PDA

View Full Version : Improvements To Upcoming D.Axe & B.Sword Improvements (Yes Already!!!) :)



Ganolyn
04-10-2010, 09:13 PM
The new improvements are a step in the right direction IMO, but lack a fullness of logic even in a gaming sense. Why am I allowed to do something with a weapon in my main hand while holding a 5-50 pound shield (50 pound shield! ROFLMAO!! where do you guys get this stuff?) in my off hand that I can't do while holding a 1-4 pound weapon? I think some changes can be made to the idea without changing the benefit to THF feat users wanting a S&B option that can make good use of their feats (although I'm still not sure it would be worth an extra slot just for this).

First, make it so that the main hand weapon does Glancing Blow damage no matter what is in the off hand. The off hand weapon attacks as normal. You might consider having this ability lost if the user is attacking with an oversized weapon in their off hand and does not have OTWF to reflect the clumsiness of the off hand attack throwing off your primary attack. At least a shield (especially a 50 pound one :rolleyes:) can be used as a pivot point and not upset your attack rhythm.


Second, if OTWF and TWD are taken, BOTH primary and off hand weapons get the Glancing Blow damage when in TWD mode to reflect and add to the more probable slight hits that would result from a "wall of steel" approach. There is a precedent for this type of thing already in the Tempest PrE line where better AC is mixed with better DPS, only here you still incur the attack penalty for defensive fighting. This would only apply if the off hand weapon was a D.Axe or B.Sword of course.

Missing_Minds
04-10-2010, 09:23 PM
If that were to be done, it would be over powering and extremely game unbalancing.

So, no. It won't happen.

DAs were already the 2nd choice for DPs due to Dwarven enhancements.

Humans are the only race that does not have racial weapon enhancements. I'm honestly expecting to see something related to BS for them at some point to pull them more in line with DAs.

Ganolyn
04-10-2010, 09:31 PM
If that were to be done, it would be over powering and extremely game unbalancing.

...

Humans are the only race that does not have racial weapon enhancements. I'm honestly expecting to see something related to BS for them at some point to pull them more in line with DAs.



Please explain how? You would still have to put a lot of feats into it, even if you were a dwarf, to get max benefits from it and that means giving up something else.

Helping one race does not make a weapon better, at least not from where I'm standing.

Missing_Minds
04-10-2010, 09:47 PM
Please explain how? You would still have to put a lot of feats into it, even if you were a dwarf, to get max benefits from it and that means giving up something else.

Helping one race does not make a weapon better, at least not from where I'm standing.

Currently. A wizard can pick up a two handed weapon and on the 1st and 4th animations, have chance and do more damage due to glancing blow.

What is to come, that same wizard, can pick up a DA or BS and preform the same accomplishment only providing they use a shield or do so with noting in the off hand.

What you propose is that glancing blows effect both on and off hand weapons.
This means for the 3 attacks in the first animation, and the... what is it.. 4 in the last animation? ALL of them will have the chance of glancing blows. (I'm pretty certain I don't have the number of hooks correct, so I guessed at a minimum.)

You have now given TWF 5 more opportunities to do splash damage to all mobs about them moreso than THF AND they haven't even taken any THF feats.

I think that qualifies quite easily as over power given how many feats fighters get and how easy it is to create a TWF fighter. Rangers? Blow 3 more feats and you have still 1 feat left over for toughness. Or if you are human, add in improved critical.

Creeper
04-10-2010, 09:50 PM
The new improvements are a step in the right direction IMO, but lack a fullness of logic even in a gaming sense. Why am I allowed to do something with a weapon in my main hand while holding a 5-50 pound shield (50 pound shield! ROFLMAO!! where do you guys get this stuff?) in my off hand that I can't do while holding a 1-4 pound weapon? I think some changes can be made to the idea without changing the benefit to THF feat users wanting a S&B option that can make good use of their feats (although I'm still not sure it would be worth an extra slot just for this).

First, make it so that the main hand weapon does Glancing Blow damage no matter what is in the off hand. The off hand weapon attacks as normal. You might consider having this ability lost if the user is attacking with an oversized weapon in their off hand and does not have OTWF to reflect the clumsiness of the off hand attack throwing off your primary attack. At least a shield (especially a 50 pound one :rolleyes:) can be used as a pivot point and not upset your attack rhythm.


Second, if OTWF and TWD are taken, BOTH primary and off hand weapons get the Glancing Blow damage when in TWD mode to reflect and add to the more probable slight hits that would result from a "wall of steel" approach. There is a precedent for this type of thing already in the Tempest PrE line where better AC is mixed with better DPS, only here you still incur the attack penalty for defensive fighting. This would only apply if the off hand weapon was a D.Axe or B.Sword of course.

