Long Blades, M&F effect brainstorm

[galehar]

it doesn't mecessarily have to make sense in order to be good gameplay.

It depends. Your Deep Dwarf example isn't very good since healing by waiting is the opposite of realism to begin with. Constriction exists in the real world.

Constriction, on the other hand, holds the monster in place and inflicts more damage by tightening the grip.

And that's why I wish people would stop suggesting that whips get constriction. It's a really dumb idea, you can't tighten the grip of the whip. It doesn't have muscles. Simply pulling on the whip isn't going to do much and can't be compared to the strength of bone crushing constricting snakes. Holding would make more sense (damageless constriction like weak mimics have), but wouldn't be an interesting effect.

minmay once suggested that the unrand Snakebite should get constriction, which I think is a cool idea

Yes, that would be cool, a magical snake-like whip could get it. Except that once the whip starts constricting, you wouldn't be able to attack with it anymore. So I'm not sure how the gameplay and interface would work around that.

[Lasty]

Holding and constriction on whips make no sense. Whips do damage by lashing the enemy -- the tip of the whip flicks at amazing speeds and tears at flesh. A whip which is entangling a foe is simply not capable of doing anything else, particularly damaging that opponent.

You can say realism isn't important, but being purely arbitrary seems odd here -- we might as well have maces summon butterflies when they strike you or have staff attacks cause the opponent to levitate.

[Galefury]

or have staff attacks cause the opponent to levitate.

Crazy Yiuf would be proud of you.
(I'm not sure chaos can actually do that)

[njvack]

minmay once suggested that the unrand Snakebite should get constriction, which I think is a cool idea

Yes, that would be cool, a magical snake-like whip could get it. Except that once the whip starts constricting, you wouldn't be able to attack with it anymore. So I'm not sure how the gameplay and interface would work around that.

Letting your magical unrand whip attack while constricting wouldn't be any less realistic than a magical unrand staff calling down the powers of Hellfire to smite your foes, really.

You probably don't want it to be able to constrict one dude and attack others, but that seems pretty straightforward, interface-wise.

[some12fat2move]

Perhaps the whip is like 20ft long, and you only hold it about 5ft from the tip or so letting the rest of it trail/slither along behind you as you walk. As soon as you whip an enemy, the long part trailing behind gets to work constricting that enemy, and you still have your end to whip with.

[nicolae]

Giving Snakebite constriction wasn't actually a serious suggestion.

damn, man, you gotta stop doing that

[pratamawirya]

The best ideas are often accidental.

[jejorda2]

When I use a weapon of electrocution, I suddenly have to pay a lot more attention to what flies and what doesn't. Would it make any sense to give maces a chance to knock flying enemies to the ground, doing extra damage and stunning them? Or give long blades an accuracy penalty against flying creatures with increased base damage to compensate? There are plenty of both flying and non-flying creatures in all parts of the game, though the mix varies.

[Igxfl]

I'd worry that that would kill Long Blades for late game, when a lot more stuff flies. Since it's hard to start with them too, they might just stop being used most of the time.

[some12fat2move]

I just thought of this very simple form of the parrying idea Happylisk and I were talking about. How about if, for each melee attack made against you while you're wielding a long blade, you have a (3+LongbladesSkill)% chance (or whatever you find appropriate) of negating the attack with "You parry the foo." This would not be convoluted at all, the player could understand it easily and I presume it wouldn't be horribly difficult to implement. Probably most or all long blades would have their base damage slightly reduced for balance (very slightly, since parrying obviously wouldn't be much help against ranged attackers). It would give long blades a unique defensive flavor, while maces & flails be the "standard" weapon type. Thoughts?

[cerebovssquire]

Yes, the progression for defences that negate all damage from effective to ineffective curently is EV -> SH and you want to extend this to EV -> SH -> Parry. That isn't really that unique, since Parry isn't really more than "SH, but doesn't work against ranged". We already have ways to get two-hander+SH, Condensation Shield, Helm card, mutations and Divine Shield, whose rareness (or weakness) is hopefully intentional, so I see more overlap there.

[minstrel]

I'm a bit late to the party here, but my suggestion for M&F would be a knockback effect, similar to the existing trample mechanic, where the enemy is pushed back a square (maybe taking additional damage too), except, unlike trample, the player doesn't automatically follow. A character with sufficient skill levels might be able to gain a free attack or two each fight this way.

