Jump to content

Any blunt melee weapon should require two hands to be effective


Burianu

Recommended Posts

if i recall correctly, there are lots of blunt weapons that should be equipped in both hands... equipping them in only  one hand is resulting in a modifier of the damage output, you deal less damage when you only equip a baseball bat in one hand.

if i should be wrong, please correct me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I can think of at least 2 weapon's off the top  of my head that are very good blunt weapons, and one handed: Mace and the Horseman's Pick (warhammer with long stabby back).  Arguably, the horseman's pick is both  a bashing and a stabbing weapon.  these would both be silly to use two handed - they are designed as force multipliers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple suggestion.  Carrying a bag while wielding a weapon should be highly ineffective - especially without strong or at least stout traits.  An argument could be made for blade weapons, but I'd still say it should be less effective.  

 

This makes sense to me for some - although not all- weapons that are currently in game. To kill a zombie we have to disable the brain - I doubt I could smash through a human skull wielding a baseball bat (for example) with one hand.

 

An axe is a maybe, but holding an axe one handed would be unwieldy and muster significantly less force than two hand, so iot would probably be less ttha 50% effective at best.

 

I'm on board with this, in principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple suggestion. Carrying a bag while wielding a weapon should be highly ineffective - especially without strong or at least stout traits. An argument could be made for blade weapons, but I'd still say it should be less effective.

This makes sense to me for some - although not all- weapons that are currently in game. To kill a zombie we have to disable the brain - I doubt I could smash through a human skull wielding a baseball bat (for example) with one hand.

An axe is a maybe, but holding an axe one handed would be unwieldy and muster significantly less force than two hand, so iot would probably be less ttha 50% effective at best.

I'm on board with this, in principle.

Then we would need to separate the melee weapons into categories because as stated, several melee weapons would be ridiculous to be impaired due to needing two hands to wield when doing so would reduce velocity of swing, inhibit the amount of damage or just look awkward in general. My suggestion is having large blunt weapons and small blunt weapons. Large blunt weapons need two hands to become most effective and small blunt weapons work better with only a single hand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It works like that already, when you use a weapon that requires 2 hands in 1 hand you get reduced effectiveness. I seriously never use 2-handed weapons in 1-hand because a single scratch can mean death and I rather be at 100% than less.

It does, but it's nowhere near as nerfed as it should be IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Hammers and frying pans aren't 2-handed weapons. A Hammer is in fact a pretty lethal one handed weapon. And as far as i know, those 2 plus the knifes are pretty much the only one handed melee weapons. Everything else has to be equipped 2 handed to be efficient. Add nails to your Baseball bat and it is definitly more powerfull. But as said. A regular hammer is a pretty lethal 1 hand blunt weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Hammers and frying pans aren't 2-handed weapons. A Hammer is in fact a pretty lethal one handed weapon. And as far as i know, those 2 plus the knifes are pretty much the only one handed melee weapons. Everything else has to be equipped 2 handed to be efficient. Add nails to your Baseball bat and it is definitly more powerfull. But as said. A regular hammer is a pretty lethal 1 hand blunt weapon.

And a frying pan as deadly as a full force, two handed baseball bat?  Yeah okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple suggestion.  Carrying a bag while wielding a weapon should be highly ineffective - especially without strong or at least stout traits.  An argument could be made for blade weapons, but I'd still say it should be less effective.  

I disagree. Not every weapon is designed the same way, even weapons of opportunity vary. 

 

As several other posters have specified individual cases I'll get into the physics. 

 

Force = mass x acceleration, That is to say, an object with a given mass of X, traveling at a given velocity of Y would have the same force as an object with a given mass of (X/2) and a given velocity of (Y*2). An object need not be very heavy if it is moving fast enough, such as a bullet or an arrow. Likewise a car moving relatively slowly could still exert enough force on impact to severely injure a person if that force is not dispersed by other means. 

 

You must also understand that not all impacts are the same. If I were to strike a two by four with a hammer, I might dent the wood. if it were a particularly good strike there's a chance I might splinter it, even. But if I were to strike a nail against the wood with the same hammer, the same swing, I would put that nail deeply into the wood. Why is this? The force exerted remains the same, but the end result is clearly different. Surface area! By exerting that same measure of force against a much smaller point, I have driven a wedge into the material. This is why a spiked baseball bat would cause more damage than a standard one. By reducing the contact surface to a few narrow points, you have created a tool that will break and puncture a solid surface much more efficiently.

