With the class reveals thus far I have noticed a lack of Two handed Piercing skill. This would indicate that Spears, Javelins, Long Spears, other piercing polearms, light picks, war picks, pick axes and to a lesser degree morning star/spiked maces will not be a thing in game. This would also indicate that piercing damage will not be available for the tank classes and therefor physical damage types will not be relevant to combat.
Wanting to have many damage types on hand to switch to mid combat is a great way to provide a direction for horizontal progression. Tying physical damage types into the defenses and vulnerabilities of monsters is a great way to add reactive variations to combat.
Examples are as follows:
Slashing is strongest against unarmored opponents
Padded armor protects vs bludgeoning the best then slashing but is useless vs piercing
Leather armor provides a small defense against all damage types
Chain Armor is Strong against slashing, weak against piercing
Plate Armor is very strong against slashing and light piercing but does not provide much protection vs bludgeoning and is vulnerable to heavy piercing weapons.
Different monsters will have effective armor types that could possibly be discovered through the Perception system or lore spells. This would encourage weapon users to switch weapons as they are switching targets just like the casters may be switching go to spells based on the type of resistances the monsters may have.
Though physical and elemental resistances/damage reductions do not need to be on every mob they could easily be tied into the raid and challenging adventuring zones.
The reverse to this is "Is there a reason why they should exist?" It is only the Warrior that can use all weapons and the class description says it is designed around using a shield. The Paladin and DireLord would then be the only other classes that use of a 2 handed piercing weapon would even be viable yet the DireLord is designed around slashing. So you're down to just the Paladin 'missing' 2 handed piercing. So i fail to see where 2 handed piercing is necessary other than just 'flavor'.
There are three main reasons why I think heavy piercing weapons (meaning both non finesse able one hand piercing weapons and 2 hand piercing weapons) should exist. First is so that there are three physical damage types to tie into tactical combat choices. Second allow different class abilities to work differently depending on which damage type you have equipped which is a further tactical combat choice. Third and most importantly . . . . I like spears and spear styles so I would like to see them in the game.
Hoo boy, Trasak. Don't get me started.
https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/7049/spears
The fact that Pantheon - and so many other games out there - doesn't have spears is just mind boggling to me. I think they're second only to swords in prominence within our history, as well as functionality in warfare and hunting, and yet they're curiously missing from the lore of Pantheon. Makes no dag gum sense.
Vandraad said:The reverse to this is "Is there a reason why they should exist?" It is only the Warrior that can use all weapons and the class description says it is designed around using a shield. The Paladin and DireLord would then be the only other classes that use of a 2 handed piercing weapon would even be viable yet the DireLord is designed around slashing. So you're down to just the Paladin 'missing' 2 handed piercing. So i fail to see where 2 handed piercing is necessary other than just 'flavor'.
I mean, it's kinda the same thing. "Why are there no 2 hand piercing weapons?" is pretty much the same as, "why is 2 hand piercing not a viable option on any class(es)?", as they are directly related. So, fine, if you're worried about semantics I suppose the title of this could be,
Heavy Piercing Weapon, Is There A Reason It's Not Necessary?
I agree with Trasak and Tralyan. However, if Pantheon does get spears and polearms, I would really like to see them animated properly. I always got frustrated in EQ when characters would fight with a spear as if it were actually somehow a rapier. There *are* one-handed spears, but they are generally wielded very differently from the heavier two-handed variety.
The issue with spears, and why you see very little of them in most games is precisely what nephele pointed out. They are never utilized properly. They are considered the same as all melee weapons.
And if developers put the spears in. People ask them why a spear is the same as a sword in terms of attack distance and whatnot.
It's probably just not worth it to put them in, and I doubt most normal mobs will be affected or not affected by specific damage types. You might see a special circumstance for a raid mob (cragbeast queen anyone) but not for every mob.
I really suspect it comes down to animations and clipping issues (very long weapons) paired with limited numbers of piercing specific weapon options that would be 2-Handed. Pikes and maybe some others (lances were mostly a single use weapon for mounted combat & spears were often used 1-handed with a shield) but the rest would be polearms, a combination of slashing and piercing (and sometimes blunt). I'd love to see a lot of polearm options regardless.
I don't know how the humanoid damage resist balance would work. In my head it looks like:
Cloth/Unarmored = weak to all
Leather = neutral to all
Mail = strong vs piercing, neutral vs slashing, weak vs blunt
Plate = strong vs slashing, neutral vs piercing, weak vs blunt
This gives a lot of/too much value to blunt though, maybe it would be fine if a number of slashing weapons like swords could also do pierce damage which would mirror their real world versatility compared to the vast majority of blunt weapons. I don't know.
Mail should at the very least be strong against piercing, contrary to common belief mail armor was extremely strong vs piercing attacks in particular. It was also very strong against slashing weapons but they still could do damage by the blunt force trauma from impact.
I won't go into great detail. But in the broadest spectrum, the lack of Spears/Polearms in games drives me absolutely insane. They are age old types of weapons, more commonly used in military than even some swords were. Given the vast majority of thoughts that circle to spear goes to the "Pike" which are absolutely used to stop Cavalry and little else. However, there is.. a massive quantity of Spear/Polearm types. Even one of the basics is the Boar Spear, which is not only Thrusting, but also Slashing with incredible utility not only in one hand, but two. The Partisan is another mix.. Zulu Iklwa is yet another. Sadly, spears are relegated well below the Sword.
My best guess as to the reasons why? Personal opinion of course, is due to the way people draw inspiration. Which Spears off the top of anyones head can you recall from Mythology, History or even some Video Game or Board Games that use spears primarily that of legendary porportion? I cannot think of many, and I'm a huge spear person and often go out of my way to use them in games even if I stand at a disadvantage. When you think of a Sword? Right away, Excalibur, Masamune are just two immediate thoughts, even if they are radically different.
On top of this, animation wise.. people always dictate Spears down to. "I STAB MY ENEMY" Whereas a Sword.. has many options. I am aware this is somewhat off-topic to what was stated, but I think this is a big reason you see so many less Spears in games, both one hand and two hand. Even when you do see Spears, they are typically somewhat boring or held in dull ways or used in boring fashions. Swords are just so very prominent in culture.
That being said? More on point, I think there just isn't quite enough classes that will use a Two Hand Spear in this game, unless they put future classes out that have a focus with them, other than Warrior, Paladin.. there isn't many other options. They could feasibly consider giving Monk a type of two handed Polearm. I just don't believe there is enough applications, unless they make Spears some kind of hybrid of Thrust/Slash. I'd love to see them a Hybrid like that, but this is off-point and far more complex to even think about. Sorry for the round-about and off-point answer.
Polearms weapons were best utilzied en-masse, lines of soldiers shoulder to shoulder weapons pointing forward. This would keep enemies at a distance. It could also be used to pull a rider off a horse. Yet once an enemy got close to the soldier wielding the polearm, that soldier had to resort to another weapon for the close-in fight. A single soldier swinging l.ong bardiche,m Bec De Corbin or a pike, was not as formidable of an opponent because, by itself unsuported by soldiers to either side, the weapon had glaring weaknesses. Why those weapons were popular was they were incredibly simple to construct. A wood pole with a slightly modified farm implement stuck to the end.
Maybe VR will put in 2nd piercing weapons for some later class, who knows. But given that 2HP hasn't been mentioned once yet for any class I would be prepared to be disappointed.
Vandraad said:Polearms weapons were best utilzied en-masse, lines of soldiers shoulder to shoulder weapons pointing forward. This would keep enemies at a distance. It could also be used to pull a rider off a horse. Yet once an enemy got close to the soldier wielding the polearm, that soldier had to resort to another weapon for the close-in fight. A single soldier swinging l.ong bardiche,m Bec De Corbin or a pike, was not as formidable of an opponent because, by itself unsuported by soldiers to either side, the weapon had glaring weaknesses. Why those weapons were popular was they were incredibly simple to construct. A wood pole with a slightly modified farm implement stuck to the end.
Maybe VR will put in 2nd piercing weapons for some later class, who knows. But given that 2HP hasn't been mentioned once yet for any class I would be prepared to be disappointed.
Phalanx
Or those formations which were part polearm part firearm.
If we imagine that spears are REALLY GOOD en masse, in formations. Why use them as adventurers when we can use weapons better suited for our needs? Easier to carry such as swords or other one handed weapons, or more effective polearms such as halberds or other big two handed weapons.
Youmu said:If we imagine that spears are REALLY GOOD en masse, in formations. Why use them as adventurers when we can use weapons better suited for our needs? Easier to carry such as swords or other one handed weapons, or more effective polearms such as halberds or other big two handed weapons.
Ever hear a spear drag on a stone ceiling? uggggh
Thread was a bit busy while I was away.
I appreciate that many others are fans of spears like myself but I would like to bring back that I was mostly asking about piercing damage being one of the tactical damage types. The different names and forms of pick weapons all could easily be mapped to 1 handed or 2 handed axes animation wise. This would open up piercing damage to basically everyone but Dire lords who specifically want to cause bleeds with slashing damage.
Even if we do not try and match visual armor types to the best physical damage types the mobs themselves could have specific damage reduction vs one or more physical damage types, possibly even during different phases of the same fight.
SilkyWhip said:I think it was mentioned somewhere in a questionnaire with the devs, there's a posibility that a weapon have 2 damages types. Like a Polearm be a 2 handed slashing, and also piercing. Making it a halberd type. You might be getting what you want in an interesting way. =)
I seem to recall this as well, and the most damaging type will be used.
Vandraad said:Polearms weapons were best utilzied en-masse, lines of soldiers shoulder to shoulder weapons pointing forward. This would keep enemies at a distance. It could also be used to pull a rider off a horse. Yet once an enemy got close to the soldier wielding the polearm, that soldier had to resort to another weapon for the close-in fight. A single soldier swinging l.ong bardiche,m Bec De Corbin or a pike, was not as formidable of an opponent because, by itself unsuported by soldiers to either side, the weapon had glaring weaknesses. Why those weapons were popular was they were incredibly simple to construct. A wood pole with a slightly modified farm implement stuck to the end.
Maybe VR will put in 2nd piercing weapons for some later class, who knows. But given that 2HP hasn't been mentioned once yet for any class I would be prepared to be disappointed.
That is only true for maybe pikes. Polearms were primary weapons in combat while swords were mostly backup weapons in history, generally a sword would only be drawn if someone managed to break the polearm (also not simple, takes a few direct chops that miss the iron/steel langet). A polearm is a superior weapon to a sword and would not be swapped out unless broken.
The first advantage of the polearm is reach, you can hit very far very quickly. Second is where you can attack with a polearm, they can attack high to low or side to side extremely quickly with very small movements of the hand. Third is leverage since your hands are further apart, if weapons bind the polearm has superior push & leverage to get their weapon out of the way to get their point/edge into their opponent. And finally the thing people most often overlook/forget is that while yes polearms have long range, they can very very quickly retract the weapon to fight at sword distance as well.
Yes polearms could be cheaper/easier to make, but they were outstanding and versatile weapons. There is a reason they were the primary weapon of choice across the world, even samurai favored polearms (Yari/Naginata) for combat.
Let us not lose track of the fact that there is an enormous difference between what weapons were favored/effective depending on the form of combat.
To keep it simple, there were two primary situations. Massed combat, armies and the like. Individual or small unit combat. Either type could be done on foot or mounted.
Soldiers in the Greek phalanyx used large weapons typically - unwieldy for use but *very* good at keeping enemies at a distance and supporting the soldiers standing next to you.
Soldiers in the Roman legion typically used short sword and shield. Again, very good at supporting your fellows and controlling a very small area of battle while other soldiers in turn controlled their own areas.
Advance to the middle ages. We have armed and armored knights on horseback. Large weapons were essential to reach the man (very few women) and often with the goal of pulling/pushing him off of the horse rather than killing or severely injuring him outright.
