Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Funk]

Low level fighters don't realy use there weapons all that well, get a few levels and wounds are deeper, blows hit harder as well.

[BadCompany141]

theres no such thing as full armour coverage, your throat can still get cloven asunder to a lucky shot/mikekchar's RNG god because of the lacking coifs and proper helms. you cant protect teeth, ears, eyes, upper arms,necks and a variety of other body parts/additional parts with solid armour. your only defense roll with those is either dodge skill(legendary does not always save you), some leather cloaks for the neck(include here if it protects some of the listed above) and your size modifier if you don't have a shield. I already listed what you can't parry with a weapon

a shield may not mandatory to me because i am a tad lame according to pennywise over there. but it will be definitely mandatory for you guys out there playing the larp within the game and dismiss mastery over the game mechanics. proficient dodger/armour user wont save you from a group of 8+ mundane enemies

the question is still "how much of the adventurer's statistical lifespan is lost in the trade" like Cathar said and it is still a lot, especially for the ingame larpception people out there who focus on only bandits and probably civillians but then would like to move on to bigger game.

it may not be mandatory if its on one on one fight , but dodging is disabled during wrestling so if your low level and theres more than one skilled creature trying to explode your head, your going to either die or get out really injured if you wrestle.

a shield's main function will be useless against god tier webbers obviously and I thought I implied that when I said "against almost every creature" but you can work around by being far enough from them and use Flying Dice's advice on throwing stuff at them(and when they do web, jump away), how ever i cannot validate if fireballs cannot be blocked or dodged as the fire imps I encountered during my blowgunner training were apparently really docile and instead became a part of my training session

I do not think Flying Dice's trials belong here since in adventure mode we are the individual and we are not able to control a militia, his trials can be smashed by the fact I can one shot a titan in the head, with a copper carving fork and break divine metal helms with it. I can see ZM5 making a plaintive gesture in a marble statue for me doing that. in late game it doesnt really matter what weapon you use especially if it has an edge. manual dodge in my opinion is not needed as there is a passive effect in the dodger skill that increases the chance of an enemy missing you anyways. i bet who ever argues not in favor is already in really late game(legendary) and probably doesnt need a shield just like i don't need one because my announcement screen gets spammed of how someone/something is missing every shot.

however these trials really do give good advice on what to use for militias in fort mode. that is if they are wield-able in vanilla, since some dwarves already have to multigrasp morning stars and longswords let alone two handed human weapons. changing the values/modding the races/weapons affect how these weapons work however ZM5 would probably know and prove me wrong

whole point of everybody saying yes shields are mandatory is because not everybody is listed in legends mode as "chosen by fate as the vanguard of destiny"; some of them are actually trying to be legendary bards instead, roleplay in a roleplaying game and hold back on having high skills for some reason.

by saying you still need to pull out a shield during an interaction attack ie dragon fire proves our point further, you can block wrestling grabs with a shield too or interrupt them with your lower arm. it could always depend sure, but from the missing protection i listed above, it just backs up

[ZM5]

I find it amusing how you're taking an off-handed comment about my personal preference this seriously. Calm down.

[Flying Dice]

I find it amusing how you're taking an off-handed comment about my personal preference this seriously. Calm down.

I'm sorry that I'm not overly impressed by you smugly patting yourself on the back for "figuring out" things that were common knowledge seven or eight years ago, and which can be intuited by anyone who can scrape together a spoonful of critical thinking skills.

Or, now, for going to the "omg why are you being so serious about this lul" route because my experiences differed from yours or for putting effort into explaining why.

however these trials really do give good advice on what to use for militias in fort mode. that is if they are wield-able in vanilla, since some dwarves already have to multigrasp morning stars and longswords let alone two handed human weapons. changing the values/modding the races/weapons affect how these weapons work however ZM5 would probably know and prove me wrong

Honestly I'd kinda recommend not using them at all in fort mode. What I did back when I was on my combat kick was edit the wield-size ranges so that a similar percentage that should hypothetically be able to two-hand them could instead one-hand them, and then not equipping shields to those. Mind, the melange of mods and personal tweaks + additions I used at the time were giving me 100+ ambushers on the map at any one time by the start of year 3, no sieges involved, and those were at minimum human-sized attackers with iron equipment. The dorfs with 2H swords and greataxes still went through them like a blender.

Doing that doesn't affect how they function in the slightest, apart from more people being able to use them one-handed. As long as you don't drop the weapon tokens into random entities they'll still only be made by races that normally can, and as long as you don't lower the minimum wield size it'll still be impossible for things too small to use them normally to potentially use them.

Weapon raws were never some mysterious force that requires ye olde rocket surgeon to understand.

