Long Blades, M&F effect brainstorm

[roctavian]

Original post has been corrected.

[Lasty]

When reaching was added to all polearms, all monsters wielding polearms got reaching. I'm not sure, but I assume the same thing happened with axes and cleaving, and if it isn't true, it should become true (cleaving would only affect player + player-friendlies, I assume). Whatever the traits are for the other weapon classes, I believe that they should be 1) something monsters also can do, and 2) something that won't cause a huge number of stupid player deaths when monsters use it, and 3) something that doesn't force a huge change to monster movement and attack logic (since that would be a big pain).

[BlackSheep]

Monsters do cleave, yes.

[Igxfl]

With that in mind, it seems like a stun/confuse effect with M&F would lead to a huge number of stupid player deaths, especially early on.

[jejorda2]

What if the enemies adjacent to the target enemy were confused? That would only harm players with allies, and it would encourage getting out of hallways as much as cleave does.

The coconut-like sound of the orc's head impacting the orc priest delights you and confuses the orc priest!

[argonaut]

I'd vote for staves giving a block (shield) effect vs. melee attacks; long blades the free attack when moving; and M&F have better base damage and can bypass shields (this would mostly affect the player so the better base damage would be the draw).

The double attack idea for staves seems too much like the speed brand.

[Galefury]

Note that free attacks while moving would be brutal on monsters: if you retreat from an adjacent longblade wielding normal speed or fast monster, it will hit you every time you move away from it. This is interesting, but might be even more important to know than if a monster has reaching. Might be problematic in console.

[galehar]

Note that free attacks while moving would be brutal on monsters: if you retreat from an adjacent longblade wielding normal speed or fast monster, it will hit you every time you move away from it. This is interesting, but might be even more important to know than if a monster has reaching. Might be problematic in console.

haha good point. I'm afraid it's a deal breaker.

[jejorda2]

Note that free attacks while moving would be brutal on monsters: if you retreat from an adjacent longblade wielding normal speed or fast monster, it will hit you every time you move away from it.

haha good point. I'm afraid it's a deal breaker.

This effect should be given to unarmed combat, so normal speed melee only monsters can be more interesting. Surely retreating needs a nerf: look how much it is used in winning games.

[BlackSheep]

I was less interested in getting a free hit when moving toward an enemy than I was with getting one while moving from one adjacent square to another. Monsters that lap around you to make room for allies could make use of this ability without being overly strong, and you wouldn't have the issue of monsters poking you repeatedly as you retreat.

[Roderic]

It's not the same that the monster moves to you than you moving to the monster, I think The one who moves takes the attack.

Also retreating means that you break the adjacency condition so the attack does not apply.

Shouldn't be better something like this ?

1X1
2@2

Moves towards X (the monster): focused attack
Moves towards 1 (towards the monster flank): 75% attack
Moves towards 2 (sidestep): 50% attack

degrees are for sure just a hint

In case of many monsters adjacencies, the attack only applies to one (randomly or the previous you have attacked, among several criteria)

[Choko5]

Re random stun: it is easy to come up with effects (and perhaps also with flavourful and fun effects). But with random stun make you assess a tactical situation differently? Stabbing, reaching, cleaving do -- but these are reliable. I would not risk a lot for a potentially stunned monsters. Note that stealthily approaching a monster is risky, but the reward is a one turn kill.

Well, there are a limited number of things that can both do this -and- be fully 'passive' abilities, which is apparently a mandate. It feels to me that this need not be the case, and in fact to get complete use of reaching it is advisable to often e(v)oke it. So I don't see any reason why other effects cannot be e(v)ocable as well, except that it would get in the way of possible evocable egos(are there any other than reach, and that only on whips now?). So a possible evocable stun/stagger effect on MF could be cool. Like: attack has an extra round delay but stuns opponent, or likely stuns opponent, or staggers undead/mindless(for much shorter). This would encourage tactical decisions, especially as multi-rnd action halve EV and SH(IIRC, if not this could). And play into how I currently see MF: which is that, weirdly, they are currently the more defensive option... they more commonly seem to spawn prot egos, especially early, and are some of the best 1H weapons available. And stun/stagger is actually a largely defensive option, since it gives you a couple rnds free and clear, or the ability to book it... but at the cost of that very defensiveness for a round and the cost of a turn of attacking. Wouldn't reduce one's tendency to hallfight, but does everything have to?

