Long Blades, M&F effect brainstorm

[Grimm]

gnóll
gnöll
gnōll
gnõll

[varsovie]

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.

Or having a key that switch between the view of the monster and is weapon. Use - for no weapon.

I fear accent may be hard to see./distinguish.

[jejorda2]

The | command works well for seeing terrain. Moving the drop list to / and using \ for weapon view would make sense to me, since \ and | are on the same key.

[danr]

I also think the attack while moving past ability is a promising idea for LB.

For M&F, I think they should have some kind of damage enhancement, at least the M part. (Whips, I think, should get reaching)

Options for maces and their ilk:
- A chance to shatter or degrade a monster's armour. This ability would be less against enchanted armour or players would constantly be replacing their armour.
- Damage bonus against softly- or un-armoured opponents. Plate mail e.g. disperses the kinetic impact of a mace blow. But leather or ring mail, while it might keep a sword from slashing or piercing, does almost nothing against the impact of a mace.
- A weak "anti-magic" kind of effect - you knock monsters around so much that they have a hard time coordinating a spell on the next turn, so maybe they have an increased chance of spell failure.

[crate]

I don't like the idea of forcing unicode on console players unless someone can point me to a Windows ttyrec player that actually supports unicode.

[dpeg]

crate: "forcing unicode on console players" -- how?

[crate]

crate: "forcing unicode on console players" -- how?

If you change monster glyphs based on the weapon they are wielding (using unicode glyphs). I suppose it is probably better to allow unicode and show weapons if you have unicode on (and if the player uses char_set=ascii just don't change glyphs based on monster equipment) than to do nothing, but it would be better still if there was some way to display which weapon monsters are wielding without unicode; perhaps allow a player to define a highlight colour/brand/whatever you want to call it based on the weapon an enemy is wielding, like the current sleeping/unaware/ally/neutral highlights. There would not be enough colours to define all weapons obviously, but it would be nice if I could red-light all enemies with polearms since I care about reaching (and I don't care about cleaving so I won't highlight axes).

I suppose as long as it's something I can mess with in my rcfile I don't care too much because I'll just change my settings for the things I care about.

[dpeg]

crate: Obviously either nothing would change for non-unicode console or, better, some way would be found for them as well (for example as you indicate). I had no idea you -- a blue one! -- would even consider anything else. My sole point was that umlauts would provide a quick solution to the problem minmay pointed out.

varsovie: As a a speaker of a language with some kind of accents, I can guarantee that parsing those things is very quick. This assumes that we don't do anything silly like having German and Hungarian style umlauts, but why should we?

[dpeg]

crate, minmay: It's your forum. Do what you please, but leave me alone.

[danr]

Let's get back on topic please. I'm sure a solution could be found, that's very tangential to the question of passive moves for M&F and LB.

[roctavian]

I think the thread has run its course, personally. I posted it to solicit some ideas but few new ones arose; we discussed long blades sidestepping a bit and I think there was some quite good discussion there. There are good points for and against the concept, of course -- I would say the strongest point against was quite early in the thread, where galehar mentioned the plan to make long blades faster but less damaging and M&F slower but more damaging. Even if there is no effect, it does create a meaningful difference between the weapon classes (long blades is better vs EV, M&F is better versus AC).

I'm sure that all these ideas are worth coming back to again in the future, but probably not for a while.

[XuaXua]

Long Blades cut off Hydra heads.
Maces/Flails don't.

Therefore, Long Blades cause bleeding, which can be considered a "state" where HP is lost over time, akin to poisoning.
Maces and Flails can induce stunning, which can add a minor delay to the next attack from the target.

[Roderic]

Therefore, Long Blades cause bleeding, which can be considered a "state" where HP is lost over time, akin to poisoning.
Maces and Flails can induce stunning, which can add a minor delay to the next attack from the target.

My two cents here: if you combine bleeding + stunning you have a macahuitl http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macuahuitl, an aztec-weapon: a massive club with obsidian edges for both clubbing and cutting. Sounds good to me for an artifact or a rare weapon.

