Two-Weapon Combat Changes
Two-Weapon Combat Changes
I love all of this. Though I'm concerned with the rework of the two-weapon combat skills. A Utasa's main damage useage and only thing that makes them decent in combat is the fact that they use rapiers, is there going to be a change that helps compensate for that?
[ESP-GRAY - Shadowy-Gray]: No no (player) , you were right, it's wonderful. I think I'll send in my application today. I can't wait to partake in the parties there. I just have one question, will I need to kidnap my own child, or will there be some there for those who are un able to.
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
I don't think it'll hurt you guys too badly. Switch to a heavier sword, or use a dagger in place of one of the rapiers. You guys get an insane number of attacks per round right now, I think that could do with being brought down just a bit.
A scrawny alley cat stares after the dog with big green eyes.
Speaking to a scrawny alley cat, you ask, "Friend of yours?"
A scrawny alley cat hisses angrily.
Speaking to a scrawny alley cat, you ask, "Friend of yours?"
A scrawny alley cat hisses angrily.
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
Utasa will continue to be deadly in combat as ever. The swashbuckling style was made with them in mind. Two rapier combat was getting to be too overwhelmingly good in my opinion. Having weapons that give such a massive parry bonus was allowing them to get into places to do combat with mobs that others needed x4 more skill to sustain themselves with, along with many other amazingly powerful benefits. they are currently the most affective fighters in our game (again my opinion). now it takes 3 rounds stead of 1.5 to kill a mob.
-*- GM Vinz -*-
Haite says, " ...Diamonds are also hard, really really freaking hard."
Haite says, " ...Diamonds are also hard, really really freaking hard."
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
I suppose that's true, but I think that the only thing that really made the guild good was the fact that I could play them armorless. Though I guess it's just another thing to work out. Hopefully we'll see some of these abilities really help the guild, though I have never killed anything in one round, it's always been three for me. Maybe could use stilettos. Meh...
[ESP-GRAY - Shadowy-Gray]: No no (player) , you were right, it's wonderful. I think I'll send in my application today. I can't wait to partake in the parties there. I just have one question, will I need to kidnap my own child, or will there be some there for those who are un able to.
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
Yeah, dual rapiers, especially with tactics parry, should probably be looked at. Dual wielding is described on the wiki as less damage than single weapon combat, and less defense than sword and shield. In practice it's more damage than single wield, and more defense than sword and shield (taking into account tactics parry). I'm sure Utasa will still be great with a little rebalance of that, just like caster classes will survive without dual tower shields + tactics block...
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
Split this topic from Generalized Abilities Questions because the two subjects aren't directly related.
The two-rapier combat style wasn't restricted to Utasa by any means - anyone can pick up two rapiers, train two-weapon combat, and be uber. The GMs talked about it and decided dual-wielding with two fullsized weapons was a touch over the top in several combinations, and that two-weapon combat in general could stand a little rebalancing.
As I mentioned in the other thread, I think holding two full-size weapons (as well as two full-size shields) is a bit silly. It may still be possible, but it will suffer some significant penalties.
Rapiers specifically are being looked at. They have a massive parry bonus, they do respectable damage, they're given (currently) top benefit as an off-hand weapon in conjunction with a full-sized main hand weapon, and they have a not insignificant armor chink chance.
In general, wielding two weapons should be considered useful primarily for some extra defense and a nowhere-near-guaranteed chance for some extra offense with off-hand strikes that enjoy the additional benefit of taking enemies unawares for the off-hand strikes (target defense roll reduction ala ambush mechancis). An exception would be brawling combat, which is just kind of its own unique style.
