Talk:Swords

Suggest that Swords redirect to Melee Weapons. Content describing different attack styles could be copied over. Vissith 18:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Only on rare occasions, I say no. I say no to this merge. There is a page for Hammers, Pickaxes, and Axes, swords are another type of those. Melee weapons include Staff of Regrowth and demonite items. We can put "See also Melee Weapons". But to be consistent this page needs to be named Swords. N u l l ( T - C ) 05:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't make sense to merge, while swords are melee weapons, not all melee weapons are swords. They deserve their own category/page.

Staff of regrowth
I say it isn't a sword. You could say it acts like an axe, if you're going there. Just add it to Melee Weapons and remove it from this classification. --JonTheMon 16:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't a tool since it can't dismantle world tiles, and it isn't a spear since it doesn't jab. It does cause damage to enemies via an overhead swing.How exactly is it not a broadsword, other than in its name?  Equazcion  ( talk ) 16:21, 18 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * If they added a spiked club that swings overhead and doesn't dismantle world tiles, would that also be a sword? And I don't know of any swords that have a non-damage ability. --JonTheMon 16:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If they did that they'd probably add other similar items and we'd have another subcategory under melee for them. All the melee weapons fall under some other subcategory: tool, spear, shortsword, broadsword. Granted it's unique in that it has a non-attack function, but listings here are generally inclusive rather than exclusive; just because an item appears in one list doesn't mean it can't serve extra functions. One of the functions this one does serve, though, fits the broadsword description.  Equazcion ( talk ) 16:32, 18 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when are listings so inclusive that you add something that doesn't make sense? It swings and does damage. Why not make a new classification for it? --JonTheMon 16:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it swings, does damage to enemies, but does not dismantle world tiles. Such items are called broadswords, at least here; the Muaramasa and several others are not named so in the game, and some aren't even called swords. You could classify weapons based on their names and graphics, and end up with some significant changes to this wiki; but if you're going by function, this is a broadsword as much as any other is. Aside from its name and graphics, you've offered no real reason to exclude it here.  Equazcion ( talk ) 16:48, 18 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * So the fact that it says it's a "Staff" doesn't matter? Anyhow, this isn't going anywhere w/o someone else commenting. --JonTheMon 16:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah that would be the "name" argument again. But yes let's see if anyone else has something to say.  Equazcion ( talk ) 16:55, 18 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * I know we're waiting for outside input, but I wanted to point out one relevant example with the same issue: the Space Gun. It's a gun in appearance and name (ALSO listed under Guns, and I would have no problem with the Staff being listed somewhere else in addition), but is still included under Magic Weapons purely due to the way it functions: it consumes Mana rather than ammunition. Nothing in its superficial characteristics (name, appearance) point to it being a magic weapon, just as nothing superficial about the Staff of Regrowth points to it being a Broadsword. But since information purposes are best served here by classifying based on functionality, it's included under Magic Weapons.  Equazcion ( talk ) 18:14, 18 Aug 2011 (UTC)

So I'm the tie breaker here or whatever? Well, I'm going to go with "unique melee weapon, not a sword", since it's called a staff and I don't see no blade. If it quacks like a duck, but doesn't look like one, then it probably isn't a duck. Sword, I mean. --Lunboks 18:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How bout the Space Gun then? Should we move that out of Magic Weapons? Why or why not?  Equazcion ( talk ) 18:31, 18 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it uses mana. That's kind of how the game decided whether a weapon is magic or not until 1.0.6. Now, each weapon is, internally, individually categorized, and the Space Gun is&hellip; still a magic weapon. The tooltip says "17 magic damage". It doesn't really count as a gun; it doesn't do ranged damage, and the Arms Dealer won't acknowledge it with showing up. --Lunboks 18:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, response to Lunboks): Right, its underlying functionality makes it a magic weapon. It doesn't look ("quack") like a Magic Weapon though. I see nothing particularly magical about it. It just looks like a futuristic gun, and is even named as such. Why list it under Magic Weapons if it quacks like something else?  Equazcion ( talk ) 18:50, 18 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * Because magic is one of the three big categories that actually have an impact on something. Whether you could call the Staff of Regrowth a sword -- who cares? It's a melee weapon and does melee damage. Likewise, the Space Gun is a magic weapon and does magic damage, and that's a fact. If I chug a Magic Power Potion, it's going to do more damage. --Lunboks 18:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Broadsword" weapons also have a significant difference from other weapons in the way they're wielded. To categorize them as something else suggests that there's a functional difference that excludes it from the broadsword's swung-overhead nature. I don't think the reason we categorize broadswords in a list this way is merely to note their similar appearance -- it's to list all items that attack in the same manner. How does it serve readers to do otherwise?  Equazcion ( talk ) 19:01, 18 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * So people are gonna think "hey, it's not a broadsword, then why is it swinging overhead to damage"? --JonTheMon 19:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's so that when people want to know what a weapon does before acquiring it, they can get an ideal picture. That's one of the functions of these lists, aside from the fun of putting up pretty pictures of things that look alike. If they know a weapon is a broadsword, one of which they're likely to have already encountered, they will know how it functions.  Equazcion ( talk ) 20:05, 18 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * So they go to the Staff of Regrowth page and it tells them it's a swinging motion similar to a broadsword. --JonTheMon 20:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, just like if they go to any other item of any other category they can find a verbal description rather than categories and listings. The categories and listings make it easier to find items that have these things in common though, which is why they're there -- again, not just to group similar names and graphics.  Equazcion ( talk ) 20:15, 18 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * So because broadswords cover almost all of the "melee weapons with swinging motion" we have to make all weapons that fall under that "swords"? We can't just leave it under the former categorization? --JonTheMon 21:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if there were more melee swinging weapons then we could simply rethink the "swords" page title or create a separate grouping, but as I said it makes no sense rethink a whole page title or create another grouping for this one item merely due to its dissimilar appearance. It doesn't constitute a significant game aspect. There was no former categorization, as far as I'm aware; at least not in terms of a wiki page listing. Again lists are inclusive so it can be under any page where it fits, this one included; and if you can think of others it applies to then feel free -- I'm not saying it "can't" be somewhere, I'm saying it can be here.  Equazcion ( talk ) 21:46, 18 Aug 2011 (UTC)


