higher strength bonus for 2-handed weapons
issueid=1613 01-02-2013 04:48 PM
Ancient Member
Number of reported issues by grobblewobble: 70
higher strength bonus for 2-handed weapons

Copied from the discussion on shields.

Quote Originally Posted by Grey
A bigger thing for me is how one-hander + shield is the no-brainer choice for melee. Two-handed weapons just don't get used much, because they're so much riskier. And this is partly because shields give such huge DV.
I think the main reason why two-handed weapons see so little use compared to shield + onehander is mainly that the typical damage output differs so little.

For example, compare a regular two-handed sword to a regular iron sword. The base damage of the two hander is better, but that difference is watered down because the strength bonus is the same for both. Add in further bonuses like weapon skill, and the real difference in damage is quite small.

I think it would be fair to increase the strength bonus to damage when using a two handed weapon. After all, you can swing with both arms in full force, rather than with the strength of one arm.
Issue Details
Issue Number 1613
Issue Type Feature
Project ADOM (Ancient Domains Of Mystery)
Category All
Status Implemented
Priority 8
Suggested Version ADOM 1.2.0 pre 8
Implemented Version ADOM 1.2.0 pre 9
Milestone (none)
Votes for this feature 21
Votes against this feature 1
Assigned Users (none)
Tags (none)




01-02-2013 05:08 PM
Ancient Member
I think this is a better option than nerfing shields as suggested in the other thread.

01-02-2013 05:28 PM
Ancient Member
Agreed. Apart from making shields less ubicuous and therefore contributing to the 2h vs 1h+shield balance, it also goes in the direction of making the game slightly easier after the anti-scumming and balance changes, and in particular of making the game a bit easier for melee classes, which are widely regarded as harder than casters.

01-02-2013 05:58 PM
Ancient Member
+1

Possibly calculating damage (and to-hit bonus? which is also tied on strength) with 1.3-1.5x strength if no shield is equipped. For normal strength values of 10-30 this would mean +1-4 damage at 1.3x or +2-8 damage at 1.5x on normal tactics.

01-02-2013 10:51 PM
Ancient Member
While many two-handers are already pretty powerful, so is a high-DV shield, and this would help make the decision between those two a tad more meaningful. (+35 DV, or 6d5+48 damage?) I upvoted it.

01-03-2013 09:51 AM
Ancient Member
Part of the problem is many two-handers not using the two-handed weapons skill - halberds for instance are polearms instead. The two-handed weapons skill gives a nice damage bonus, which could be increased to make it more attractive, but it wouldn't affect these other sorts of two-handed weapons. So I think the overall solution would be to increase the bonuses on two-handed weapons skill training whilst also making it more inclusive of two-handed clubs, spears, axes, etc.

01-03-2013 10:13 AM
Ancient Member
Quote Originally Posted by Grey
Part of the problem is many two-handers not using the two-handed weapons skill - halberds for instance are polearms instead. The two-handed weapons skill gives a nice damage bonus, which could be increased to make it more attractive, but it wouldn't affect these other sorts of two-handed weapons. So I think the overall solution would be to increase the bonuses on two-handed weapons skill training whilst also making it more inclusive of two-handed clubs, spears, axes, etc.
Agreed

01-03-2013 10:30 AM
Ancient Member
I actually think melee weapon skills could use a +to-hit / +dam boost across the board (just compare to missiles); that's probably for another RFE though...

01-03-2013 11:00 AM
Member
From a risk/reward standpoint ranged attacks are certainly a lot less risky for the same reward. I think there should definitely be some easier classes (and right now I only play easier classes) but archers can pretty much run around in Berzerk and murder a lot of things in one hit before the monster can close the distance. In the event they get in a dangerous situation Coward is only a keypress away.

So I definitely wouldn't mind seeing an RFE about the relative difference between ranged and melee.

01-03-2013 11:37 AM
Senior Member
I think it should work not only for twohanders, but with onehanders without shield too.

01-03-2013 03:12 PM
Ancient Member
Depends on the size of the one-hander, naturally. There's only so much strength you can put into a dagger. We should copy D&D all the way on this, if we do it in the first place!

