do something about greatswords?

[debo]

An idea that hasn't been proposed, would not require changes to greatswords, yet would completely restore greatswords to their glory is unifying long- / bastardswords under one name (afaik the swords called longsword irl were in fact often used two-handed) and make them 2d5 when used single-handed, 2d7 when two-handed.

I just wanted to put this idea into the thread as well.

I kinda like that. Also, that would make Aranruth even more amazing

[Thraalbee]

I haven't played Sil in a while, but as far as i understand, the weight of the weapon is not included in the KnockBack die roll. How about a linear bonus to the Knock Back die roll based on weapon weight? It could work if the bonus was capped somehow, e.g. based on effective Str

[half]

I haven't played Sil in a while, but as far as i understand, the weight of the weapon is not included in the KnockBack die roll. How about a linear bonus to the Knock Back die roll based on weapon weight? It could work if the bonus was capped somehow, e.g. based on effective Str

We redesigned it to include Str in a recent version (1.2?) and wanted to keep the formula simple (it is basically an opposed Str vs Con check). We figured that people will usually be using weapons that make best use of their strength, so the weight is not really a factor. It has been suggested a couple of times that we could use 'effective strength' (i.e. Strength limited by weapon weight). This is a good idea and we'll think about whether the small gain is worth the small complexity increase.

[bagori nd]

An idea that hasn't been proposed, would not require changes to greatswords, yet would completely restore greatswords to their glory is unifying long- / bastardswords under one name (afaik the swords called longsword irl were in fact often used two-handed) and make them 2d5 when used single-handed, 2d7 when two-handed.

I just wanted to put this idea into the thread as well.

I kinda like this too. Note however that

(a) it'd prevent you from two-weaponing longswords, which is probably good for realism but arguably bad for gameplay and in my opinion definitely bad for awesomeness; and
(b) it'd be a de facto nerf to the strong elf, for whom the one-handed bastard sword is currently a great option; and
(c) two-handing a longsword would be a niche option, worse than a shield or greatsword in almost every case.

But these might be outweighed; idk. fwiw I do this with curved swords already in my game (though I've eliminated their evasion bonus to compensate), and it seems to work okay. (I'm a little ashamed to say that I mainly did this so I could put in Aglarang. Apart from that the main effect is to make the very early game a bit faster and more dangerous.)

[huiren]

We redesigned it to include Str in a recent version (1.2?) and wanted to keep the formula simple (it is basically an opposed Str vs Con check). We figured that people will usually be using weapons that make best use of their strength, so the weight is not really a factor. It has been suggested a couple of times that we could use 'effective strength' (i.e. Strength limited by weapon weight). This is a good idea and we'll think about whether the small gain is worth the small complexity increase.

In the manual, the description of knock back states that it is effective strength, capped by weapon weight, +2 for wielding a weapon in two hands. Is that not the case and it's just strength with no cap?

Also, what is an average monster constitution? Obviously, higher strength is better, but about what amount of strength do you need to get good use out of knock back?

[debo]

In the manual, the description of knock back states that it is effective strength, capped by weapon weight, +2 for wielding a weapon in two hands. Is that not the case and it's just strength with no cap?

I think you still get a +2 bonus for twofisting. I don't know about the cap part.

Also, what is an average monster constitution? Obviously, higher strength is better, but about what amount of strength do you need to get good use out of knock back?

Monster "constitution" is basically the Con value that would be closest to their actual HP.

[half]

In the manual, the description of knock back states that it is effective strength, capped by weapon weight, +2 for wielding a weapon in two hands. Is that not the case and it's just strength with no cap?

Also, what is an average monster constitution? Obviously, higher strength is better, but about what amount of strength do you need to get good use out of knock back?

If it says that in the manual, it is probably true! Sounds like we had already implemented the good version, so everyone can rest easy.

I don't have a good feel for what strength works well. It definitely depends on the monster. Monster constitution is determined by their health (in the same way that your health is determined by your Con). Anyone can knock back really low health monsters, but there is little point as they often die on the first attack. A good strength level will depend on the enemy, and as their health generally increases with depth, you will need more strength later on. You need *a lot* to have much chance of knocking Morgoth back as he has a very high health.

[taptap]

I have knocked back dragons (on charge with crazy high STR 4+4 and a two-handed war hammer). Knockback is really cool for low health, high protection opponents. That is serpents and deathblades.

As one of the people who proposed this, I believe I did so after noticing a lot of longsword knockback going on in one of my chars...

[Scatha]

I'd wondered before about making bastard swords 2d5, but that would make three swords with the same damage numbers, and probably be confusing.