The fact that reaching uses an ability does not make it the role model for weapon moves. Herie is why I am against using abilities for melee attack:
1. It is clumsy. Melee combat is the simplest form of killing dudes, as far as the interface goes. I surely don't want a slightly more elaborate combat system at the expense of an annoying interface. Reaching evoke already falls under annoying, in my opinion.
2. Melee combat effects should not be spells in disguise. Suppose you gave that "evokable stun/stagger effect" to maces -- unless you introduce costs (food, timers etc.), it would be advisable to use it all the time. So you introduce the costs. The system gets more complicated and more spell-like.
3. Note that *buffs* like berserk, might etc. do not apply to a single attack, but to a duration. They are also balanced by drawback (berserk), finite amount (consumables) or piety (god powers). As I see it, complexity for melee combat should come from an interesting interaction between the easy and passive approach to weapons (only need to bump into neighbours) and buffs, wands, spells etc.

Regarding your last question: if an idea makes combat "cooler" but not more interesting, then I wouldn't want it. Stuff like that should be purely cosmetic, like the blood splattering around. Gameplay changes should actually improve the situation.

1. I agree that reaching evoke is quite annoying now, but evoking from other melee weapons such as M&F might not be so, because they attack only adjacent tiles. I find Ctrl+Direction attack command not annoying. We can assign Alt+Direction for the alternative attack, and it won't be annoying as much as reaching evoke.

2. I think giving another option to weapon wielders can make their decisions more interesting. Melee fighting in crawl is too plain for now. DgFi without magic would be awful. MiBe can't solve problems with their weapons only. They need evocations, ranged attacks and Summoning(Brothers in Arms) to have any tactical choices. In melee fight, what they do with their weapon is not different from trolls clawing - they deal damage per turn. It's not cool nor interesting.

The cost for alt-attack can be different from spells. For now, I can think of doubled delay, disabled dodging/blocking, halved AC, short exhaustion/slow, extremely loud noise, being confused for a turn if not hit, dropping the weapon when things go wrong.

My suggestions:
M&F - I like the "Full Swing" for extra damage/stunning idea. Doubled delay, being vulnerable for one or two turns after using it.
Axe - Cleaving also can be evokable with some cost as listed above. +0.3~0.5 delay might be OK. I like it this way because nerfing axe's base damage will make them weak in 1:1 situation.
Stabbing - "Counter Attack". It takes two turns to make the effect - tier 2 damage stabbing, but it fails if interrupted. Like memorizing a spell. High dodging / blocking required.

I wish there were more discussion based on this perspective. Thanks for reading.

[crate]

@Choko5:

I disagree with your point 2. Well, DgFi without magic might be boring (and silly ... why play a demigod if you are not going to cast any spells??) but MiBe definitely does not need any weapon other than a melee attack to win, or even to get all 15 runes (and you can even stick with Trog the whole game if you like), and I do not find melee combat boring. Actually I find melee combat much more interesting tactically than ranged combat, conjurations or especially summoning, since positioning tends to matter more for melee combat.

Also part of the point of adding cleaving the way it is done is to make axes weaker 1v1. This is a good thing, it gives more variety in weapon choice. Want a better 1v1 weapon? Simple, don't choose axes.

[Choko5]

2. I think giving another option to weapon wielders can make their decisions more interesting. Melee fighting in crawl is too plain for now. DgFi without magic would be awful. MiBe can't solve problems with their weapons only. They need evocations, ranged attacks and Summoning(Brothers in Arms) to have any tactical choices. In melee fight, what they do with their weapon is not different from trolls clawing - they deal damage per turn. It's not cool nor interesting.

@crate
You're right, I made my point wrong here. I'd like to correct.

MiBe is good / interesting build while they deal damage mostly with their melee weapon. Melee combat itself is interesting for now for positioning matter and many other things, but it can be improved by giving new options other than positioning.

[crate]

Well yes, but if you change melee combat I would like to continue not having to press buttons other than hjklyubn or tab to attack. So I don't want to press v a whole lot.