Take conscript or volunteer armies assembled in time of need but as distinct from permanent standing armies. Standing armies were not historically common in earlier times. Training time was severely limited - you didn't mobilize two years before a war you typically mobilized right before it started - or after you were attacked. So weapons where the new soldier could learn the basics *fast* were important. Weapons that could be created and distributed *fast* were important. The shortsword or spear were typical solutions.
When you turn to people that spent their lives fighting and learning the skilled use of weapons the answers were very different. Especially if they typically went on their own not in in armies. This history is what a character in a MMO would look at for versimilitude.
Longsword over shortsword (or coupled with shortsword) - in a one on one fight range is critical and the "adventurer" had time to learn to handle the longsword well. So no need to settle for a shortsword where the basic can be learned much faster.
Quarterstaff (a far more effective weapon in the hands of an expert than many realize) or longsword over polearm typically. A long heavy weapon is *slow* and unwieldy. The enemy gets in close and you are at a huge disadvantage. Two enemies are far harder to fight with a heavy large weapon. Polearms are best against mounted enemies or in group combat. Other than the smallest and most manueverable types.
Nimbleness and speed is more valued in individual combat such as dueling of small scale skirmishes.
Sturdiness and impact force is more sought after in weapons used for mass scale battle.
This is one of the reasons we find both excellently balanced, light and fast swords together with big heaving cleavers from the same time, different tools for different tasks. As adventurers we are more of the former than the latter as pointed out above.
dorotea said:Quarterstaff (a far more effective weapon in the hands of an expert than many realize) or longsword over polearm typically. A long heavy weapon is *slow* and unwieldy. The enemy gets in close and you are at a huge disadvantage. Two enemies are far harder to fight with a heavy large weapon. Polearms are best against mounted enemies or in group combat. Other than the smallest and most manueverable types.
A polearm is pretty much a quarterstaff but also a spear and generally some kind of blade/blunt/pick.
This is another common misconception as polearms are not heavy (3-7lbs average), unwieldy, and definitely not slow. A person with a polearm isn't often exhausting tons of energy swinging it around (and leaving themselves open), they are thrusting which is very fast, accurate, and takes little energy. If you have a shovel or long rod/broom go pick it up and see how effortless it is to thrust compared to swinging. The speed comes mostly from the length; the longer the weapon the further you can move the tip for the same amount of movement of the hand. That's what makes pole weapons so hard to deal with; a tiny movement and you go from hitting the thigh to the face and back again.
Too much Hollywood romanticizing of swords, they were mostly sidearms (except things like a Zweihander).
A small general look:
(polearm vs. 2 swords) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqm-Kqp7zpw
(Quarterstaff but applicable to polearm) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHZKHmqa0KY
Iksar said:The first advantage of the polearm is reach, you can hit very far very quickly. Second is where you can attack with a polearm, they can attack high to low or side to side extremely quickly with very small movements of the hand. Third is leverage since your hands are further apart, if weapons bind the polearm has superior push & leverage to get their weapon out of the way to get their point/edge into their opponent. And finally the thing people most often overlook/forget is that while yes polearms have long range, they can very very quickly retract the weapon to fight at sword distance as well.
Yes, polearms have reach...in the real world. But this isn't a real world and it works under different rules. 'Melee range' is specific distance. You trying to use a weapon that would extend your melee range by, say, twice as far would then put the melee NPC out of its melee range. That would be unbalanced. So the NPC would need some means by which to get into range tp attack you so either it just takes a hit goes right into its melee range against you or it could just break your weapon or it could just pull out its own polearm.
Quick reply to Vandraad's post from my phone:
Reach weapons could be an interesting addition to the game in general. If the mob has a reach of a 1 handed weapon and is medium sized it will get in range of the person highest on its ago table. When it does any aoe attacks it is limited to a 1 handed weapon range.
If a player does not have agro and is wielding a reach weapon they could dps from outside of the reach of the mob and be safe from melee aoe. If the reach player gains ago and the mob closes to 1 handed range the dps of the reach weapon either completely stops ("you can't reach your target from here") or you could gain the close combat debuff where your damage drops in half if at close melee range.
This would require pretty good hit box vs combat range control and I just don't know what Unity can handle.
Cheers,