I read this three times and what I don't get is, for what reason are you suggesting these things? What is the point?

and... what does a 50 lbs shield have to do with anything?

Cavilier102
04-10-2010, 09:56 PM
color me clueless but what improvements are you talking about?

Ganolyn
04-10-2010, 10:02 PM
Currently. A wizard can pick up a two handed weapon and on the 1st and 4th animations, have chance and do more damage due to glancing blow.

What is to come, that same wizard, can pick up a DA or BS and preform the same accomplishment only providing they use a shield or do so with noting in the off hand.


Unless they are a dwarf wizard they have to use a feat to do that, so I am fine with that.




What you propose is that glancing blows effect both on and off hand weapons.


In a limited capacity after using up to four feats to accomplish this.





You have now given TWF 3 more opportunities to do splash damage to all mobs about them moreso than THF AND they haven't even taken any THF feats.


No I haven't and why should THF feats enhance a TWF suggestion? As you said, anyone can pick up just about any two handed weapon and get Glancing Blow damage. THF feats just enhance that, not provide it. This suggestion takes at least one feat if not a dwarf.

Missing_Minds
04-10-2010, 10:06 PM
color me clueless but what improvements are you talking about?

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=241300

Ganolyn
04-10-2010, 10:12 PM
I read this three times and what I don't get is, for what reason are you suggesting these things? What is the point?

and... what does a 50 lbs shield have to do with anything?


They are basically saying that I can do more with a car door strapped to my left arm than I can with a dagger in my left hand, which is silly and stupid and if you can't see that I really can't help explain it better. I didn't make up the weights. Take a look at the shields and you will see the weights they give.


And I am suggeting this because I feel the new "improvements" could be better and make better sense, why else does one post a suggestion in a suggestion forum? I think I am beginning to understand your confusion...

gavagai
04-10-2010, 10:16 PM
I would imagine the most realistic answer is:

One could only leverage one's weight to make a wide, effective swing with a large weapon like a B. Sword or D. Axe if they attack with one weapon. When you attack with two weapons you are in fact attacking with both weapons, and cannot balance yourself to put the necessary strength behind that main-hand swing.


I think the most appropriate answer, though, is that Turbine is trying to give not only some love to these underutilized weapons, but also love to S&B melee technique. If a TWFer could take advantage of the same extra damage from glancing blows and procs and gain more attacks, then there would be nothing new to encourage S&B.

Creeper
04-10-2010, 10:19 PM
They are basically saying that I can do more with a car door strapped to my left arm than I can with a dagger in my left hand, which is silly and stupid and if you can't see that I really can't help explain it better. I didn't make up the weights. Take a look at the shields and you will see the weights they give.


Oh, you are comparing the game to real life. NM

Ganolyn
04-10-2010, 10:29 PM
Oh, you are comparing the game to real life. NM


Yes, I do like to enjoy a smidgen of reality in my fantasy.

Creeper
04-10-2010, 10:34 PM
Yes, I do like to enjoy a smidgen of reality in my fantasy.

How much total weight can your character carry?

Missing_Minds
04-10-2010, 10:43 PM
How much total weight can your character carry?

How much does gold weigh?

Creeper
04-10-2010, 10:47 PM
How much does gold weigh?

Tip #6,417: Gold has no weight.

vyvy3369
04-10-2010, 10:57 PM
Unless they are a dwarf wizard they have to use a feat to do that, so I am fine with that.
...THF feats just enhance that, not provide it. This suggestion takes at least one feat if not a dwarf.
Unless I'm missing something, you don't need proficiency with a weapon to gain these glancing blows. Also, a Dwarf Wizard doesn't gain proficiency with Dwarven Axes - a Dwarf with martial weapon proficiency does, but that excludes quite a few classes.

Missing_Minds
04-10-2010, 11:06 PM
Tip #6,417: Gold has no weight.

He's the one that wants realism, not me.


Unless I'm missing something, you don't need proficiency with a weapon to gain these glancing blows. Also, a Dwarf Wizard doesn't gain proficiency with Dwarven Axes - a Dwarf with martial weapon proficiency does, but that excludes quite a few classes.

I think you may have typoed. Per the link

"wielded by a proficient user."

Ganolyn
04-10-2010, 11:12 PM
How much total weight can your character carry?


Way too much. I think that system is out of whack too. Do you want me to start a thread on that too? No?

Having an unrealistic system that benefits everyone is not the same as having one that benfits a small percentage of players in a way that is not truely a benefit. This helps one small group: THF users that want some better AC options. Many TWF players have already stated that they would not use the new method as the raise in AC does no real good compared to the DPS lost and I agree. The small amount of of GB damage added to a regular TWF attack wouldn't be enough to really upset anything and if someone managed to get all the TWF and THF feats in order to use this to max effect, more power to them. (I just realized I mixed up TWD and Defensive Fighting. TWD does not incur an attack penalty like Defensive Fighting which makes my second suggestion a bit more powerful, but I still think viable considering the number feats needed to capitalize on it.)

