multiple blows

[Skeeblix]

I've just started playing again, and remembered one of the mechanics that has always bothered me.

Yes, I understand that hitting something more than once is an entirely beneficial thing based on game mechanics.

What I don't get is the logic behind it. Why would someone rolling a warrior (my first character in the new version) want to sell a two foot long shortsword for a main gauche? Who trades a good sword for a glorified butterknife?

This has always struck me as a tad ridiculous that EZ mode for early levels involves buying a tiny dagger instead of a real weapon.

[Derakon]

Hey, welcome back. We've had this discussion many, many times. Here is the most recent obvious thread about it; I'm sure there are other less obvious ones because we tend to go off-topic very easily.

[Skeeblix]

Ah, good to see this under consideration by all involved. I must say, having not played since 3.0.0, coming back to some of the improvements you guys have made has been great fun.

Thanks for the quick response

[pampl]

Speaking of going off-topic, what I don't get is damage dice and bonuses to damage. Why would a ring make your glancing blows suddenly lethal? And why does smashing your great hammer on someone's toe do the same damage as smashing it on their head? Surely a hammer should have greater variability than a cutting weapon, not less.. And why do the unique longswords have a much smaller chance of scoring a critical hit than a normal longsword does? Is there some rational reason they do 4d5 instead of 2d11 or just 1d23 or 1d5 + 9?

Anyway, the whole system is bonkers, but it's part of a fun game so I think there's a justified aversion to messing with it.

[Zyphyr]

Originally Posted by pampl

Speaking of going off-topic, what I don't get is damage dice and bonuses to damage. Why would a ring make your glancing blows suddenly lethal?

One word, 5 letters.

M A G I C

[Tiburon Silverflame]

pampl, one can construct arguments for, or against, the points you make...but ANY argument is basically a straw man. It's all rationalization. The game works the way it does because it's simple to code and simple to understand. Real-world logic is just not an issue.

Example: hammer. I never swing at someone's toe, so that comment's meaningless. Lack of variability? Anywhere I hit in the main body is doing bruising and crushing and concussive damage...it'll tend to be rather consistent. The sharp pointy weapon? It's gonna glance off bone, OR maybe it slides through deep. The former does little damage, the latter does lots. So the hammer's low variability, the sword's high variability.

The notion of a critical isn't "I did max damage." The mechanics on weapon damage don't support XdY+Z, just XdY...and that's really enough.