[Roderic]

I wanna reanimate a little the topic just to propose a -to me- finer effect to maces.

Right now we agree that any desirable effect has to:
- not be evokable, it is given by the nature of the weapon
- still permit vanilla-style in some situations so as not to condition really much the common play-style but rather complement it.
- be reliable, i.e. not happening sometimes or as a function of the target nature
- be valid both for the player and the foes

My idea comes from a merge of several ones proposed before. I call it the smashing:
- 1) Attacker adjacent to a target hits vanilla-like as currently (static attack)
- 2) Attacker that moves to reach adjacency to a target gains a simultaneous (dynamic) attack -the smash- which:
2.a) Ignores the AC of the target (pro)
2.b) Has a higher chance to be evaded (cons, but hey, it's an extra attack!)

Rationale:
Maces are heavy weapons in which often the first attack is decisive, mostly if you charge from a certain distance to gain momentum. The first hit is more damaging than the next ones because then you are fixed in a position. This first attack is also more likely to be avoided for the target is seeing you coming. The chance to avoid this "attack by approaching" can be tuned and have to balance the situations in early game when finding an ogre, for example (I don't want to make ogres nastier just because they are able to move besides you).
If the same effect is wanted after the first hit you need to retreat and move towards again: this is also realistic if somewhat tedious, but Brogue has a similar implementation on maces in which you need to move after the hit to hit again, but it is compulsory. In Crawl this attack is not forced since you can still fight as usual: it is an addition.

Exception to chivalrous conduct (TSO): Some situations may you force to move towards a confused or paralyzed foe but you don't want to. In this case I propose a prompt either warning about or giving the option to hit anyways or to simply move towards but no hitting.

Finally, a graphic example:

  Code:

....
.@.K
....
..o.
_you see a kobold and a orc priest

....
..@%
....
..o.
_you charge towards the kobold. You smash the kobold!. The kobold is killed

....
...%
..@.
..o.
_you charge towards the orc priest. The orc priest evades your smash!
_the orc priest hits you with a dagger.
_you hit the orc priest. The orc priest is lightly damaged.

[Lasty]

This idea came up before for long swords. One problem with it is that any monster chasing you with a mace would hit you every turn -- imagine a fight with an Ogre with a GSC goes wrong: if you run from it, it gets a free, extra-deadly attack with each step!

[jejorda2]

This idea came up before for long swords. One problem with it is that any monster chasing you with a mace would hit you every turn -- imagine a fight with an Ogre with a GSC goes wrong: if you run from it, it gets a free, extra-deadly attack with each step!

We already have high speed creatures to make walking away not work all the time. And we have randomized fast actions so that walking away won't always work. I don't see any problem with mace-wielders or sword-wielders being another case where walking away doesn't work. I don't see anything sacred about walking away that necessitates it being preserved as an always-useful tactic.

Am I missing something?

[Lasty]

Currently, fast monsters tend not to hit very hard, and hard-hitting monsters tend not to be very fast. As I understand it, this is so that you have a few turns to try to find a way to escape from a fast monster via a non-running method, whereas you can simply run away from a hard-hitting monster instead of dying to it very quickly when you're outgunned. Mace/club-wielding monsters tend to fall into the second camp, but this change would mean that once they are within melee range of you, you cannot escape by walking, and any other escape involves standing next to a creature that might well take off 50% of your health in a single hit.

Running away is not foolproof right now due to randomized fast actions, but once this change goes in, it will literally not work at all. Every melee guy will have to be absolutely able to destroy any mace-wielding monster they encounter, because if the fight goes south their escape options become 1) controlled blink or 2) read teleport, hope you survive the turn, and then chug 3-6x Heal Wounds potions and pray.

Tl;dr: I think you greatly underestimate how often being able to run from a monster saves your life.

