Kinesthetic sense includes depth perception, as well, I believe. I should have included that too, really, but the idea is that they be two separately tracked skills--depth perception is important when using a sword or a spear, by the way, not just when aiming a ranged weapon (which might have been why Odin needed a magic spear that never missed it's target--his own targeting had been compromised).
So, you could have depth perception, as a skill, with 2 eyed characters; plain sight, as an ability, which cyclopes would still have;
and pro
prioception (sorry, see above post), which everyone would have, but that might be trained extensively, as a skill, when "blind-fighting".
Actually, the more I read about it (it was really late last night, when I stumbled upon the concept), pro
prioception wouldn't necessarily include the awareness of others around you, so it may not be what the game would use to track whether someone's sneaking up behind you, or how well you would respond to being flanked.
That would be situational awareness, which is also important, as it tracks both others/objects entering your personal space (and how fast), and other environmental elements, with respect to both time,
and space.
Situational awareness would be the mental skill which would go hand-in-hand with the physical skill of dodging, and it would also be the skill used for shooting at a moving target, and the "trainable skill" part of a being's reflexes and reaction-time.
You could even add body awareness, as a skill that measure how aware a dwarf is of their overall sensitivity to their own health and condition (as opposed to the diagnostician skill), which might seem like an obvious thing, but considering the suicidal nature of dwarfs, the appearance in the game of beings that go berserk, as well as the presence of syndromes and poisons, it might be a very useful skill, that would govern at what point a dwarf begins to realize they are in danger, and to make the judgement that it's time to take steps to put themselves out of danger.
This would directly work
against the emotion of fear, although that may sound at first counter-intuitive, because it would allow the dwarf, etc. to make rational assessments, rather than just react on a primitive level, to fear stimuli.
This would lead to pain tolerance, as an inherent ability, and pain conditioning--training to increase a being's ability to endure pain, and in particular, to continue making rational, logical decisions, while under duress--as a skill.
Drifting further from the topic: Fear could be a measured condition as well, and really should be, I think. Courage could be the inherent ability to resist fear, with bravery as the skill to increase that resistance, and discipline being a skill that, in part, increases resistance to fear, while in a disciplined squad.
To take it back to the topic: discipline could also measure the "balance" of a group, while in formation, and the ability to
remain in an effective formation. It could also measure a being's ability to stay on guard, while tired, and not be distracted by pain, worry, or other factors (and even the ability to awaken quickly and alertly, when there's a danger).
Also,
fighting a group does use different techniques than fighting an individual. I'm not just quoting 'Princess Bride', either, I've been jumped a few times in my misspent youth, by both individuals, and by up to 7 people at a time, and you do have to fight differently, and react differently.
It's a different skill, and one that dwarfs would need, since they're short enough to already be at a disadvantage in group-fighting, and they have low numbers, so fighting groups is just something that would naturally happen.
A group, unless trained to fight together, reacts more slowly, with less balance (they get in each other's way, which, in addition to my own training, saved me), so there should additionally be a tracker for squads, and how used they are to fighting together.
That would leave us with:
Depth perception:
The ability to judge visual depth. Used mainly to aim at and hit a target with precision, but does not replace skill with a weapon, which requires muscle training, among many other factors. Good depth perception should also benefit a dodger, to atleast a degree.
Proprioception:
The skill of sensing your body's position, in terms of where it's parts are all at, in relation to itself, and each separate part; and the strength of effort being used to move each of them. This would be an overriding skill when vision is rendered ineffective, and it also would also greatly affect armour wearing, and martial skills (especially wrestling, I should think, but even archers would need this to a degree, as how you hold your body can greatly affect your aim, from thrown weapons to bows, crossbows, and even pistols and rifles.); and it would also affect balance, the dodging skill, and any trap-evasion.
Situational Awareness:
The perception of environmental elements with respect to time and/or space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status after some variable has changed, such as time, or some other variable, such as a predetermined event. This would go hand-in-hand with dodging, reaction time, and even some administrative skills.
Body Awareness:
The perception of one's current state of health, and ability to rationally measure when one can keep fighting, and when it's time to retreat. Also measures awareness of when you are poisoned, diseased, etc.
Group Fighting:
The ability of an individual to fight effectively against a hostile group.
and Tactics:
The ability of a group of individuals to fight effectively together as a unit, at squad-level. The tactics of an overall unit might be measured as being at the skill-level of the dwarf with the lowest tactical skill in that group, so that the skill could still be measured in the same manner as other skills in the game. In other words, if you make an 8-dwarf squad, and 7 have Legendary tactics, and one only has Novice tactics, their skill while in that squad should all be measured as Novice, until that one dwarf improves.
Along with:
Balance,
Concentration,
Stress,
and Discipline.
Possibly also:
Center of gravity,
Reflexes,
Fear,
Courage
and Sight (Visual Acuity? I think it would be truly awesome if DF actually tracked whether our dwarfs possessed 20/20 vision.), as abilities and conditions that these skills work upon.
NW_Kohaku: I'm not certain I understand the problem with the bridges, other than support arches not possessing brains, complex or otherwise.
I'm guessing it has to do with the idea that different bridges designed to span different gulfs would require different means of support, but that's just a guess.
Helarl: It's harder to get a big body to
start moving, that's absolutely true, and a good point, but once you do, it's also harder to get it to
stop moving, as well, and harder for a big body to recover.
Better balance equaling slower movement and less ability to react is another good point, too.
Hammers, war picks, and spiked maces and flails were great for foiling plate, even axes could do a good job, but they weren't as versatile as a sword, and not as good in single combat, or for parrying.
It's interesting (to me, anyway) how different swords (and arguably maces, see below) really were, in terms of culture and origin, than almost any other weapon.
There were almost never any straight
swords that were real tools (The flensing knife, and the hunting sword are the only exceptions I can think of, both designed for killing/butchering, and you could
maybe make an argument for the pool-cue--I don't count machetes and the like, because they really grew out of the desire for a tool that combined the versatility of a knife, with the power of an axe--There could have never been a single battle, ever, and a pacifistic culture might still have invented the machete in roughly the same amount of time), and almost every other weapon grew out of a tool, from poignards to flails to pole-arms.
I think swords grew from sickles, although my dad thinks they were always weapons, and grew out of clubs, which is quite reasonable. I just disagree.
Maces are another exception, but they were culturally more of a symbol of
power (atleast after the Egyptians got their hands on swords), than a pure symbol of war. Kings wear crowns, and hold spheres (representing the world) and scepters (representing their power over it), which are just fancy maces. If my dad's right, then maces would be even more of a
weapon (as opposed to a
tool), than even the sword.
Anyway...finally...my point is...
There were a class of big swords (generally bastard sword-sized), specifically designed to pierce plate. An example would be the French espadon. These were big enough to be used with one hand or both, as bashing weapons, but were fairly thin, unsharpened atleast near the hilt, so you could grab the blade itself and press on it, attaining greater leverage in close combat thrusting/impaling, and had needle points.
