Should all weapons types be equal?

[Fez]

37. Japanese katanas are the ultimate swords in the universe because they routinely cut completely through Volkswagens and employ secret powers of "Ki".

Nice link, HS.

 

[mister lamat]

they're all subservient to the shotgun. it is king of all weapons and comes with a nice woodgrain finish. very stylish.

 

[Dpayne]

I am currently playing Wizardy 8 and it is reasonably well done therein. Sure the weapon categories are kind of broad but things like intiative and # of attacks plays a huge part in combat. So my Valkyrie with her polearm does monstrous damage in a single hit compared to my Samurai dual wieldiing a katana and wazishiziki (or however it is spelled) but he strikes 4 times a round and gets to go first, and later in the round. In fact because of the speed/initiative factors deciding with what to equip my characters is never as simple as "well this does x more points of damage, time to switch out".

How is Wizardry 8? I was thinking about tryingthis out.

 

[Jasede]

We have discussed Wizardry 8 at length already.

Wizardry 8 is like the first rain of summer.
Wizardry 8 is like the tender breeze from a distant ocean.
Wizardry 8 is like the robin's sweet song of beauty.

The name "Wizardry 8" makes me think of a new, enlightening dawn, a dawn everlasting, a dawn to chase the horrors of the RPG night away and replace it with the amber-gold rays of the oldschool RPG sun.

 

[Dpayne]

I'll have to get a copy then.

 

[Drakron]

No.

Rapier arrived after firearms, firearms rendered armor useless but still the use of breastplates and helmets continued for a time.

If rapier was around during the age of armors it would be not very practical, its a stabbing weapon first and foremost.

 

[Dire Roach]

Only an idiot would use a dagger as a primary weapon in a serious fight: It has basically nothing going for it on a battlefield.

Only if you don't know how to throw or dual-wield them!

 

[LCJr.]

Re: of course, if you talk realism...

One on one fights are different then large battles. Grappling could come into play more (which is never done in RPGs), in which case the cross guard and pommel of the sword would be used and daggers would be effective.

http://www.schielhau.org/talhoffer1459_ac_duel.html
Duelling in full armor.

 

[Surgey]

No.

Rapier arrived after firearms, firearms rendered armor useless but still the use of breastplates and helmets continued for a time.

If rapier was around during the age of armors it would be not very practical, its a stabbing weapon first and foremost.

Swords generally weren't use on battlefields, anyway. Spears, axes, and maces were far more effective, especially against armored opponents. Rapiers were used in duels and such.

And HS is correct. Eventually, knights in plate mail didn't wield shields as they were useless due to the armor. Hammers and axes (and those massive armor-killing spear things) were used, as they could pierce armor and break bones. Sword fights between knights in full armor would be fruitless, as they would just beat eachother repeatedly until one of them got tired.

Also, swords are, first and foremost, stabbing weapons. Stabbing is much more effective than slashing (no matter what D&D wants you to believe). Stabbing causes massive internal organ damage. Slashing causes, at most, broken bones and bleeding, if you manage to pierce armor with it. If anything, slashes wear down an opponent, stabs finish them off.

And yes, duels involved lots of grappling and pommel smacking.

 

[The_Pope]

Re: of course, if you talk realism...