Also thus M&F become tactically interesting retreat options. Do you read that blink scroll now, or hit the foo with your mace a few more times and risk getting hit in the process, hoping you score a knockback?

If weapon weight, str and target weight are factored into knockback success chance, different m&f weapons are further differentiated: whip type weapons are fast enough to give you a chance to knock back and then run before the enemy closes in again, but won't knock back big creatures. Great maces are more likely to knock back, but not as likely to gain you a free space.

Making this not a non-starter for fighting ranged opponents would be the hard part. Some skill in positioning would be required and maybe enough extra damage from the knockback to justify the added risk of giving the centaur/ogre mage/hell sentinel an extra space from you. All that said, a knockback effect would clearly be stronger vs melee than ranged, but it's not all about free bonuses with no drawbacks, so I see that as ok. Again though, that's another choice: whips with lower damage output but less likely to push extended game nasties around or big clobberers that might backfire without smart positioning?

[some12fat2move]

Yes, the progression for defences that negate all damage from effective to ineffective curently is EV -> SH and you want to extend this to EV -> SH -> Parry. That isn't really that unique, since Parry isn't really more than "SH, but doesn't work against ranged". We already have ways to get two-hander+SH, Condensation Shield, Helm card, mutations and Divine Shield, whose rareness (or weakness) is hopefully intentional, so I see more overlap there.

When I said "unique", I meant unique among the weapon types, as in it would create a (somewhat, as opposed to the current not at all) interesting choice between long blades and M&F. I agree parry is a fairly wimpy idea but I think it would be better than nothing.

I'm a bit late to the party here, but my suggestion for M&F would be a knockback effect, similar to the existing trample mechanic, where the enemy is pushed back a square (maybe taking additional damage too), except, unlike trample, the player doesn't automatically follow. A character with sufficient skill levels might be able to gain a free attack or two each fight this way.

Also thus M&F become tactically interesting retreat options. Do you read that blink scroll now, or hit the foo with your mace a few more times and risk getting hit in the process, hoping you score a knockback?

If weapon weight, str and target weight are factored into knockback success chance, different m&f weapons are further differentiated: whip type weapons are fast enough to give you a chance to knock back and then run before the enemy closes in again, but won't knock back big creatures. Great maces are more likely to knock back, but not as likely to gain you a free space.

Making this not a non-starter for fighting ranged opponents would be the hard part. Some skill in positioning would be required and maybe enough extra damage from the knockback to justify the added risk of giving the centaur/ogre mage/hell sentinel an extra space from you. All that said, a knockback effect would clearly be stronger vs melee than ranged, but it's not all about free bonuses with no drawbacks, so I see that as ok. Again though, that's another choice: whips with lower damage output but less likely to push extended game nasties around or big clobberers that might backfire without smart positioning?

This sounds interesting, though I can't picture a whip inflicting knock-back. The knock-back effect cripples your ability to deal with ranged attacks so much that the damage bonus on a successful knock-back would have to be very substantial, otherwise no melee specialist would even consider using M&F.

[cerebovssquire]

In addition, M&F would become an obvious best weapon choice for anyone using ranged attacks (magic, javelins) in addition to melee or primarily. This proposal wouldn't really create new, interesting decisions but make existing decisions easier.

[Lasty]

How about a "broken bones" or "concussion" malus for M&F? On each hit there would be a chance (or guarantee) of a penalty being applied (to accuracy, to attack speed, to move speed, to AC, to EV, or randomly assigned between those five). The penalty would be cumulative with repeated strikes. If it's not guaranteed, it could be based on amount of damage dealt as a proportion of target's HP, or something like that. If it is guaranteed, the malus could scale with the damage dealt, perhaps dealing fractional penalties at the lower end. The penalty would wear off as the target heals. The penalty can be balanced by changing the size of the malus and the chance to inflict it.

It wouldn't make much sense for whips, just like most M&F suggestions. I think whips should be given a significant damage increase (50%-100%) and then have enemy AC doubled (or even tripled); the idea being that they deal heavy damage to unarmored targets and do virtually nothing to high-AC targets, which is how whips actually work.