[jejorda2]

But if you stand there and fight it, it hits you less than a speed 11 monster, right? Just like it might not be smart to walk towards or away from a centaur with a bow without using corners or clouds to break LOS, it might not be smart to walk away from a mace wielder in melee range. If you kill it before it gets to melee range, or keep hitting it while it is in range instead of walking away giving it free hits, you're fine.

It's good to need new tactics for new threats, right?

[jejorda2]

Maybe it's a big part of why I don't win much, but I don't walk away from things once I've started fighting them more than once every ten games. I try to walk away before I fight, or use something like blink, swiftness, passwall, summons, or hexes to get away. I don't think it's a big deal if pillar dancing is nerfed more. It just makes armour, shields, evasion and hp more attractive.

I'm not sure the ability is definitely the best possible idea, but I don't think "you can't walk away from it after engaging" is a drawback to it at all.

[BlackSheep]

It would basically make walking around an early game corner into an ogre a death sentence to speed 10 races.

The point of this discussion is to make the various melee weapon types a little distinct, not make vanilla flails a serious problem in the hands of monsters.

[pratamawirya]

2) Attacker that moves to reach adjacency to a target gains a simultaneous (dynamic) attack -the smash- which:
2.a) Ignores the AC of the target (pro)
2.b) Has a higher chance to be evaded (cons, but hey, it's an extra attack!)

If this only happens when the target does not move away from the attacker, I think it'll be okay.

EDIT: Even if the smash happens like the current proposal, it won't be that interesting for the player, since most monsters do not run away when they're injured (and a lot of the ones that do are faster than speed 10).

[Roderic]

This idea came up before for long swords. One problem with it is that any monster chasing you with a mace would hit you every turn -- imagine a fight with an Ogre with a GSC goes wrong: if you run from it, it gets a free, extra-deadly attack with each step!

Ooops too many feedback and I missed it!

This is the reason I nerfed it by being highly evadable; if you have enough EV or dodging you may escape from every approach an ogre does... another thing is standing your ground in close combat, which usually you are more or less hit every time.

Not time to read/reply the rest but think into account that while the attack is defined by AC irrelevancy, the chances to evade it can be tuned to avoid nastier club wielders. It also incites you to train M&F to gain more chances to hit and no fail every time you approach to something.

Remember: it's an extra attack but its chances can be adjusted to avoid nuisances.

[Roderic]

EDIT: Even if the smash happens like the current proposal, it won't be that interesting for the player, since most monsters do not run away when they're injured (and a lot of the ones that do are faster than speed 10).

It is a complement more than a replacement because I keep the vanilla flavour and this do not interfere really much with the usual combat. You may also retreat and approach again if the monster remains quiet (let's say, paralyzed or something else), and although tedious it is basically what a mace wielder would do to deal heavier blows.

In Spain we have a proverb that would translate as "He who hits first, hits twice", so basically it is the idea behind using maces.

imagine a fight with an Ogre with a GSC goes wrong: if you run from it, it gets a free, extra-deadly attack with each step!

Not always, the square of adjacency in the same direction as the monster moves is a restriction (sorry if bad explained above):

  Code:

....
O.@.
....
you see an ogre
....
.O@.
....
_the ogre charges! You evade the blow (phew, it was close)

...@
.O..
....
you move

..O@
....
....
the ogre moves towards you  <--- no extra-attack is permitted in that situation

[BlackSheep]

While the directional attack does mitigate the danger from a mace-wielding monster, it also makes the ability much less intuitive for the player to use.

[Roderic]

While the directional attack does mitigate the danger from a mace-wielding monster, it also makes the ability much less intuitive for the player to use.

This kind of charge should be considered in a straight line either horizontal, vertical or diagonally... but I know that in Crawl the directionality is generalized more than the 8 directions of the grid. Think of them as a two step motion in which you need to keep the direction, first to approach second to attack towards. In the example above the second case would be doig a chess knight motion and then the attack is not permitted

[BlackSheep]

Except that's not how movement works in any other context in the game. There's no good way to communicate the difference to the player and the only reason to implement such a change would be to paper over the difficulty with giving monsters an overly strong ability. I'd much rather see something simpler like a chance to ignore AC on a blow that increases with M&F skill. It's nothing flashy, but neither is a heavy piece of metal on the end of a stick/chain.

