Difference between revisions of "Talk:Katana"

From NetHackWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Twoweaponing)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
==Skill in off-hand weapon?==
 
==Skill in off-hand weapon?==
  
The current revision contains the edit comment "Removed the sentence about twoweaponing, because skill in the off-hand weapon doesn't matter." However, according to the [[Twoweapon]] article, skill in the off-hand weapon does matter for damage calculations (not for to-hit calculations). I suggest re-introducing the deleted sentence or adding a different, more specific explanation. [[User:Djao|djao]] 08:50, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
+
The bonus to hit for a masterwork weapon being +1 is something from D&D 3.0 onwards.  I very highly doubt the devs took D&D 3.x into account when they put katanas into the game.
 +
 
 +
[[Special:Contributions/71.236.214.36|71.236.214.36]] 05:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
The current revision contains the edit comment "Removed the sentence about twoweaponing, because skill in the off-hand weapon doesn't matter." However, according to the [[Twoweapon]] article, skill in the off-hand weapon does matter for damage calculations (not for to-hit calculations). I suggest re-introducing the deleted sentence or adding a different, more specific explanation. [[User:Djao|djao]] 08:50, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
 
: Done. [[User:Djao|djao]] 12:56, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
 
: Done. [[User:Djao|djao]] 12:56, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
 +
:
 +
:
 +
:

Revision as of 05:54, 1 July 2010

Skill in off-hand weapon?

The bonus to hit for a masterwork weapon being +1 is something from D&D 3.0 onwards. I very highly doubt the devs took D&D 3.x into account when they put katanas into the game.

71.236.214.36 05:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC)


The current revision contains the edit comment "Removed the sentence about twoweaponing, because skill in the off-hand weapon doesn't matter." However, according to the Twoweapon article, skill in the off-hand weapon does matter for damage calculations (not for to-hit calculations). I suggest re-introducing the deleted sentence or adding a different, more specific explanation. djao 08:50, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Done. djao 12:56, December 21, 2009 (UTC)