For Long Blades, how about a stance bonus that changes based on what your last action was? For example, right after you take a move action, your stance might be an evasive one which gives +3 to EV; right after attacking, it could be be an aggressive stance that gives +2 to accuracy and damage; after casting a spell, no stance; after doing anything else, stand-your-ground stance that gives +3 AC? It would proc just fine on long-blade monsters, and it could change how you choose to engage with them -- for example, you might want to alternate attacking and moving against a LB orc warrior so that it doesn't get the damage and accuracy bonus.

[some12fat2move]

How about a "broken bones" or "concussion" malus for M&F? On each hit there would be a chance (or guarantee) of a penalty being applied (to accuracy, to attack speed, to move speed, to AC, to EV, or randomly assigned between those five). The penalty would be cumulative with repeated strikes. If it's not guaranteed, it could be based on amount of damage dealt as a proportion of target's HP, or something like that. If it is guaranteed, the malus could scale with the damage dealt, perhaps dealing fractional penalties at the lower end. The penalty would wear off as the target heals. The penalty can be balanced by changing the size of the malus and the chance to inflict it.

So basically, the longer you fight the same enemy the more things go in your favor? That sounds kind of interesting, like having constriction I guess.

It wouldn't make much sense for whips, just like most M&F suggestions. I think whips should be given a significant damage increase (50%-100%) and then have enemy AC doubled (or even tripled); the idea being that they deal heavy damage to unarmored targets and do virtually nothing to high-AC targets, which is how whips actually work.

That would be extremely spoilery because the player never knows how much AC the enemy has. And...you know, it's not essential that we be as realistic as possible. Just look at cleaving.

For Long Blades, how about a stance bonus that changes based on what your last action was? For example, right after you take a move action, your stance might be an evasive one which gives +3 to EV; right after attacking, it could be be an aggressive stance that gives +2 to accuracy and damage; after casting a spell, no stance; after doing anything else, stand-your-ground stance that gives +3 AC? It would proc just fine on long-blade monsters, and it could change how you choose to engage with them -- for example, you might want to alternate attacking and moving against a LB orc warrior so that it doesn't get the damage and accuracy bonus.

I'm pretty sure that would be way too complicated.

[JeffQyzt]

RE: whips not working like maces and flails, the only reason they're there is that otherwise they'd need a whole category to themselves (that no-one would ever train.) Progression of Whip--> Demon Whip / Holy Scourge. They could just as rationally be put in long blades (they both have a handle and you swing them.) I don't think you should worry about it until there's consensus on any changes to "normal" maces & flails.

RE: maces/flails applying "battery" penalties over time, consider how that would play out with the PC surrounded by a mob of club-using orcs. This would cause a threat modifier similar to how much more dangerous gnoll packs became after polearms got reaching. Not necessarily bad, but something to consider, and would likely make an early expedition into Orc even less competitive with Lair than is currently the case.

On an implementation side, you'd need to add a new counter to keep track of "concussion damage" separately from other sources, and you'd need to figure out how that intersects with various brands. On the display side, I suppose you could simplify it to "concussed" status light or something, perhaps with colors to indicate severity.

[Davion Fuxa]

I actually sort of like Whips as weapons - they add a little diversity to the Mace & Flail weapon category by giving you a couple 'fast' one handed weapons in what is a weapon category dominated with fairly 'slow' one handed weapons (outside of the Two Handed Ones). For when it matters, they are also weighted towards low strength and high dexterity stats, and branded whips are fairly common early game that they make for nice starter weapons despite doing the lowest damage in the Mace & Flail category. Looking over the variety of Mace & Flail weaponry gives you a nice selection to choose from and helps to make the category viable for selecting Mace & Flail versus other weapon categories; all while making the category different from the other weapon types more then just aesthetically and ignoring things like 'Reaching or Cleave'.

As for Lasty's suggestion, Whips are quite painful. I don't think it would be too far off to say that the 'Mounting Pain' might occur for each blow. You might not be breaking bones as much but your probably going to be causing enough pain that it will be heavily distracting. That would fit with 'battery' or 'broken bones' just fine in my opinion enough to work with the idea.

[jejorda2]

I like Pikel and his whip. It could become an unrand if whips are removed. And I guess there's nothing wrong with clubbing slaves. That is to say, other weapons besides whips can fit the slave driver theme. I'm not condoning the institution of slavery.