On the topic of Utasa playing armorless, I still maintain that this is a ridiculous expectation. If you are a soldier trained to fight off infested in general, it's absurd to expect to always go into that combat completely without protective gear. Infested aren't somehow limited to light hitters. Infested span the entire spectrum of dangers, considering they can assimilate just about any living creature, including humans which can adopt any style and gear. The Utasa specializing in lighter finesse combat and preferring to wear no armor is one thing, but to expect them to be able to handle all the infested, all the time, without wearing any protective gear in open combat is just ludicrous. Sometimes you have to adapt to your situation - a single set of gear, skills, and abilities shouldn't be able to handle everything the world can throw at you. This is why I've always disliked the "mitigation" ability. It's essentially saying "okay, you can go without armor, and we'll give you (un-chinkable) damage reduction like you were wearing some anyway - without any energy cost, monetary cost, or other form of upkeep/maintenance/balance."
The two-rapier combat style wasn't restricted to Utasa by any means - anyone can pick up two rapiers, train two-weapon combat, and be uber. The GMs talked about it and decided dual-wielding with two fullsized weapons was a touch over the top in several combinations, and that two-weapon combat in general could stand a little rebalancing.
As I mentioned in the other thread, I think holding two full-size weapons (as well as two full-size shields) is a bit silly. It may still be possible, but it will suffer some significant penalties.
Rapiers specifically are being looked at. They have a massive parry bonus, they do respectable damage, they're given (currently) top benefit as an off-hand weapon in conjunction with a full-sized main hand weapon, and they have a not insignificant armor chink chance.
In general, wielding two weapons should be considered useful primarily for some extra defense and a nowhere-near-guaranteed chance for some extra offense with off-hand strikes that enjoy the additional benefit of taking enemies unawares for the off-hand strikes (target defense roll reduction ala ambush mechancis). An exception would be brawling combat, which is just kind of its own unique style.
On the topic of Utasa playing armorless, I still maintain that this is a ridiculous expectation. If you are a soldier trained to fight off infested in general, it's absurd to expect to always go into that combat completely without protective gear. Infested aren't somehow limited to light hitters. Infested span the entire spectrum of dangers, considering they can assimilate just about any living creature, including humans which can adopt any style and gear. The Utasa specializing in lighter finesse combat and preferring to wear no armor is one thing, but to expect them to be able to handle all the infested, all the time, without wearing any protective gear in open combat is just ludicrous. Sometimes you have to adapt to your situation - a single set of gear, skills, and abilities shouldn't be able to handle everything the world can throw at you. This is why I've always disliked the "mitigation" ability. It's essentially saying "okay, you can go without armor, and we'll give you (un-chinkable) damage reduction like you were wearing some anyway - without any energy cost, monetary cost, or other form of upkeep/maintenance/balance."
The lore compels me!
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
I'd like some clarification, here: Are you going to be penalizing ALL characters who dual wield anything heavier than a dagger/shortsword in their off hand, or is this just referring to tactics swashbuckling? Because I'm not overly fond of the idea of the former. I realize you're trying to go for realism here, but if that's the direction you're taking it, I may have reached my limit of how much realism I want my games to have.
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
Yeah they are going for all characters. Sorry dude. Tactics swashbuckling is supposed to try to make up for it I think. It's too bad you dislike the idea,I personally lik it, too easy to pick up a pair of weapons(rapiers are the extreme example) and be good to go for any situation.Barius wrote:I'd like some clarification, here: Are you going to be penalizing ALL characters who dual wield anything heavier than a dagger/shortsword in their off hand, or is this just referring to tactics swashbuckling? Because I'm not overly fond of the idea of the former. I realize you're trying to go for realism here, but if that's the direction you're taking it, I may have reached my limit of how much realism I want my games to have.
Life is like a box of chocolates. The caramel filled ones are the best.
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
(Moved a couple more posts to this thread from the Generalized Abilities Questions thread.)
It's less purely for realism, and more because we thought some of the combos with two fullsize weapons were a bit much and wanted to rebalance them, while the "realism" aspect handily backed up that desire.
We're looking at two-weapon combat in general, particularly with two fullsize weapons, and particularly particularly dual rapiers.Barius wrote:I'd like some clarification, here: Are you going to be penalizing ALL characters who dual wield anything heavier than a dagger/shortsword in their off hand, or is this just referring to tactics swashbuckling? Because I'm not overly fond of the idea of the former. I realize you're trying to go for realism here, but if that's the direction you're taking it, I may have reached my limit of how much realism I want my games to have.