Ganolyn
04-10-2010, 11:16 PM
...Also, a Dwarf Wizard doesn't gain proficiency with Dwarven Axes - a Dwarf with martial weapon proficiency does, but that excludes quite a few classes.


You're right and thats even better then. I don't want it to be easy to get.

Creeper
04-11-2010, 10:33 AM
Way too much. I think that system is out of whack too. Do you want me to start a thread on that too? No?


Yes, by all means. I really look forward to reading it.

Visty
04-11-2010, 10:45 AM
seems like you still dont understand why that change is made: to bring s&b closer to thf/twf

what you are suggesting is bringing twf even more to the top

Ganolyn
04-11-2010, 11:16 AM
seems like you still dont understand why that change is made: to bring s&b closer to thf/twf



I don't understand how narrowly modifying two exotic weapons does this. Please explain. What is it about these two weapons that make them the messiahs of S&B? Why not give the plus to all heavy single wielded weapons? A longsword isn't that much smaller than a bastard sword. It couldn't possibly be because D.Axes and B.Swords are close to being two handed size and the devs want to emulate that advantage in game with the mechanics they have at hand. That would be too "realistic".

Visty
04-11-2010, 11:25 AM
I don't understand how narrowly modifying two exotic weapons does this. Please explain. What is it about these two weapons that make them the messiahs of S&B? Why not give the plus to all heavy single wielded weapons? A longsword isn't that much smaller than a bastard sword. It couldn't possibly be because D.Axes and B.Swords are close to being two handed size and the devs want to emulate that advantage in game with the mechanics they have at hand. That would be too "realistic".

cause these two cost a feat, easy as it is
also in pnp you can wield BS and DA with martial weapons as twohander

Ganolyn
04-11-2010, 01:32 PM
cause these two cost a feat, easy as it is
also in pnp you can wield BS and DA with martial weapons as twohander


Ok, you've explained (I suppose) why these two weapons were chosen for modification which is fine since their implementation from PnP has been lacking, but that doesn't explain how this evens out S&B across the board with THF or TWF and why it is needed in the first place. Holding a shield will always lower your offensive ability. I see no reason to punish TWF players while rewarding THF players as an excuse to help S&B players.

Visty
04-11-2010, 01:35 PM
where are thf players rewarded?
thf gets nothing out of this change
twf neither
only s&b gets a boost and a boost is never a bad thing

Ganolyn
04-11-2010, 02:02 PM
THF feat chains will now transfer to a single weapon mode. I'd call that a boost in options at least if not ability. Why should THF get a boost in ability with a weapon, but TWF cannot with the same exact weapon even when said weapon is used (even with their iffy game "physics") with something ten times lighter and more wieldly in the off hand than many shields in the game? It makes no sense in the real world and it makes no sense in the game world either. If weight and bulk are to have no impact at all in the game world, why did they spend all that time coding it in? Just so I know when my halfling wizard is about to collapse?

Visty
04-11-2010, 02:05 PM
if a thf specced char wants to gimp himself and is using just a onehanded weapon, then let him

thf isnt getting a boost, s&b is getting a boost

and a shield in the hand isnt that differant to a second weapon as with the shield you dont attack, rather you can use the weight of the shield to attack a wieder arc with your sword

there you have your explanation

gavagai
04-11-2010, 02:53 PM
THF feat chains will now transfer to a single weapon mode. I'd call that a boost in options at least if not ability. Why should THF get a boost in ability with a weapon, but TWF cannot with the same exact weapon even when said weapon is used (even with their iffy game "physics") with something ten times lighter and more wieldly in the off hand than many shields in the game? It makes no sense in the real world and it makes no sense in the game world either. If weight and bulk are to have no impact at all in the game world, why did they spend all that time coding it in? Just so I know when my halfling wizard is about to collapse?

Two Weapon Fighting is to offhand attacks is what Two Handed Fighting is to glancing blows. You don't need either feat to benefit from glancing blows/offhand weapons, but you have to train each one to improve in each respected area.

If Bastard Swords give glancing blows, its obvious you'd benefit from THF, since THF is the combat technique that represents your training in delivering heavier damage with broad combat swings.

If you want more attacks taking advantage of the damage effects with an offhand weapon, you'd obviously train Two Weapon Fighting. The Two Weapon FIghting Feats only improve your offhand attacks, and don't represent any improvement in your mainhand fighting technique.

