Plead to rebalance scimitars

[Malak Darkhunter]

Just noticed something that bothers me, scimitars need rebalancing, for the damage output vs weight, they are almost a worthless choice. Scimitars are not that big a weapon they are actually something on par of a long sword, just curved. i noticed they weigh a wopping 15lbs in 3.4, and only do 2d4 damage-that's terrible for the weight. A bastard sword 3d4 weighs 12lbs, and is clearly a bigger weapon. For the weight instead of scimitar it should be Falchion which is clearly a heavier thicker weapon and should be 3d4 instead.

I propose scimitars be weight 10lbs at to be closely in line with longswords
2d5, and be much more realistic in weight, I think this would be better balanced and actually useable as a weapon, at 15lbs and 2d4 they are a last choice for a weapon a maul weighs just a little more and does 4d4 damage.

Opinions?

[fizzix]

Just noticed something that bothers me, scimitars need rebalancing, for the damage output vs weight, they are almost a worthless choice. Scimitars are not that big a weapon they are actually something on par of a long sword, just curved. i noticed they weigh a wopping 15lbs in 3.4, and only do 2d4 damage-that's terrible for the weight. A bastard sword 3d4 weighs 12lbs, and is clearly a bigger weapon. For the weight instead of scimitar it should be Falchion which is clearly a heavier thicker weapon and should be 3d4 instead.

I propose scimitars be weight 10lbs at to be closely in line with longswords
2d5, and be much more realistic in weight, I think this would be better balanced and actually useable as a weapon, at 15lbs and 2d4 they are a last choice for a weapon a maul weighs just a little more and does 4d4 damage.

Opinions?

I have no problems with lowering the weight of scimitars. (will have to wait until after 3.4 though...)

Sadly, the weapon weight thing is so screwed up with regards to reality. So we shouldn't use reality to justify weapon weights. We can really only use gameplay considerations. That being said, you do make a good case for scimitars to be adjusted from gameplay considerations alone.

(I thought they were 4d2 not 2d4?)

[Derakon]

In reality the weapon weight thing is so screwed up with regards to reality.

Oh so true. If you'd handed a 10-pound longsword to a warrior back in the day they'd've looked at you like you were crazy.

[fizzix]

Oh so true. If you'd handed a 10-pound longsword to a warrior back in the day they'd've looked at you like you were crazy.

While I know my redundant word choice will live on in infamy in your quote, I went back and changed it in my original post anyway...just to make me feel better.

[Derakon]

...I didn't even notice that. To eager to complain about unrealistic stuff, I guess.

[half]

If you'd like to move to realistic weapon weights, just copy them from Sil. It includes well researched realistic weights for all its weapons and armour (though this doesn't include non-Tolkienian items like Platemail). For example, the average longsword in Sil weighs 3 lb.

[fizzix]

If you'd like to move to realistic weapon weights, just copy them from Sil. It includes well researched realistic weights for all its weapons and armour (though this doesn't include non-Tolkienian items like Platemail). For example, the average longsword in Sil weighs 3 lb.

The problem is ideally you'd want the weapon weights to be realistic but the burden and blows per turn consideration to be roughly unchanged. That's where the difficulty lies. (you can get around the blows part by making an apparent weight, or inertia, and using that in the calculations. But there's still burden issues.)

[Scatha]

The problem is ideally you'd want the weapon weights to be realistic but the burden and blows per turn consideration to be roughly unchanged. That's where the difficulty lies. (you can get around the blows part by making an apparent weight, or inertia, and using that in the calculations. But there's still burden issues.)

Couldn't you get this effect by transforming by a constant factor? e.g. Move to "new" pounds (which accord more closely with real world weights), where each new pound is five of the game's old pounds? Then it just becomes a display issue and doesn't change anything mechanical.

Of course I'm guessing the problem with that is that you have some other objects which already have realistic weights. Is that right?

[Timo Pietilä]

The problem is ideally you'd want the weapon weights to be realistic but the burden and blows per turn consideration to be roughly unchanged. That's where the difficulty lies. (you can get around the blows part by making an apparent weight, or inertia, and using that in the calculations. But there's still burden issues.)

You could just drop weight of pretty much every item to 1/4 or 1/3 of what it is now. Books and scrolls are already unrealistically heavy in angband, for some reason potions are almost lightest item in the list, only rings and amulets are even lighter.

Five pound lantern? Two pound oil flask? Three pound books? 0.5 pound scrolls?

