Proposal: Give all weapon types additional effects

[Siegurt]

Currently a few types of weapons have effects that influence combat to give them a different sort of "flavor" notably Short blades are good at stabbing, Polearms have reaching, axes have cleave.

I'd like to add some abilities to give *all* weapons some sort of distinctiveness beyond the simple damage/weapon speed abilities.

Here's my list of proposed weapon types with abilities (including existing ones):

• Axes: Cleave*
• Staff: Parry
• Short blades: Stabbing*, Feint
• Long blades (jack of all trades): Lesser stabbing*, Lesser Parry, (one handed) Lesser Feint, (two handed) Lesser Cleave
• Maces&Flails: (Whips) Bleeding, Blindness, Lesser Feint, (Maces&Clubs) Disorient, (Clubs only) Minor Stabbing*, Stun*
• Polearms: Reach*, (Spears&Tridents) Minor Stabbing*, (Two-handers) Shove

Where the asterisks list things that are already in the game and wouldn't need any change.

Here's my list of ability descriptions for the proposed (and existing) weapon abilities:

• Cleave: Hit up to 6 additional targets adjacent to you beyond your primary target, in any direction except opposite the primary target, with a weaker attack
• Lesser Cleave: Hit up to 2 additional targets adjacent to you and your primary target, with a weaker attack
• Parry: Add a bonus to your SH value, based on your dexterity, weapon and shield skill of up to 30 (If applicable this stacks with an actual shield)
• Lesser Parry: Add a bonus to your SH value, based on your dexterity, weapon and shield skill of up to 10 (If applicable this stacks with an actual shield)
• Stabbing: Gain a large bonus to damage when stabbing
• Lesser stabbing: Gain a bonus to damage when stabbing
• Minor stabbing: Gain a small bonus to damage when stabbing
• Feint: When *not* stabbing, gain a dex+stealth chance to reduce the target's AC by a random number between 0 and the average between your weapon skill and your stealth
• Lesser Feint: When *not* stabbing, gain a half dex+stealth chance to reduce the target's AC by a random number between 0 and half the average between your weapon skill and your stealth
• Bleeding: Sometimes gives the target the bleeding status for a short duration (if corporeal and can bleed)
• Blinding: Rarely gives the target the blinded status for a short duration (if it can be blinded)
• Disorient: Str+weapon skill based chance of inducing a short action delay (weapon skill/10, so 2.7 AUT at 27 skill) in the target, cannot disorient an already-disoriented creature, incorporeal and gelatinous creatures cannot be disoriented
• Stun: On a successful stab, Confuses the creature for a short duration.
• Reach: Can be e(v)oked to hit a creature at range 2.
• Shove: On a successful attack, has a str+weapon skill chance of pushing the creature back 1 square (If the space behind them is unoccupied) opposed by the target's Str and size, Incorporeal and gelatenous creatures cannot be Shoved.

Some of the weapon's damages might need to be adjusted to balance out power levels.

[Siegurt]

Note that I'd prefer to call "Disorient" "Stun" and call the thing that's currently called "Stun" something else like maybe "Blackjack" But that's personal preference.

[KennySheep]

This is something I've wanted to see in crawl as well.

I think these abilities should be for the entire weapon class though, to keep weapon selection from being too confusing. Right now all axes have cleave, all pole-arms have reach and it's perfectly fine that way.

I don't think long blades should be given an ability at all, to keep them in the basic roll every weapon used to have.

I like your idea of adding parry to staves, although I'd like to see them turned into two-handed weapons to compensate (which makes more sense to me than wielding a staff and a shield like I usually do now)

Disorient is cool, but may be hard to properly show the player. I'd prefer if it were a very short (one turn) slow or confuse effect. Also, since maces were traditionally good against armored opponents, making the effect have a chance to activate depending on how much damage was blocked by the opponent's AC could be fun/flavorful.

I'm on the fence about giving whips bleed damage. It makes sense, but I still think it would be best for all maces and flails to have the same ability on them.

[mumra]

Dammit, I wrote a long reply then hit "back" by accident.

Basically there have been a lot of discussions on this in the past, the most recent was: https://crawl.develz.org/tavern/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5812&p=77367

I actually already coded a preliminary version of the suggestion there, but for M&F rather than long blades. It's not been merged yet because I have some finishing up to do, including renaming it - possibly to "Focus".

There's also a wiki page on this: https://crawl.develz.org/wiki/doku.php?id=dcss:brainstorm:combat:weapon_reform

Some condensed points to be aware of:

• Things should be simple to understand, so it's best to have a single effect for the whole class of weapons. Coming up with a special effect for every subclass would a) be incredibly difficult to learn and b) result in loads of mediocre effects without much gameplay value.
• Effects should be passive not active - I don't think you fell into this trap anyway; polearms are an exception because reaching was around before so much thought had gone into this
• Effects should encourage thinking differently about tactics and positioning. I think many of your suggestions don't meet this requirement.