 * @the Staff of Regrowth conversation: If we're going for categorising them, I'd say base it on attack style. There would be swinging (Muramasa, Staff of Regrowth), stabbing (shortswords), lancing (Dark Lance, Trident), and flail(ing) (Sunfury). The page Swords would show weapons which are technically swords (in appearance). This way, functionality and technicality would be fulfilled. &bull; iLiaWneK &bull; T &bull; C &bull; 18:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be a little confusing and invite frequent edits to "fix" the inconsistency if the categories and page listings don't match up. Perhaps the "Swords" page could be renamed to "Swinging weapons", but I think that would be less intuitive to readers.  Equazcion ( talk ) 18:55, 18 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Vissith, should Swords redirect to Melee Weapons Turner 19:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Who's Vissith? I think it's still valuable to subcategorize the melee weapons, but it should be done based on function, not on appearance, just like everything else already is. I'm not sure why it should be different here. The fact that this item doesn't look like a sword is bothering certain people for some reason. It fits the wiki's standard for swords, which is the easiest way to refer to the grouping because it predominately consists of "swords". So one of them doesn't look like one -- is this really such a big deal? Do we need to create a separate list for this one item because it looks different, despite its identical attack style? (rhetorical question)  Equazcion ( talk ) 20:39, 18 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * Sword isn't just a functional category, it's also based on appearance. Would it make you happy if we added a column to Melee Weapons that defined what kind of melee attack it was? --JonTheMon 21:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...as are the Gun and Magic Weapon lists, but since lists are inclusive of function and appearance rather than exclusive of one or the other, the Space Gun appears in both -- as the Staff should similarly be included here for the same reason. And that column already exists there but thanks for the thought; it still does not dissuade the argument for having it here.  Equazcion ( talk ) 21:39, 18 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * Magic weapon is a simple "does it use magic" and gun is "does it look like a gun and fire like a gun". There isn't any confusion there. Sword is "does it look and act like a sword". If you're gonna take away the "look" part, might as well just have melee weapons w/o any other categorization. But we do categorize by appearance, so the staff doesn't belong here. --JonTheMon 15:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be some confusion regarding Space Gun, since it looks like a gun and fires like a gun but the game doesn't consider it a gun. We do categorize by both function and appearance, it would seem, so the staff does indeed belong here.  Equazcion ( talk ) 15:16, 19 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * The function of the staff is not just swinging: it's main (arguably) function is as a magic item that makes grass; nothing to do with damage or swinging. --JonTheMon 15:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's speculation :) And a hearty helping of it, at that.  Equazcion ( talk ) 15:38, 19 Aug 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's take a look at the attributes of the staff and compare them to swords/broadswords And how is saying what it can do speculation? The priority of functions might be questionable, but it is arguable that the damage is a secondary effect at this point. Before the nerf it was definitely more questionable. --JonTheMon 15:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So your point is both arguable and questionable? I'd have to agree. As far as where the speculation comes in, it's when you make a claim regarding what it "mainly" does, a speculation regarding priority which, in your words is quite questionable and entirely speculative. Even if that weren't speculation, I'm again not claiming it doesn't do other things and can't possibly fit other roles. It belongs here as well, though, as it fits this one.