[XuaXua]

From a training standpoint, I don't see whips properly categorized under M&F. Just because I'm great at using a club doesn't make me think it translates well to whips.

[twelwe]

How about remove whips. M&F has plenty of terrible one-handers without them and demon whips can just be renamed to demon flails or something.

Agreed. I've been saying it for a while now: removing whips makes the mace effect much more simple. Take out whips, give staves more weapon types and a unique effect, problem solved. Or do the exact opposite, take out staves as melee weapons and seperate maces from flails, giving them both unique weapon effects. I've made multiple proposals about them, I'm done thinking of more.

[some12fat2move]

From a training standpoint, I don't see whips properly categorized under M&F. Just because I'm great at using a club doesn't make me think it translates well to whips.

That's because clubs fall under the "maces" side and whips fall under the "flails" side. It is kinda weird that maces and flails are one category though.

How about remove whips. M&F has plenty of terrible one-handers without them and demon whips can just be renamed to demon flails or something.

Agreed. I've been saying it for a while now: removing whips makes the mace effect much more simple. Take out whips, give staves more weapon types and a unique effect, problem solved. Or do the exact opposite, take out staves as melee weapons and seperate maces from flails, giving them both unique weapon effects. I've made multiple proposals about them, I'm done thinking of more.

I think staves are pretty much good to go as is due to enhancer staves (though I think it'd be better if the evocations part was based on staves skill instead).
I could definitely see whips being removed, I'm pretty sure they're not a realistically feasible combat weapon and they don't add a whole lot to the gameplay in the first place.

[Lasty]

Barbed whips are realistic against fleshy, unarmored targets, but that's a probably not enough, really. That said, non-demon whips aren't actually viable weapons unless they have a magical brand*, and I imagine a magical flaming or electric whip might be a perfectly reasonable combat choice, realistically.

Whips can't reasonably be said to fall under flails. Flails are basically maces with a chain hinge -- they still work a lot like maces in that they're a blunt object that you use to hit someone very hard. If you attempt to use a whip like a flail, it would do as much damage as hitting them with a limp piece of rope. The damage a whip can do is purely a function of the snapping motion that causes the thin tip to move at supersonic speeds over a small area of space.

* Edit: by which I mean, viable past the very early game, where one mostly fights weak, fleshy targets.

[Dacke]

M&F effect suggestion: Slam
(alternatively: topple/bash/smash/shove/push/displace)

You make a powerful (right-handed) swing with your weapon. Your target is hit with enough force to displace it one square (counter-clockwise, from your point of view).

Example:

  Code:

.o.
.@.
###
You slam the orc.

o..
.@.
###
You slam the orc.

...
o@.
###
You slam the orc into the wall!

r..
o@.
###
You see a rat.

r..
o@.
###
You slam the rat into the orc!


Outcomes, if the adjacent square...

• ...is empty: the enemy is moved one step
• ...contains a wall: the enemy is smashed into the wall, taking a small amount of extra damage
• ...contains a unit: a small amount of extra damage to both units (possibly not if the other unit is an ally)
• ...contains deep water or lava: pushes the enemy into the water/lava (but when used against the player it works like trample)

The effect is interesting because:

• It is very visual and feels impressive
• It gives you the powerful feeling of trample or knock-back, but you stay in place and the enemy remains in melee range
  
• Being able to displace (but not remove) enemies can result in interesting options in some situations:
  
  • Open up an escape route
  • Shove melee enemies out of the way so that you can get to the caster/priest/summoner in the back
  • Use enemies to block LOF for enemy casters/shooters in the back
  • Push an enemy back into a door/opening to block enemy melee reinforcements
  • Separate slimes, to prevent merging
  • Push enemies into water/lava/traps/gas/fire
  • Cluster enemies up, to make it possible to slam them into each other or use AOE-spells
• But at the same time you have to be tactical about who/what you hit:
  
  • Avoid making yourself even more surrounded
  • Avoid opening up LOF for enemy casters/shooters
  • Avoid smashing slime creatures into each other (it would be a nice touch if they automatically merged if you slammed them into each other)

Possible problems with the effect:

• It's not always beneficial, which could be annoying (but I wouldn't mind if melee became a tiny bit more tactical)
• The ability to move enemies counter-clockwise around yourself may be of limited use (or really powerful, I really don't know)
• Smashing enemies into each other is a bit similar to cleaving. (The damage to the second enemy should probably be kept low and not make use of the weapon-brand to avoid this.)
• Enemies wielding M&F could become incredibly annoying if they could push you around all over the place. (Perhaps players should be given a (good) chance to resist, based on the size/strength of the player/enemy. But it would be neat if club-wielding ogres could smack you around a lot.)
• The effect is not applicable for whips

[some12fat2move]

So basically, with this proposal maces will encourage you to fight enemies against a wall to get the bonus "slam" damage. That sounds like it would mix up the tactics a bit. The only problem I see is that a lot of important fights already take place in a corridor, which is already against the wall, so the player wouldn't have to consider the "slam" effect all that often.

[mumra]

So basically, with this proposal maces will encourage you to fight enemies against a wall to get the bonus "slam" damage. That sounds like it would mix up the tactics a bit. The only problem I see is that a lot of important fights already take place in a corridor, which is already against the wall, so the player wouldn't have to consider the "slam" effect all that often.

- Make it so you need an open space on one side to get the "Slam" effect (you need space to swing the mace). This will encourage players to use space a bit more if they have a mace.

- Also, I don't like the "right-handed" thing - it will make the effect harder to use and understand. I would suggest that the swing should be either right- or left-handed depending on which side there is a wall on. If you're in the open and there's no wall, pick a random direction to slam the enemy in. This way it won't be 100% reliable to e.g. slam enemies into water. Edit: I also think enemies should probably get an additional saving throw to avoid instant death in these cases, being able to insta-kill things even 50% of the time around water/lava would be hellishly abusable.

Other than that, I think this does sound like a pretty good weapon effect.

[jejorda2]

Doesn't cleave already alternate directions on a coinflip? I think that establishes that crawl characters don't always swing in one direction. Mumra's changes sound good to me.

[mumra]

Doesn't cleave already alternate directions on a coinflip? I think that establishes that crawl characters don't always swing in one direction. Mumra's changes sound good to me.

Cleave affects both directions every turn. So it's still ambidextrous.

[galehar]

Doesn't cleave already alternate directions on a coinflip? I think that establishes that crawl characters don't always swing in one direction. Mumra's changes sound good to me.

Cleave affects both directions every turn. So it's still ambidextrous.

Cleave's direction is randomized, but it just affects the order of attacks which is almost never relevant.

[kuniqs]

1. Merge Short Blades and Long Blades into one category. That way we have slow and strong (greatsword, demon blade) plus fast but weak (daggers) weapons in one category. Special attack would be minotaur's riposte (blades skill% chance) and stab attempt (riposte chance/2 for happening) valid only for weaker ones. Get rid of the stupid Stabbing skill - stealth based characters are already fucked up in the develop-three-crap-skills-at-once-or-be-screwed department.
2. Merge Staves into Polearms. Special attack as it is + Polearms/4 bonus to evasion.
3. Special for axes: rather than evocable ability, make it a chance-on-attack like supporting unarmed attacks, hitting everyone for 50% damage (so it'll be nice for solo fights). Maybe add some new faster and weaker weapons to make it a self sufficient school.
4. Special for maces%flails: 'critical hit' for maximum potential damage with skill% chance.

At least those won't require monster ai rewrites.

[tenteno2]

An alternative way to handle the weapon effect is to associate the ability with the damage type (chopping, piercing, slashing) not the weapon type (Axe, M&F, Long Blade). ie: Chopping = Cleave.

By making the special effects a part of the damage type, it may promote cross-training, or additional weapon selection decisions tailored to the damage type.

With that in mind, here are some options for the various damage types:

Slashing = bleeding
In another thread there was discussion around long swords should encouraging mobile combat. Bleeding lends itself to hit and run tactics, wounding multiple opponents, and not just backing into a corner. I'm not sure how the current bleeding code works, but my suggestion is to 1) make the probability of bleeding based on target AC vs damage inflicted 2) make bleeding like poison - you can have multiple bleeding wounds. This option would probably need demons to bleed, to make the effect useful during the end game. Bleeding demons isn't completely unreasonable, IMO.