I agree with KennySheep about long blades here; we need at least one "vanilla" class because this is a baseline to compare other fancier weapons to and provides something for players who just want a simple weapon that doesn't force them to think about an extra level of tactics. This is a class of "good damage, no bells or whistles". Long blades fit this nicely because they're still quite graceful and precise weapons despite being large and powerful (too large to be effect stabbers).

Given all of the above, and assuming that we go with the M&F effect I've been working on, there are only staves that actually don't have special moves.

The "parry" idea has been floated before, unfortunately it falls into the category of simply being a buff and not having any consequences for tactics/positioning. There are other ideas around; see the two links I gave.

Perhaps a parry could work slightly differently: hitting a monster gives you a shield roll against that monster's next hit(s). This might still be a bit underwhelming though, I can't see it changing much about the way the player would approach a fight.

Another idea is a kind of "glancing blow" - being able to sidestep around monsters whilst striking them in the process. Difficult to make this work properly though.

[KennySheep]

I actually already coded a preliminary version of the suggestion there, but for M&F rather than long blades. It's not been merged yet because I have some finishing up to do, including renaming it - possibly to "Focus".

So if I understood the thread correctly, maces and flails are getting a slowing effect?

[mumra]

So if I understood the thread correctly, maces and flails are getting a slowing effect?

No, it just does more damage for consecutive hits on the same monster.

[KennySheep]

So if I understood the thread correctly, maces and flails are getting a slowing effect?

No, it just does more damage for consecutive hits on the same monster.

Ah, I just latched onto the first thing I saw proposed for long blades. Carry on.

[Siegurt]

Long blades current have the "special" ability of being second-best for stabbing next to daggers. Actually triple swords are nearly as good for stabbing as daggers, given max skills in both.

If long blades are to be 'vanilla' then this ability should probably be stripped from them.

My idea for long blades was to make them "jack of all trades, master of none" giving them several "wimpy versions" of special abilities was a way of attempting to make them have a special ability, without having to make their special be "just does more damage" This I felt was in line with them already having a 'wimpy version' of short blade's stabbing bonus.

I was not proposing that every weapon category have a different ability. There's already a separation for polearms (spears and tridents are given extra stabbing damage, other polearms are not, if "Shove" replaced that on all polearms I'd be fine with that) and the whole one handed/two handed dichotomy was intended generally to actually make the one-handed weapons suck less in late game without giving them a damage bump, and a way to give two-handed weapons some sort of defense which you sacrifice when you don't use a shield. Right now I'm proposing 9 different "categories" of special abilites, vs 5 different weapon skills, not including the weird extra "club confuse stab" which I'm simply not proposing we remove.

Honestly it doesn't make much sense for maces and whips to have the same training category in the first place (They're totally different kinds of weapons) for game balance we do need something in the "light and easy to use" category, so it's balanced, but in terms of how they're used outside of the game it's very strange.

Disorient's simple description for the user "When hit hard with this weapon, a creature may stumble around disoriented for a moment" when in combat "<monster> stumbles around disoriented for a moment" Describing the mechanics and exact numbers in an uncomplicated way has never been a priority in the past afaik.

Tacitcal impacts:

"Shove" is certainly a tactically-oriented ability as is "Lesser cleave"

And I admit that for staves/quarterstaves Parry is a simple power increase, but I felt like the staves category needed one, without becoming actually more destructive (While it doesn't change your tactics, it does change your strategy around training and what weapons to use) Note that one-handed staves aren't in the game any longer with the exception of enhancer staves (Which perhaps should not get parry, they've already got something special anyway)

Disorient is also somewhat tactical in nature (Disorient something then stepping out of it's reach for an escape/reposition is a nice tactic)

Feint/lesser feint isn't so much tactical as it is a way to make up for the shortcomings of otherwise not very easily used weapons. So yes, it's a power bump to a category that needs one without actually making the weapons more powerful. (Which makes it more of a strategy/weapon choice/training thing rather than a tactical one)

Bleeding can change the tactics of how you attack things (Hitting something for bleeding damage then fleeing while it bleeds to death) Blinding is however just a power bump (With the same rationale as Parry/Feint, i.e. the category kind of needs it)

So of the new abilities I proposed (10) 5 qualify as not-tactical at all (Parry/Feint and lesser Parry/Feint,Blindness) but could change long term strategy, 5 qualify as tactical in nature. the only not-tactical ability that isn't paired with a tactical one is Parry.

Another idea is a kind of "glancing blow" - being able to sidestep around monsters whilst striking them in the process. Difficult to make this work properly though.

I'm not sure how we could make that a passive ability,

[Siegurt]

Oh, and I apologize for creating a new thread when there was already one discussing this topic, I hadn't seen it (Mostly because I didn't search for the right stuff)

It wasn't my intention to fracture the discussion at hand.

[dpeg]

Siegurt: I liked your Str proposal a lot, but for the weapon types I am afraid you're going in the wrong direction. I believe that distinction will be increased if we have fewer but stronger effects. Introducing minor versions of the effects will water down whatever differentiation we already had.

