Weapons should not have requirements

[snow_RAveN]

Think in real life people can pick up any thing as a weapon,  swing it wildly and it can still kill !

Haveing weapon requirements for certain Weapons seems like a joke as any one can wield a sword but the thing is not many can swing the sword lika pro . As the saying goes \" In the hands of an amuture it is deadly, in the hands of the SKILLED it is capable of wonders\"

So instead of Better weapons being only for higher levels weapons should be allowed to all levels but the dammage would of cource be nutured untill the guy learns to weild it properly.

Yes i know this will be exploited by guilds but if \"Good\" weapons are as rare as water in a desert it would be balanced !

however weapons like war hammers which are heavy by nature will require some strength to wield and the requirement would be low as how heavy can Hammers be ?

[smoak]

yeah that makes sense. so if your new and you somehow get a really good weapon you dont have to wait around till you can use it.

[Monketh]

Finally, Snow_raven comes up with a good idea.  Although this has been proposed before, and at that time I agreed with the idea fully, feel free to talk about it again.

[Cyberchu]

Great idea!

Perhaps you could have minuses to agility, etc. for using a weapon too powerful for you.

[rifft]

I think there is no need for highly exceptional uber weapons of super death (such as the ones your talking about) simply improving your skill could be sufficient to make you really deadly with a high quality blade.

I think that even though you do not need requirements, you could have such things as  wear and tear on weapons, and if  you\'re an unskilled swordfighter, or just joe average you are more likely to damage the weapon, dull the blade, chip it, etc. Essentially make it less effective. I think that damage could be calculated based on several factor, one of which is skill, and your skill would determine not only how much damage you deal, but how much damage the weapon takes in your hands. maybe some inverse relationship.

Anyway, yeah weapon requirements are dumb, but I think having things like the ability to stab oneself in the foot are also necessary then.

[Aeterus]

Ye sure, a fible magician can pick up a two handed sword.
Have you ever seen a two handed sword in real life ?? the ones barbarians used ? (multiply the size you\'re thinking by 2)

Weapon requirements aren\'t made to make sense, they are made for the sake of sanity.
Better weapons don\'t require better skill, they require better attributes, there\'s a difference.
You don\'t have to be skilled to use a huge battle axe, you have to be strong, if you\'re not strong enough you won\'t be able to make proper swings.
Therefore if there is no strength requirement there has to be a passive strength requirement, which symbolise the border between negative and positive strength effects (lower strength results in lower power then original weapon power, higher results in higher power)
Farther more i think that while positive strength from this border would increase the attack (power/speed) in linear relations, a negative strength would decrease attack (power/speed) in a non-linear relations (such as the square of the strength gap to the border)

From my point of view, a weapon skill is both the attack (precise blows - chances to hit/critical strikes) and defense level (parrying), strength helps for more powerful blows, therefore the player is responsible for 2/3 of the attack power, whereas the weapon itself governs 1/3 of the attack power.
therefore better weapons can really powerful, a fighter with X skill and a Y powerful weapon, will have half the power of a fighter with the same skill  but four times (4Y) powerful weapon.
Therefore i see no reason not to have the uber weapons of death, as long as they are heavy enough, it makes sense. (such as gattz Dragonslicer from the manga \"berserk\")
Part of the appeal to play fighters, is the equipment, no reason to take that away, and make the game mostly skill based ...

[snow_RAveN]

there will be different equpiment for different clases but each class will have postive modifers for their class type weapon it dosent mean that they cant use that weapon to it just means they will use it less effectively as some class
there will be negative modifers for different clases so a mage wont want to use a sword as he cant do as much dammage as barbrian with the same weapon and level ( even strength )
as he does not have a skill that bennfits the weapon where as a wand or staff may have MP modifers as their are for mage classes

EG. an Assassin has the skill Back stab which gives a modifer for the use of a dagger like X 4 dammage Ect ect

this means that there is an incentive to use class spefic weapons !

but i agree that there might be a little strength involved for heavier class weapons and dammage

the reason i made the thread is because i dont like haveing to \"find\" an UBER weapon and discover that you cant use as you are too low leveled

[Seytra]

Of course. I can barely hold high a one-handed sword, let alone a two-handed one. I _can_ do one blow with them, though, maybe two or three given enough time, but I\'d be terribly ineffective anyway. Still, nothing else would prevent me from using it, and if I get the first blow right, it has the chance to be fatal.