[Choko5]

Well yes, but if you change melee combat I would like to continue not having to press buttons other than hjklyubn or tab to attack. So I don't want to press v a whole lot.

Have you tried ctrl-direction attacking? you can hold the ctrl key while meleeing for several turns. Likewise, holding the alt key won't be as cumbersome as you might be imagining.

[galehar]

Well yes, but if you change melee combat I would like to continue not having to press buttons other than hjklyubn or tab to attack. So I don't want to press v a whole lot.

Have you tried ctrl-direction attacking? you can hold the ctrl key while meleeing for several turns. Likewise, holding the alt key won't be as cumbersome as you might be imagining.

It's not supported by all terminals. Nor by webtiles I think. So many players have to press * then dir.
Anyway, we've made it clear that we don't want active effects, and dpeg has explained why. I invite you to read his post again.
I wish people would stop suggesting them.

[Choko5]

Well yes, but if you change melee combat I would like to continue not having to press buttons other than hjklyubn or tab to attack. So I don't want to press v a whole lot.

Have you tried ctrl-direction attacking? you can hold the ctrl key while meleeing for several turns. Likewise, holding the alt key won't be as cumbersome as you might be imagining.

It's not supported by all terminals. Nor by webtiles I think. So many players have to press * then dir.
Anyway, we've made it clear that we don't want active effects, and dpeg has explained why. I invite you to read his post again.
I wish people would stop suggesting them.

I checked, ctrl-direction attacking works in webtiles. If alt-direction is not a viable option, I think v-direction attack can do the same thing. Holding v while attacking. I don't think it's impossible to implement it.

As you invited, I read his post again, for several times, but it didn't change my mind.

The fact that reaching uses an ability does not make it the role model for weapon moves. Herie is why I am against using abilities for melee attack:
1. It is clumsy. Melee combat is the simplest form of killing dudes, as far as the interface goes. I surely don't want a slightly more elaborate combat system at the expense of an annoying interface. Reaching evoke already falls under annoying, in my opinion.
2. Melee combat effects should not be spells in disguise. Suppose you gave that "evokable stun/stagger effect" to maces -- unless you introduce costs (food, timers etc.), it would be advisable to use it all the time. So you introduce the costs. The system gets more complicated and more spell-like.
3. Note that *buffs* like berserk, might etc. do not apply to a single attack, but to a duration. They are also balanced by drawback (berserk), finite amount (consumables) or piety (god powers). As I see it, complexity for melee combat should come from an interesting interaction between the easy and passive approach to weapons (only need to bump into neighbours) and buffs, wands, spells etc.

Regarding your last question: if an idea makes combat "cooler" but not more interesting, then I wouldn't want it. Stuff like that should be purely cosmetic, like the blood splattering around. Gameplay changes should actually improve the situation.

1. I find holding ctrl while combat not clumsy, it'd be same when another key(hold v-directioning) is used.
2. "Costs" I provided are actually more like drawbacks. Larger time delay, being vulnerable to enemy attacks(no dodging/blocking), followed by short exhaustion/slow. It's not spell-like in a sense.
3. Berserk is balanced by drawback, let the secondary attack be balanced by some drawbacks too. Complexity coming from interaction between melee attack and buffs, wands, spells etc are good, but no evokable attack makes no sense in my opinion.

For axes, let cleaving be evokable, but do 75% damage to all target, maybe with added delay somewhere between 0 to 0.2 can be an option. I think cutting off base damage will make the weapon less attractive, since even with cleave you'd prefer fighting in hallways.

I understand that dev team find it somewhat bothered when things that's already been discussed comes up repeatedly, but this is a different case. Please be a little bit more patient. I'm trying to help, not to bother anyone.

However, if the points I made in this post are not accepted, I'll stop talking about it. Thank you for reading.

[Roderic]

They simply say that melee combat with direction keys can have more elegant solutions than active evocations as if weapons were magical devices or spells, and this is the direction to go at least as a first option.

[crate]

control-dir is very different from v then choosing your target

[jejorda2]

ctrl-dir already attacks empty squares, attacks non-hostile monsters, and disarms traps. Is there room to overload it more?