[thapper]

I have some 3 pound books! But if the amount of text in them should correspond to 8 spells I'd say that the time it takes to cast a spell is very underestimated. (And if the book with 8 spells is 3 pounds then of course a scroll will be about 0.5 pounds).

Enough of topic now, I agree with the OP that scimitars seems to be too heavy (or do too little damage). For the time being there's no need to change the whole weight system just to fix that, right?

[fizzix]

Enough of topic now, I agree with the OP that scimitars seems to be too heavy (or do too little damage). For the time being there's no need to change the whole weight system just to fix that, right?

Yeah, and I'll do that for 3.5 if no one else submits a patch before me.

I was just making the point that if someone wants to tackle the bizarre weight issue, Angband could use that.

[Malak Darkhunter]

I have no problems with lowering the weight of scimitars. (will have to wait until after 3.4 though...)

Sadly, the weapon weight thing is so screwed up with regards to reality. So we shouldn't use reality to justify weapon weights. We can really only use gameplay considerations. That being said, you do make a good case for scimitars to be adjusted from gameplay considerations alone.

(I thought they were 4d2 not 2d4?)

scimitars are actualy 4d2-my bad
But looking at weapons and weights/damage die they are pretty screwed up, but not all of them, daggers/shortswords and some others are pretty fair. Others not so. I envision something like this:

1. have a catagory of "light weapons" whips/daggers/small swords etc. within a couple lbs of each other in weight, and closely related damage dice to be close to one another 1d4/1d5/1d6. weight then wouldn't make a big difference nor be very different in damage-critical might be different based on type however.

2. then have medium weapons 1d7/1d8/1d9/1d10, longsword/cutlass/ scimitar/mace/warhammer, etc.

3. then heavy weapons 3d4/2d6/4d4/2d8-12-16points damage and you have bastard swords/battle axes/ flails/ mauls etc.

4. very heavy weapons-3d6/3d8/4d5/6d5-two-handed swords,lances, lochaber axes/blades of chaos etc.

very heavy weapons would really need to be rethought for damage dice and weight to be somewhat similar to each other/as they are they are very different with very differnt damage.

opinions?

[Magnate]

scimitars are actualy 4d2-my bad
But looking at weapons and weights/damage die they are pretty screwed up, but not all of them, daggers/shortswords and some others are pretty fair. Others not so. I envision something like this:

1. have a catagory of "light weapons" whips/daggers/small swords etc. within a couple lbs of each other in weight, and closely related damage dice to be close to one another 1d4/1d5/1d6. weight then wouldn't make a big difference nor be very different in damage-critical might be different based on type however.

2. then have medium weapons 1d7/1d8/1d9/1d10, longsword/cutlass/ scimitar/mace/warhammer, etc.

3. then heavy weapons 3d4/2d6/4d4/2d8-12-16points damage and you have bastard swords/battle axes/ flails/ mauls etc.

4. very heavy weapons-3d6/3d8/4d5/6d5-two-handed swords,lances, lochaber axes/blades of chaos etc.

very heavy weapons would really need to be rethought for damage dice and weight to be somewhat similar to each other/as they are they are very different with very differnt damage.

opinions?

IMO this is pretty much WAD. The bigger range in the last category is intentional - blades of chaos are a lot rarer than zweihanders.

I don't see an awful lot wrong with the current system that can be fixed without the sort of wholesale redesign we've done in v4. Obviously a pound or two could be added or removed here and there, but there seems little point going much further.

[fizzix]

IMO this is pretty much WAD. The bigger range in the last category is intentional - blades of chaos are a lot rarer than zweihanders.

I don't see an awful lot wrong with the current system that can be fixed without the sort of wholesale redesign we've done in v4. Obviously a pound or two could be added or removed here and there, but there seems little point going much further.

Besides the scimitar issue that Malak brought up, the main issue I have with weapon weights is that they're so far from reality, it's sort of ridiculous. Specifically with the swords. Long swords do not weigh 10 pounds. However, to align things with reality would mess up whatever gameplay balance we currently have.

However, it's kind of silly to do the weight rebalancing if the long term plan is to bring in the v4 combat system. As a simple tweak, I'd be ok with dropping *every* weight value by 1/2 and then adjust blows and encumberance appropriately.

[wobbly]

As a simple tweak, I'd be ok with dropping *every* weight value by 1/2 and then adjust blows and encumberance appropriately.

Wouldn't it be even simpler to just drop the unit (lbs)