Two Weapon Fighting doesn't allow you to make glancing blows, ostensibly because TWF represents the strengthening of your offhand for combat purposes, while for 1-handed glancing blows you need to channel your force through a heavy enough weapon with the mainhand blow.

I mean, arguably you could request Turbine to make a stance where you only make your mainhand attack with glancing blows with a B-Sword and simply use your offhand for bonuses. But that sounds like an extremely silly idea.

grodon9999
04-12-2010, 08:45 AM
Game balance trumps logic and reason every time. S&B needs a boost. B-Sword and D-axe are exotic weapons, Khopesh is as well but it's already over-powered. Most S&B tanks are dwarfs anyway.

THF and TWF as already so good that giving them anything more would border on breaking the game.

Missing_Minds
04-12-2010, 08:49 AM
seems like you still dont understand why that change is made: to bring s&b closer to thf/twf

what you are suggesting is bringing twf even more to the top

I doubt he gets why his idea is bad still. Heck, people are tossing neg rep because I didn't agree to it and pointed out how over the top it would be. *shug* High school popularity/nerd rage. Got to love it.

grodon9999
04-12-2010, 08:51 AM
I doubt he gets why his idea is bad still. Heck, people are tossing neg rep because I didn't agree to it and pointed out how over the top it would be. *shug* High school popularity/nerd rage. Got to love it.

Oh come on, S&B over the top? Next they'll make ranged-combat viable . . . :)

Missing_Minds
04-12-2010, 08:55 AM
Oh come on, S&B over the top? Next they'll make ranged-combat viable . . . :)

No, his TWF with splash damage, not S&B. But if a character uses a great sword/falchion and wears a mail of some form (scale, chain, etc.) Would that be S&M?

grodon9999
04-12-2010, 09:35 AM
No, his TWF with splash damage, not S&B. But if a character uses a great sword/falchion and wears a mail of some form (scale, chain, etc.) Would that be S&M?

Only if nipple-tassels are involved, and a gimp-mask.

Ganolyn
04-12-2010, 04:11 PM
I doubt he gets why his idea is bad still. Heck, people are tossing neg rep because I didn't agree to it and pointed out how over the top it would be. *shug* High school popularity/nerd rage. Got to love it.


Well it wasn't me. The discussion was civil, no need to bad rep anyone. And I won't "get" why its a bad idea until someone goes beyond just saying "you're wrong" and gives me a good example of why.

People have implied that ideas/suggestions need to be explained and defended, but it seems objections to an idea can be left at a summary dismissal without the need for a counter argument. If that is indeed the case I only have one answer for that: You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but in my opinion, your opinion sucks.


Be that as it may, I doubt I will be posting in this part of the forum much anymore as I have realized that I proceed from a false assumtion about the game engine and my suggestions stem from a perceived continuity that is non-exsistant. My apologies.

Emili
04-12-2010, 04:50 PM
The thing I see from a build standpoint is that dwarven melee in this boost tend to get a nearly free versatility others must spend more to arrive at. Dwarven Axe vs Bastard Sword (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?p=2884609#post2884609) Imo DA is already a good weapon as it comes free with every dwarf and is the the equal of the bastard sword before GS then becomes more powerful than BS as GS.

Also... one poster in said thread above poised the possibility of a dwarven DA&Board Frenzied - fact be every GTHF dwarf barb may become such, every GTHF dwarf tank becomes such... but for all other races it costs a feat for DA. The boost to DA places dwarves as a melee versitile while Bastard Sword still remains a visual flavor not really a boosted weapon because DA is the better one.

Aesop
04-12-2010, 05:12 PM
Dwarven War Axe and Bastard Sword are both considered (in the DnD rules) hand and a half weapons. Weapons that you can use in two hands normally and with proficiency can use in one hand.

They are larger than normal 1 handed weapons. Weapons like Long Swords and Battle Axe, yet smaller than Great Swords or Great Axes.


To represent their greater range of capabilities (and greater "range" infact) DDO is representing this by having these weapons (both Exotic, thus costing a Feat, with DWA having some dwarf centric special ability related to them gaining proficiency with Martial Proficiency) gaining some aspects of Two Handed Weapons.


Fighting with a shield is not like fighting with an off hand weapon. Primary difference is in the distribution of weight (and no shield worth a damn weighs 50 lbs, that would kill its weilder by making them slow and tiring them out, hell 15 lbs is pushing it). You strap a shield to your arm and use it offensively only in infighting scenarios. While single handed wide arcs aren't usually a good idea in any close combat style S&B at least has a defensive back up of the body blocking shield to quickly interpose between the soft bits and the counterattack.