[Choko5]

@crate
I think you got me wrong. I mean it's possible to allow holding v while attacking, making it work similar to the ctrl-dir command.
Currently v is for wielded evokables. When it's hit, console demands the next command - choose spell or choose target.
Make weapons the exception. Hitting v itself won't do anything while wielding a weapon, just like the ctrl key does. It'll work only when it's combined with directional command.

I won't say this should be the only option that should be accepted. Maybe axe cleaving witout this is good as it is. But this way you can think of more ideas on how weapons effects should be. Please consider it as an option. I still like the full-swing M&F. Knockback or Trampling can be viable with this. An ogre who're wielding two-handed M&F might want knockback as a defensive tactical option.

[Choko5]

ctrl-dir already attacks empty squares, attacks non-hostile monsters, and disarms traps. Is there room to overload it more?

I never said anything about making ctrl-dir doing new things. I suggested alt-dir or v-dir for it.

[palin]

@crate
I think you got me wrong. I mean it's possible to allow holding v while attacking, making it work similar to the ctrl-dir command.

I'm no expert but I vaguely remember that standard keyboards (not gaming ones) are limited in the number of simultaneous keys they detect, and that the ones which are guaranteed to work are modifiers like CTRL, SHIFT, ALT and SUPER (windows or command), so probably your proposal isn't an option. Expecially on webtiles.

[Choko5]

@crate
I think you got me wrong. I mean it's possible to allow holding v while attacking, making it work similar to the ctrl-dir command.

I'm no expert but I vaguely remember that standard keyboards (not gaming ones) are limited in the number of simultaneous keys they detect, and that the ones which are guaranteed to work are modifiers like CTRL, SHIFT, ALT and SUPER (windows or command), so probably your proposal isn't an option. Expecially on webtiles.

Pressing any combination of two keys simultaneously is always guaranteed to have no problem in standard keyboards.
Also, implementing it in webtiles can't be impossible. Many real-time web-based games demand simultaneous key input. Many games use wasd for directioning, zxcv combinations for many other things.

[galehar]

ctrl-dir already attacks empty squares, attacks non-hostile monsters, and disarms traps. Is there room to overload it more?

Maybe it could be used to close doors.

I checked, ctrl-direction attacking works in webtiles. If alt-direction is not a viable option, I think v-direction attack can do the same thing. Holding v while attacking. I don't think it's impossible to implement it.

Maybe webtiles has the issue with some browser, or maybe it was fixed, but as I said, some terminal already don't properly support ctrl+dir and those people have to use * then dir. Alt+dir or any other combination will likely don't work on many system/terminals.

2. I think giving another option to weapon wielders can make their decisions more interesting. Melee fighting in crawl is too plain for now. DgFi without magic would be awful. MiBe can't solve problems with their weapons only. They need evocations, ranged attacks and Summoning(Brothers in Arms) to have any tactical choices.

Weapon wielders? Everybody wields a weapon... And they have other options: spells, god abilities and evocables being the main ones. No seriously, we don't want active effects for weapons.

Pressing any combination of two keys simultaneously is always guaranteed to have no problem in standard keyboards.
Also, implementing it in webtiles can't be impossible. Many real-time web-based games demand simultaneous key input. Many games use wasd for directioning, zxcv combinations for many other things.

What about ssh?

[Choko5]

I checked, ctrl-direction attacking works in webtiles. If alt-direction is not a viable option, I think v-direction attack can do the same thing. Holding v while attacking. I don't think it's impossible to implement it.

Maybe webtiles has the issue with some browser, or maybe it was fixed, but as I said, some terminal already don't properly support ctrl+dir and those people have to use * then dir. Alt+dir or any other combination will likely don't work on many system/terminals.

I thought most people play crawl in PC with win/mac os/linux. Only system/terminal that can be problematic I can think of is Smartphone/Android OS. Though since most smartphones have multi-touch function, it's not impossible to make it usable. "hold this button while attacking" might work.

2. I think giving another option to weapon wielders can make their decisions more interesting. Melee fighting in crawl is too plain for now. DgFi without magic would be awful. MiBe can't solve problems with their weapons only. They need evocations, ranged attacks and Summoning(Brothers in Arms) to have any tactical choices.