Piercing = ignore GDR
If I recall correctly, missile weapons ignore GDR so this isn't a new concept to Crawl.

Crushing = not sure...
Crushing could be "basic damage" with no additional effects.
If an effect is desired, it could be "reliable" damage: roll base damage twice and take the higher number.

On Cleave:
I've read some of the threads on the current implementation of cleave and gather that a balance is being found for having cleave always hit multiple opponents. An alternative implementation to cleave would be to only trigger cleave when it kills the first target, then apply the remaining damage to the next adjacent opponent. IIRC, there are spells that operate this way. I think this would bring the power level of cleave more in line with the other suggestions, above.

[Dacke]

As have been previously stated, I think the weapon effects are supposed to be interesting. Both reaching and cleaving allows you to kill enemies in new ways. Just adding some extra damage (against armoured opponents, via crits etc.) won't really be visible to the players and therefore not interesting. Using bleed-hit-and-run could be nice, but won't it step on the toes of poison?

---

I think that my original "M&F smash" suggestion does need to be right-handed. The devs have said that the weapon-effects should be predictable and reliable. So If smash is used to push enemies you have to have some kind of rule (like right-handedness) to allow players to predict where enemies will end up. With @mumra's additional room-to-swing-rule it would be enough to have a preference for right-handed swings, but use left-handed swings if there is no room to the right.

If you skip the "push enemies" part of the effect, then it would be fine to completely randomize swing direction. The effect wouldn't be very visual without the enemy-pushing, though. You'd only get a message about more damage being done and some damage being done to an adjacent enemy. But the effect could still be interesting, especially with @mumra's addition.

Using my original slam-suggestion + @mumra's room-to-swing requirement you would get:

• Maximum damage: Slam enemies into each other
• Good damage: Slam an enemy into a wall
• Normal damage + manoeuvrability: Out in the open, only dealing weapon damage but pushing enemies around
• Normal damage, no advantage: In corridors / when there is no room to swing, the weapon works like vanilla

[dpeg]

Dacke: I am a bit late to the party, but I wanted to say that I really like your idea. The whole posting and analysis is cool. It's one of the best things in this thread, in my opinion, along with the idea that swords may get passing/glancing attacks (you move past an enemy and still attack it). Awesome to see content like this four pages into the thread

Regarding your own objections:

• Sometimes detrimental: that is okay, as long as it is rare enough. There are also cases where you may want your axe to not-cleave.
• Don't worry about whips.
• I agree that club-using kobolds shouldn't slam the player around. On the other hand, some monsters should: ogres with giant clubs (etc.) would fit. (We want at least one early instance of the effect.)
• Slamming monster into monster is indeed not ideal, I think. mumra's proposal (need open space on the other side) is a good one: it makes the effet more tactical (and corridors alone won't do it).
• There is the issue (not from your list) of luring: leading monsters around just to get a better attack is tedious. One approach would be to reward only actual moves (i.e. the opponent changes place), but not slamming into walls.
• Direction (left or right or random) does not really matter too much, in my opinion. A simple solution would be that every club is generated with its own spin.

[dpeg]

minmay: That's a good point you bring up.

[Dacke]

Yup, that's a really good point. Non-auto-fighting outside of corridors could result in lots of missteps. It may be fine to have different weapon types suited for different players. Slow players may enjoy the new possibilities. But it feels very likely that even slow players would make too many stupid, accidental mistakes.

The slam idea may be salvageable anyway. You can turn it into non-flashy effect that gives you bonus damage when fighting outside of corridors and using clever positioning. Skip the ability to move enemies, add mumra's swing requirement, give bonuses for certain situations (slamming enemies into each other, walls etc.).

[some12fat2move]

The tedium of the slam effect could be reduced by making the motion completely predictable - that is, 100% chance of working and always counter-clockwise unless no room to swing that way in which case clockwise. This would let you simply move your mouse along the predicted path of the enemy without having to stop and check whether or not the slam worked and see which way it went. This way IMO it wouldn't be very tedious - after all, in most fights (for me at least) you stop and check whether the situation just changed (yaktaur comes into view etc) after each attack anyway.

[Dacke]

Maybe it could be flavoured as "The orc jumps away to avoid your mighty blow!"?

