tue May 10, 2005 7:19 pm

how about if weapon size vs mob size became a factor.

ie 2h sword against a faerie, dagger against a giant.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Tue May 10, 2005 7:24 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:
kiryan wrote:you know simply shifting the emphasis from shieldblock to parry or dodge (for specific classes like warriors) would go a long ways towards making 2h or dualing viable again.


How is it possible to shift emphasis from shieldblock? When you're wearing a shield, there is no dodging or parrying when you have this gigantic steel blocking object strapped to one arm and carried by that half of your body (how much does your shield weigh compared to the rest of your equipment?).

Another thing about shieldblock is that anyone that can use a shield should get the skill.


what i was saying was increase parry/dodge bonuses for warrior classes only, decrease shieldblock effectiveness to narrow the gap between tanking with and without shield. The emphasis on warrior classes is necessary to prevent rogues and clerics from gaining significant ground in tanking. Note this would have a positive effect on ranger tanking.

and yea its not realisitic, but it might be effective.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed May 11, 2005 9:00 am

kiryan wrote:what i was saying was increase parry/dodge bonuses for warrior classes only, decrease shieldblock effectiveness to narrow the gap between tanking with and without shield. The emphasis on warrior classes is necessary to prevent rogues and clerics from gaining significant ground in tanking. Note this would have a positive effect on ranger tanking.

and yea its not realisitic, but it might be effective.


Increasing parry/dodge bonuses for warrior classes only would have no more a positive effect on ranger tanking than any other class of tanking and therefore could not really be interpreted as being a true boon to the massively failed ranger class - and would indeed be quite ineffectual.

Furthermore, shieldblocking is a premiere warrior-only skill and decreasing shieldblock effectiveness would only provide a boon to the rogue and cleric classes and allow them to gain significant ground in tanking!

I agree warrior classes need a boost in tanking capability, but seeing how shield skills are warrior class only, it would seem that you would need to boost shield skill effectiveness in order to boost warrior classes.
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Re: warriors and weapons

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Wed May 11, 2005 4:51 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:
Gura wrote:Main topic: Why do 2h weapons not compare to 1handers and a shield?


There's a reason why many armies in the time of swords and shield retained the use of both two-handed weapons and the use of a smaller weapon and a shield. Each had a purpose and place in battle and it was smarter to pick which was more fitting.

From what I have seen on the mud there are very few instances (zones, situations) that would call for a 2hander over a 1h and a shield, and thus the one hander and the shield WOULD be a more natural choice.

Ultimately this is an argument about realism and to be honest, shield users are more versatile.

Furthermore, not every skill should have universal applicability, not every skill should be "useful" for as many situations as all other skills. Say, speak with plants should not be as useful as bash, and 1h miscellaenous should not be as useful as 1h slashing.

Think about it.


You sure do have a nack for speaking much and saying nothing.
Comparing speak with plants to bash is just asanine. Your statement
of "not every skill should have universal applicability" holds true.
I don't think it's being asked that tanking while using 2h weapons, etc.
make for equal tanks. As it stands now there are 1h weapons with
dice that are something like 3d7. This is better than the dice on most
2h weapons (by max, but not by avg always). So its rather silly that
1h weapons be able to inflict the kind of damage that 2h'ers do. The
point i thik gura is trying to make is there is little difference in the dice.
This leads to no point in wielding 2h weapons in any situations with
the small exception of them having nicer procs.

The only aspect of realism i see here is being hit with a thin longsword
or even a dagger is MUCH less likely to do the same amount of damage
as a large 2h sword. The 2h sword could easily cleave a man in two.
Granted the same hits with smaller weapons like daggers and longswords
could either eviscerate or kill, even a glancing blow with a 2h weapon
could easily cleave an arm, leg, etc. There is an expansive difference
between the one and two handed weapons, but here it is quite minimal.

Del

Edit: and teflor, last i checked rangers are still a warrior sub-class. I
would assume that any bonus applied to warrior dodge/parry would
be applied in a SIMILAR manner to the sub-classes of anti/paladin/ranger
and of course dire.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Wed May 11, 2005 10:08 pm

i said increase parry/dodge for warrior classes only; rangers are a warrior class, clerics and rogues are not. that would most certainly improve the ability of rangers to tank even when they are "wielding" a bow.
and tonights winner in the Toril EQ lottery is demi belt and skull earring!
Lahgen
Sojourner
Posts: 542
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:58 am

Postby Lahgen » Wed May 11, 2005 11:50 pm

He was not comparing bash to speak with plants. Quite the opposite, in fact. He was saying that speak with plants SHOULDN'T be as useful as bash.
Kesena OOC: 'i wish my daddy bought me power tools'

Dorgh group-says 'damn, even with Cofen helping Mori, they STILL can't kill someone

Hekanut says 'I know level doesn't matter much, but most won't take seriously if a level 2 claims to be the best thing before, during, and after sliced bread.'