 * The bottom line is that categorizing by function serves an actual purpose and makes this wiki more useful to readers. From a documentation standpoint, the point of categorization is not to group things that look alike. That doesn't serve people looking for real information on how to play the game. We make certain allowances for fan cruft because it's a game site and there's going to be a degree of that, as putting something called a gun in the gun category even though it's not actually a gun in the game. If we're going to categorize inclusively by appearance and function then so be it, but certainly not exclusively the former. Taking the more scientific approach is what separates this site from a mere run-of-the-mill fan club that makes lists of stuff merely so that people can brag they have "all the swords, see?" without having to have this ugly "staff" thing in their view. This is documentation, the "official" wiki, and should rise above that sort of superficial inclination. <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 16:03, 19 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it professional or official to call something a sword that isn't a sword? propose renaming swords or getting rid of the page altogether, but don't call it something when it isn't. --JonTheMon 16:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a sword. It may not look like one but its functionality fits the description. You can keep saying "but it's not a sword" if you like, but it doesn't help your position. I'm not claiming it looks like a sword, but rather the fact that it doesn't look like a sword means diddly. <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 16:51, 19 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * In Melee Weapons Staff of Regrowth have 20 damage, in swords, have 7. Which one is right? Turner 17:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's 7 since the 1.0.6 update. <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 17:48, 19 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * So if a staff is a sword, then a sword isn't a sword, it's just a swinging weapon. Giving a specific naming to something that doesn't matter isn't logical. Let's just rename the page to "Swing and Stab Weapons". Mostly, at this point I'm just trying to convince you before I remove it, since no-one else has agreed with your point. --JonTheMon 18:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My personal approach to this situation is to scrap the Swords page altogether and redirect it to the Melee Weapons page. There isn't anything in the actual game that categorises these weapons as swords; they're only here because they have the appearance and name to suggest they are swords. There is nothing unique about a sword which merits its own page, a page which serves an almost identical purpose to the Melee Weapons page. &bull; iLiaWneK &bull; T &bull; C &bull; 18:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an option, but not quite in line with the conversation (you'd need the section above this). And an issue with that is the Melee Weapons page would need to become more of an article, and you'd also need to address the fact that there are pages for Axe and Hammer but not Sword. But, if the consensus is to keep a Swords page, does Staff of Regrowth belong on it? --JonTheMon 18:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it's an option, but the fan cruft variable will dictate that fans will inevitably create a page that lists "swords". A staff is a sword and a sword is a sword, again based on functionality. It's just not an exciting sword, which is really what the argument against boils down to, especially since it was nerfed. Being that we're playing a balancing act between what fans want to see and what will be useful to people looking for useful information on how to play, it makes the most sense to have an existing Swords page, and being that there's only one functional sword that doesn't look like one, to simply include it here rather than busting balls over the fact that it doesn't have the word "blade" in its name or some similarly silly superficial thing. <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 18:31, 19 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * Well a staff certainly is a weapon. It's not a sword though. A sword is ALWAYS bladed. A staff is a long stick used for melee combat. There is no category in Terraria that says it's a sword either. Let's not put it on this page, but somehow talk about it on the page, such as a "see also" or something. I actually agree with merging the pages, because, as stated above, there is no official category for swords and melee weapons has every sword PLUS spears, warhammers, etc., which ALSO means we should probably merge Spears. 19:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as a side note, the Phaseblade is actually more of a staff. Even in the Star Wars films from which it is derived, despite its name, it was always cylindrical rather than a blade, the implication being its cuts were caused by extreme heat, similar to a laser (it cauterized wounds and melted metal). If we're going by blade or no blade, it doesn't belong here, assuming we keep this swords page around. I'm fine with merging though since it more accurately falls in line with the in-game conventions (so long as the merged page doesn't develop sections for "swords" etc and the same argument crops up again). <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 20:05, 19 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Cause a staff is supposed to cut... or perhaps bludgeon instead... and a lightSABER curts.... anyhow, Null, that's kinda an about-face from your position above. It might help us come to a decision if you can give an idea of how you got from A to B. --JonTheMon 20:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...just as a laser cuts, without having a blade. <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 20:11, 19 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * Cuts, not bludgeons. --JonTheMon 20:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The only agreement anybody has had in this discussion seems to be regarding merging this page into Melee Weapons. If we can't come to a consensus, that seems to be the most favourable option (unless we can throw more opinions into the mix). &bull; iLiaWneK &bull; T &bull; C &bull; 10:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a short note: I'm against merging it into Melee. Any comments seeming positive towards that point were for considerations if it were to happen or making another option heard. --JonTheMon 19:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Though it may not be everyone's ideal solution, this isn't an ideal situation, which is what compromises are for. Nearly everyone who came to comment stated they'd be alright with a merge (yes, even if they stated other thoughts as well), so it makes sense to do that. <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 07:37, 21 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. &bull; iLiaWneK &bull; T &bull; C &bull; 09:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