Weapon wielders? Everybody wields a weapon... And they have other options: spells, god abilities and evocables being the main ones. No seriously, we don't want active effects for weapons.

Troll monk or Transmuters are not likely so. I understand there are many other options available, but why not a new one from an wielded weapon? I tried to find the reason you have in mind, but was not able to. What is so problematic about active effects with some drawback? It's not advisable to use it all the time, It doesn't make the system much complicated. On the other hand, it can be a valuable option in tactical view. I think there were no proper argument on this, just plain "NO"s. While not being convinced at all, it makes me feel a bit frustrated.

Pressing any combination of two keys simultaneously is always guaranteed to have no problem in standard keyboards.
Also, implementing it in webtiles can't be impossible. Many real-time web-based games demand simultaneous key input. Many games use wasd for directioning, zxcv combinations for many other things.

What about ssh?

Ctrl-dir works properly in SSH via PuTTY. I believe we can use Alt-dir here. Also, I was able to assign macros with alt key and use it with no problem. (ex. alt+u -> zaf)

[galehar]

I think there were no proper argument on this, just plain "NO"s. While not being convinced at all, it makes me feel a bit frustrated.

Arguments have been given, you just disregarded them. Here is the most critical IMO:

complexity for melee combat should come from an interesting interaction between the easy and passive approach to weapons (only need to bump into neighbours) and buffs, wands, spells etc.

Simplicity is critical. Many new features have suffered from too complicated mechanism. See food reform and constriction. Crawl's complexity emerge from the interactions of many simple things. Attacking monsters with a weapon is most simple and common thing happening in the game. You do it hundreds, maybe thousands of times per game. It needs to be simple and straightforward. And then it can be combined in interesting ways with the other features of the game.

[Abominae]

Troll monk or Transmuters are not likely so. I understand there are many other options available, but why not a new one from an wielded weapon? I tried to find the reason you have in mind, but was not able to. What is so problematic about active effects with some drawback? It's not advisable to use it all the time, It doesn't make the system much complicated. On the other hand, it can be a valuable option in tactical view. I think there were no proper argument on this, just plain "NO"s. While not being convinced at all, it makes me feel a bit frustrated.

In order for an activated effect to not be used in place of an actual melee swing, it has to have a drawback.
In order to have a drawback, the activated effect has to be powerful enough to warrant one.
If the drawback has no lasting effect, why wouldn't you use it every opportunity you've been given? If an activated ability is better than swinging your weapon, you're going to use that activated ability at every given opportunity. If it is worse than your normal weapon stroke, why would you ever use it in the first place? If the drawback does have a lasting effect, this ability will not see nearly as much play or be nearly as defining as a passive weapon ability would be.
In the best case scenario, you have a weapon skill with an activated ability that it useful in a large amount of scenarios. Now, instead of being able to auto-fight all day and have my passives kick in on each strike, I would use my activated ability in every scenario where it would be more useful than swinging my weapon. What is exciting about this? Yes, it changes the dynamic of melee combat from Tab Tab Tab Tab to A->F Tab Tab Tab A->F Tab Tab Tab, but I wouldn't argue that's a good thing.
When implementing an activated ability like this, there are more facets to balance than a passive one. You have to take into consideration balancing the drawback, the actual effect and how it stands up compared to a normal melee swing. This is all on top of balancing melee weapons and their abilities in comparison to each other.

When balancing just a passive effect, we're looking at less variables and an effect that is a constant one. It doesn't create a choice between swing and ability, it combines the two. In this way, I feel that passive abilities would have noticeably smoother and more enjoyable game play than an additional activated ability. Out of the three main forms of damaging enemies (Melee, RC/Conj, Summ) melee plays the smoothest and simplest. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who really enjoys the melee system in Crawl for this aspect.

You can also definitely make the argument that an always active passive will define a weapon class much more than situational activated abilities because it will affect 90%+ of your actions. If the ability is too situational, it will be rare that your weapon choice really defines your character. If the ability is too general, you might as well tone it down into a passive effect because it will be used at every given opportunity anyway.

All in all, its both easier to balance and smoother for current game play to implement passive effects over active effects.