In my opinion, the goal is "how can I tactically get most out of my weapon" (as opposed to "Should I carry different weapons for different purposes?"). This will be helped if the various perks are simple (passive, noticeable effects) and distributed per weapon category (e.g. short blades = stabbing, axes = cleaving, maces & flails = pummeling, polearms = reaching).

[galehar]

weapon skill/10, so 2.7 AUT at 27 skill

I think you mean 27 aut. A standard action lasts 10 aut and there's no such thing as fractional aut.

[Siegurt]

Well, I *think* all the added effects I have put in are both passive and noticeable.

As I mentioned in my last post, some of the additional effects I suggested are passive, but not tactical (Feint, Parry) but are certainly noticeable.

The reason I put "Shove" in polearms, was to actually make the existing reaching have a noticable tactical effect. As is reaching gives me one extra weapon attack against any one group of creatures, unless i'm faster than the creatures, or can make use of extenuating circumstances (merfolk in water for example)

Really I've mostly divvied them up into weapon category+handedness, which isn't that large of a step away from simply "weapon category" Mostly because one handed weapons generally both have a different flavor and have different needs to be useful. After all, a whip is not just a very small great mace.

You'll note that the minor versions of effects are primarily all lumped on one weapon type (Long blades) And the reason I did that was to extrapolate the existing trend I perceived to be already present with stabbing, I'm also totally aligned with long blades being the "Vanilla" of weapons and not having any special abilities (Other than a bit extra base damage)

And yes, I meant 27 AUT (Or 2.7 "turns")

Why I put what I did into each category:

Axes don't need anything beyond cleave.
Staves (Quarter/Lajatang at least) are two-handed, but do significantly less damage than other two handed weapons, Giving them a defensive bump gives you a choice between "more damaging" and "Better defensive weapon" in the two-handed weapon category
Short blades: Stabbing is great, but you can't always stab something, Feint gives a way for short blades to be a useful long term in situations where you can't stab.
Long blades: I wanted feint for one-handed long blades (which need it, but less so) and not for two-handed ones (which dont) It seemed to me that the reason Long swords became the weapon of choice in the middle ages was because they could do some of everything (All other weapon types being some sort of specialization) so I wanted to give long swords a "general" kind of feel, but not leave them out entirely. Really though, a long sword was the medieval knight's swiss army knife.
Maces: Again i wanted something that distiguished maces from the "norm" but everything I came up with for maces/clubs sounds just awful for thematically whips (knockback, stunning etc.) i just went with the one that made the most sense to me, didn't seem overbalanced, would work, be passive, universally useful, and wouldn't contribute directly to damage done (Since I think maces do enough damage) In this case, "How do I get the most out of my weapon" is "How do I take the least damage"
Whips: Since whips doing the same thing as maces didn't make sense, I came up with something for whips, generally I consider this the weakest of the proposed ability sets, but it does accomplish my personal goal of not making them useless against well-armoured opponents.
Polearms: As discussed, I don't feel like reach is used much in most situations, there are a *few* situations where you can exploit it, but those are certainly not available on every floor of the dungeon, and to get the "most" out of reach, you'd have to be willing to drag critters across several floors of the dungeon every time you wanted to get them into position to exploit your reaching, or just not use it more than once (Which is what I end up doing most of the time) "Shove" gives a compliment to reach which lets you use reach repeatedly in a fight. I took it away from spears/tridents, since they already have bonus stab damage (Although certainly it would be an upgrade for spears and tridents to lose the stab bonus and gain shove)

[mumra]

Long blades current have the "special" ability of being second-best for stabbing next to daggers. Actually triple swords are nearly as good for stabbing as daggers, given max skills in both.

If long blades are to be 'vanilla' then this ability should probably be stripped from them.

Why? All weapons have a stabbing bonus; it's not a "special" ability. Short blades have the "special" ability of having a much higher stabbing multiplier. I don't see why any other weapon type be changed.

Disorient's simple description for the user "When hit hard with this weapon, a creature may stumble around disoriented for a moment" when in combat "<monster> stumbles around disoriented for a moment" Describing the mechanics and exact numbers in an uncomplicated way has never been a priority in the past afaik.

I was just listing some general points for consideration, not implying that they all applied to all of your suggestions. The point was more that having that many different effects is confusing, especially when many are arbitrarily applies to various sub-types in different classes, whereas having one clear and interesting effect per weapon class is a nice design (and yes the club-stun effect is pretty weird; I'm thinking of changing this a bit to tie in more with the M&F ability I discussed anyway).

Sure we don't want to get bogged down in exact numbers, although for players who want to obsess over the details it is very good if those details are fairly transparent (and this applies for devs too; it's much easier to tweak and balance a simple effect/algorithm than a complex one).

"Shove" is certainly a tactically-oriented ability as is "Lesser cleave"

"Shove" is probably the best in terms of this, yes. Weaker cleave is just a variation of an existing effect which certainly has tactical/positioning implications. I wouldn't be in favour of giving this to a non-axe weapon; "axes cleave" is a very simple thing to communicate. I'd probably give thought to a suggestion to have some types of axes have a smaller cleave arc but it's not really necessary.

