Short Blade advantage?

[tegehel]

Short Blade Advantage
----------------------

In book one, there is no reason to take the short blade skill, as all the others weapons allow you to deal more damage in the long run. It's basically a waste of skill point, and the poisoned stinger doesn't really make up for it. So, to make it more interesting, I suggest 2 possibilities:

1) if you take Short Blade skills, you allow the player to add another short blade weapon in the Shield slot. As such, you can deal 2x attacks per turn instead of one. Since the weapons are relatively weak to begin with, having 2 attacks could make it worthwhile.

and/or

2) allow the Short Blade skill to deal one extra attack per 5 level. For instance:

Level 0-4: 1 attack per turn
Level 5-9: 2 attacks per turn
Level 10-14: 3 attacks per turn
Level 15-19: 4 attacks per turn
Level 20+: 5 attacks per turn

This would simulate the idea of having one Short Blade weapon in each hand and be good at it. It would also allow the Short Blade skill to be, potentially, as poweful as the other weapons in the long run.

You could also mix idea 1) and 2) and balance them so they don't become overkill.

Adding a high SPEED skills to the mix could also add extra attacks. This would guarantee that the Short Blade skill is worth taking (as an assassin or thief).

[BasiliskWrangler]

Yes, in Book II Short-Bladed Weapons (now called Piercing Weapons which include Daggers, Knives, Picks and Spears) can receive multiple hits per round at higher skill levels.

Also in Book II, the complimentary Attributes for Piercing weapons are Speed and Dexterity, while other Melee weapons remain Strength and Speed.

[Zerikin]

Very nice, so they will be good for ranger/thief type characters now hopefully.

[tiresius]

(now called Piercing Weapons which include Daggers, Knives, Picks and Spears)

Picks are usually considered part of the bashing weapons group like hammers, aren't they? Unless you're talking about an ice pick which is just a metal dowel with a handle.

Picks do pierce armor but I'd hate to see a pick-wielding rogue.

[BasiliskWrangler]

A traditional medieval Pick is like a pointed hammer (though not often as heavy). It is meant to pierce heavier armor, or get in-between armor links. Admittedly, it is a bit of a stretch to group this weapon with daggers, but their purpose is similar: you don't smash, slash, cut, cleave or chop with a pick- you pierce with it.

Though, I can see it belonging to Bludgeoning weapons as well. Options anyone?

[mkreku]

Daggers, knives and spears are used in a stabbing fashion. The pick is swung like a hammer. Yes, the damage it does resembles the spear (not so much the dagger or knives), but for me, personally, it would feel more at home among the hammers, clubs and maces.

[IJBall]

A traditional medieval Pick is like a pointed hammer (though not often as heavy). It is meant to pierce heavier armor, or get in-between armor links. Admittedly, it is a bit of a stretch to group this weapon with daggers, but their purpose is similar: you don't smash, slash, cut, cleave or chop with a pick- you pierce with it.

Though, I can see it belonging to Bludgeoning weapons as well. Options anyone?

My view on this is that you've probably researched the subject more than we have - so if you think it's more of a piercing weapon, I'm OK with that!

[Unclever title]

With spears you put your weight into stabbing thus putting that force into the spearpoint thereby making it easier to pierce armor (or rather requiring less strength than to do the same with a sword).

With daggers it takes skill and knowledge to find a vulnerable spot where you can stab your enemy to death with as minimal effort as possible. You aim around armor with a weapon small enough to facilitate this, striking in a vulnerable spot requires less strength.

While you would swing a pick like a hammer it damages in a piercing way similar to the spear so a pick would take less strength to do the same amount of damage with a hammer, but a pick is less likely to break one's bones.

So it stands to reason they all have an effect that's equivalent to "piercing" a foe's armor or hide requiring less strength than other weapons with more focus on how to use the weapon.

However all three are suited differently, a spear is best suited to running your foe through the middle, a dagger best suited for stabbing in the heart or slitting the throat, and a pick is best suited to pierce an enemy's skull.

Personally I think the best way to do this is separate weapon categories further, differentiating how they're used from how they damage. The stats would match to how the weapon is used, e.g. swinging vs. stabbing required strength vs. dexterity or however. And the skills would match to how they damage. Couple this with different enemies being weak to different kinds of weapon damages (like skeletons being weak to a bone smashing weapon) and we'd have a vast amount of strategy in just weapons alone.

Of course this would make things much more complicated and take longer to balance properly on your end BW and of course longer on our end to learn the system but I think it would be a lot more fun! Of course I'm basing most of my thoughts on what I felt was lacking from Book I, I obviously haven't even played Book II yet so who knows?

[BasiliskWrangler]

Personally I think the best way to do this is separate weapon categories further, differentiating how they're used from how they damage.

Yeah, I think could probably come up with a lot of weapon categories and debate their classification endlessly...I mean, should a single-handed Mace be in the same skill category as a double-handed War Maul? If not, then we should separate Swords and Two-Handed Swords as well.

If a Pike is a Piercing Weapon, shouldn't a Morning Star be as well? Maybe these should be Piercing Weapons, and return Daggers to Short-Bladed Weapons. What about Morning Star Maces versus Morning Star Flails? Perhaps Flails should be its own category?

We could go on and on. For now, I just need to know if people think a Pick is a Bludgeoning or a Piercing weapon.

I don't think Eschalon is the game to do this, but I would definitely like to investigate an RPG system that uses a very extensive weapons category system like this. We'll just have to wait for the next series I guess!