Of course, if you're talking about realism...
- you hit someone in the neck, or the eyes, they go down. Period.
- the 'fancier' the pole-weapons (eg kwon's, tiger-forks, polearms as opposed to pikes/spears/bayonets) the less effective they tended to be for most people. On the other hand in Chinese martial history tiger-forks and kwon's knives of up to 100kg have been found in battle remains, indicating that for exceptionally strong combatants they were useful alternatives;
- a peasant with a few days practice on a crossbow was a deadly threat to any knight;
- english peasants with longbows made mince-meat out of fully-trained, plate-armoured knights (100years war I think, or was it the 40year one - either way that's what took brittony for the english)
- sword 'quality' never had any substantial impact upon once-off fights or even battle campaigns. The reason why the Japanese went to such efforts to make their swords was because iron was becoming really rare in Japan. The 1000-fold technique meant that the swords could be handed down for generations. The Scottish had basically the same technique earlier than the Japanese, but it was considered uneconomical due to the local abundance of iron ore - they'd just need to throw the sword out after a few years and replace it (chance of breaking mid-battle were small).
- on the above point: once western swords started arriving in China, the military preferred them to the Japanese swords because they liked the greater hand-protection of the western-style hilts, even though the swords themselves were inferior: if the swords are of average (but competent military grade) quality, then that's enough unless you want to hand it on to your descendants;
- magic has proven a remarkably ineffective tool during combat. Just ask the predecessors to the hong kong triads who literally thought that they could stop bullets using chi if they mastered it sufficiently. Unfortunately for them them handgun accuracy improved over a few decades. After a few deaths they quickly decided to rely on guns instead.
- no matter how good you get, you get cut decently with a sword or shot, even if you survive you'll never be fighting fit again;
- modern military ammunition (steyr rifly ammo is one eg that does this) usually similates what was previously called hollow-point rounds. Hollow-point rounds are banned under international law, but countries get around it by developing alternative ways of having the same effect. Basically as soon as the bullet hits the body, it changes direction. Usually the bullet will change direction many times as it hits different densities of flesh and bone, but it will never turn all the way around, so it will always do massive damage. In effect, this means that if you get shot in a limb, odds are the whole limb will come off. There have been cases where someone has been shot through the lower leg and the bullet has come out their throat, and at least one recorded case where a bullet entered the head and left through the foot! So...um...headshots anyone? Not anymore - they just aim for the central body mass. EVERY hit from a military grade weapon is a one-hit-kill (or at least a one-hit-incapacitate).
- two-handed swords were almost never used outside of horseback. When they were used, they were akin to clubs; The puny rapier on the other hand? Devastating - it basically ended the era of chainmail and heavy metal armour full-stop, as fast light-armoured or unarmoured swordsmen could quickly poke the rapier through the gaps in their encumbered foes' armour;
- ammunition is really really heavy;
- once you fight say, two people, you're pretty exhausted. I don't think the fittest of olympic athletes could make it solo through the smallest of rpg dungeons without being crippled by fatigue.
- when you rest to 'recover from wounds' - if you, um...are '50% dead' - that's going to take YEARS to recover from...
- plate armour was so hard to remove that knights had little choice but to go to the toilet in their armour until the end of the battle. Where's the +disease modifier?
- If a fire-breathing dragon breathed fire on your metal armour, it would be too hot for you to keep wearing it without the metal scalding you;

So....who's for realism in games again?

If you're going to mock realism, try to make sure your examples are actually realistic. Half of this is nonsense.

 

[Dpayne]

Isn't it also important to take into account fighting styles (which games rarely do)?

 

[The Dude]

Weapons should be kinda equal, in that that certain weapons should be more/less useful in certain situations (as already said).

If something fast is charging you, either a rider or an animal, you would probably want something long and pointy.

If you are expecting to fight in a confined space, you'd better leave that halberd or zweihander at home.

If you want to capture someone alive, better don't chop them in the head with your bearded axe.

It's actually pretty shitty that many CRPGs makes close to zero distinction between different kinds of weapons. If the only consequence for me choosing to kill stuff with a spear instead of a sword is one or two points of damage and some small modification to initiative or whatever, the choice is pretty meaningless.

Another thing that pisses me off is if the choice of weapon has too big a consequence that is totally hidden from the player. The worst example are games that has a single weapon of über-pwn that you can't use because you made the wrong choices at character creation. Firstly, it pisses off the power gamer in me, secondly, such weapons are shitty design in general. I want to have a *hard* choice when it comes to my implements of smackdown, no matter what I have specialized in. I *want* to have to make sacrifices to get gains.

IMO, the *band rougelikes have weapon balance (but not variance) straight. Do I keep my trusty Axe of Westernesse with all its resistances or do I choose this new shiny random artifact that gives me a lot more killing power but less resistances AND it aggravates enemies?

 

[crufty]

Another thing that pisses me off is if the choice of weapon has too big a consequence that is totally hidden from the player. The worst example are games that has a single weapon of über-pwn that you can't use because you made the wrong choices at character creation.

I agree, but in a different way. I think games should be able to be completed with stock weapons found at the beginning. Also, sounds like your main gripe is that some games don't provide uber weapons for every weapon profiency *cough* NWN *cough*.

 

[D]

Actual axes in warfare (when used properly, which most people couldn't do) were possibly one of the most effective weapons on the battlefield by far, simply because they combined the facets of numerous types of weapons. Due to their mace-like weight, they were nearly impossible to defend against with any non-polearm/spear weapon, as any attempt to parry an axe would usually result in the defenders' arm being broken; something which is a natural reaction to somebody trying to hit you with an axe.

The ineffectuality of axes comes when they're used defensively. They were used to incredible effectiveness by elite shock troops, such as the Saxon and Scandanavian Huskarls, but when used against targets with superior reach (such as in field combat against archers, or against pike walls), they were notably useless. But against opponents armed with swords or swords and shields, the axe was deadly in the hands of somebody who knew how to focus on its' strengths.

