#269 Ghoul/troll claw damage tweak

diffs vs svn

Unarmed damage from strong creatures with natural claws (i.e., trolls and ghouls) gets a scaling bonus from Strength.


  • Eino Keskitalo
    Eino Keskitalo

    Rationale/pointer to discussion? I'm under the impression unarmed combat is strong already, and trolls and ghouls already get a bonus via the claws.


  • It's mostly just so that Strength has some effect on unarmed damage. The static bonus is lowered to account for the scaling ability bonus so that they start out almost exactly the same.

    Most of the reason behind this was that I find it odd that a creature with 3 Strength and 10 Dexterity will do exactly the same damage in unarmed combat as a creature with 30 Strength and 10 Dex. There would ideally be a specific Str/Dex weighed bonus to all forms of unarmed damage as there already is with weapons, but I don't know the game well enough to make a judgment of balance.

  • Vambola Kotkas
    Vambola Kotkas

    Aren't that strenght already applied elsewhere? Spriggan wizard (3 str) does feel terrible unarmed compared to deep dwarf makhlebite (15 str). Play it somewhat? Otherwise how you tweak if you can not judge the balance?

  • According to the code in fight.cc, any two characters with equal Dexterity scores, Unarmed skills and armor penalties would have exactly the same to-hit chance and damage bonus in combat regardless of Strength. (Not counting racial attributes: claws/horns/etc.) And I have played it. The "balance" comment was merely to say that, although it's possible for me to not mess up small tweaks like this one, I am nowhere near qualified to rewrite the entire unarmed combat system.

    I should clarify that my issue isn't due to any kind of perceived balance problem. As it works now, unarmed combat is already a viable character option. It just bothers me very slightly that Strength is completely detached from the unarmed combat system. If there were a way to account for it while ensuring that the relative power of the Unarmed skill would neither increase nor decrease, that would be perfect.

    - original poster (and the previous "nobody")