It's less purely for realism, and more because we thought some of the combos with two fullsize weapons were a bit much and wanted to rebalance them, while the "realism" aspect handily backed up that desire.
The lore compels me!
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
I'm concerned that all this is going to do is punish people who would like to dual wield non-daggers. Otherwise there is no point to doing so. If my character doesn't have any skill in daggers, he's hardly going to have any interest in learning a whole new style of combat just to get good at it again.Rias wrote:(Moved a couple more posts to this thread from the Generalized Abilities Questions thread.)
We're looking at two-weapon combat in general, particularly with two fullsize weapons, and particularly particularly dual rapiers.Barius wrote:I'd like some clarification, here: Are you going to be penalizing ALL characters who dual wield anything heavier than a dagger/shortsword in their off hand, or is this just referring to tactics swashbuckling? Because I'm not overly fond of the idea of the former. I realize you're trying to go for realism here, but if that's the direction you're taking it, I may have reached my limit of how much realism I want my games to have.
It's less purely for realism, and more because we thought some of the combos with two fullsize weapons were a bit much and wanted to rebalance them, while the "realism" aspect handily backed up that desire.
I do get that rapiers were heavily overpowered. I actually agree there. I just hope the nerfing doesn't go too far.
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
In all fairness, it's not just rapiers. Dual wielding shortswords is ridiculously good. I've done it a good deal in the off and on times I've played, and realistically it's one of the best combos available to my PC. With enough Two Weapon Fighting, you're almost guaranteed five attacks per round, they have a decent parry rate, and do decent damage. It's far, FAR superior to wield two shortswords, versus a shortsword and a knife, or a shortsword and a buckler.Barius wrote:I'm concerned that all this is going to do is punish people who would like to dual wield non-daggers. Otherwise there is no point to doing so. If my character doesn't have any skill in daggers, he's hardly going to have any interest in learning a whole new style of combat just to get good at it again.Rias wrote:(Moved a couple more posts to this thread from the Generalized Abilities Questions thread.)
We're looking at two-weapon combat in general, particularly with two fullsize weapons, and particularly particularly dual rapiers.Barius wrote:I'd like some clarification, here: Are you going to be penalizing ALL characters who dual wield anything heavier than a dagger/shortsword in their off hand, or is this just referring to tactics swashbuckling? Because I'm not overly fond of the idea of the former. I realize you're trying to go for realism here, but if that's the direction you're taking it, I may have reached my limit of how much realism I want my games to have.
It's less purely for realism, and more because we thought some of the combos with two fullsize weapons were a bit much and wanted to rebalance them, while the "realism" aspect handily backed up that desire.
I do get that rapiers were heavily overpowered. I actually agree there. I just hope the nerfing doesn't go too far.
Likely, most people that have been caught unawares by Lysse when she uses a pair of shortswords can attest to their efficacy.
“I will tell you precisely what Royalty is,” said Intra, “It is a continuous cutting motion.”
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
I'm still rather unclear on the end result. Will there be an actual point to wielding two swords, or is the viability of that style being removed from the game?
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
From my understanding of what has been Said, I believe that it will still be viable, just not the end all be all. Think how dual wielding longswords currently is perhaps, that is considered subpar but it can still work. I imagine the focus will shift from wielding a pair of swords to a sword and something much small er, like a dagger, for those who still want to dual wield.Barius wrote:I'm still rather unclear on the end result. Will there be an actual point to wielding two swords, or is the viability of that style being removed from the game?
Life is like a box of chocolates. The caramel filled ones are the best.
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
Weapon and shield: Mostly defense, lacking in damage. Shields are amazing at blocking both melee and ranged attacks. Can switch to a light sword and buckler to sacrifice a little of that defense for more damage output when desired (or to make use of Tactics Swashbuckling!).