And I admit that for staves/quarterstaves Parry is a simple power increase, but I felt like the staves category needed one, without becoming actually more destructive (While it doesn't change your tactics, it does change your strategy around training and what weapons to use) Note that one-handed staves aren't in the game any longer with the exception of enhancer staves (Which perhaps should not get parry, they've already got something special anyway)

It's basically saying "here's a weapon that doesn't let you wear shields so we're going to give it some shielding to make up for it" which doesn't make sense: and it simply makes the decision less interesting. Anyway, "weapon effects should have tactical implications" isn't just an arbitary guideline, it's a requirement that's been discussed at length, so this won't fly; the strategical choices around training and weapons are actually fine as they are.

Disorient is also somewhat tactical in nature (Disorient something then stepping out of it's reach for an escape/reposition is a nice tactic)

If you need a better position or need to escape you should probably be doing it right now instead of risking further melee, since the effect isn't guaranteed anyway (or use another of the many non-melee options available for these tactics).

Feint/lesser feint isn't so much tactical as it is a way to make up for the shortcomings of otherwise not very easily used weapons. So yes, it's a power bump to a category that needs one without actually making the weapons more powerful. (Which makes it more of a strategy/weapon choice/training thing rather than a tactical one)

What makes you say either of those categories need a power bump? Short blades have stabbing, M&F are possibly about to get a more interesting effect.

Bleeding can change the tactics of how you attack things (Hitting something for bleeding damage then fleeing while it bleeds to death) Blinding is however just a power bump (With the same rationale as Parry/Feint, i.e. the category kind of needs it)

Bleeding doesn't do what you think it does. And these aren't the sort of tactics we're talking about anyway; and note, I said "tactics and positioning", whereas "running away from something that's dying" is just a tactic, and you can already get this on many weapons with poison brand.

So of the new abilities I proposed (10) 5 qualify as not-tactical at all (Parry/Feint and lesser Parry/Feint,Blindness) but could change long term strategy, 5 qualify as tactical in nature. the only not-tactical ability that isn't paired with a tactical one is Parry.

I disagree but here we're down to definitions and assumptions based on what I said and what you interpret I meant by "tactics/positioning". You should read the discussions I linked to in depth to get a better idea of what we're talking about here. dpeg has expressed things much more succinctly than I in any case

[Igxfl]

So, if weapon classes other than Long Blades and maybe Staves have all been getting buffed, (reaching, m&f damage stack, cleave, removal of explicit stabbing skill) are Long Blades going to get a slight increase to base stats to compensate? I'm afraid they'll end up rather underwhelming in comparison.

[dpeg]

Igxfl: axes got a damage nerf when they received cleaving.

mumra: Thanks for the thorough explanation! I am short of time right now; it is definitely appreciated

[Siegurt]

Long blades current have the "special" ability of being second-best for stabbing next to daggers. Actually triple swords are nearly as good for stabbing as daggers, given max skills in both.

If long blades are to be 'vanilla' then this ability should probably be stripped from them.

Why? All weapons have a stabbing bonus; it's not a "special" ability. Short blades have the "special" ability of having a much higher stabbing multiplier. I don't see why any other weapon type be changed.

Long blades have an additional stabbing bonus over and above other weapons (but below that of short blades), that's what I was suggesting be removed.

Disorient's simple description for the user "When hit hard with this weapon, a creature may stumble around disoriented for a moment" when in combat "<monster> stumbles around disoriented for a moment" Describing the mechanics and exact numbers in an uncomplicated way has never been a priority in the past afaik.

I was just listing some general points for consideration, not implying that they all applied to all of your suggestions. The point was more that having that many different effects is confusing, especially when many are arbitrarily applies to various sub-types in different classes, whereas having one clear and interesting effect per weapon class is a nice design (and yes the club-stun effect is pretty weird; I'm thinking of changing this a bit to tie in more with the M&F ability I discussed anyway).

Sure we don't want to get bogged down in exact numbers, although for players who want to obsess over the details it is very good if those details are fairly transparent (and this applies for devs too; it's much easier to tweak and balance a simple effect/algorithm than a complex one).

Sure and at the time I wrote this proposal I hadn't known that there was something in-progress for maces/flails, and yes, club stab is bizzare (game wise, thematically i understand the 'blackjack effect' it's attempting to create)

"Shove" is certainly a tactically-oriented ability as is "Lesser cleave"

"Shove" is probably the best in terms of this, yes. Weaker cleave is just a variation of an existing effect which certainly has tactical/positioning implications. I wouldn't be in favour of giving this to a non-axe weapon; "axes cleave" is a very simple thing to communicate. I'd probably give thought to a suggestion to have some types of axes have a smaller cleave arc but it's not really necessary.

Yep, note that I only gave that to long swords as part of the "jack of all trades" theme, which if is instead going to be "Vanilla" theme, removes it from consideration.