[Lasty]

For all the reasons already stated, having this ability on monsters would be very, very dangerous. Even making it easy to evade doesn't help for two reasons: 1) you probably need more than 1 step to escape, and sooner or later the monster gets lucky, and 2) the players most likely to need to step away from a mace-wielding monster are players wearing heavier armor who felt confident enough to walk near the monster in the first place, and 3) this ability will be the most punishing in the early game, which is already hard, which already is short on escape options, and when dodge scores tend to be quite low anyway.

On top of this, this adds almost nothing to the experience of using maces as a player. It'll sometimes give you a free attack when you move toward a monster, but then the monster gets to attack you back before you swing again anyway, and your attack had a higher chance to miss than normal. Otherwise, it'll only affect retreating monsters, who aren't exactly a big threat anyway. I just don't see the point.

[ElectricAlbatross]

I like charge for M&F; it's cool and thematic. It would be even better if it could encourage players to charge out of corridors instead of fighting in them.

However:

Not always, the square of adjacency in the same direction as the monster moves is a restriction (sorry if bad explained above):

  Code:

....
O.@.
....
you see an ogre
....
.O@.
....
_the ogre charges! You evade the blow (phew, it was close)

...@
.O..
....
you move

..O@
....
....
the ogre moves towards you  <--- no extra-attack is permitted in that situation

That is bad; I could always avoid the charge of an ogre by standing a knight's move away from it. It's like in Nethack where you can only shoot an arrow in the cardinal and diagonal directions. Crawl is better than that.

How about charging as implemented in Sil:

• Attacking a monster the round after you move towards it gives you a stronger attack.
• You can charge-attack up to a 45° angle away from the direction of your last movement, so you can charge knight's moves.

E.g.

  Code:

X represents the squares the player can charge the round after making the movement.
.....      ...XX
.....      ...@X
..@..  ->  .....
.....      .....
.....      .....

or
.....      .....
.....      ....X
..@..  ->  ...@X
.....      ....X
.....      .....

This allows you to charge all tiles 2 moves away from you, whereas under the original proposal, you can only charge these squares from your position:

  Code:

X.X.X
.....
X.@.X
.....
X.X.X


In-play example:

  Code:

...@
.O..
....

Round 1: the ogre moves toward you:
..O@
....
....     

Round 2: The ogre attempts a charge.
..O@
....
....
The ogre charges you! / The ogre's charge misses you.


[Roderic]

I admit a Nethack influence for I came from there but also when figuring out the charge I tried to include some physics in the mechanics.

If the attack is done progressively when moving towards -and therefore, being performed whenever you reach- then the mechanical work W = F*d*cos(a), is maximum in case both the force of the attack and the movement are parallel, this is only accomplished in the 8 positions 2-squares away; if the vector displacement d and the force vector F corresponds to a straight and a diagonal movement (non parallel), the work ,i.e, the variation of kinetic energy is lesser in a factor cos(45º)

So to speak, if you charge towards something you expect to apply the force in the same direction you are running, because turning some angle is less effective in your hit.

I agree that Crawl allows more directions than the intuitive eight, so that the proposal above is also fine to me, but I would like that the side positions make the attack less hard. This way the strategy of retreating from an ogre seen above is still optimal in open spaces. The idea was to not make monsters much more nastier than they are.

[ElectricAlbatross]

I agree that Crawl allows more directions than the intuitive eight, so that the proposal above is also fine to me, but I would like that the side positions make the attack less hard. This way the strategy of retreating from an ogre seen above is still optimal in open spaces. The idea was to not make monsters much more nastier than they are.

