Subject: "RE: addendum. txt" Previous topic | Next topic
Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend CF Website
Top General Discussions Gameplay Topic #20346
Show all folders

ZulghinlourWed 16-Jan-08 09:09 PM
Member since 04th Mar 2003
9792 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list
#20355, "RE: addendum. txt"


          

>1. Does a dagger spec wielding one dagger (primary wield) get
>more concealed attacks than a dagger spec wielding two
>daggers, all else being equal?

See: http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=3&topic_id=1276&mesg_id=1276&page=

>2. Do spec moves initiated from the off-hand via Balance of
>the Sisters operate at a reduced rate of success, compared to
>if the weapon was the primary wield?

I don't think so. The way I remember the code, is it just skips around the check that would say "You need to wield an axe in your mainhand to whirl." if you have balance, and the rest of the code executes normally.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote

HOT Topicthree for one post! [View all] , Isildur, Thu 24-Jan-08 11:26 PM
Reply RE: three for one post!, Zulghinlour, 16-Jan-08 09:06 PM, #6
Reply RE: three for one post!, Eskelian, 17-Jan-08 01:11 AM, #13
Reply Sneaking failing for thieves and assassins., oero, 16-Jan-08 07:47 PM, #3
Reply Please stop answering questions..., Zulghinlour, 16-Jan-08 09:02 PM, #5
Reply Captain Contrary strikes again. -nt-, oero, 16-Jan-08 09:43 PM, #9
     Reply Or maybe zulgh and the entire community don't want newb..., Scrimbul, 17-Jan-08 12:02 AM, #11
          Reply RE: Or maybe zulgh and the entire community don't want ..., Isildur, 17-Jan-08 12:10 AM, #12
               Reply Yes, but even you know this isn't some macro level 'if ..., Scrimbul, 17-Jan-08 02:21 AM, #14
               Reply RE: Yes, but even you know this isn't some macro level ..., oero, 17-Jan-08 06:20 AM, #16
                    Reply RE: Why you're going away., Valguarnera, 17-Jan-08 07:24 AM, #17
                    Reply RE: Why you're going away., Eskelian, 17-Jan-08 03:13 PM, #19
                    Reply No, YOUR overpowered., GinGa, 17-Jan-08 08:18 PM, #22
                    Reply Hey Valg. txt, Gabe, 17-Jan-08 03:16 PM, #20
                         Reply Hahhah. I've restrained doing that twice already., DurNominator, 17-Jan-08 03:25 PM, #21
                    Reply RE: Yes, but even you know this isn't some macro level ..., Daevryn, 17-Jan-08 10:05 AM, #18
                    Reply Thanks for proving I did the right thing (n/t), Zulghinlour, 20-Jan-08 01:14 PM, #24
                    Reply Okay - Gotta jump in here..., Zargu, 23-Jan-08 04:35 AM, #25
                         Reply Re: Pictures of Zulg..., Zulghinlour, 23-Jan-08 11:41 AM, #26
                              Reply No. Not THAT one. The OTHER one. nt, Nivek1, 23-Jan-08 04:27 PM, #27
                                   Reply I call it "Tree Pixie" nt, Isildur, 23-Jan-08 09:13 PM, #28
               Reply This is Zulghinlour you're talking about, oero, 17-Jan-08 06:21 AM, #15
                    Reply You've got to be f*cking kidding me..., Twist, 17-Jan-08 01:13 PM, #30
Reply Actually you don't because we banned you. Again, incognito, 20-Jan-08 11:33 AM, #23
Reply You don't follow QHCF....txt, Gabe, 17-Jan-08 03:17 PM, #29
Reply Gotta agree with the others here..., colospgsbryan, 25-Jan-08 07:39 PM, #31
Reply addendum. txt, Isildur, 16-Jan-08 05:39 PM, #1
     Reply RE: addendum. txt, _Magus_, 16-Jan-08 07:25 PM, #2
     Reply RE: addendum. txt, Isildur, 16-Jan-08 08:22 PM, #4
     Reply RE: addendum. txt, Zulghinlour, 16-Jan-08 09:09 PM #7
          Reply RE: addendum. txt, Isildur, 16-Jan-08 09:30 PM, #8
               Reply Next time, just listen to me. nt, Dallevian, 16-Jan-08 10:23 PM, #10
Top General Discussions Gameplay Topic #20346 Previous topic | Next topic