[some12fat2move]

Sounds feasible, but that wouldn't fit mindless creatures (slime creatures, oozes, etc) with no sense of self-preservation.
EDIT: apparently mindless isn't that mindless, so it would fit

[dpeg]

I am also confident that dacke's idea could be salvaged. (Fun fact: the German word "Dackel" means sausage dog.) Reliability will be necessary for that.

One rough idea, if we want still some randomness: if you attack a slam-eligible monster, then it won't move but it may move with the next whack. There should be a message and a visual status effect. In other words, you have one chance to get the extra damage + monster movement (by hitting right away at it). Think of it as the en passent capture of Crawl.

[Dacke]

Having a status indicator on every other blow could become visually jarring and it could still be problematic if you play too fast, but it's an interesting idea. You have a chance to make the enemy loose it's footing/stability. Once the enemy is unstable your next attack is guaranteed to hit and move the enemy. Make the chance depend on size/strength, so that it's difficult for you to push giants and difficult for kobolds to push you.

Regarding mindless entities, it would be possible to flavour it like:
"You try to slam the jelly, but you just shove it aside"
Which isn't optimal, as it's not apparent that it was your to-hit that failed (rather than some kind of AC-effect), but it could be made to work.

Or just:
"The slime crawls away, avoiding your blow."

[kaikaun]

M&F effect suggestion: Pound

Except for whips and demon whips, every M&F attack has a chance of being an earthshaking overhead strike that damages the target and 7 squares around it (not the player's own square). The 7 squares around the target would take reduced damage (like the extra squares in cleave). The chance of triggering the effect and/or the damage taken by surrounding squares would grow with M&F skill and strength.

This would give M&F attacks a little bit of reach (you are hitting several squares at range 2, including squares you might not even be able to see), and still do extra damage in corridors. It would be optimal at certain types of chokepoint, like:

  Code:

..#.
.@#o
##oo
.ooo
You pound the orc! 5 orcs are shaken by the blow.


Notice that two orcs are being hit without the player being able to see them.

I think this would be interesting to use. The main problem I can see is it being too similar to cleave. That may also be an advantage, since it is consistent and easy to understand and hold in mind.

[crate]

Pound is not just similar to cleave, it's actually already used by the unrand devastator (slightly different mechanics about how it does damage, but the effect is the same). Not sure that I like giving it to all maces.

[jejorda2]

With cleave or slam, it kind of makes sense that your allies could somehow be immune. I don't see how with pound.

Cleave makes it okay to fight outside of corridors and choke points sometimes. Pound makes choke points even better. Slam doesn't work in corridors.

What would TS1 think about pounding a sleeping enemy that you didn't see while attacking an enemy you do see? I guess fireball already has the same problem, but I don't use TSO enough to know how that plays out. Slam could actually create choices instead of gotchas.

Pound would feel powerful and different, though. If you tied the chance of getting a pound to the relative size of the target and maybe the damage of the hit as a portion of the target's total health, it could really help make fighting large and small enemies feel different.

[Bomanz]

I like the slam idea quite a bit. Only downside I see is that it would make it worth it to slam, back up and readjust your position for another slam etc. It would more efficient to play that way, but way less fun. What about making Slam a bit stronger, and limiting it to 1 proc per mob to discourage repeated repositioning for more slams?

Also maybe instead of doing extra damage, the slam effect on smaller one handers could have a chance to confuse--you know--simulating being bonked on the head!

I like the swords move and stab idea.

Maybe whips should not do any or very little base weapon damage, but should kill by stacking lots of bleeding effects. Kind of like a whip with venom brand works now, minus the base damage from the weapon. Would be an even worse weapon against stuff that can't bleed...not sure what to do about that. Weapons that 'can't' kill certain types of mobs is not really good design.

Staves could be the 'defensive weapon', where evoking the weapon in a certain direction leads to you stepping away from whatever monster is adjacent to you, creating a one space gap. However you essentially lose a turn by doing this, getting attacked or shot at by all monsters. Basically you fend off a monster (no damage obviously) while stepping backwards.

[jejorda2]

Whips not killing non-bleeders isn't really more of a problem than pain not killing demons and undead, is it? There are non-whip weapons in the class, just like necromancy has non-direct damage spells.