Singlehander main hand, empty off-hand: Can deal good damage with the right weapon; grants maximum multiple strikes with multi-striking weapons. Some tactics will require an open off-hand.
Twohanded weapon: Generally reliable big damage while lacking in defense. Some twohanders can be used for a better balance of defense and damage; particularly polearms. No option to wield a shield or off-hand weapon for extra defense.
Fullsized weapon main hand, small weapon off-hand: Moderate damage and good parry defense (two parries is better than one, main-gauches are nice defensively), useful with those sneaky off-hand strikes getting around an opponent's defenses (pseudo-ambush).
Dual small weapons: Good damage and bad defense (daggers suffer serious parry penalties except for the main-gauche, which in turn isn't the best damage-dealer). Particularly useful for ambushing and armor chinking.
Dual fullsize weapons: Viable, but not excelling at any one thing. Can do good damage, but harder to get additional strikes due to awkwardness penalty. Get an extra parry for the off-hand weapon, again penalized due to the awkwardness. And the pseudo-ambush off-hand strike chance - also penalized. Easier to get away with using not-so-large "fullsized" weapons, such as shortswords and hatchets.
Unarmed/Brawling: Those people be crazy.
So I'd say dual fullsized weapons will still be viable for sure with the right combinations, but not especially optimal in any particular situation.
Singlehander main hand, empty off-hand: Can deal good damage with the right weapon; grants maximum multiple strikes with multi-striking weapons. Some tactics will require an open off-hand.
Twohanded weapon: Generally reliable big damage while lacking in defense. Some twohanders can be used for a better balance of defense and damage; particularly polearms. No option to wield a shield or off-hand weapon for extra defense.
Fullsized weapon main hand, small weapon off-hand: Moderate damage and good parry defense (two parries is better than one, main-gauches are nice defensively), useful with those sneaky off-hand strikes getting around an opponent's defenses (pseudo-ambush).
Dual small weapons: Good damage and bad defense (daggers suffer serious parry penalties except for the main-gauche, which in turn isn't the best damage-dealer). Particularly useful for ambushing and armor chinking.
Dual fullsize weapons: Viable, but not excelling at any one thing. Can do good damage, but harder to get additional strikes due to awkwardness penalty. Get an extra parry for the off-hand weapon, again penalized due to the awkwardness. And the pseudo-ambush off-hand strike chance - also penalized. Easier to get away with using not-so-large "fullsized" weapons, such as shortswords and hatchets.
Unarmed/Brawling: Those people be crazy.
So I'd say dual fullsized weapons will still be viable for sure with the right combinations, but not especially optimal in any particular situation.
The lore compels me!
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
so i will still be able to use 2 Ball-and-chains. Like i said in another topic, that's never not fun.
"I don't think we're ever going to find out what is going on with these canim, where are they coming from?!"
Kent arrives from the southeast.
Kent hugs you.
say um
You say, "Um."
a Mistral Lake sentry arrives from the east, armor clanking.
Kent heads north.
Kent arrives from the southeast.
Kent hugs you.
say um
You say, "Um."
a Mistral Lake sentry arrives from the east, armor clanking.
Kent heads north.
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
No.preiman wrote:so i will still be able to use 2 Ball-and-chains.
The lore compels me!
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
you're no fun
"I don't think we're ever going to find out what is going on with these canim, where are they coming from?!"
Kent arrives from the southeast.
Kent hugs you.
say um
You say, "Um."
a Mistral Lake sentry arrives from the east, armor clanking.
Kent heads north.
Kent arrives from the southeast.
Kent hugs you.
say um
You say, "Um."
a Mistral Lake sentry arrives from the east, armor clanking.
Kent heads north.