And I admit that for staves/quarterstaves Parry is a simple power increase, but I felt like the staves category needed one, without becoming actually more destructive (While it doesn't change your tactics, it does change your strategy around training and what weapons to use) Note that one-handed staves aren't in the game any longer with the exception of enhancer staves (Which perhaps should not get parry, they've already got something special anyway)

It's basically saying "here's a weapon that doesn't let you wear shields so we're going to give it some shielding to make up for it" which doesn't make sense: and it simply makes the decision less interesting. Anyway, "weapon effects should have tactical implications" isn't just an arbitary guideline, it's a requirement that's been discussed at length, so this won't fly; the strategical choices around training and weapons are actually fine as they are.

It makes *some* sense in that traditionally quarterstaves were sometimes used to block incoming attacks (Often because the people using them were too poor to afford armour, and sticks were a damn sight cheaper to replace than longswords, but nevertheless)

Currently the choices are "Train towards a big two handed weapon that does lots of damage" or "Train towards a big two handed weapon that does slightly less damage" I was trying to come up with a way in which that was a less simple choice for a melee user who had equal ability with either.

Certainly some more interesting tactical ability than the one I suggested here would be preferable, one that makes the choice between training towards a lajatang and a triple sword one that isn't simple, but fraught with benefits and drawbacks.

Disorient is also somewhat tactical in nature (Disorient something then stepping out of it's reach for an escape/reposition is a nice tactic)

If you need a better position or need to escape you should probably be doing it right now instead of risking further melee, since the effect isn't guaranteed anyway (or use another of the many non-melee options available for these tactics).

Possibly, but many of those options are unavailable or available in limited quantites,

Hypothetically I'm thinking of fighting a killer bee that might be a tough-but-doable fight one on one (since they move so quickly they often catch me in a less than optimum placement, which if they're one at a time isn't a problem), only to see another two pop up in your LOS, you can't run from them normally, but you could, with disorient, manage a fighting retreat into a corridor. I realize that's not a game changer, but neither is cleave.

Nevertheless this ability was suggested before I saw maces&flails were under construction, I'm perfectly Ok with seeing it discarded, and have no attachment to it.

Feint/lesser feint isn't so much tactical as it is a way to make up for the shortcomings of otherwise not very easily used weapons. So yes, it's a power bump to a category that needs one without actually making the weapons more powerful. (Which makes it more of a strategy/weapon choice/training thing rather than a tactical one)

What makes you say either of those categories need a power bump? Short blades have stabbing, M&F are possibly about to get a more interesting effect.

Stabbing is fine and wonderful, until you can't stab things anymore, at that point you have a ton of skill in something that can't do damage to heavily armoured critters, and most of the things you need to kill are heavily armoured. I perceive that to be a problem, if the general consensus is to disagree and think that's acceptable, then by all means, leave it as-is, no skin of my nose

(Maces & flails as I said I hadn't read anything about before I posted)

Bleeding can change the tactics of how you attack things (Hitting something for bleeding damage then fleeing while it bleeds to death) Blinding is however just a power bump (With the same rationale as Parry/Feint, i.e. the category kind of needs it)

Bleeding doesn't do what you think it does. And these aren't the sort of tactics we're talking about anyway; and note, I said "tactics and positioning", whereas "running away from something that's dying" is just a tactic, and you can already get this on many weapons with poison brand.

I can see that point of view and as I earlier said, I consider my suggestions regarding whips to be the weakest of the bunch.

So of the new abilities I proposed (10) 5 qualify as not-tactical at all (Parry/Feint and lesser Parry/Feint,Blindness) but could change long term strategy, 5 qualify as tactical in nature. the only not-tactical ability that isn't paired with a tactical one is Parry.

I disagree but here we're down to definitions and assumptions based on what I said and what you interpret I meant by "tactics/positioning". You should read the discussions I linked to in depth to get a better idea of what we're talking about here. dpeg has expressed things much more succinctly than I in any case

One thing I wonder is: Does differently optimized tactics for different types of weapons require you go through the learning curve again with each new weapon type you try? And is that a good or bad thing? Will it confuse new players? (i.e. this worked last time? why doesn't the same thing work?)

(Mostly asking the question to play devils advocate, I personally like variety and personally think that having different playstyles be more useful with different types of weapons is cool and contributes to the long-term enjoyability of the game.)

[mumra]

Long blades have an additional stabbing bonus over and above other weapons (but below that of short blades), that's what I was suggesting be removed.

I had to dig into the code to find out exactly what's going on. Numerous apparently randomly-selected weapons get that bonus: club, spear, trident, demon trident, trishula, and of course long blades. I agree this is kind of horrible (and the code that does this is awful!) These weapons should probably at least communicate this in their descriptions, but I don't see a strong reason to remove it other than transparency, and the weapons might need rebalancing in other ways.