[Choko5]

I appreciate & respect your concern on maintaining simplicity. However, what I don't understand is, How would adding an ability will harm the simplicity. Nagas can spit poison, Vampires can turn into a bat. Those abilities don't harm simplicity of the game and I like them both.

While having buffs, wands, spells, god-abilities already, would adding an ability to make the weapon more attractive add any complexity? It's just another movement option, nothing else. Having a spell is ok but having an weapon based ability is not ok makes no sense to me.

I'm not saying that every weapons must have an evokable effect. But if the added ability can make the game more interesting and the weapon attractive as current cleaving axe is, it can be a possible option.

For instance, I think knockback effect evoked from two-handed M&F can be very interesting, giving many different options when in combat.
For now, ogres are challenging species to play, not because of interesting features they have, but because they're with so many penalties. With knockback, they'll have more control in positioning, not only for self, but also for the engaged enemies. It will enable the player to make more interesting situations. No cost needed here, maybe a bit of dodging penalty or some extra delay would do. It'll be very simple and straightforward.

If knockback is not good enough, there can be many other ways. Passive or active shouldn't matter, the one that makes the game better must fit in.

[Choko5]

Thank you for the comment. Though I disagree with some points of yours, I was able to understand problem better by reading the comment.

In order for an activated effect to not be used in place of an actual melee swing, it has to have a drawback.
In order to have a drawback, the activated effect has to be powerful enough to warrant one.
If the drawback has no lasting effect, why wouldn't you use it every opportunity you've been given? If an activated ability is better than swinging your weapon, you're going to use that activated ability at every given opportunity. If it is worse than your normal weapon stroke, why would you ever use it in the first place? If the drawback does have a lasting effect, this ability will not see nearly as much play or be nearly as defining as a passive weapon ability would be.

It shouldn't be like that. The weapon effect should be 'different' from the plain swing. We can't decide which one is more powerful between Conjure Flame and Mephitic Cloud. They are different. They're effective in different situations. They're good spells that make the game more interesting. I think active weapon effect should be like this, having utility function.
Weapon effect simply dealing more damage is not a proper option, it must enable interesting decision making.

In the best case scenario, you have a weapon skill with an activated ability that it useful in a large amount of scenarios. Now, instead of being able to auto-fight all day and have my passives kick in on each strike, I would use my activated ability in every scenario where it would be more useful than swinging my weapon. What is exciting about this? Yes, it changes the dynamic of melee combat from Tab Tab Tab Tab to A->F Tab Tab Tab A->F Tab Tab Tab, but I wouldn't argue that's a good thing.
When implementing an activated ability like this, there are more facets to balance than a passive one. You have to take into consideration balancing the drawback, the actual effect and how it stands up compared to a normal melee swing. This is all on top of balancing melee weapons and their abilities in comparison to each other.

Clearly, you will not be unabled to choose autofighting. The ability is not supposed to be used in every scenario. It'll be used only when it's needed.
Also, Tab Tab Tab Tab contains no interesting decision making. You're supposed to move, use ability, buffs, evokables, or whatever else that's needed. That's where the fun comes from, a new ability might add some more.

When balancing just a passive effect, we're looking at less variables and an effect that is a constant one. It doesn't create a choice between swing and ability, it combines the two. In this way, I feel that passive abilities would have noticeably smoother and more enjoyable game play than an additional activated ability. Out of the three main forms of damaging enemies (Melee, RC/Conj, Summ) melee plays the smoothest and simplest. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who really enjoys the melee system in Crawl for this aspect.

You can also definitely make the argument that an always active passive will define a weapon class much more than situational activated abilities because it will affect 90%+ of your actions. If the ability is too situational, it will be rare that your weapon choice really defines your character. If the ability is too general, you might as well tone it down into a passive effect because it will be used at every given opportunity anyway.

All in all, its both easier to balance and smoother for current game play to implement passive effects over active effects.

Maybe, balancing with active abilities can be easier to do so. While the original melee fighting remaining as it is, you only have to think about the new ability. Say, +blink randart weapon don't harm the balance. The effect doesn't have to be used often. Maybe once in 2~5 battles can be ok. Or about 2~4 times in a tense battle. One shouldn't be very dependent on it, but it should be useful in occasion.