[ZM5]

I'm sorry that I'm not overly impressed by you smugly patting yourself on the back for "figuring out" things that were common knowledge seven or eight years ago, and which can be intuited by anyone who can scrape together a spoonful of critical thinking skills.

I wasn't talking to you or addressing any of your points. I was talking to BadCompany141 who seems to have taken my personal preference for not utilizing exploits/grinding as some kind of deep personal insult, given his hostile rant and many assumptions about me and whoever "larpception people" is supposed to entail. Despite the fact I never said anything about people who do utilize those methods - I don't care since this is a single-player game; I simply don't use them as a preference and I didn't find they were at all contributing to this discussion.

[Cathar]

To be honnest I believe than personnal attacks are the only reason this thread keeps on, since the question has been answered in details and no one really disagree on the core issue.
No it's not mendatory, yes you're reducing your lifespan. Now we can move on.

Edit : Just to discuss the trials because I'm a sucker for this kind of thing, just two remarks :

1 ) You need to perform more tests to define trends. Two tests are not enough to draw a solid conclusion. Repetability is absolutely key in solving that question scientifically. Tho it can give you insight, two is too few to be conclusive.
2 ) You're not testing what needs to be tested. The question is not "is 2h weapons better than 1H+shield". It is "how does wearing a 2H affect my survivability as an adventurer". To answer that question you would need to write a protocol that would mimic the conditions of an adventurer : for instance, putting them against groups of goblins (3, then 4, then 5, etc) and note how far the test subject goes with the weapons that need testing. Repeat, switch weapons, repeat. Switch skill level, repeat, switch armor repeat, and so on and so forth.

Another test you can perform is a LD50 test, but it's more appropriate to fort mode, but their results are usually consideredsuper reliable. If I wanted to show that X equipment would increase or decrease survivability over Y equipment, this is the test I would conduct. Take an even number of test subject, let's say 4, give them the skill of an average starting adventurer, then test how many goblins it takes to reliably kill half of them. Once your result are reliable, test with the other set of equipment. You have a very solid ground for comparing survivability from there.

This is just a proposition that would make your test more viable, take this as peer review.

[Evillee03]

To be honnest I believe than personnal attacks are the only reason this thread keeps on, since the question has been answered in details and no one really disagree on the core issue.
No it's not mendatory, yes you're reducing your lifespan. Now we can move on.

Edit : Just to discuss the trials because I'm a sucker for this kind of thing, just two remarks :

1 ) You need to perform more tests to define trends. Two tests are not enough to draw a solid conclusion. Repetability is absolutely key in solving that question scientifically. Tho it can give you insight, two is too few to be conclusive.
2 ) You're not testing what needs to be tested. The question is not "is 2h weapons better than 1H+shield". It is "how does wearing a 2H affect my survivability as an adventurer". To answer that question you would need to write a protocol that would mimic the conditions of an adventurer : for instance, putting them against groups of goblins (3, then 4, then 5, etc) and note how far the test subject goes with the weapons that need testing. Repeat, switch weapons, repeat. Switch skill level, repeat, switch armor repeat, and so on and so forth.

Another test you can perform is a LD50 test, but it's more appropriate to fort mode, but their results are usually consideredsuper reliable. If I wanted to show that X equipment would increase or decrease survivability over Y equipment, this is the test I would conduct. Take an even number of test subject, let's say 4, give them the skill of an average starting adventurer, then test how many goblins it takes to reliably kill half of them. Once your result are reliable, test with the other set of equipment. You have a very solid ground for comparing survivability from there.

This is just a proposition that would make your test more viable, take this as peer review.

What a delightful thing to say.

[JakeSlayer]

I'd say (and do) wield whatever you want for that character. If you wanna make a duel-wielding barbarian the go ahead, if you wanna make a two-handed tank kinda guy go ahead, if you wanna make Leonidas from 300 with a spear, brone shield, and nothing but a loincloth and a cape (and greaves technically) then go ahead. All weapons offer their own advantages and disadvantages.

[GoblinCookie]

I'd say (and do) wield whatever you want for that character. If you wanna make a duel-wielding barbarian the go ahead, if you wanna make a two-handed tank kinda guy go ahead, if you wanna make Leonidas from 300 with a spear, brone shield, and nothing but a loincloth and a cape (and greaves technically) then go ahead. All weapons offer their own advantages and disadvantages.

But unfortunately there is no reload function.  The advantages are very much on the side of the one with a single handed weapon and a shield, mostly because there is no modelling of shield damage at the moment.  With shield damage a two handed weapon user might be valuable because of the damage it does to enemy shields.