[kopema]

In terms of how they are USED, picks and daggers could not possibly be more different.

Picks were swung much like hammers (and they very often had a hammer on the opposite side of the head.)

When some people think of daggers, they think of knife fighting. But that's not the same thing. If you're using a dagger as your primary weapon, it is used very much like a short sword. That line can be very blurry.

In terms of dual wielding, during the Elizabethan Period, a rapier and dagger combination eventually became the premier combination for dueling weapons. (Incidentally, some game designers seem to think the "buckler" shield is basically just a smaller version of the type of shield worn on the arm. It is not. It was used in a very similar manner to the off-hand dagger. Someone who knows how to use one of those will also know how to use the other.)

If you go back and look at the history of warfare, the choice of weapons was really based on what technology was available, not what skills the user had. The longer, thinner weapons only became practical as higher quality metals became available.

If one were expecting to get in a fight (and assuming concealment is not an issue) then any combatant would rather have a sword than a knife, and would rather have a long sword than a short sword. No one, regardless of training, would ever willingly take a knife to a sword fight. If stuck in such a position, you might try to disarm your opponent but you would never stand back and trade blows with him -- that's just suicide.

[Kreador Freeaxe]

Personally I think the best way to do this is separate weapon categories further, differentiating how they're used from how they damage.

I don't think Eschalon is the game to do this, but I would definitely like to investigate an RPG system that uses a very extensive weapons category system like this. We'll just have to wait for the next series I guess!

I think the real point in developing a more complex system is differentiating the techniques used in wielding particular weapons and the ways those weapons cause damage. For instance, a staff can be used to bludgeon an opponent or to "disable" them by sweeping their feet out. A spear can also be used to bludgeon and sweep, but in addition it has a point for piercing. Swords are ineffective for bludgeoning or sweeping, but have both an edge for cleaving style damage, and a tip for piercing damage (depending, of course, on the type of sword, as cutlasses and scimitars are not particularly good for piercing, but are much better for cleaving). Then you get into the more complex weapons that combine damage types, such as the morning star or spiked mace. They both bludgeon and pierce in the same strike.

In other words, in developing a more robust system, you'd want to separate the fighting techniques from the damage determination. And the damage would be dependent largely on the relationship between the weapon and technique used and the armor of the opponent. Another for instance, chain mail is extremely effective in protecting the wearer from sword blows, as the links tend to deflect the cleaving strike. However, it does very little to protect the wearer from a solid bludgeoning weapon like a maul. That type of damage transmits pretty effectively through the mail and into the wearer's body.

Finally, the biggest reason for the move to swords as the preferred battlefield weapon is that the increased blade area means that even a miss-landed blow can cause significant damage. Axes, mauls, and so on do little damage and generally break if you land the blow with the haft rather than the striking surface. However, the choice between long sword or short sword or whatever also depends on the strategies and the physique of the fighters. The Roman legions, the most powerful fighting force of their time, used primarily short swords and shields, as they tended to fight in tight formations, making it difficult to swing a larger weapon effectively. Their techniques, however, fell to ruin when they ran into the Scottish Celts, who fought in a raid style, but were significantly larger than the Romans (an average Centurion was about 5'4", and an average Scot over 6').

In other words, there's a great deal more complexity to the final choices than just the biggest, meanest weapon available. That's why there are so many weapons available in the world.

[Unclever title]

I don't think Eschalon is the game to do this, but I would definitely like to investigate an RPG system that uses a very extensive weapons category system like this. We'll just have to wait for the next series I guess!

I look forward to that time as well . Theoretically the entire game could be built around weapons, but you're right Eschalon is probably not the game to implement this in.

In the mean time I like the idea of a Pick as a piercing weapon. But I'll be happy either way cause I probably won't be using the pick that much honestly, though I'm open to being surprised.

[Zerikin]

I think the picks probably belong in the maces category. Ideally you would group weapon in rough categories by how they are used and then have separate damage types. So a pick would be mace with a piercing damage type vs a regular hammer like mace with blunt damage type.

[tiresius]

I think since Eschalon is closely skill-based with weapon that the weapon types should be considered based on the main skill needed to use them. If you swing something like a hammer I think you should put it under bludgeoning whether it has a spikey-ball or something else sharp like a Pick does.

Until the time that Eschalon (or the next game planned, which better be sci-fi! ) takes into account both armor types and weapon types, and all the combinations therein (like chainmail is effective against piercing weapons but platemail is not, but either could be considered Heavy armor), then the simpler the system the better.

[RezoApio]

Personally I think the best way to do this is separate weapon categories further, differentiating how they're used from how they damage. I don't think Eschalon is the game to do this, but I would definitely like to investigate an RPG system that uses a very extensive weapons category system like this. We'll just have to wait for the next series I guess!

That would be nice but the possibility would be nearly endless. Long sword would not be available to non nobles for example because they are a better weapon And the usage should be considered not only vs which type of armor, but the space you fight (imagine wielding a morning star flail inside a corridor). But maybe a system that would allow different type of usage on a weapon basis requiring distinct style or attributes... you'll have to add the difference in initiative between the weapon and the way to use them.... that would definitively be worth the try (for us gamer rather than for the programmer I suppose

But to answer the initial question, I would be a little inconfortable to see the Pick along the dagger in a piercing group. I would always think of it like a hammer with a sharp point so it would remain in the mace/hammer group IMHO.