Fix weapon weights?
 

Cross-posting from another thread:

I'm going to suggest a halving of weapon weights which I think are too heavy to start with. This only solves part of Bandobras issue but I'm pretty sure the id mini game is less painful when you're not at -spd. Currently I recall more then I'd like to, just to dump a bunch of junk weapons at shop 3.

As long as the ratios between weapon weights stay identical you can change their weights & maintain the same balance by making the same adjustment in tunnelling, criticals & blows. So this would be a change to encumbrance + cosmetics.

Unless people like the current balance between weapon weight & encumbrance? I don't.

I thought the general consensus was if weapons were going to be messed with they were going to be fixed since the current weapon system is fundamentally flawed. I like the idea of blows per round, but it's silly that a mage does more damage with a maul in the early game than with a dagger, but a warrior with bulging muscles does more damage with a dagger in the early game than a maul.

I think the current weapon weights are important to keep mages from running around with mauls--at least until the weapon system gets rewritten in a way that bears in mind some kind of logic of the real world.

Here I agree. Here I agree *if* this is something happening in the foreseeable future. I'm only suggesting a stop-gap because I think change starts with sane weapon weights. Not a necessity, but something I think should change as part of a general overhaul.

Here I don't quite agree. It causes more problems then it fixes, it overlaps with minimum str by weapon weight & is mostly pointless. If one blow of mage-melee with a bastard sword isn't working, a maul is little improvement. Until you have blows on a mage you melee wolves, you melee yeeks, you melee a bunch of stuff that a good bastard sword will work on. Going heavier doesn't help, it's an extra 2 average damage (I think, don't have the no.'s in front of me).

Yep, lightweight weapon too imba atm. I suppose there could be certain restriction towards maximum amount of runes inscribed at weapon. You can not inscribe loads of magic runes on tiny dagger; at the same time it's quite easy to do so at huge Zweihander.. So alrighty - lets lightweight weapons still would have moar dps, but make heavy weapons to have more 'magical' potency

This misconception is indicative of the whole "nerds don't know anything about weapons" problem that got us here. Daggers (and other similar small blades) are usually 20-30 cms long after the hilt. I'm not sure about your handwriting but I guarantee that I could fit 20 runes on a dagger easily.

It depends on rune size. Rune could be complex and long. Maybe runes in tiny handwriting would have less potency than in my, dwarwen penmanship? Also is it rune or actually runeword? :D

Anyway it's just a logic 'way' toward rebalancing imba weapons :cool:

I'd be fine with your proposed change, wobbly. Weapon weights have always been fairly absurd. Swords don't weigh 10 pounds (nor mauls 30!), and if they did nobody would be swinging them very quickly regardless of how ridiculous their stats are. We don't have to rejigger the entire system to fix this one glaring oddity.

Some pertinent discussion from a medieval arms web forum: http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.8998.html

Garrett Hazen wrote:Jean Henri Chandler replied:

I totally rabbit-holed on this.
And ended up here:

https://www.wired.com/2013/02/how-mu...h-vader-weigh/

Speaking as one who has split a few cords of wood over the years, mauls usually weigh 10-12 pounds. You can get them up to 20 pounds, but those would make terrible weapons.