Therefore, seeing that most chars carry around several blades all the time, why should they not be able to use the Most Powerful Sword In The World[tm]? It\'d be less effective than a dagger, but hey, might do the trick by just looking dangerous.

Also, I don\'t really see a reason why one char can use a normal sword but not a sword + 300000. I mean, the sword+300000 is not heavier than the normal sword, nor will it bite you or something (unless it\'s got a soul ).

Therefore, weapon requirements are a clumsy effort to balance the game where the rules or the engine lack said balance.

Also I dislike the way loot tends to depend on your level. I mean, why should an orc in town X drop 1 GP when I\'m level 1 but that same orc in that same city drops 100 GP when I\'m level 20...

[Aeterus]

Ahhhhhh

I see what you mean now, i thought you meant heavier weapons, but it seems you just meant \"better\" weapons. (as in magical ussually)
Well obviously this never really made any sense, magical weapons, or better weapons of the same weight class should be held by everyone, the only thing that prevents it from being possesed by every noob is making them extra rare. (a good system makes finite magical weapons, though it\'s troublesome if new players constantly join the game).
In my opinion magical weapons shouldn\'t be like in d&d +1/+2/+3/+X ... this always seemed stupid to me, as it only encouraged magical weapons to be weak and common.
Therefore if good weapons are rare and expensive, players who favor damage will go to the heavier weapons, double battle axes, massive broad swords, etc ...
I see the point that every character should use every weapon, it\'s cool and makes sense, but with this respect of realism, they should be seriously limited, and not just substracting a few damage points, but rather cutting them in a serious percentage, slowing them, and making parrying with them a lot harder.

[Altharion]

you need skill to figth to the fullest potential of the weapon.

[Seytra]

Originally posted by Altharion
you need skill to figth to the fullest potential of the weapon.

Of course, but even if you haven\'t even seen this kind of weapon before you can still pick it up and use it. Not skilled, not effective, but still usable.
I have never held a crossbow but I\'m pretty sure that I (or anybody else) could kill with one despite that. Not at great distance, not as quick as possible, and reloading will take ages, but still. And I wouldn\'t want to stand before a hostile guy holding a battle-axe, even if I knew the guy is barely able to lift it. If I\'m dead, I\'m dead, I don\'t care if the kill was the most beautiful or the most lame one in the world...

[Aeterus]

Skill has nothing to do with what you mentioned, even if someone is a skilled swordsman he may barely be able to lift a big sword.
Lil\' john trained with long sword from the age of 9 to 25, he\'s very skilled, and he is quite strong, but if you give him a broad two handed massive sword, he\'ll barely be able to swing it.
Big jack, is strong, and very big. he always was a dumb guy so he never really practiced in anything. however when he got the broad two handed massive sword, he could swing it like it was a wooden stick.

A skilled swordsman isn\'t made only of pure skill, he has to have some strength which fits his choice of weapons, people seem to associate a skillful man with powerful blows, there is nothing in common between the two, it doesn\'t matter how much you know about swinging swords, if you\'re weak you\'ll never do much harm with them, unless your opponent is stupid enough to stand while you wack him.

[rifft]

Originally posted by Aeterus
A skilled swordsman isn\'t made only of pure skill, he has to have some strength which fits his choice of weapons, people seem to associate a skillful man with powerful blows, there is nothing in common between the two, it doesn\'t matter how much you know about swinging swords, if you\'re weak you\'ll never do much harm with them, unless your opponent is stupid enough to stand while you wack him.

I\'d have to disagree with what you said. Big surprise huh, I\'m becoming a regular s***disturber.

I for one saw the size of a katana and the size of a claymore (the two handed sword you keep reffering to) It\'s 6 feet long, around my height. It\'s massive and is used mostly as a club. However, not all weapons demand great strength to wield. A person who is quick and skilled with a dagger (or hell even a pencil, skin isn\'t that tough)  could stab the strong guy with the giant sword and avoid all the clumsy powerful blows.