Fighting with off hand weapons you avoid sweeping motions that would leave your body exposed and throw off balance any off hand attacks that you may make. Try holding a soft ball bat in one hand and a pee wee bat in your off hand and make a wide sweeping swing with the soft ball bat and follow it up nearly simultaneously with the off hand pee wee bat. You will notice that the attacks seriously compromise your balance and effectiveness. Two Weapon attacks are concise and limited in motion gaing their benefit from quick rapid succession attacks not sweeping arcs.

Aesop

Ganolyn
04-12-2010, 06:17 PM
Fighting with a shield is not like fighting with an off hand weapon. Primary difference is in the distribution of weight (and no shield worth a damn weighs 50 lbs, that would kill its weilder by making them slow and tiring them out, hell 15 lbs is pushing it). You strap a shield to your arm and use it offensively only in infighting scenarios. While single handed wide arcs aren't usually a good idea in any close combat style S&B at least has a defensive back up of the body blocking shield to quickly interpose between the soft bits and the counterattack.

That style is only true of larger shield use. Bucklers and small shields are meant to be used as offensive/defensive tools. Turbine's interpretation is saying I can do something with one five pound weight, but not the other.




Fighting with off hand weapons you avoid sweeping motions that would leave your body exposed and throw off balance any off hand attacks that you may make. Try holding a soft ball bat in one hand and a pee wee bat in your off hand and make a wide sweeping swing with the soft ball bat and follow it up nearly simultaneously with the off hand pee wee bat. You will notice that the attacks seriously compromise your balance and effectiveness. Two Weapon attacks are concise and limited in motion gaing their benefit from quick rapid succession attacks not sweeping arcs.



You wouldn't know it from the game animations would you? ;)


This is why I placed the caveat that a light weapon in the off hand would/should be required to do this. Any light off hand weapon can be assumed to be providing the roll of main gauche which does not impede attack options with the main hand. Centuries of dueling proved that. They are offensive/defensive weapons. DnD already has a mechanism to reflect this in the less attacks and reduced STR damage for the off hand. Now, given that this is a heroic fantasy setting that allows us to sling around fifty pound shields in a shield bashing manuever I find it odd that I can't make a suggestion for a wall of steel style attack with two large weapons after using nearly half my feats on training to do so (think General Grievous' trick in ROTS without four arms), but things aren't supposed to make sense as their mechanisms are just a means to an end, not a core system.

Missing_Minds
04-12-2010, 06:54 PM
Well it wasn't me. The discussion was civil, no need to bad rep anyone. And I won't "get" why its a bad idea until someone goes beyond just saying "you're wrong" and gives me a good example of why.

Simple, it is a number crunching game. The most DPS against a singular target is TWF. Glancing blows count. By adding in what you wanted you are giving TWF access to the near the same benefit as 2HF.

With the changes to animation speed, 2HF caught up for the most part. Your suggestion breaks this tenuous balance, and believe me. Power gamers would abuse it.

As for negative repping who knows who did it. I never assumed you did it. I found it pathetic really as you are correct. This has been and is civil. As for stopping posting of ideas just because this some of said "no" to. I've been told "no" to a lot of ideas. Doesn't stop me from posting though. Why? Who knows what can sprout from the garbage of my mind. I don't expect my ideas to be used, but I hope they can be used as a seed for ideas.

lord_of_rage
04-12-2010, 07:22 PM
The new improvements are a step in the right direction IMO, but lack a fullness of logic even in a gaming sense. Why am I allowed to do something with a weapon in my main hand while holding a 5-50 pound shield (50 pound shield! ROFLMAO!! where do you guys get this stuff?) in my off hand that I can't do while holding a 1-4 pound weapon? I think some changes can be made to the idea without changing the benefit to THF feat users wanting a S&B option that can make good use of their feats (although I'm still not sure it would be worth an extra slot just for this).

First, make it so that the main hand weapon does Glancing Blow damage no matter what is in the off hand. The off hand weapon attacks as normal. You might consider having this ability lost if the user is attacking with an oversized weapon in their off hand and does not have OTWF to reflect the clumsiness of the off hand attack throwing off your primary attack. At least a shield (especially a 50 pound one :rolleyes:) can be used as a pivot point and not upset your attack rhythm.


Second, if OTWF and TWD are taken, BOTH primary and off hand weapons get the Glancing Blow damage when in TWD mode to reflect and add to the more probable slight hits that would result from a "wall of steel" approach. There is a precedent for this type of thing already in the Tempest PrE line where better AC is mixed with better DPS, only here you still incur the attack penalty for defensive fighting. This would only apply if the off hand weapon was a D.Axe or B.Sword of course.

Making glancing blows work with Dwarven Axes while twf even main hand olny would make dwarves overpowered again. Look at several cases dwarven twf Kenasi with daxe. Da comes with an 18-20 haste boosts and 10% aclarity. Add glancing blows to that will make a substantial dps increase with 4 mainhand attacks per chain. Yes they wont have the additional glancing procs but will still be nasty.