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
Again, why would my character suddenly decide he needs to learn how to use daggers? He has 0 skill in daggers. He's a sword specialist. If this were something that were to become necessary for my character to still be viable, I simply would not play anymore. I don't have the strength for another several months of trying to skill up a weapon. CLOK is grindy enough as it is.Kunren wrote:From my understanding of what has been Said, I believe that it will still be viable, just not the end all be all. Think how dual wielding longswords currently is perhaps, that is considered subpar but it can still work. I imagine the focus will shift from wielding a pair of swords to a sword and something much small er, like a dagger, for those who still want to dual wield.Barius wrote:I'm still rather unclear on the end result. Will there be an actual point to wielding two swords, or is the viability of that style being removed from the game?
Thankfully, it sounds like it's still somewhat viable, so I will still do what I can with it when I decide to play. It's an image for my character that I've had for him ever since I created him, and being told that it might be destroyed is very demotivating.
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
it's still a viable style, somewhat, some of the more ridiculous pairings are out, but for the most part it's still there, it's just not the best style anymore, one you either have to pick up or be outstripped by the people who do. Two weapon combat was for a long time a giant I win button. I'm glad it's not any more.I'm thrilled I don't have to use two swords any more just to not have it handed to me when i have to fight someone else who does. I never really wanted to be a two weapon fighter and now i don't have to be. Yay!
"I don't think we're ever going to find out what is going on with these canim, where are they coming from?!"
Kent arrives from the southeast.
Kent hugs you.
say um
You say, "Um."
a Mistral Lake sentry arrives from the east, armor clanking.
Kent heads north.
Kent arrives from the southeast.
Kent hugs you.
say um
You say, "Um."
a Mistral Lake sentry arrives from the east, armor clanking.
Kent heads north.
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
For what it's worth, I really like shortswords in general, and I'd like to keep them especially useful to those who use two weapons or want to go all swashbuckly with a sword and shield. Rapiers are quite long, and using two of them, I just imagine that can't be easy to do without getting them tangled up (for lack of a better term), or with much accuracy - trying to aim TWO long blades at once seems pretty crazy.
For the sake of standardization, I imagine CLOK shortswords as a shortish gladius; blade under two feet in length, probably around 20 inches. Rapier blades, on the other hand, are well over three feet in length at around 40 inches. A shortsword's going to be significantly more wieldly as an off-hander, I would think.
For the sake of standardization, I imagine CLOK shortswords as a shortish gladius; blade under two feet in length, probably around 20 inches. Rapier blades, on the other hand, are well over three feet in length at around 40 inches. A shortsword's going to be significantly more wieldly as an off-hander, I would think.
The lore compels me!
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
Very much appreciated.Rias wrote:For what it's worth, I really like shortswords in general, and I'd like to keep them especially useful to those who use two weapons or want to go all swashbuckly with a sword and shield. Rapiers are quite long, and using two of them, I just imagine that can't be easy to do without getting them tangled up (for lack of a better term), or with much accuracy - trying to aim TWO long blades at once seems pretty crazy.
For the sake of standardization, I imagine CLOK shortswords as a shortish gladius; blade under two feet in length, probably around 20 inches. Rapier blades, on the other hand, are well over three feet in length at around 40 inches. A shortsword's going to be significantly more wieldly as an off-hander, I would think.
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
I'd like to bring up unarmed combat because it seems to be taking a massive hit with the recent changes.
I'm not seeing any pushdowns with extra (offhand) strikes. Is this supposed to apply to all my offhand strikes? If so, I haven't seen it occurring. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting the changes, but would it be possible to look into this?
In tactic parry, I only have half the strikes I normally would (max 4), so I'm assuming 4 of these strikes are offhand. I'm not sure why this makes sense for unarmed combat, honestly. I'm already taking a massive accuracy hit for the defensive bonus... I should lose at least half my strikes too? Being in tactic parry basically means that all I can do is plink at my target. Great for training, but not so great when I actually need to fight in tactic parry. Any chance this could be reassessed considering the dramatic impact (losing 4+ attacks is pretty profound). I think it might be appropriate to assess brawling a little differently from two weapon combat with a weapon. It's really not the same thing, even if it does use the same skill in game.