In my proposal above the ogre would have to move towards you and then make an attack against you as normal for the charge to take place. You can still retreat from an ogre one space away without getting charged, unless it gets a double move.

[jejorda2]

What if the time to wield all melee weapons but long blades was increased, and the time to wield long blades was decreased? Then it might make sense for someone using launchers to choose long blades for the quicker switch time. It's somewhat thematic if you imagine a sword close at hand in a scabbard while a polearm is strapped to the back or something. I can't think of any thematic reason short blades wouldn't be quick-swapped as well, but it probably wouldn't hurt long blades any to allow that.

[crate]

Well right now if you're mainly using a launcher to kill enemies then you can just keep firing that launcher at range 1. If you're using ranged just as something to do to pass time until the enemy gets to you then you can just stop firing one turn earlier (or choose throwing instead of a launcher). Changing weapon swap time doesn't make long blades play differently than other weapons at all ... it would mostly just not be noticeable.

Compare to reaching and cleave, which are both very noticeable.

[ebarrett]

Some suggestions of mostly as-passive-as-possible effects. Some of these are blatantly stolen from I don't even know where! Some might have appeared on this very thread already! Some are lifted from Crawl itself!

1. M&F cause a short "stun" on big damage. That stun causes the monster to skip one turn of game time (or maybe some duration based on damage, with both a low and a high cap?). Whips/demon whips also have the same effect though with a different flavour (the monster "cowers" or "backs off" of whatever). You can't stunlock a monster, and a stunned monster isn't any more prone to stabbing.

2. Long blades steal the minotaur retaliation gimmick, frequency capped by current delay. (And then minotaurs get the axe because now they're just bad hill orcs!)

3. Short blades and stabbing get merged, non-sbl lose all stabbing bonuses apart from some freebie minimal extra damage multiplier that applies to every weapon (even short blades!) and isn't changed by anything and is rather lousy. I don't think anyone ever trained stabbing to use it with a trident anyway.

4. Staves get a rapidly increasing speed bonus when you land consecutive hits. This stacks with the occasional speed brand.

[BlackSheep]

4. Staves get a rapidly increasing speed bonus when you land consecutive hits. This stacks with the occasional speed brand.

I've read all of the other ideas on your list before, and would throw my support behind any of them. The one above is new to me, and intriguing. I've seen devs voice reservations about adding weapon abilities that are straight damage buffs, which this sounds like. It's still the best suggestion I've seen for staves, and would make pain/elec/distortion lajatangs amazing. (Not that lajatangs with those brands suck now...)

Assuming the idea is acceptable, would enhancer staves be excluded from this? I kind of feel like they should be.

[Grimm]

4. Staves get a rapidly increasing speed bonus when you land consecutive hits. This stacks with the occasional speed brand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... fQg#t=108s to 2:30

[njvack]

I've read all of the other ideas on your list before, and would throw my support behind any of them. The one above is new to me, and intriguing. I've seen devs voice reservations about adding weapon abilities that are straight damage buffs, which this sounds like. It's still the best suggestion I've seen for staves, and would make pain/elec/distortion lajatangs amazing. (Not that lajatangs with those brands suck now...)

More interestingly, it makes improving to-hit (+acc, fighting) more important relative to improving damage. Which is interesting.

Alternately, have multiple consecutive hits apply bonus (post-brand) damage, to keep it from being a disproportionate buff to branded staves, or elemental staves.

[Kalma]

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.

While unicode supports accents and umlauts on any letter, you are gonna have variable success depending on font. But if that doesn't scare us, there are a lot of marks to use: http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/combining_diacritical_marks.html

g̶, g̷ and g̸ look good with Courier New in Putty.

[Happylisk]

I think Axes, short blades (once merged with stabbing), and staves are fine. The question is what to do with Maces and LB.

I think maces should be the vanilla weapons. They are the simplest in terms of real world mechanics - you bash stuff. There are legendary swordsmen. There aren't legendary bashers.