And I admit that for staves/quarterstaves Parry is a simple power increase, but I felt like the staves category needed one, without becoming actually more destructive (While it doesn't change your tactics, it does change your strategy around training and what weapons to use) Note that one-handed staves aren't in the game any longer with the exception of enhancer staves (Which perhaps should not get parry, they've already got something special anyway)

It's basically saying "here's a weapon that doesn't let you wear shields so we're going to give it some shielding to make up for it" which doesn't make sense: and it simply makes the decision less interesting. Anyway, "weapon effects should have tactical implications" isn't just an arbitary guideline, it's a requirement that's been discussed at length, so this won't fly; the strategical choices around training and weapons are actually fine as they are.

It makes *some* sense in that traditionally quarterstaves were sometimes used to block incoming attacks (Often because the people using them were too poor to afford armour, and sticks were a damn sight cheaper to replace than longswords, but nevertheless)
[/quote]

Yes it makes complete thematic sense, I'm not disagreeing with that. But purely in terms of game mechanics, we'd basically be taking away shields only to give back some shields; that's what doesn't make sense and it actually detracts from what was otherwise an interesting element of the (strategical) choice.

If you need a better position or need to escape you should probably be doing it right now instead of risking further melee, since the effect isn't guaranteed anyway (or use another of the many non-melee options available for these tactics).

Possibly, but many of those options are unavailable or available in limited quantites,

Really? Are these items really so rare that you never have them when you need them: wands, misc items, scrolls, potions, spells (summoning, charms, translocations, hexes)...

If you find yourself very often in dire situations with absolutely no means of escape then you perhaps need to consider how you are managing your resources.

Hypothetically I'm thinking of fighting a killer bee that might be a tough-but-doable fight one on one (since they move so quickly they often catch me in a less than optimum placement, which if they're one at a time isn't a problem), only to see another two pop up in your LOS, you can't run from them normally, but you could, with disorient, manage a fighting retreat into a corridor. I realize that's not a game changer, but neither is cleave.

If you can't kill them you're still better off starting your retreat now rather than letting those two bees get even closer by risking a melee attack that might not have the desired effect...

Stabbing is fine and wonderful, until you can't stab things anymore, at that point you have a ton of skill in something that can't do damage to heavily armoured critters, and most of the things you need to kill are heavily armoured. I perceive that to be a problem, if the general consensus is to disagree and think that's acceptable, then by all means, leave it as-is, no skin of my nose

At what point does stabbing stop working? Did you stop training Stealth or make too much noise or something? Stabbing can kill practically everything in the entire game...

One thing I wonder is: Does differently optimized tactics for different types of weapons require you go through the learning curve again with each new weapon type you try? And is that a good or bad thing? Will it confuse new players? (i.e. this worked last time? why doesn't the same thing work?)

It doesn't change the basic rules, the idea is to make you think and apply those rules a bit differently.

(Mostly asking the question to play devils advocate, I personally like variety and personally think that having different playstyles be more useful with different types of weapons is cool and contributes to the long-term enjoyability of the game.)

It's definitely interesting if it can create a substantially different style of game, e.g. stabbing is very different to wading in with an axe! But it's still melee, which is distinct from ranged/conj/summons/whatever.

[dpeg]

To be honest, I always imagined that at some point stabbing would become the "weapon move" of short blades and in particular the stabbing bonuses for the other weapons would be removed. A sleeping or distracted monster is still a nice target even without a bonus.

[Siegurt]

At what point does stabbing stop working? Did you stop training Stealth or make too much noise or something? Stabbing can kill practically everything in the entire game...

Pretty much I'm talking about extended (It's pretty darn tough to get a stab in Hell and in most Pan Lord areas, mostly because of the density of creatures), and to a lesser extent Zot, I've never seen a sleeping OOf, do they even sleep?

In a 3 rune game you're correct stabbing should be able to get you through the game.

[mumra]

If you're in extended you've already won the game. If Orbs of Fire are the weakest things that can threaten your stabber strategy I am more likely to think that stabbing is way overpowered. You totally shouldn't be able to waltz through to Zot on the back of 1 skill/tactic anyway.

[Siegurt]

As I said, if the general consensus is "it's not a problem" then so be it.

And truth be told, stabbing doesn't work in Vaults:5, The Abyss, the final vault of Elf (Although most of those critters can be damaged with a short blade)

Really, I don't expect or want that Stabbing should work everywhere, the intent was to provide an alternative other than "Just use some other weapon you haven't been training and investing enchant weapon scrolls into all game" or "Pick some attack type spell and get good with that" As is, I don't see that "Train Short blades all the way up to 27 and use that as a melee weapon" is a viable strategy for where you can't stab.

As to whether it should be, that's the question I guess needs asking.

[crate]

(stabbing is way overpowered)

[mikee]

And truth be told, stabbing doesn't work in Vaults:5, The Abyss, the final vault of Elf (Although most of those critters can be damaged with a short blade)

I think you don't have enough experience with stabbing to comment on it so absolutely. Stabbing 'works' everywhere - for instance, I don't even like stabbing and I just thought of 12 ways to stab all of the vault guards on v:$.