As for two handed swords, they're a fundamentally terrible design that stems from the european obsession with swords being a "graceful" weapon; the design of them gives them inadequate weight for properly penetrating armor (on average, they weigh the same as a standard broadsword or bastardsword, simply being twice as long and half as thick), clumsy balance, and makes them difficult to swing properly with the top end of the sword not being particularily heavy for its' length. Fundamentally, a polearm is superior in basically every way to a two-handed sword, having superior reach, penetration, and controllability, as well as sharing the ability of pikes and spears of being an effective anti-cavalry defense when massed.

Speaking of which,'true' full platemail armor was pretty rarely used in the actual medieval times, with various mailes being the more common type of gear, and even then, not typically covering the whole body, so using comparisons against plate armor isn't all that accurate. Nor is claiming that plate armor is overly heavy, with the average suit weighing about 40 pounds; slightly more than what australian army soldiers wear on with their fatigues.

 

[Dpayne]

The best example I can think of for the drastic imbalance in end game weapons is Baldurs Gate 2. Frankly someone is going to regret a lot of weapon choices at the end of the game (and enemy weapon immunity is also infuriating when it comes to certain bosses like Kangax).

 

[Nog Robbin]

Naturally weapons should not all be the same - to do so is just to cater to the gamers that want no penalties for anything.

However, to get the system to work properly features of a weapon other than speed and damage need to be taken into account properly. Size of a weapon and swing radius are vital - you would not be able to swing a large sword or axe in a confined tunnel so should be limited to small thrusting motions. Parrying may be very awkward if the tunnel is extremely tight with a large weapon. Likewise, if an enemy gets very close a long weapon is going to be innefective once they are inside it's effective range, but a small stabbing weapon becomes more potent.
Concealing weapons also ought to be taken into account. In general you are not likely to be permitted into anyone importants vicinty carrying weapons - be they sheathed or in a pack. However it may be possible to sneak a small weapon in.

Until these sorts of features are implemented game makers will strive to keep weapons balanced to ensure all gamers can play the character they choose with the weapon they choose and not be penalised for it by it not being effective in all situations.

If a game intends to add a creature (or item) that is impervious to all but an exclusive weapon then players either need to accept that their character was not destined to win (which will no doubt annoy many gamers), or expect that all characters must have at least a base level of skill with that weapon so that while hindered they may still stand a chance.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Since there is a lot of nonsense in this thread, here is some decent reading:
http://www.reality.com/dmhist.htm

 

[Jasede]

The best example I can think of for the drastic imbalance in end game weapons is Baldurs Gate 2. Frankly someone is going to regret a lot of weapon choices at the end of the game (and enemy weapon immunity is also infuriating when it comes to certain bosses like Kangax).

Imbalance in BG 2? Elaborate. BG 2 was a fine game, in my opinion; I wouldn't regret any weapon specialization. Not to mention that in AD&D, fighters get to distribute a lot of profession points on weapons. Can you give me some examples?

 

[Dpayne]

Someone with a bastard sword focus is going to have a much harder time in a lot of ways. Scimitar selection is absolutely terrible, and axes are terrible outside of the frost axe early on which is easily surpassed (comeon how is there not a fucking decent axe, or a 2 handed axe). The katana is only really viable because of the house you can break into early in the game, and if you miss that it sucks (as do most of the eastern weapons). I will admit that design wise most of these are alright until you fight the stronger dragons and Kangaxx, and then it can be very frustrating. Even the Long Sword gets the shaft somewhat as its ultimate weapon isn' even plus 4, and it kind of blows (Equalizer).

Hammers, polearms, quarterstaffs, shortswords, and two handed swords dominate Baldurs Gate 2 (Throne of Bhaal evened this out a lot, but still), and they're really the only way to beat Kangaxx without using the Slayer. Halberds and Two Handed Swords in particular vastly outclass the other weapon types. Of course I'm looking at this purely from a snooty powergamer perspective, but still (like I said Throne of Bhaal and Watcher's Keep really change a lot of this, but it could've been a lot better).

This doesn't even touch how badly ranged weapons were butchered in BG2 (shortbows being the one exception), but I guess that's better than how ridiculously overpowered they were in BG1.

 

[Zomg]

This has probably come up in one of the links, but the natural "balance" of weapons (i.e. why everyone didn't use the same weapon) came up because they tend to counter one another, counter different armors, require different levels of manufacturing, and require different levels of training. If you implement two different weapons without creating material differences in those parameters you might as well not have bothered - you're just playing dress up. If you provide a serious context for those material differences everything else will work itself out.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

The best example I can think of for the drastic imbalance in end game weapons is Baldurs Gate 2. Frankly someone is going to regret a lot of weapon choices at the end of the game (and enemy weapon immunity is also infuriating when it comes to certain bosses like Kangax).