For LB, I propose the following effect: Parry. Parry functions as the inverse of cleave: a defensive bonus that only procs against multiple targets. In a one on one fight, there is no (or only a small) bonus. When adjacent to two or more enemies, the player receives an EV or block bonus against all enemies except the last enemy attacked by the player.

Thematically, this is to represent nimble sword play that keeps popcorn at bay while you focus on your main enemy. Strategically, like cleaving, while fighting in corridors is still superior, this passive bonus will give LB users a defensive edge when forced to fight multiple enemies in the open. UI wise, like cleave and stabbing there is no clunky imposition on melee combat. In terms of reciprocity, the player will not really notice this against LB wielding monsters unless heavily reliant on allies.

In sum, maces become the vanilla weapon, axes are more aggressive, LB more defensive.

[some12fat2move]

I think Axes, short blades (once merged with stabbing), and staves are fine. The question is what to do with Maces and LB.

I think maces should be the vanilla weapons. They are the simplest in terms of real world mechanics - you bash stuff. There are legendary swordsmen. There aren't legendary bashers.

For LB, I propose the following effect: Parry. Parry functions as the inverse of cleave: a defensive bonus that only procs against multiple targets. In a one on one fight, there is no (or only a small) bonus. When adjacent to two or more enemies, the player receives an EV or block bonus against all enemies except the last enemy attacked by the player.

Thematically, this is to represent nimble sword play that keeps popcorn at bay while you focus on your main enemy. Strategically, like cleaving, while fighting in corridors is still superior, this passive bonus will give LB users a defensive edge when forced to fight multiple enemies in the open. UI wise, like cleave and stabbing there is no clunky imposition on melee combat. In terms of reciprocity, the player will not really notice this against LB wielding monsters unless heavily reliant on allies.

In sum, maces become the vanilla weapon, axes are more aggressive, LB more defensive.

Axes are unique in that they specifically make open battles less bad - it would be a little weird if long blades did this too. But I do sorta like your idea about long blades being a defense-increasing weapon. Perhaps long blades when wielded could simply increase your EV by LBskill*2+Fgt/adjusted weapon delay, or something like that? If cutting arrows out of the air is deemed undesirable, it would have to be applied only to melee attacks.

[twelwe]

1. M&F cause a short "stun" on big damage. That stun causes the monster to skip one turn of game time (or maybe some duration based on damage, with both a low and a high cap?). Whips/demon whips also have the same effect though with a different flavour (the monster "cowers" or "backs off" of whatever). You can't stunlock a monster, and a stunned monster isn't any more prone to stabbing.

I'm 50/50 on this. I still passionately believe that whatever effect maces get should be different from whips, and that they should be split into two groups with non-elemental staves flat-out removed from the game. That means you, lajatang.

2. Long blades steal the minotaur retaliation gimmick, frequency capped by current delay. (And then minotaurs get the axe because now they're just bad hill orcs!)

Love love love this idea. Gives more survival to dodge focused melee or hybrids. I think the hit should be guaranteed on a dodge, but the damage should be a factor of the skill.

3. Short blades and stabbing get merged, non-sbl lose all stabbing bonuses apart from some freebie minimal extra damage multiplier that applies to every weapon (even short blades!) and isn't changed by anything and is rather lousy. I don't think anyone ever trained stabbing to use it with a trident anyway.

I think everyone can agree with getting rid of stabbing

4. Staves get a rapidly increasing speed bonus when you land consecutive hits. This stacks with the occasional speed brand.

Just to repeat: I would like staves removed as melee weapons (attacking with an elemental staff would be a clumsy bash) and replaced with whips. Whips should be given constriction.


Why give everyone access to species-specific abilities like constriction and retaliation? Because they are awesome combat concepts that should have never been exclusive (player-wise) to them in the first place. Naga/octopose/minotaur still keep their 'unique' traits. A minotaur could retaliate with a headbutt and long blade. A weaker octopode could constrict and then stun with a mace to mitigate damage, or use a whip for double constriction damage.