Last, what brawling strikes are considered "offhand"? I've always found this to be strange as when I attack, I would likely be alternating between hands. Many times, If I fail to get an offhand strike, I'll only get a single attack versus 8... This can happen many times in a row and I'm pretty sure that my main hand strikes are accounting for at least half of them. If I have 8 strikes usually, when I fail to get an offhand strike, shouldn't I still be trying for the next 6? Or at least be reduced to 4 instead of one?
I'm not seeing any pushdowns with extra (offhand) strikes. Is this supposed to apply to all my offhand strikes? If so, I haven't seen it occurring. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting the changes, but would it be possible to look into this?
In tactic parry, I only have half the strikes I normally would (max 4), so I'm assuming 4 of these strikes are offhand. I'm not sure why this makes sense for unarmed combat, honestly. I'm already taking a massive accuracy hit for the defensive bonus... I should lose at least half my strikes too? Being in tactic parry basically means that all I can do is plink at my target. Great for training, but not so great when I actually need to fight in tactic parry. Any chance this could be reassessed considering the dramatic impact (losing 4+ attacks is pretty profound). I think it might be appropriate to assess brawling a little differently from two weapon combat with a weapon. It's really not the same thing, even if it does use the same skill in game.
Last, what brawling strikes are considered "offhand"? I've always found this to be strange as when I attack, I would likely be alternating between hands. Many times, If I fail to get an offhand strike, I'll only get a single attack versus 8... This can happen many times in a row and I'm pretty sure that my main hand strikes are accounting for at least half of them. If I have 8 strikes usually, when I fail to get an offhand strike, shouldn't I still be trying for the next 6? Or at least be reduced to 4 instead of one?
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
Brawling combat is kind of weird and wonky compared to everything else, so I'll have to chat with Jirato about it and how it may have been affected by recent changes. Nothing was aimed at brawling in particular.
If you're wanting to do your full damage potential, you shouldn't be in Tactics Parry. It's there to be used defensively and intentionally cuts down on damage output.
If you're wanting to do your full damage potential, you shouldn't be in Tactics Parry. It's there to be used defensively and intentionally cuts down on damage output.
The lore compels me!
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
At present, while two-weapon combat is used to determine whether you can find openings for brawling combos, none of the additional strikes are actually considered off-hand. It completely bypasses the normal two-weapon combat system for a custom combo system.
[GMCHAT Uyoku]: Octum is when the octumbunny comes around and lays pumpkins everywhere right?
[GMCHAT Rias]: Dimmes says "oh hai :) u need healz? ill get u dont worry thaum lasers pew pew pew lol"
[CHAT - GameMaster Rias would totally nuke Rooks]: Here's how elemancy works: The freeblegreeble and the zippoflasm have to be combined with the correct ration of himbleplimp, then you add the gargenheimer and adjust the froopulon for the pattern you want, apply some tarratarrtarr, yibble the wantaban, and let 'er rip!
[GMCHAT Rias]: Dimmes says "oh hai :) u need healz? ill get u dont worry thaum lasers pew pew pew lol"
[CHAT - GameMaster Rias would totally nuke Rooks]: Here's how elemancy works: The freeblegreeble and the zippoflasm have to be combined with the correct ration of himbleplimp, then you add the gargenheimer and adjust the froopulon for the pattern you want, apply some tarratarrtarr, yibble the wantaban, and let 'er rip!
Re: Two-Weapon Combat Changes
It's obviously harder to hit in tactics parry which significantly reduces damage output. I'm not sure why we're losing combo strikes in tactic parry if they're not considered offhand. Is this a bug and not intended?
Yeah... brawling is definitely wonky...
EDIT: I should note that 2 brofist combo abilities that provide extra attacks do not provide these in tactics parry so we're already taking a combo number hit there as well.
Yeah... brawling is definitely wonky...
EDIT: I should note that 2 brofist combo abilities that provide extra attacks do not provide these in tactics parry so we're already taking a combo number hit there as well.