[Siegurt]

Alright, fair enough, there's ways to make it work in a lot of those places, there are a number of things in the game which getting a stab in is *really* hard (Particularly those who are immune or near-immune to hexes, see invisible and are already awake) That being said, it *is* still possible (for instance with distraction stabs) And of course, as always you can just not kill those things.

I'm actually not really trying to comment on stabbing's effectiveness (Which I readily admit is quite high), what I *am* commenting on is that it seems like choosing short blades locks you into stabbing as your one and only viable tactic long term.

If you can't/won't/don't stab through the later part of the game you end up either not being able to melee things effectively, or switching to some non-shortblade method of killing things.

What I was proposing with Feint was an attempt at an alternative to the stabbing game for short blade users, which could use the existing structure not drastically increase the power of short blades and still be effective.

When I started this thread I wasn't aware of some of the requirements for weapon effects which had already been decided on, and Feint (regardless of whether it's balanced, and regardless of whether Stabbing is a tactic that can take you everywhere making Feint not-needed) doesn't fit those requirements in any case, so it really really doesn't matter. Feint is all dead, and stabbing may or may not solve all problems, It's not really important or related to the topic.

[Utis]

It makes *some* sense in that traditionally quarterstaves were sometimes used to block incoming attacks (Often because the people using them were too poor to afford armour, and sticks were a damn sight cheaper to replace than longswords, but nevertheless)

Yes it makes complete thematic sense, I'm not disagreeing with that. But purely in terms of game mechanics, we'd basically be taking away shields only to give back some shields; that's what doesn't make sense and it actually detracts from what was otherwise an interesting element of the (strategical) choice.

How about giving staves a damage bonus, but only if there's at least one space adjacent to both the player and the target, i.e. not in corridors and not when you're crowded: You take a long hard swing with your staff, but for that you need space.

[some12fat2move]

How about giving staves a damage bonus, but only if there's at least one space adjacent to both the player and the target, i.e. not in corridors and not when you're crowded: You take a long hard swing with your staff, but for that you need space.

Or how about if you get a certain amount (say, 10%) for each such space, so that you'd need all four open to do your maximum damage?

[mikee]

Alright, fair enough, there's ways to make it work in a lot of those places, there are a number of things in the game which getting a stab in is *really* hard (Particularly those who are immune or near-immune to hexes, see invisible and are already awake) That being said, it *is* still possible (for instance with distraction stabs) And of course, as always you can just not kill those things.

No. It is not hard for everyone just because it is hard for you. Ask me the next time you are having trouble stabbing something and I will explain how to do it.

If you can't/won't/don't stab through the later part of the game you end up either not being able to melee things effectively, or switching to some non-shortblade method of killing things.

Not trying to pick on you or anything, but I don't really agree with this either. Like I mentioned, I don't particularly enjoy stabbing - yet I often find myself using short blades. You can bash things to death with short blades surprisingly well (just look at all of the short blade ha or ko of trog who are not stabbing). And if you want to hybridize or something, that's great, as most characters should want to anyway and it's even easier to do while using short blades.

[Siegurt]

As I said earlier the merits or drawbacks of stabbing aren't really on topic.

[XuaXua]

Is the long blades stabbing bonus thing documented in-game on the item descriptions in a blatant fashion?

[Siegurt]

Just looked and no, there was nothing to that effect in the description of a long sword that I just looked at, my trunk build is probably 3 or 4 days old at this point.

[XuaXua]

Then, imho, it needs to be.

[some12fat2move]

Not only long blades but also clubs (ha!) and stabby polearms: viewtopic.php?p=115118#p115118

[Bomanz]

It's not particularly original or thematically adherent, but what if staffs could simultaneously attack front and backwards? Making it the best weapon for situations when you are lightly surrounded in a corridor? Damage on double attacks could be like 80% of normal. You could finish off a dangerous opponent while at the same time killing an annoying weak monster that is blocking your retreat.

Not sure if this would justify dropping staff base damage across the types.

[Utis]

How about giving staves a damage bonus, but only if there's at least one space adjacent to both the player and the target, i.e. not in corridors and not when you're crowded: You take a long hard swing with your staff, but for that you need space.

Or how about if you get a certain amount (say, 10%) for each such space, so that you'd need all four open to do your maximum damage?

That's way too much, IMHO. It would encourage me to take on foes one-on-one not just mostly and by default, but with religious fanatism, fleeing whenever accidentally more than one is charging on me. That could become a strain.

If it's just one free space and the damage bonus is sufficiently large, it might encourage me to fight two or so opponents in the (mostly) open and try to avoid being attacked by both at the same time through moving. I like the idea of staffs being the nimble "martial artist" weapon that encourages me to alternate my attacks with moving.

[XuaXua]

Would lajatangs get the cleave ability?

[xzanthius]

Staves should have a multipurpose or defensive ability.

-Shove
-Vault (Over one square deep water... probably useless)
-Set off Traps (from one square away... probably useless)... actually a Probe ability where you can open/close doors or set off traps from one square away might be a good reason to equip a staff.
-Parry
-Stun



I hope Long Blades don't get stripped down too much as they are weak anyways from just having short blades to cross train with.