 

This is also why we developed the axe, adze and a wide variety of chisels. We use the same basic principles of physics, but by changing the shape and size of the contact striking surface, we exert a wider variety of control over the outcome.

 

Then there is the balance of the tool you are using. If I gave you a short kitchen knife and told you to use it with two hands, you couldn't effectively do so. The weight is wrong for the task. It doesn't require, or lend benefit to that effort. You would actually be doing so to your own detriment.  Ostensibly a sledgehammer benefits from two hands. Its significant weight being at the far reach of the lever requires a steady fulcrum to maximize its force. But a framing hammer has neither the mass, nor the balance to require such an exertion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Simple suggestion.  Carrying a bag while wielding a weapon should be highly ineffective - especially without strong or at least stout traits.  An argument could be made for blade weapons, but I'd still say it should be less effective.  

I disagree. Not every weapon is designed the same way, even weapons of opportunity vary. 

 

As several other posters have specified individual cases I'll get into the physics. 

 

Force = mass x acceleration, That is to say, an object with a given mass of X, traveling at a given velocity of Y would have the same force as an object with a given mass of (X/2) and a given velocity of (Y*2). An object need not be very heavy if it is moving fast enough, such as a bullet or an arrow. Likewise a car moving relatively slowly could still exert enough force on impact to severely injure a person if that force is not dispersed by other means. 

 

You must also understand that not all impacts are the same. If I were to strike a two by four with a hammer, I might dent the wood. if it were a particularly good strike there's a chance I might splinter it, even. But if I were to strike a nail against the wood with the same hammer, the same swing, I would put that nail deeply into the wood. Why is this? The force exerted remains the same, but the end result is clearly different. Surface area! By exerting that same measure of force against a much smaller point, I have driven a wedge into the material. This is why a spiked baseball bat would cause more damage than a standard one. By reducing the contact surface to a few narrow points, you have created a tool that will break and puncture a solid surface much more efficiently.

 

This is also why we developed the axe, adze and a wide variety of chisels. We use the same basic principles of physics, but by changing the shape and size of the contact striking surface, we exert a wider variety of control over the outcome.

 

Then there is the balance of the tool you are using. If I gave you a short kitchen knife and told you to use it with two hands, you couldn't effectively do so. The weight is wrong for the task. It doesn't require, or lend benefit to that effort. You would actually be doing so to your own detriment.  Ostensibly a sledgehammer benefits from two hands. Its significant weight being at the far reach of the lever requires a steady fulcrum to maximize its force. But a framing hammer has neither the mass, nor the balance to require such an exertion. 

 

I get it.  I'm just saying that a frying pan should not be as deadly as a two handed baseball bat.  Hammer - okay maybe, but with much less knockback/knockdown chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But Hammers and frying pans aren't 2-handed weapons. A Hammer is in fact a pretty lethal one handed weapon. And as far as i know, those 2 plus the knifes are pretty much the only one handed melee weapons. Everything else has to be equipped 2 handed to be efficient. Add nails to your Baseball bat and it is definitly more powerfull. But as said. A regular hammer is a pretty lethal 1 hand blunt weapon.

And a frying pan as deadly as a full force, two handed baseball bat?  Yeah okay.

 

Actually, it very well could be. If I had an eight to ten inch cast iron skillet, and I were to use a motion similar to that which you would use for a mace (Wherein you begin with weapon raised to about shoulder height, arm back, elbow slightly out, pivoting at the wrist, shoulder and elbow to exert your force in a whip-like motion, in conjunction with a pivot of the hips and upper torso to maximize your overall striking force) and strike the skull firmly with the narrow edge (as opposed to the flat side) of the skillet, I'd be surprised to -not- shatter the relatively weak bones of the side of the skull. 

 

 

Simple suggestion.  Carrying a bag while wielding a weapon should be highly ineffective - especially without strong or at least stout traits.  An argument could be made for blade weapons, but I'd still say it should be less effective.  

I disagree. Not every weapon is designed the same way, even weapons of opportunity vary. 

 

As several other posters have specified individual cases I'll get into the physics. 

 

Force = mass x acceleration, That is to say, an object with a given mass of X, traveling at a given velocity of Y would have the same force as an object with a given mass of (X/2) and a given velocity of (Y*2). An object need not be very heavy if it is moving fast enough, such as a bullet or an arrow. Likewise a car moving relatively slowly could still exert enough force on impact to severely injure a person if that force is not dispersed by other means. 