Rather than seeing "subpar race/class," see "challenge."
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu May 12, 2005 2:00 am

Delmair wrote:Edit: and teflor, last i checked rangers are still a warrior sub-class. I would assume that any bonus applied to warrior dodge/parry would be applied in a SIMILAR manner to the sub-classes of anti/paladin/ranger and of course dire.


Kiryan wrote:i said increase parry/dodge for warrior classes only; rangers are a warrior class, clerics and rogues are not. that would most certainly improve the ability of rangers to tank even when they are "wielding" a bow.


Ahem...

teflor the ranger wrote:no more a positive effect on ranger tanking than any other class of tanking
could not really be interpreted as being a true boon to the massively failed ranger class


I'm quite well aware that rangers are a warrior sub-class.

Another item is that while 2handers are yes, more powerful than say rapiers and daggers, they are also much slower, easier to block, harder to dodge (you get a big arc swinging a six foot long sword), really there are large 1hander swords that are also heavy and powerful as well. I do agree with Delmair that damage should be significantly downgraded on smaller, non- or minor-magical weapons.

EDIT: Kiryan, we can't arch while tanking.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Thu May 12, 2005 3:58 am

but you can parry with a bow.
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Thu May 12, 2005 6:13 am

Teflor:
easier to block a strike with a 2h weapon than a dagger? thats funny.
Is it also easier to stop a mack truck than a VW beetle?

And my response regarding wether or not you regarded rangers as a
warrior sub-class was linked directly to this quote of what you said a
couple posts up:

"Increasing parry/dodge bonuses for warrior classes only would have no more a positive effect on ranger tanking than any other class of tanking and therefore could not really be interpreted as being a true boon to the massively failed ranger class - and would indeed be quite ineffectual."

you are saying that increasing ranger parry/dodge bonuses would have no effect? They would still tank just as pitifully as they do now? c'mon. wake up. True they wouldn't tank as well as the newly adjusted warriors, but they would still gain a bonus over rogue/cleric/mage.

Del
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu May 12, 2005 10:51 am

Delmair Aamoren wrote:Teflor:
easier to block a strike with a 2h weapon than a dagger? thats funny.
Is it also easier to stop a mack truck than a VW beetle?


Actually yes. Two hander sword arcs are mercilessly predictable, and are easy to deflect with a shield or weapon merely by partially deflecting the blow. What you have to realize is that parrying isn't about stopping but merely rendering an attack ineffectual.

Delmair Aamoren wrote:They would still tank just as pitifully as they do now?


Yes and no, but that's not the issue. Rangers tanking slightly better will do just about zilch for the class.
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Thu May 12, 2005 2:40 pm

Ok, perhaps we got confused on terminology. Quick review of definitions:

Block - To stop progress of. Real world examle: idiots that park in my
driveway block my driveway.

Parry - To partially deflect a blow in a manner that it lessens the blow
to the parrier.

Dodge - To completely avoid a blow by movement of the body (target) to
a safer location (somewhere outside the area of effect of the attack)

Now that we have that cleared up, BLOCKING a 2h sword or hammer attack
wouldn't be easy. Would be a feat of strength. Even parrying would require
more strength than parrying a 1h weapon attack. Dodging would be, as you
stated, considerably easier. So BLOCKING a 2h weapon strike
would be
more difficult than blocking a dagger attack, but avoiding a 2h weapon strike
would be EASIER than avoiding a dagger strike (1h).

If you really want to get into it. You could get into reach or threatened
area with weapons. 2h weapons offering a larger area they can strike
from. But in this system, we can't possibly go there.


And rangers tanking a bit better is better than nothing at all. Not
suggesting it is all that is done for the class, but its something. At least
a place to start.

Del
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu May 12, 2005 11:51 pm

Delmair Aamoren wrote:If you really want to get into it. You could get into reach or threatened area with weapons. 2h weapons offering a larger area they can strike from.


I agree, and consideration for factors such as this, if implemented, would make this mud go to the realm of awesome.

Still, the shield is more versatile. There's a reason why they have been a centerpiece of military equipment up until gunpowder.

Delmair Aamoren wrote:And rangers tanking a bit better is better than nothing at all.


"Better than nothing" is what the Ranger class is, and that IS the problem with the class.

Return to “T2 Gameplay Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests