« Return to Thread: Nerfed crossbows?
Re: Nerfed crossbows?
by Silas Dunsmore
::
Rate this Message:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:43:04AM +0100, J. Ali Harlow wrote:
> On 2007-08-14 04:45:42 AM, Silas Dunsmore wrote:
> >I have noticed that crossbows are severely underpowered compared to
> >Nethack. Is this intentional?
>
> Just a quick response to this since I'm feeling guilty about the number
> of messages from you that I still haven't replied to!
>
> It seems right to me that an expert archer should be able to use a bow
> and arrow more effectively than a crossbow (even though this may not be
> historically accurate). For an untrained archer the crossbow should
> certainly be more effective. It should also be the case that training
> with crossbows has less benefit than bows since it involves less skill.
Mm hmm, but remember that Rangers get multishot on all projectiles,
including daggers, darts, shuriken, sling stones, and firearm ammo. So
crippling only the crossbow's multishot seems odd.
If we're arguing from reality, crossbows should be easy to aim and fire
once, but take a long time to reload, possibly with a strength modifier.
I could definately see using a loaded crossbow as a battle opener, then
swapping over to a hand-to-hand weapon.
But if we go that route, the bolts should do a _lot_ more than d4 small/
d6 large.
> I'd want to check whether there is any justification for the different
> effects under FIREARM. It does seem odd to me at first sight.
I think one major gripe I have with the firearm code is this:
if (objects[(launcher->otyp)].oc_rof)
multishot += (objects[(launcher->otyp)].oc_rof - 1);
This means that a rof of 1 is the same as a rof of 0. And an rof of -1
has an actual penalty of -2. You cannot specify a rof that will have a
penalty of -1. Inconsistent.
I'm glad to get some dialog going; let's hear from the rest of you!
--
Later, eh? Silas
Narrator: There is no camera trickery in this shot. The human eye would
have seen just what the camera saw. The room was designed by a
master psychologist, Albert Ames, to illustrate how the brain
interprets what the eyes see.
NARRATOR and MIDGET walk toward each other and become their "normal" sizes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Slashem-devel mailing list
Slashem-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/slashem-devel
> On 2007-08-14 04:45:42 AM, Silas Dunsmore wrote:
> >I have noticed that crossbows are severely underpowered compared to
> >Nethack. Is this intentional?
>
> Just a quick response to this since I'm feeling guilty about the number
> of messages from you that I still haven't replied to!
>
> It seems right to me that an expert archer should be able to use a bow
> and arrow more effectively than a crossbow (even though this may not be
> historically accurate). For an untrained archer the crossbow should
> certainly be more effective. It should also be the case that training
> with crossbows has less benefit than bows since it involves less skill.
Mm hmm, but remember that Rangers get multishot on all projectiles,
including daggers, darts, shuriken, sling stones, and firearm ammo. So
crippling only the crossbow's multishot seems odd.
If we're arguing from reality, crossbows should be easy to aim and fire
once, but take a long time to reload, possibly with a strength modifier.
I could definately see using a loaded crossbow as a battle opener, then
swapping over to a hand-to-hand weapon.
But if we go that route, the bolts should do a _lot_ more than d4 small/
d6 large.
> I'd want to check whether there is any justification for the different
> effects under FIREARM. It does seem odd to me at first sight.
I think one major gripe I have with the firearm code is this:
if (objects[(launcher->otyp)].oc_rof)
multishot += (objects[(launcher->otyp)].oc_rof - 1);
This means that a rof of 1 is the same as a rof of 0. And an rof of -1
has an actual penalty of -2. You cannot specify a rof that will have a
penalty of -1. Inconsistent.
I'm glad to get some dialog going; let's hear from the rest of you!
--
Later, eh? Silas
Narrator: There is no camera trickery in this shot. The human eye would
have seen just what the camera saw. The room was designed by a
master psychologist, Albert Ames, to illustrate how the brain
interprets what the eyes see.
NARRATOR and MIDGET walk toward each other and become their "normal" sizes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Slashem-devel mailing list
Slashem-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/slashem-devel
« Return to Thread: Nerfed crossbows?
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