 

You must also understand that not all impacts are the same. If I were to strike a two by four with a hammer, I might dent the wood. if it were a particularly good strike there's a chance I might splinter it, even. But if I were to strike a nail against the wood with the same hammer, the same swing, I would put that nail deeply into the wood. Why is this? The force exerted remains the same, but the end result is clearly different. Surface area! By exerting that same measure of force against a much smaller point, I have driven a wedge into the material. This is why a spiked baseball bat would cause more damage than a standard one. By reducing the contact surface to a few narrow points, you have created a tool that will break and puncture a solid surface much more efficiently.

 

This is also why we developed the axe, adze and a wide variety of chisels. We use the same basic principles of physics, but by changing the shape and size of the contact striking surface, we exert a wider variety of control over the outcome.

 

Then there is the balance of the tool you are using. If I gave you a short kitchen knife and told you to use it with two hands, you couldn't effectively do so. The weight is wrong for the task. It doesn't require, or lend benefit to that effort. You would actually be doing so to your own detriment.  Ostensibly a sledgehammer benefits from two hands. Its significant weight being at the far reach of the lever requires a steady fulcrum to maximize its force. But a framing hammer has neither the mass, nor the balance to require such an exertion. 

 

I get it.  I'm just saying that a frying pan should not be as deadly as a two handed baseball bat.  Hammer - okay maybe, but with much less knockback/knockdown chance.

 

I believe the coding is such that the frying pan is already not as deadly as the baseball bat. Nor as durable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right with the Pan since it has a much bigger Hit surface. (As explained above). The knockback of the Hammer may be to high but on the other hand it could be far more effective. I'm pretty sure you'd destroy pretty much every skull with one good and hard Swing of a regular 500g Hammer....in reality

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

But Hammers and frying pans aren't 2-handed weapons. A Hammer is in fact a pretty lethal one handed weapon. And as far as i know, those 2 plus the knifes are pretty much the only one handed melee weapons. Everything else has to be equipped 2 handed to be efficient. Add nails to your Baseball bat and it is definitly more powerfull. But as said. A regular hammer is a pretty lethal 1 hand blunt weapon.

And a frying pan as deadly as a full force, two handed baseball bat?  Yeah okay.

 

Actually, it very well could be. If I had an eight to ten inch cast iron skillet, and I were to use a motion similar to that which you would use for a mace (Wherein you begin with weapon raised to about shoulder height, arm back, elbow slightly out, pivoting at the wrist, shoulder and elbow to exert your force in a whip-like motion, in conjunction with a pivot of the hips and upper torso to maximize your overall striking force) and strike the skull firmly with the narrow edge (as opposed to the flat side) of the skillet, I'd be surprised to -not- shatter the relatively weak bones of the side of the skull. 

 

I think you're overestimating the strength and combat knowledge of the average person (which I figure is represented by a character with no traits).  Cast-iron skillets are heavy, and their shape makes them awkward to wield - especially with one hand.  I'm willing to bet that the majority of the population would NOT be able to wield it effectively with one hand as a weapon.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hammer is still a very effective one handed weapon. The force required to strike a skull crushing blow is relatively small compared to the weight of the weapon. Hammers are effective for that purpose even single-handed. Cast iron frying pans, whike unwieldy should produce the same affect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make the crowbar as a good blunt and bladed weapon for one handed use too.

 

Also a small hammer has a hooked backside, you can practically use that to kill a zombie by piercing their skull with it.

 

Actually, the curve of the average claw hammer makes the claw end a very ineffective weapon. A drywall hammer, on the other hand... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of whether some weapons are more effective one handed, its still a little iffy that I can carry a large hiking bag (Full) as my secondary while going full kill bill style on 50 zombies with my axe and spiked baseball bat 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well if your good enough to do that props with you, personally i will continue using 2-hands since it's clearly better. This is what you call balance, when something is good enough to be viable without being overbearing and everyone being forced to do it. People like me who prefer any edge in combat over carrying a couple of items will continue to use both hands while other people who want to be greedy and loot everything can use 1 hand. Nerfing something to non-existance so no one uses it is what you would call bad balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would not be bad balance at all. Right now carrying a very loaded bag in one hand, and a bag on your back, and still being able to fight dozens of zombies while sprinting and while having the weak trait is absolutely flawed, no argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...