01-03-2013 03:22 PM
Senior Member
longswords, broadswords, battle axes, cudgels - they all certainly should get like 1.5x bonus if wielded with both hands. Some DV boost aswell, maybe? The damage change should be easy to do, spears already get a damage boost when wielded twohanded [a measly +2 tho.. useful in early game, regardless]

also, what's exactly the justification for tactics affecting Archery - what is the 'aggressive' way to shoot an arrow at something, compared to the 'defensive' one?

01-03-2013 04:09 PM
Senior Member
I think that weapons should be fit into one of three categories:

Single-handed Weapons - Can only be used in one hand. If other hand is free*, it can be used to do an additional barehand attack (which would NOT get unarmed combat bonuses or train unarmed weapon skill). No bonus for use without additional weapon or shield, but would have lower movement cost for dual-wielding if both weapons are single-handed weapons.
Dynamic Weapons - May be wielded in one hand. If other hand is free, weapon gets a 1.5x bonus with regards to Strength.
Two-handed Weapons - Requires both hands to wield. Gets a 2x bonus with regards to Strength.

Whether the first two categories are split according to weapon type (daggers and knives would always be single-handed weapons), by weight, or be specific to each weapon (a club might be single-handed while a cudgel might be dynamic) is up for discussion, of course.

This gives a little more balance between the options, in my opinion, and encourages players to consider going without a shield, by giving every weapon a potential benefit to fighting without a shield.

* I'm undecided on whether the game should automatically attack with the free hand (could be an issue when, say, attacking a corrosive being with nothing but an eternium dagger), or if it should be limited in some way - either by a tactic (Aggressive or higher causes you to use extra barehand, Normal or lower and you only use the weapon), by a specific command (rather than just moving into the foe - note that this could potentially also be used to do minor damage using a shield in dire circumstances), or as a switch on the equipment screen.

01-03-2013 05:28 PM
Pim Pim is offline
Member
Apart from making shields less ubicuous and ....
"Ubiquitous" :)

Also, it's good in my mind that some two handed weapons are not in the two handed weapon category. A halberd, for example, is simply not the offensive weapon that a greatsword is. But aren't there a couple two handed clubs, hammers & swords that really ought to be moved into the two handed weapon category? Perhaps they deserve their own RFE?

01-03-2013 05:44 PM
Ancient Member
Quote Originally Posted by plllizzz9
also, what's exactly the justification for tactics affecting Archery - what is the 'aggressive' way to shoot an arrow at something, compared to the 'defensive' one?
With an bow I can maybe imagine, if I stretch a bit, that one can pull harder and thus shoot more accurate and penetratively, but crossbows I don't know.

I don't think making wielding a one-handed weapon without shield should give a strenght bonus to damage, it sounds like it's giving every class something the new duelist class gets(although to-hit).

Also with two-handed strenght bonus to damage, you don't want it so high that it is the same as the duelist class.

Maybe a slight bonus won't harm when only wielding a weapon.

But as others said, maybe not daggers so. Rather give daggers and whips a to-hit bonus when not wielding a shield, as one is more agile without a shield and with a whip the shield might be a bit in the way.

01-04-2013 12:39 AM
Senior Member
Quote Originally Posted by Stingray1
I don't think making wielding a one-handed weapon without shield should give a strenght bonus to damage, it sounds like it's giving every class something the new duelist class gets(although to-hit).

Also with two-handed strenght bonus to damage, you don't want it so high that it is the same as the duelist class.
Duelists would get their additional bonuses on top of the bonuses we're talking about, so they'd still be unique in this regard. What we're trying to do is make it so that other melee classes have good reason to consider one-weapon-no-shield fighting, but not so strong a reason that all or most such PCs will prefer to go that way.

01-04-2013 08:49 AM
Ancient Member
Of course it will stack, silly me.
One weapon one shield must always remain the best option. damage+DV wise. For non-duelist/monk/beastfighter fighting classes.

01-09-2013 06:58 PM
The Creator
I have upped the ST damage bonus as part of the whole shield discussion (can't find the other ticket ID right now). Read the manual for p9 and try it out!

+ Reply