[DracheReborn]

Sort of tangential to the weapon effects discussion, but would it make sense to make weapon effects an ability instead of a weapon intrinsic? For example, to make a cleaving attack, you need both an Axe and the (passive) cleaving ability. Think of it as a weapon technique that the character has learned. This ability can be available on some starting backgrounds (Fighter/Gladiator), and available on manuals for everyone else.

Pros:
- If the whole weapon class doesn't get the effect as an intrinsic, then less balancing is necessary. For example, the damage nerfs to Polearms and Axes could be reversed. Stronger weapon effects could be considered.
- Enemies won't automatically get the new weapon effects, they'd only do so if it makes sense to give them the ability.
- The melee backgrounds get a stronger differentiation from the book backgrounds (technically, they'd just start with a different book/manual!). In fact, if and when weapon effects become stronger/more differentiated, it might make sense to get rid of Fi and Gl backgrounds, and replace them with Swordsman, Hoplite, Basher, etc instead. Mo and As already fit into this framework.

Cons:
- Weapon choice for Warrior-mage and Zealot backgrounds becomes arbitrary, which was pretty much the situation before. I'd argue though that for these backgrounds, the starting god/starting spells already provide enough differentiation.
- Nerfs Stabbing, if not everyone with a dagger gets the stabbing bonus automatically. I think only As should start with it, and maybe En.
- Additional implementation complexity. The ability screen would have to be modified to list passive abilities. Manuals of foo will have to be added. Additional monster flags to show whether each can reach, cleave, or bash etc.

[Amnesiac]

I think it would be nice to have something like a faint for stabbing with short blades at higher levels so you would rely on it insted of needing to make the target stabbable with magic or needles, because short blades are not even as much of a weapon as it's just a tool for stabbing. I mean, you can probably imagine an agile fighter deal some serious stabs to a target of a much less agility/intelligence/skill even if it's aware of his presence rather then imagining him slashing a heavily armored/tough enemy in the same manner as he would do with a heavy weapon.

[dck]

But you can already kill things with sblades and pain, dist, chaos, elec or draining are all very good on fast weapons, why buffing them further?

[MoogleDan]

That's actually a really good point. With short blades, the only way you could buff their stabbing while keeping things balanced would be to reduce their stats elsewhere, and I'm not sure how much more you can reduce their stats before they're literally useless against a high-AC opponent who's aware of you.

[Abominae]

It seems there's some weird myth that short blades can't kill everything in the game. You can win a short blade melee character without ever stabbing. Quickblades are really strong melee weapons, and you don't even need a great brand for them to be effective.

[Amnesiac]

I don't know how it is for strong characters with a lot of slaying, but a lot of my stabbers didn't feel so strong with all kinds of quickblades and other short blades. It takes quite some time to kill something tough with one. I also have had a character with both holy and pain +9 QBs, but it takes some ridiculous investments and killing is easier done with other options with the same exp investing. Also, what I'm talking about is not an ability to just stab everything reliably without stealth, but an occasional lucky hit with a chance of stabbing+dex/4 or something like that. That wouldn't reliably save you from danger but it would speed up battles with tough enemies.

[DracheReborn]

Actually, I think Short Blades would be perfect for dual wield. Too bad dual wield is on the won't do list.

It seems there's some weird myth that short blades can't kill everything in the game. You can win a short blade melee character without ever stabbing. Quickblades are really strong melee weapons, and you don't even need a great brand for them to be effective.

Maybe so, but you don't always find a quick blade early enough (or at all), unlike say a battleaxe or great sword. Short Blades as a family doesn't compare in damage output to other weapon classes, and no doubt that is by design. That some short blades can output comparable damage doesn't change that.

[Amnesiac]

What do you think about my idea to give short blades a chance of stabbing+dex/4 to deal a damage of a stab on a distracted enemy? I think it's exactly right kind of boost for quickening up battles with orbs of fire or such without overpowering stabbers, especially low level ones. With 33 dex and 27 stabbing (or stealth+short blades/2 in 0.13) you'll get one stab in 20 auts if using a quickblade which will give a stabber a chance to kill an OoF a bit quicker an not be as horribly mutated. I think, considering exp investment and all it's not unfair comparing to large weapons or conjurations. I've killed a lot of OoFs with short blades, so I haven't come up with this idea out of the blue.

[Siegurt]

There's already a better chance than that for short blades to stab distracted opponents. Getting them to be "distracted" is the trick.

[epsilon]

Personally, I don't like the idea of leaving long blades as "vanilla" weapon without any abilities. In my opinion, that'll just make them the only boring weapon in the game. It'll be great, if all weapons get unique abilities. Also, I really like idea of learnable battle skills, both melee and ranged (even if they all are passive or semi-passive). I mean - there is loads of spells and means of becoming better mage (with some really visible feats), but for fighters it's just "hitting faster and stronger", nothing more.