happypal (talk &bull; contribs) 14:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Phaseblades (AKA Light Sabers) are considered "Swords, from the future!". Even if they don't have the traditional metal blade mechanics, for all intents and purposes, they are swords. After all, they are called Light Saber / Phaseblade.
 * Staff of regrowth should not appear in swords because it isn't one. It is as simple as that. It can appear in melee weapons though.
 * Staff of regrowth is just a weapon that is in its own unique category. I happens in every game that there is a special unique weapon. Not everything has to be categorized.
 * I see absolutely no reason to merge. Swords is a specialized subpage of Melee Weapons, hence the text paragraphs discussing the weapons. It stands on its own, and it would make no sense to merge it. You can link each other in a see also section though.
 * There's no reason to have a "specialized" list of swords that stands on its own. The only possible use it could have is if swords differ in some significant way from other melee weapons as to merit such specialized treatment. If we're to say that they do since they wield in a unique way (the only significant difference), the staff is then one of them. Again the methodology I'm promoting here is what will be the most useful; and though I can of course see how people might feel that "hey it's not a sword", I think a scientific classification system based on adherence to technical aspects makes the wiki more valuable to players. <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 22:10, 24 Aug 2011 (UTC)

Expanding the stats
I've added 4 more columns to the table, for Reach, knockback, speed, and use time. I filled them with placeholder ?'s to start and am gathering the numbers from the individual sword pages. However these are incomplete and I'm not sure how accurate. In particular, most swords list a use time of 100, but a few (for example iron broadsword) list a far lower number (21 in this case); surely either the 100s or the shorter numbers must be wrong (I'm now leaning toward the 100 must be wrong if most cases). (Did the way use time is measured change at one point?) I've listed these use times anyway, because it makes it obvious how messed up they are and may motivate someone with the means to do accurate measurements to clean them up.

I'm not yet sure how to measure reach, but perhaps in blocks.

"Speed" is meant to measure the same thing as use time, but in the broad terms that appear in the game ("slow", "very slow"). I think this is nice to have for comparison. I've add the ones I can check right now in my game, and they help make clear how innacurate the use time numbers from the individual pages must be (swords the game calls "average", "fast", and "very fast" are all listed with 100 use times. --Ericjs 02:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Use Time isn't exactly calculated, it's a value taken directly from the source code, and it wasn't taken correctly for many items. The Wood Sword, for instance, actually has a Use Time of 10. I've encountered a lot of inaccuracies here in that regard. I'll fix them as I notice them. I'm not quite sure how to express or measure "Reach" but it's something I've pondered myself as it would be a very useful statistic here. You could use pixel size of the resource images I guess, and form some value that way. I think the images on the wiki are taken from those directly? Can anyone confirm? <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 02:12, 19 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok my mistake, I was lookign at the Wood item. The Wooden Sword doesn't actually have a Use Time value. Maybe it can be used immediately even before it's done swinging? Not sure I have to test. Any way the rest is still true :) <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 02:16, 19 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * We could just categorize them as average, long ,very long, at least until we come up with real measurement for Reach.--Ericjs 02:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me :) <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 02:24, 19 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. I just realized what I said about the resource images didn't make any sense, since the uploaded images are of course the images that appear in the inventory rather than those used for the animation. I must be losing it. Anyway I added the missing Reaches; I actually don't have a Fiery Greatsword or Blade of Grass right now but I made educated guesses from memory and used existing comparisons expressed on the sword pages. Someone will correct them if they're wrong I'm sure. <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 02:52, 19 Aug 2011 (UTC)

Further: every damage stat I was able to check was wrong (low). I assume one of the recent updates revised them upward. I've corrected those I could, and marked those I could not check with a question mark since they are probably wrong too and need checking. I've also added another column for "damage type" as now they specify melee damage, magic damage, etc.--Ericjs 08:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed your question marks before reading this. The damages are were correct as far as I can tell. If yours are showing higher in-game, you could have a damage buff, maybe from a full set of molten armor, which changes the in-game tooltip damages. Even if some are not correct, the question marks don't really give the right impression, looking more like typos. Anything inaccurate will be corrected by people who notice a problem, as usual. <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 07:00, 22 Aug 2011 (UTC)
 * Ack! You're right, it was my molten armor inflating all the damages. I had just gotten that, around the same time as the last upgrade and thought it was the upgrade. It seems kind of bogus that it includes your buff in the stats it shows on weapons, even if they are just in a chest or in the crafting list.--Ericjs 06:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's been causing a lot of confusion around here. At least 20 people have gone around adjusting damages thinking it was the upgrade, so rest assured you're not alone :) <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 07:02, 23 Aug 2011 (UTC)