A dwarven TWF frenzied berzerker. FB increases the chance for glancing blows. That pushes dps much higher.

Ranger same thing as fighter.

I have a couple of dwarf melees It could be alot of fun. But it would be really over powered. You would see dwarf melees become the standard again.

vindicater
04-12-2010, 07:24 PM
That style is only true of larger shield use. Bucklers and small shields are meant to be used as offensive/defensive tools. Turbine's interpretation is saying I can do something with one five pound weight, but not the other.





You wouldn't know it from the game animations would you? ;)


This is why I placed the caveat that a light weapon in the off hand would/should be required to do this. Any light off hand weapon can be assumed to be providing the roll of main gauche which does not impede attack options with the main hand. Centuries of dueling proved that. They are offensive/defensive weapons. DnD already has a mechanism to reflect this in the less attacks and reduced STR damage for the off hand. Now, given that this is a heroic fantasy setting that allows us to sling around fifty pound shields in a shield bashing manuever I find it odd that I can't make a suggestion for a wall of steel style attack with two large weapons after using nearly half my feats on training to do so (think General Grievous' trick in ROTS without four arms), but things aren't supposed to make sense as their mechanisms are just a means to an end, not a core system.

Man dont know why you started this thread you obviously dont like the awsers so just dismiss them out of hand why dident you just post a rant on how you got screwed over on this and be done with it.

vindicater
04-12-2010, 07:54 PM
There is an old saying: Never argue with idiots because all they do is bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I'm civil with civil people. Jerks get what they get.

Now that is a intelagent response that shows you are capable of learning.

Creeper
04-12-2010, 08:02 PM
That style is only true of larger shield use. Bucklers and small shields are meant to be used as offensive/defensive tools. Turbine's interpretation is saying I can do something with one five pound weight, but not the other.


In reality are all five pound objects capable of the same things?

emptysands
04-12-2010, 08:08 PM
He's the one that wants realism, not me.


Let's assume to serve realism that any collected gold has an assumed value in game. It's not like the DDO economy is a realistic economy.


Nicholas

Ganolyn
04-12-2010, 08:16 PM
In reality are all five pound objects capable of the same things?


You're making my point for me a bit here. It is easier to manipulate any object of equal weight and smaller surface area simply due to reduced air resistance, but reality has no place here. I have been convinced of that much. The game engine won't support it. The accountant argument is the model they are pushing for to give you a reason to continue your Sisyphian efforts.

Creeper
04-12-2010, 08:33 PM
Help me to understand how you went from this:


That style is only true of larger shield use. Bucklers and small shields are meant to be used as offensive/defensive tools. Turbine's interpretation is saying I can do something with one five pound weight, but not the other.

To this:


You're making my point for me a bit here. It is easier to manipulate any object of equal weight and smaller surface area simply due to reduced air resistance, but reality has no place here.

In reply to this, my question, which you did not answer:



In reality are all five pound objects capable of the same things?


I ask you to dumb it down for me and help me please to understand how I support your point and how "smaller surface area" and "reduced air resistance" came into this post. I predict that from this you may soon suggest that Turbine implement graphic perforations in shields and weapons to decrease "air resistance" and increase... something else.

How did I "make your point a bit for you"?

lord_of_rage
04-12-2010, 08:46 PM
There is an old saying: Never argue with idiots because all they do is bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I'm civil with civil people. Jerks get what they get.

Its not about arguing with idiots. Alot of people have told you why adding glancing blow dmg with twf is a bad overpowered idea and you simply discount it. I have several dwarves and 2 full bank slots full of dwarven axes from lvl2 all the way up, and even I know how powerful it would be. A dwarf with a pair of lit2s with glancing dmg would be insane. They would have all the advantages of twf with thf glancing blows.

They did it for game balance over the ruleset. Because then people would complain about how overpowred dwarven axes and bastard swords have become and cry for a nerf. It would be a neverending cycle.

sigtrent
04-12-2010, 08:55 PM
The new improvements are a step in the right direction IMO, but lack a fullness of logic even in a gaming sense.

The purpose of the changes was this....
1. Improve the two exotic weapons that get less love than kopesh
2. Improve sword and shield combat's DPS potential vs THF and TWF

So, this does #2 directly, and #1 (kind of half way). For TWF the Kopesh remains far superior but for sword and board its a bit less a clear weapon choice.

Its got nothing to do with "realism" and everything to do with game balance.

Ganolyn
04-12-2010, 09:04 PM
OK, fair enough. A realistic example of weight vs surface area:

Say you are standing on top of a hill on a windy day and you have a large 6' kite to keep a hold of and I have a five pound lead ball. Both weigh five pounds, but since the wind adds energy to the kite's mass because of surface area you will have a much harder time doing much more than handling the kite while I am free to move around.