In addition a person who has trained with a long swords, or even a rapier, or a foil, which is what you\'re probably thinking of, usually grows much much stronger after ages of practice. And though he may not have much brute strength he still knows _how_ to wield a sword and what to do with it. Granted, you can\'t fence with a claymore, but if you know how to fight with one, you also know a thing or two about swords in general.

So here is the point. I think it\'s stupid to make a player unable to equip certain swords simply because he isn\'t strong enough to use it optimally, I mean it still may be better than nothing. I do agree that not being strong enough to use a sword would give you penalities, some weight to strength ratio.  So if you are much stronger and can use the sword as if it was a light twig, you are more effective with it, however, someone with a lighter sword who is highly skilled with that particular sword will kick your little ass back to the stoneage. Anyway point is this, don\'t restrict, implement some sort of penalty system.

[snow_RAveN]

a penalty system has to be introduced as you will have a guild full of power gamers who will be abuseing the system to the MAX. imagine a guild full of lvl 20 - 40 with Uber magic weapons while your guild lvl 50 - 80 have normal ordinary weapons . With out a System to balance this the lower level guild will Pwn your guild so much you\'d be ashmed to ever come back...

the penalty for weapon dammage just means that it becomes more balanced so you wont have a lvl 10 bugger killing off lvl 30 people like a butcher killing lambs .....

[Aeterus]

Originally posted by rifft
I\'d have to disagree with what you said. Big surprise huh, I\'m becoming a regular s***disturber.

No problem, me too. (/me puts poison in rifft\'s drink)

Originally posted by rifft
I for one saw the size of a katana and the size of a claymore (the two handed sword you keep reffering to) It\'s 6 feet long, around my height. It\'s massive and is used mostly as a club. However, not all weapons demand great strength to wield. A person who is quick and skilled with a dagger (or hell even a pencil, skin isn\'t that tough)  could stab the strong guy with the giant sword and avoid all the clumsy powerful blows.

Good because i have seen them too. (and guess what, i have them too ^^)
I wasn\'t reffering to a claymore by the way, i was reffering to a viking two handed broadsword, which was about 9 feet long (yes, i still don\'t believe vikings used it, but on the other hand what i\'ve seen was certainly not used for house decoration ^^).
Unfortunatly for me, you missed the point i was making (thanks to my low english skills) - i didn\'t say damage comes only from strength, but in a 1/3 ratio of skill/strength/weapon.
What this means is that if the thief you mentioned was skilled, he could probably kill a man an ordinary man, and if he was very strong as well as highly skilled, he could make an incision cut from the toes to the man\'s head in a fight :]
Farther more lighter weapons are easier to use for critical strikes, which creates a nice balance between the various weapons.

Originally posted by rifft
In addition a person who has trained with long swords, or even a rapier, or a foil, which is what you\'re probably thinking of, usually grows much much stronger after ages of practice. And though he may not have much brute strength he still knows _how_ to wield a sword and what to do with it. Granted, you can\'t fence with a claymore, but if you know how to fight with one, you also know a thing or two about swords in general.

This only strenghen what i was saying, since as i have said in my post (\"A skilled swordsman isn\'t made only of pure skill, he has to have some strength which fits his choice of weapons\" ) which means that with skill always comes strength, and it\'s not the skill which makes the sword wielding easier (though skill makes striking more percise), but rather the strength which increased with constant weapon use.
A nice system a friend of mine made, included a division in combat skills to the different weapons while adding a general combat lore, this lore advanced alongside of the weapons, and had some impact to the combat rolls.
It helped ensure that a fighter with a certain knowledge in combat would have advantages over a guy with no knowledge - although they both are at the same level (if any) with this perticular weapon.

Originally posted by rifft
So here is the point. I think it\'s stupid to make a player unable to equip certain swords simply because he isn\'t strong enough to use it optimally, I mean it still may be better than nothing. I do agree that not being strong enough to use a sword would give you penalities, some weight to strength ratio.  So if you are much stronger and can use the sword as if it was a light twig, you are more effective with it, however, someone with a lighter sword who is highly skilled with that particular sword will kick your little ass back to the stoneage. Anyway point is this, don\'t restrict, implement some sort of penalty system.

My point exactly.