Heavy Weapons

[Mino]

Another idea...making specific heavy weapons more useful against specific creatures. But not sure how much trouble that would be programming-wise.

Example: Giant Hammer - give it an automatic *3 (or higher) multiplier when used on: rats, snakes, ants, wasps and frogs
Gut splitter - same, but for boars, any of the wolf/dog group, anklebiters, foxes (even though it sounds mean to split their gut)
Skull Crusher - multiplier changes to *5, and/or Critical skill goes up 50% when used on anything humanoid: snake servants, gargoyle trainers/masters, Wyrm trainers/masters, highway bandit, Iqhan servants (doesn't feel as mean crushing their skulls as the furry animals).

Then, we would just need a new heavy weapon like "heavy silver sword" (or iron) that would do the same to any undead (silver or iron are often used to fight supernatural creatures in various stories). Or we could make "Shadow of the Slayer" that weapon, and just make its existing critical hit stats work on the undead.

But not on bosses like Irogotu, or the wolf pack leader, or snake master.

That way, the heavy weapons are more useful right away. Having those skills is nice but they mean you would have to commit to using a heavy weapon or it would feel like the skill points were wasted. And it would encourage people to switch weapons more often depending on who they're fighting.

[der_Hosenwyrm]

I think the current combat system is heavily skewed towards maximizing your number of attacks, regardless of the weapons base damage. This is because your actual damage quickly becomes dominated by AD level ups. If your 3AP dagger stayed at 1-2 AD per attack, then a 6AP hammer with 5-10 AD can compete. But currently, you can rapidly raise the AD equally on both. Pretty soon, 21-22 twice as often as 25-30 is the only viable choice, inked that big clunker comes with some awesome extras. The whole AP/AD situation needs to be rebalanced.

Totally agree.

In my view, there should be an interaction between a character's base AD stat and the weapon they are using, rather than the weapon AD simply adding to their base AD.

For example, consider the following scenarios:

1) a wimpy little guy with a small dagger
2) a wimpy little guy with an enormous battle hammer
3) a huge, muscular, hard-hitting brute with a small dagger
4) a huge, muscular, hard-hitting brute with an enormous battle hammer

Logically, a little guy would be much better off with a small dagger than an enormous hammer (1 vs 2), and I think this is fairly accurately reflected in the game currently.

It also makes sense that a big guy should be able to do more damage with a dagger than a little guy (3 vs 1), but I'm not convinced that the difference would actually be as large as the game currently reflects.

Where I think the game is currently rather inaccurate, is in the amount of damage a big guy can can deal with an enormous hammer compared to a small dagger (4 vs 3). As it stands currently, the difference in damage is rather negligible, and so hitting more times with a dagger is almost always going to be preferable. Surely a massive warrior should all but demolish anything he manages to hit with an enormous battle hammer, right?

[Sarumar]

I think the current combat system is heavily skewed towards maximizing your number of attacks, regardless of the weapons base damage. This is because your actual damage quickly becomes dominated by AD level ups. If your 3AP dagger stayed at 1-2 AD per attack, then a 6AP hammer with 5-10 AD can compete. But currently, you can rapidly raise the AD equally on both. Pretty soon, 21-22 twice as often as 25-30 is the only viable choice, inked that big clunker comes with some awesome extras. The whole AP/AD situation needs to be rebalanced.

Totally agree.

In my view, there should be an interaction between a character's base AD stat and the weapon they are using, rather than the weapon AD simply adding to their base AD.

For example, consider the following scenarios:

1) a wimpy little guy with a small dagger
2) a wimpy little guy with an enormous battle hammer
3) a huge, muscular, hard-hitting brute with a small dagger
4) a huge, muscular, hard-hitting brute with an enormous battle hammer

Logically, a little guy would be much better off with a small dagger than an enormous hammer (1 vs 2), and I think this is fairly accurately reflected in the game currently.

It also makes sense that a big guy should be able to do more damage with a dagger than a little guy (3 vs 1), but I'm not convinced that the difference would actually be as large as the game currently reflects.

Where I think the game is currently rather inaccurate, is in the amount of damage a big guy can can deal with an enormous hammer compared to a small dagger (4 vs 3). As it stands currently, the difference in damage is rather negligible, and so hitting more times with a dagger is almost always going to be preferable. Surely a massive warrior should all but demolish anything he manages to hit with an enormous battle hammer, right?

+1

[Stompp]

You know, a flat damage bonus based on AP cost to swing would alleviate the difference between a fast weapon and a slow weapon...

AP 4 or less = Base Damage + Skills + Weapon Damage + Any other Bonuses
More than 4 = (Base Damage + Skills + Weapon Damage) *(1+(AP - 4)/10)

5 AP = (Damage) * 1.1
6 AP = (Damage) * 1.2

and so on...

[Tomcat]

I actually question whether it makes sense to have AD level ups at all. Use the Hard Hit skill and/or weapon proficiencies to build potential damage increases in a more realistic way.

[Mino]

I prefer limited realism in my game where I'm a kid who gets to kill monsters twice my size. But even so, I would say it is realistic to get stronger as you keep fighting, so the level up makes sense.

[Tomcat]

I prefer limited realism in my game where I'm a kid who gets to kill monsters twice my size. But even so, I would say it is realistic to get stronger as you keep fighting, so the level up makes sense.

Stronger, sure, but a few levels shouldn't make your dagger do more damage now than your battleaxe did before.

[der_Hosenwyrm]

I prefer limited realism in my game where I'm a kid who gets to kill monsters twice my size.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that AT should be true to life in all respects, and I would have thought that suspension of disbelief is pretty much a prerequisite for anyone playing an RPG

But I don't think that is a good rationale for the game's current bias against heavy weapons.

I just don't see the point of having such a diverse range of different weapons in the game, when 99% of characters—regardless of their build—would be markedly better off using a dagger (e.g., QSD, DotSP, BD, etc.) than basically any other weapon in the game.

Stronger, sure, but a few levels shouldn't make your dagger do more damage now than your battleaxe did before.

+1

[Stompp]

You know, a flat damage bonus based on AP cost to swing would alleviate the difference between a fast weapon and a slow weapon...

AP 4 or less = Base Damage + Skills + Weapon Damage + Any other Bonuses
More than 4 = (Base Damage + Skills + Weapon Damage) *(1+(AP - 4)/10)

5 AP = (Damage) * 1.1
6 AP = (Damage) * 1.2

and so on...

I'm kinda thinking an ac% hit on slower weapons though... seriously great damage when you connect with that big axe, but really, who's not gonna see that thing coming?

[Antison]

But even so, I would say it is realistic to get stronger as you keep fighting, so the level up makes sense.

+1
I agree 100%