Now my assertion that "Turbine's interpretation is saying I can do something with one five pound weight, but not the other" is basically saying that bulk has no meaning when I can do something with a bulky object that I can't do with a less bulky object of the same weight, i.e. attack with my main hand in a fashion that allows GB's. I could even argue that you shouldn't be able to shield bash when using these weapons (I know no one uses it anyway, its just to make a point) since I can't even attack with a dagger in my off hand, how am I going to swat someone with a 50lbs shield? But that would be expecting continuity of design and an adhesion to one's own game physics. Right now with the Alice in Wonderland format anything and everything is impossibly possible. :D

Ganolyn
04-12-2010, 09:17 PM
Its not about arguing with idiots. Alot of people have told you why adding glancing blow dmg with twf is a bad overpowered idea and you simply discount it. I have several dwarves and 2 full bank slots full of dwarven axes from lvl2 all the way up, and even I know how powerful it would be. A dwarf with a pair of lit2s with glancing dmg would be insane. They would have all the advantages of twf with thf glancing blows.

They did it for game balance over the ruleset. Because then people would complain about how overpowred dwarven axes and bastard swords have become and cry for a nerf. It would be a neverending cycle.


Yes they have said a lot and proven nothing. May I have a breakdown of GB damage with and without THF feat enhancements? Is it possible to get all the THF feats requred to use this with TWF as I have made a requirement of at least three feats if a dwarf and four if not to get my idea? Is it worth it for what you'd give up? How does it stack up to other weapons? None of this has been forthcoming, just "Popped in to tell you you're crazy, bye." Real convincing.

Ganolyn
04-12-2010, 09:22 PM
The purpose of the changes was this....
1. Improve the two exotic weapons that get less love than kopesh
2. Improve sword and shield combat's DPS potential vs THF and TWF

So, this does #2 directly, and #1 (kind of half way). For TWF the Kopesh remains far superior but for sword and board its a bit less a clear weapon choice.

Its got nothing to do with "realism" and everything to do with game balance.


To #1 - Fine np there.


To #2 - I still don't see how two weapons does this realistically or game balance wise. Apparantly there are no more than three weapons in this game and all the rest are just for window dressing. No matter.

Creeper
04-12-2010, 09:24 PM
OK, fair enough. A realistic example of weight vs surface area:

Say you are standing on top of a hill on a windy day and you have a large 6' kite to keep a hold of and I have a five pound lead ball. Both weigh five pounds, but since the wind adds energy to the kite's mass because of surface area you will have a much harder time doing much more than handling the kite while I am free to move around.

I understand the physics of it all but does the lead ball make a very good shield?



Now my assertion that "Turbine's interpretation is saying I can do something with one five pound weight, but not the other" is basically saying that bulk has no meaning when I can do something with a bulky object that I can't do with a less bulky object of the same weight, i.e. attack with my main hand in a fashion that allows GB's. I could even argue that you shouldn't be able to shield bash when using these weapons (I know no one uses it anyway, its just to make a point) since I can't even attack with a dagger in my off hand, how am I going to swat someone with a 50lbs shield? But that would be expecting continuity of design and an adhesion to one's own game physics. Right now with the Alice in Wonderland format anything and everything is impossibly possible. :D

Why can't you attack with a dagger in your off-hand? Do you understand that by holding the shield you are not attacking with it, you are only holding it? Isn't a large surface area the point of a large shield?

Do you agree that trying to attack with two weapons simultaneously will impede your ability to attack with ONE hand AND the other hand while simply holding an object in one hand while attacking with the other hand, and only that hand, allows you to focus more on the attacks of that single one hand?

I understand your argument if you were trying to shield bash and attack at the same time, but I honestly don’t know where the physics you are suggesting would affect glancing blows. You may be holding a shield but you are only ATTACKING with one weapon. Attacking with a shield in this game sucks, as it should, and as you suggest it should. Your arguements of surface area and wind would make sense if shield bashing were included in the attack chain for S&B, and you were outside on a windy day.....

What is it that you do not agree with here?

lord_of_rage
04-12-2010, 09:28 PM
Yes they have said a lot and proven nothing. May I have a breakdown of GB damage with and without THF feat enhancements? Is it possible to get all the THF feats requred to use this with TWF as I have made a requirement of at least three feats if a dwarf and four if not to get my idea? Is it worth it for what you'd give up? How does it stack up to other weapons? None of this has been forthcoming, just "Popped in to tell you you're crazy, bye." Real convincing.