Removing bastard swords and making longswords hand-and-a-half is an interesting suggestion. A (+0,2d5)[+1] hand-and-a-half weapon wielded two-handed would be comparably good with a greatsword at STR 1 or perhaps 2. It would compare unfavourably with a Glaive, but not massively so.

Another reasonably elegant possibility in this vicinity would be to merge bastard swords and curved swords, to a (-1, 2d5)[+1] hand-and-a-half weapon. I'm not sure which name they'd want to keep. They'd be on the weak side, though slightly better than the current curved swords, and a decent all-rounder.

[debo]

Another reasonably elegant possibility in this vicinity would be to merge bastard swords and curved swords, to a (-1, 2d5)[+1] hand-and-a-half weapon. I'm not sure which name they'd want to keep. They'd be on the weak side, though slightly better than the current curved swords, and a decent all-rounder.

An inadvertent nerf to Anguirel and Anglachel could probably be tolerated

[wobbly]

Another reasonably elegant possibility in this vicinity would be to merge bastard swords and curved swords, to a (-1, 2d5)[+1] hand-and-a-half weapon. I'm not sure which name they'd want to keep. They'd be on the weak side, though slightly better than the current curved swords, and a decent all-rounder.

I quite like this idea differentiates curved swords from long swords and bastard swords from axes/greatswords a bit more. Also gives a few flakier builds an easier start of they can double hand that starting sword.

[bagori nd]

fwiw:

I've been playing with (-1) greatswords for a while now and I think the accuracy bump completely solves the problem I had. Greatswords have a niche, but bastard swords can still be a competitive two-handed option if you're really accurate, and their versatility is nothing to sneeze at given Sil's limited inventory.

On the whole, I find it creates interesting choices when trying to decide whether to hold on to a greatsword, bastard sword, or both, and it's also very intuitive. Greatswords feel appropriately badass, whereas bastard swords feel like the unorthodox option sometimes favored by the very skilled.

I think it's worth considering in the next version!

[half]

I've been playing with (-1) greatswords for a while now and I think the accuracy bump completely solves the problem I had.

I think it's worth considering in the next version!

Thanks for testing this. I'm not yet sure that greatswords aren't good enough, but a change like this one is simple enough that it could plausibly happen without rebalancing all the weapons.

For what its worth, I see greatswords as being mainly useful for characters with Charge, as the +3 strength will often put you above the usable strength on a Bastard Sword. Starting with high strength and/or other Strength bonuses like rings or potions could have the same effect. This use case is clearly narrower since the addition of Momentum and the simplification to how weight and strength interact. However, having an item that lets you skip an ability is a really big advantage -- imagine greatswords like bastard swords that come with a free ability. If I were playing an elf with charge and flanking, I'd want to use greatswords. I'm OK with the use cases being quite narrow since as others have pointed out, it looks like greatswords were a pretty niche weapon historically and were probably out of time period.

(Side note: looking into weapon history a bit more has shown me that we actually know very little about them. For example, it is not fully known what a long sword or a bastard sword was. Some people think 'long swords' describes swords used with two hands, some people think bastard swords were not the same as hand and a half swords etc. One thus shouldn't get *too* hung up on the names or historical accuracy of whether people in middle earth could have plausibly used swords that require two hands etc. So long as it roughly corresponds to weapons we have found being used in the past, or the writings of Tolkien, and so long as the weapon or its name aren't clearly from the wrong culture, I'm pretty OK with it.)

[bagori nd]

Thanks for the reply! I think it makes a lot of sense.

However, having an item that lets you skip an ability is a really big advantage -- imagine greatswords like bastard swords that come with a free ability.

The only issue I see is that in the long run, lots of people will want Momentum anyway since it's a prerequisite for Strength. Granted, many chargers will prefer Knock-Back anyway, so this might not be a problem. Still, it might be something to think about.

[debo]

If I'm an elf going for charge, I probably want bastard swords and momentum, not greatswords. I'll still get criticals (because b.swords are much lighter), and now that knockback is totally based on strength, I'd rather just minimize weapon weight. I can also put on a shield in one turn without a swap weapon if archers show up.

That is what I really don't like about momentum -- it used to be that strong dudes wanted heavier weapons, which naturally forced you down the power tree. Now it seems like the optimal way to go is always down the finesse tree, regardless of your melee build. Add that to the fact that twohanders probably want rapid attack for the final battle (which is super awkward to get after charge/momentum), and I see very little reason to ever play a two-handed swinger. (Other than fun, which is a pretty good reason!)