[galehar]

However, if the points I made in this post are not accepted, I'll stop talking about it. Thank you for reading.

[Choko5]

Enough said, I'll stop posting at this thread. Sorry if it bothered you.

[some12fat2move]

In order for an activated effect to not be used in place of an actual melee swing, it has to have a drawback.
In order to have a drawback, the activated effect has to be powerful enough to warrant one.
If the drawback has no lasting effect, why wouldn't you use it every opportunity you've been given? If an activated ability is better than swinging your weapon, you're going to use that activated ability at every given opportunity. If it is worse than your normal weapon stroke, why would you ever use it in the first place? If the drawback does have a lasting effect, this ability will not see nearly as much play or be nearly as defining as a passive weapon ability would be.

It shouldn't be like that. The weapon effect should be 'different' from the plain swing. We can't decide which one is more powerful between Conjure Flame and Mephitic Cloud. They are different. They're effective in different situations. They're good spells that make the game more interesting. I think active weapon effect should be like this, having utility function.
Weapon effect simply dealing more damage is not a proper option, it must enable interesting decision making.

The difference between active weapon effects and spells is cost. Spells and evocations cost MP, a limited resource. You have to think "What's the best thing I can do with my MP?" Wands have a limited number of charges. Breath weapons cost food (and cannot be abused by Mummies, who could potentially abuse a food-costing weapon effect). The problem with an active weapon effect (like evocable reaching) is it has no limit, no reason not to use it if you saw an advantage - no tradeoff, no decision. Some sort of cost could be put in to an active weapon effect, like an MP cost or a chance of mutating yourself...but those don't really make sense with a weapon effect, and it would be very difficult to envision a good one that does. For this reason, many on this forum have ruled out the possibility of a good active weapon effect ever existing in Crawl. I myself would be open to ideas, but skeptical.

You can also definitely make the argument that an always active passive will define a weapon class much more than situational activated abilities because it will affect 90%+ of your actions. If the ability is too situational, it will be rare that your weapon choice really defines your character. If the ability is too general, you might as well tone it down into a passive effect because it will be used at every given opportunity anyway.

This is another key point - devs are looking for an effect to define a weapon class, to make you really "feel" the shortbladeyness or polearmyness of your character. Passive abilities are constantly reminding the player "This is what's cool about your weapon class!", while active ones would do so much less frequently.

[twelwe]

Since we're having such a tough time proposing new ideas...

I'd propose removing staves as a melee weapon type. Long blades and maces still don't have effects, and it is doubtful we will find some meaningful differentiation between maces and staves. They're both (for the most part) blunt weapons - but maces have whips and some staves have blades. Remove staves, then split whips into its own weapon type (it never made sense for ogres to be good at whips) and give them constriction. Give maces some kind of stun. I still think long blades could be the defensive weapon with a passive deflection that increases with weapon skill.

Now, the consequences of removing staves as a weapon type does not mean we remove the elemental staff. We simply remove the combat element from them. They would give the "clumsy bash" attack, and the elemental staff builds that were nerfed forever ago can finally die a peaceful death. This is all radical stuff, but please think about it.

[jejorda2]

I'd like to see a Maces & Axes class that is separate from the Whips & Flails class, so that maces have cleaving. If you've mastered whacking a half dozen enemies with an axe, is it really hard to start swinging a great mace instead?

And then giving the same effect to whips, flails, spiked flails, dire flails, demon whips and scourges doesn't seem so far fetched. The whips and flails class would still be larger than the current axe class.

Some of the maces and axes would need to be removed to prevent duplication.

My guess is that the distinction between maces & axes is in crawl because Christian crusaders were allowed to kill with maces on the sabbath, but were not allowed to draw blood with a bladed weapon, and some game made this a conduct. It isn't a conduct in crawl, so I'm not sure it's a useful distinction, but a D&Dism.

[Bloax]

Cleaving for maces makes even less sense - since at least axes are sharp, cutting weapons. While if you were to cleave through targets with a mace, you'd have to smash it right through them, and continue.
Otherwise you may as well hit them with a stick, it'd still be better than shattering their noses in a line.

[jejorda2]

Yes, if you interpret the word literally. But you can knock someone out of the way and keep the blow moving, or knock one enemy into another with a strong enough blow.