Again you dont need the thf feats to get glancing blows. THF simply gives more of a proc rate. The frenzied berzerker pre increases glancing blow procs aswell. So a twf dwarven fb could be nuts with dwarven axes because it would provide all the benifits of twf with even just main hand 4 chances to proc per chain. Fighters get a ton of feats and could easily fit the feats you talked about in. It would be unbalanced. Hence why its not happening regardless of how much you want it to.

Ganolyn
04-12-2010, 09:57 PM
I understand the physics of it all but does the lead ball make a very good shield?



Why can't you attack with a dagger in your off-hand? Do you understand that by holding the shield you are not attacking with it, you are only holding it? Isn't a large surface area the point of a large shield?

Do you agree that trying to attack with two weapons simultaneously will impede your ability to attack with ONE hand AND the other hand while simply holding an object in one hand while attacking with the other hand, and only that hand, allows you to focus more on the attacks of that single one hand?

I understand your argument if you were trying to shield bash and attack at the same time, but I honestly don’t know where the physics you are suggesting would affect glancing blows. You may be holding a shield but you are only ATTACKING with one weapon. Attacking with a shield in this game sucks, as it should, and as you suggest it should. Your arguements of surface area and wind would make sense if shield bashing were included in the attack chain for S&B, and you were outside on a windy day.....

What is it that you do not agree with here?




You don't attack with two weapons at the same time you attack with one and then the other. Even the animations play that much out. Say we are both trying this out "for real" and I have a B.Sword and Short Sword and you have B.Sword and shield. There is nothing stopping me from using the same attack style in my main hand as you are while slipping in an opportune attack with my SS every few swings just like you could slip in a shield bash if you wanted.

But this is all just silly talk. I'm not married to the idea, it was just a suggestion based on what thought was implemented in the game, but was just frivolous info. I mean, "realistically" if I could lug around a 50lbs shield I wouldn't need an actual weapon. Why would I need one when I can sling manhole covers at people?

Creeper
04-12-2010, 10:06 PM
You don't attack with two weapons at the same time you attack with one and then the other. Even the animations play that much out.


This is not true. What is the BAB of your TWF? Have you not seen the culmination of the TWF animations?

If this were true then TWF would not get more attacks per round than a single weapon—but it does. Right?

Artos_Fabril
04-12-2010, 11:39 PM
Is it possible to get all the THF feats requred to use this with TWF as I have made a requirement of at least three feats if a dwarf and four if not to get my idea?
A human fighter gets 19 feats, all others get 18. If your goal is to buff the damage output of TWF kensai, this change certainly has a good chance to accomplish that. You might actually see a BS or DA kensai as more than a flavor build. However the implementation is intended to help S&B characters and see more use from underpowered (or more accurately, non-overpowered) exotic weapons.

Hopefully, this is only part one of improving underpowered weapons. It would be nice to see quarterstaves use as a double weapon implemented and something added to longswords to make them as good as scimitars, for instance.

grodon9999
04-14-2010, 08:13 AM
. . .Apparantly there are no more than three weapons in this game and all the rest are just for window dressing. No matter.

Three? We have that many? :)

Stop looking for logic and reason, this game has 70 STR Barbarians and 90+ AC tanks. Logic and reason have flown south a long time ago. it's simple a boost for S&B fighting to help out versus THF and TWF, the two weapons were chosen because they were exotic. It's really not any deeper than that.

Maxson
04-14-2010, 08:25 AM
To the OP:

the change is for game balance, not realism, If you want realism, go play the original rainbow six games.

Realism in DDO would be something like this:

No strength over 22.

You can easily hold a 50 pound shield because your strength is like 30+

in DnD, 18 strength can be described as world class levels of strength. I'd probably describe Mariusz Pudzionowski (sp?) as a 20 Strength character. He has no problem carrying 400 pounds 100 metres, so I figure he could happily endure 50 pounds strapped to his forearm.


But anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, it's for game balance, to make khopeshes less appealing to tanks. Because Khopeshes in DDO are broken, they shouldn't be as good as they are.



EDIT: PLEASE BE AWARE: You do not get the new bonus when dual wielding, only when single wielding or wielding wiht a shield, this is a turtle tank buff only (though I'm interested in making a single weapon style character, but doubt it'd be that good when compared to greatswords).

I guess an interesting idea might be some form of fighter with a heavy shield that doesn't effect his max dex bonus allowing for a skirt wearing fighter maybe? The base damage of a bastard sword isn't so much worse than a great sword, though then there's power attack with 2handers and attack bonus with 2handers, this will require some research.

Creeper
04-14-2010, 02:15 PM
Stop looking for logic and reason, this game has 70 STR Barbarians and 90+ AC tanks. Logic and reason have flown south a long time ago.

Don't forgot to mention Beholders, Metaline, Slow Fall, Merfolk's Blessing, and Warforged! Those aren't logical either—or are they...