[nicolae]

Just to repeat: I would like staves removed as melee weapons (attacking with an elemental staff would be a clumsy bash) and replaced with whips. Whips should be given constriction.

minmay once suggested that the unrand Snakebite should get constriction, which I think is a cool idea, but to me it doesn't quite make sense for ordinary whips. Holding might work, though.

[twelwe]

minmay once suggested that the unrand Snakebite should get constriction, which I think is a cool idea, but to me it doesn't quite make sense for ordinary whips. Holding might work, though.

it doesn't mecessarily have to make sense in order to be good gameplay. Deep Dwarves not healing naturally does not "make sense." Halflings and ogres both being able to wear dragon armour does not "make sense." Furthermore, I don't understand what you mean by the concept of `holding,` especially in relation to constriction. Do you merely mean keeping the afflicted monster in place?

If so, holding does not appeal to me. It conveys that the weapon yhou are using has held the monster in place, and is serving no function but to hold that monster exactly where they are. Constriction, on the other hand, holds the monster in place and inflicts more damage by tightening the grip. Holding would break upon attack, it would seem; since there is no tightening (constriction) to be inflicted, the player must use a normal melee attack again.

[twelwe]

uggghhhh ignore this

[Davion Fuxa]

I haven't yet commented here because I've yet to see Cleave in action, but I'll make some general over-arching comments. Right now as I see it, the weapons look as follows:

Short Blades and Long Blades are off in a different world from the other weapons. They cross-train with each other but non of the other weapons. Stabbing impacts both of these skills enough to matter (less so for Long Blades but still enough to draw notice).
Axes, Polearms, Mace & Flail, and Staves are mostly distinct from the Blades in that they all cross-train with each other but not them. Stabbing is seemingly worthless past a free hit for all these skills no matter how you put it. Polearms have unique properties - as soon will Axes.
Unarmed Combat is also in the mix too but is a whole different kettle of fish. It is the only Weapon skill that can be combined with another Weapon skill (Via One Handed/One Hand and a Half Weaponry without a Shield), and it plays into mutations like Claws and Tentacles or while using Transmutations that change your Form.

Including Cleave for Axes: Polearms, Mace & Flail, Axes, and Staves tend to balance each other out due to the variety of decision making that may happen in regards to swapping between weapons you find, the different styles that each weapon is useful for, and the advantages and disadvantages offered by all the weapons classes - this with the disadvantage that they have have major strengths with certain playstyles but aren't necessarily the best weapons to play more diversified hybrid playstyles without switching weapons/

Short Swords and Long Swords are also mostly balanced: By themselves they offer a sort of progression from one type of weaponry to another where you might start with Short Swords for their immediate benefits before jumping into Long Swords, they work well with Stabbers and Enchanters, and Long Swords by themselves are extremely Diverse weapons that work with most (maybe all) playstyles - this with the small disadvantage of not being cross-trainable with Axes, Polearms, Mace & Flail, and Staves.

I point all this out because changing the weapons to operate differently then they do now might upset the 'decision making' balance all the weapons currently have. In my mind everything is good enough as is - though merging Stabbing with Short Blades and Long Blades would have little effect on the current decision process so for consolidating purposes in terms of skills would be a good change to do. I'm not necessarily against weapons having effects added to them, but I wonder if such effects may alter the 'decision making' process that Crawl seems to strive towards having - a lot of how weapons work now is already good, simple, and diverse.

[jejorda2]

[Unarmed Combat] is the only Weapon skill that can be combined with another Weapon skill

What do you mean by this? It's just as much trouble to train up skills to switch between a mace and bare hands as it is to switch between a mace and a sword. The off-hand and other auxiliary attacks aren't affected by unarmed combat skill these days, are they?

[crate]

The only way UC affects your offense while wielding a weapon is if you are wielding a one-handed weapon without a shield. In this case you will get the UC offhand punch with your free hand. But ... why are you using a one-handed weapon and no shield?