Otherwise, cleaving would only make sense if it also caused one hit death or dismemberment.

[Bloax]

What you describe there sounds like something a Str >50 character probably would be able to do. (A TrBe that only takes strength seems in theory to have 43 raw Str @ XL27)
In case the point isn't gotten, I don't really think that's how Crushing weapons work. (What you say there is basically manual tornado. I think that would require some serious muscle.)

Dismemberment would be cool though, if it meant that enemies would just splat and damage nearby enemies. :p

[Lasty]

Maces work by impact force, which is discharged into the target. The only way it would make sense to have them cleave is to have them only cleave if the original target dies, and then only cleave to one additional target who would receive all the "overflow" damage from the swing. It would be a really crappy kind of cleave.

The reason axes could reasonably cleave is that because they are sharp, they (potentially) meet with little resistance per target. Fleshy bits in particular do almost nothing to slow down an axe in motion -- bone and muscle and armor would all do more, but this is a fantasy game, so a little license makes sense.

[Brysmar]

What about M&F having a chance to disarm somebody kind of Indiana Jones style? This chance has to go up slowly with your increasing M&F levels, and it has an internal cool down so you can't disarm 3 people in a row. If you do disarm someone successfully though who has a sharp weapon such as a Executioner's Axe your whip could go do an enchantment level. Of course this would rather be better as an evokable ability. Just a random thought.

[jejorda2]

What if maces are long enough to bash an enemy and the enemy behind her at the same time? You could target it like a beam with v (same range as reaching) or just let it hit the next enemy in line when you perform a melee attack. Let the damage to the back gal be half the damage to the front gal, with a fairly high chance of not hitting the back gal at all that decreases with better weapon skill. A reaching/penetration combo, but it doesn't work if there isn't someone in melee range, so you can't kite with it or use clouds and water for defense like you can with with polearms.

Maybe this encourages the use of corridors too much.

[Bloax]

Maces should be the boring weapons that they are, namely strong, armor penetrating (why should they be the single most strongest weapon against everything?) bashy stuff on a stick.

[Pereza0]

I like the idea of keeping long swords as vanilla weapons, but maybe...

They could attack the two neighbouring squares to the square being attacked when used with sufficient skill?
Say, using a sword while have a below average speed will give you no neighbouring block damage bonus, once you go past the average it starts building up, eventually it will do the same damage (or maybe capped at half) to the two adjacent blocks that the targeted block.

Since this would make swords good at handling crowds maces could get good at handling individuals, maybe hitting the same target several times in a row would increase the chances of a critical hit or just increase damage every succesful hit

And axes.... IDK

[Bloax]

Since this would make swords good at handling crowds
And axes.... IDK

Axes already attack everything except the enemy right behind you, if memory serves. (This is 0.12 trunk material, however.)

Which makes them quite devastating against crowds, and great for getting out of a situation where you're surrounded. (Do note that this is generally a situation you DON'T want to happen.)

[Roderic]

Attack&move, attack&move, attack&move for LB... the damage would be lesser than if moving towards the foe directly without displacement but you still can cut the sides of your foe if you move to its sides and you get the benefit of mobility, as swordsmen used to have. It is a passive gimmick, useful to open spaces and no appears in corridors, as currently. It also fits that scenes of sword-fighting of samurais that don't use to remain quiet while dealing blows.

  Code:

.o.
.@.
..O

the orc priest is almost dead

@%.
...
..O

The ogre misses you.
You hit the orc priest. You kill the orc priest !

[dpeg]

Roderic: yes, something like that came up somewhere in this thread and, in my opinion, it's the proposal with the highest potential: long blades attack when moving past a monster: you're next to it last turn, next to it this turn, and it's still adjacent to you (didn't move away).

I guess the next weapon move is 0.13 material, if at all, but that one is worth keeping in mind.

[Lasty]

If long swords allow you to attack-move monsters, monsters should be coded to attack-move players as well. Monsters who can wield already put a small amount of effort into encircling the player, but monsters with long blades should try way harder.

[dpeg]

minmay: that's right. Unicode would actually allow that... we probably need just four or so indicators, and those could be done with accents and umlauts.