May 9, 2024: The May '24 Report is up.
News: April 23, 2024: Dwarf Fortress 50.13 has been released.
News: February 4, 2021: Dwarf Fortress Talk #28 has been posted.
News: November 21, 2018: A new Threetoe story has been posted.
Forum Guidelines
"Puny dwarf."After everything we have done? It will be a cold intelligence consumed with a desire to maximize efficiency at any cost, unfortunately humans are inefficient.
In case this occurs and it turns hostile, countermeasure S.C.A.M.P.S. will auto-initiate. He is humanity's last line of defense.
"If we can't protect the earth, you can be damn sure we'll catsplode it."
I can see attacks with a tail. I'd like to see a vanilla, non-limb grasper or stance on a creature with unches or kicks.Hm, new ideas. Let's dissect them and figure out which ones are the best!I've run into instances where that's not the case. There's modding too, but that's not as important (though being able to "punch" with a grasping tail or even a grasping MOUTH is a bit silly anyhow).Combat: Using multiple body parts/weapons at onceFirst off, hands/feet ARE the grasp/stance on everything that punches and kicks. Second off, probably planned, possibly underrealistic, quite certainly another layer of detail to be added for the noobs.
Stuff like an overhead smash using both hands held together, smashing two war hammers together on an opponent like a pincer, etc. Attacks that would not only allow but require all involved body parts to perform. (On a related note, why is punching/kicking determined by grasp/stance instead of hand/foot?)
Sounds like punching the head twice, in interface/game terms.QuoteAn uppercut followed by bringing the same fist down in an overhead blow?QuoteCombat: Attacks linking togetherLike...um...stabbing someone in the gut with a halberd, and then hitting someone else with his friend? (Okay, would require troll or kobold or something, but still.) I'd like some less-ludicrous examples.
Similar to the above idea, having attacks that could only be performed immediately after a specific attack (preferably being performed within the same action as the other attack). I don't quite know how to explain this one well, sadly. :<
I SAID strength should play a role. I never said it shouldn't, I just said that dwarves shouldn't be able to wield ludicrously oversized weapons. Especially considering their short limbs...QuoteIf a real-life person of, say, 6 feet can wield a 6-foot sword or a 7-foot spear, I think a dwarf should be able to wield the biggest weapons if they were strong enough. Considering dwarves can already technically get large enough to wield them, shouldn't strength play as much of a role as size?QuoteCombat/General: Separating body size from wielding capabilitiesI don't like this. Putting aside its modding uses, kobolds should NOT be able to pick up big dwarven waraxes and use them as weapons, and dwarves should have trouble with the larger human weapons as well. Strength should factor in, but you shouldn't be able to wield a sword meant for someone twice your size! (Except maybe through magical means.)
Shouldn't the ability to use a weapon be based more on strength than size? I mean, I dunno about you, but I'm a fairly large man, and I know people much smaller than me who can pick up bigger things.
Dwarves have NEVER been beaten for butchering cats. Maybe killing cats in a tantrum, but never butchery.QuoteI have seen and/or had all of the problems listed above, so trust me, they're not baseless. Maybe I was playing an outdated version at the time or something, I dunno.QuoteFortress: Make mandates and/or demands have some rhyme and reason to themDwarves don't get hammered for butchering cats, don't exaggerate! They also don't mandate materials anymore, and they won't until nobles know to make more reasonable mandates. Demands can be material-based, but they just result in unhappy thoughts for the noble if failed, not justice. Present the problem properly, and then suggest a solution. Personally, I think that dwarves should show some independant thought, especially the nobles.
No, nobles do not need and should not be allowed to ask for windows in their underground tombs. No, nobles do not need and should not be allowed to ask for platinum goods when there's not a single civilization in the entirety of the worldgen that has access to platinum, least of all the player. NO, NOBLES DO NOT NEED AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO ASK FOR TOY HAMMERS WHEN I CAN'T EVEN TELL MY CRAFTSDWARVES TO MAKE TOY HAMMERS. No, the soapmaker had nothing to do with production of a native gold armor stand or whatever, and nobles should not be allowed to arbitrarily punish someone completely unrelated to a mandate. No, a dwarf does not deserve 50 hammerings for butchering a cat. I honestly cannot for the life of me figure out how anyone can stand nobles' horribly retarded demands and punishments, let alone find them enjoyable to have as a game element. Frankly, I just removed demands from the raws altogether because of how infuriating they were.
Good luck getting there...I think we can agree that this should be possible, but not easy, to do on someone around your size.QuoteTrust me, they'll be far less angry when they're a puddle at the bottom of a 50-foot drop.QuoteCombat: Dragging/carrying targetsPlanned, but bear in mind that few angry goblins are going to be LESS angry if you drag them around.
Being able to literally drag your opponents along with you seems like a basic idea, but it would open up so many possibilities.
You'd be surprised at what objects can do to hurt people. Sure, harming someone with a sock should be less efficient that a sword, club, or fist, but it's possible.QuoteThe sock would probably tear apart if it hit hard enough to break a bone. Bruising, MAYBE. But tearing the skin and breaking bones? Nope.QuoteI fail to see why a sock, a leather one, at least, could do NO damage when wielded by a sufficiently strong being. Putting that aside, it seems that BCs and the like are too enthusiastic to use any clothes they rip off a dwarf as weapons. Maybe they just want to prolong the torment, but still.However, once that has been fixed, there's the matter of things still trying to use them as weapons. If an item won't do any damage whatsoever if used as a weapon, it should have a tag that prevents creatures from trying to use it as such.Combat: Why can socks be used as weaponsBecause they're items, and items can be weapons. The problem is mostly that they actually work, and that should be fixed.
It doesn't matter how hard you hit someone with a sock, you are NEVER going to do any damage to them. Period.
Yup. I had a miner who decided he couldn't go inside to mine because of a nearby giant badger, and then realised he was drowsy. The badger got angry. Thankfully, I had a backup.QuoteThey go to sleep if interrupted by angry animals that want to eat them?QuoteAI: Dwarves will refuse to go to sleep on trap tilesHeck, dwarves not going to sleep underwater would be nice. Or at least waking up before they drown. Also, dwarves shouldn't sleep if they cancelled their last job due to giant badgers. Dwarves are dumb in bed, or rather when they need a bed.
Nothing short of literally passing out from exhaustion would cause a dwarf to sleep on a trapped tile. Even if they hadn't slept in days and there was no bed, they would at least move to the nearest untrapped tile before falling asleep.
You mean like to some races it's only a mild poison, and instead of causing death and dismemberment it has psychoactive effects like a recreational drug, or maybe produces a relatively safe pain experience like a decent hot sauce? Would certainly make it valuable to races that feel it but don't die from it.I've heard people assuming that elves have gnomeblight for this purpose, presumably due to the fact that elves only seem to process rope reed into thread. (Then again, I've also heard someone implying that it could be used for...just read it yourself...
So if i'm avoiding steel for maces etc (presumably because steel is good for cutting, not bashing), what metal is better for it? Just the bronze or iron?Silver or copper. Same with shields.