Imbalance in BG 2? Elaborate. BG 2 was a fine game, in my opinion; I wouldn't regret any weapon specialization. Not to mention that in AD&D, fighters get to distribute a lot of profession points on weapons. Can you give me some examples?

Though I wasnt asked, I believe to remember that it was pretty hard to find any good bastard swords throughout the game, I mean compared to the sheer ph4t l00t awesomeness of all those +10 uberstuff you could find for other specializations.

 

[Surgey]

Someone with a bastard sword focus is going to have a much harder time in a lot of ways. Scimitar selection is absolutely terrible, and axes are terrible outside of the frost axe early on which is easily surpassed (comeon how is there not a fucking decent axe, or a 2 handed axe). The katana is only really viable because of the house you can break into early in the game, and if you miss that it sucks (as do most of the eastern weapons). I will admit that design wise most of these are alright until you fight the stronger dragons and Kangaxx, and then it can be very frustrating. Even the Long Sword gets the shaft somewhat as its ultimate weapon isn' even plus 4, and it kind of blows (Equalizer).

Hammers, polearms, quarterstaffs, shortswords, and two handed swords dominate Baldurs Gate 2 (Throne of Bhaal evened this out a lot, but still), and they're really the only way to beat Kangaxx without using the Slayer. Halberds and Two Handed Swords in particular vastly outclass the other weapon types. Of course I'm looking at this purely from a snooty powergamer perspective, but still (like I said Throne of Bhaal and Watcher's Keep really change a lot of this, but it could've been a lot better).

This doesn't even touch how badly ranged weapons were butchered in BG2 (shortbows being the one exception), but I guess that's better than how ridiculously overpowered they were in BG1.

Don't even get me started on how many magic katanas there were in BG2. The highest one you'd find is a +3, MAYBE. It was ridiculous.

 

[JarlFrank]

Re: of course, if you talk realism...

- two-handed swords were almost never used outside of horseback. When they were used, they were akin to clubs; The puny rapier on the other hand? Devastating - it basically ended the era of chainmail and heavy metal armour full-stop, as fast light-armoured or unarmoured swordsmen could quickly poke the rapier through the gaps in their encumbered foes' armour;

What are you smoking? 6 ft swords were used off of horses (didn't weight more then 10 pounds), plate armor replaced most use of shields and 2 handed weapons were used. To think longswords were used like clubs or that rapiers defeated armor is insane.

Plate Armor was never really defeated until the modern age. Even in Napoleon's army the horsemen did wear a plate harness. And these harnesses were even capable of taking a few hits by a musket, even from quite close range. Teh thing that disappeared was the full plate armor, which just became ineffective as agility in combat became more important. Such a full plate armor did encumber you a lot, maybe not as much as most people imagine, but still, it was heavy. Instead of using such cumbersome armor, the focus was laid on thickness and sturdyness of the iron plating, and the armor was reduced to helmets and breastplates. Much lighter, and requires less training until you can fight in it effectively.

And claymores were never used like clubs. They are mighty cleaving weapons that can inflict some really serious cutting wounds, and you can keep the enemy at range with such a thing. The German Landsknechte used their flamberge swords like pikes in some occasions, because of the length, but they were never used as clubs. They were still a sharp cutting weapon, and a skilled swordsman can use it like a normal longsword and keep the enemy at bay because of the length.

 

[Norfleet]

Also, swords are, first and foremost, stabbing weapons. Stabbing is much more effective than slashing (no matter what D&D wants you to believe). Stabbing causes massive internal organ damage. Slashing causes, at most, broken bones and bleeding, if you manage to pierce armor with it. If anything, slashes wear down an opponent, stabs finish them off.

This is not true. Stabbing is effective because it concentrates force on a single point, allowing to puncture things and has greater accuracy, but slashing allows you to build up momentum from the swing, resulting in more impact energy, and it can cause broken bones and internal bleeding even if you DON'T penetrate with it. Also, broken bones incapacitate opponents more effectively than punctured organs. People don't really feel the effects of punctured organs much, particularly when hopped up on adrenaline, until awhile later when they have to do without those organs. Broken bones take effect immediately, even if you can't feel the pain. Ultimately what works better depends on your opponent's armor and your choice of weapon. Some swords are designed entirely for stabbing, others are designed for chopping, and others are a sort of hybrid between the two.

 

[Dpayne]

Don't even get me started on how many magic katanas there were in BG2. The highest one you'd find is a +3, MAYBE. It was ridiculous.

At least is gets a +3 (even if it is in a secret are one wouldn't be likely to find in a first playthrough unless they were excrutiatingly thorough). How does scimitar not even get a +3?