Shaman pets don't equip weapons!
 

Simple bug, if you give shaman pets weapons they don't equip them like other pets do. They continue to "bite."

Carrying rusty daggers (or whatever) around was a pretty essential part of playing a shaman back in the day, since this was the only way to ever make the shaman pets dual wield.

It also doesn't allow you to utilize proccing weapons, of course.

Edit: Here's a thread where people "discovered" that giving pets weapons allowed them to dual wield / proc:

http://samanna.net/CRUCIBLE_SAVES/pets_and_weapons.html

Of course, this mechanic existed long before that thread was created and some shaman knew of it, but things weren't talked about frequently in the open due to fear of nerfs.

Edit2: Also here:

http://samanna.net/sham.info/tips.shtml

Scroll down to "Dog Dog."

Nope.

Non humanoids should not wield weapons.

There's a Legacy of Steel image of Hoshkar being slain in VP with 2 weapons on his loot table. He correctly claws in those images.

Similarly, shaman pets and giant snakes should not pierce but rather bite if they have giant snakes fangs on them or mage daggers or whatevas.

This was taken out in a patch last year.

http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...ghlight=shaman

Specifically discussed by dev in this post:

http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...3&postcount=72

Should I ask him about mage swords proccing on non-summoned end of Kunark?

> : )

no idea how this hasn't been responded to yet, makes encounters 4x more difficult than they should be with all these quadding dragons and air mobs

Ill have you know that I got procced on a few times by Blade of the Falling Stars last Hoshkar, and it hurt. Lets fix this!

Just because it sounds logical that non humanoids don't equip weapons doesn't always mean it's true. Trying to apply logic to EverQuest is a mistake. Shaman pets have always equipped weapons, and I've presented proof of this. I don't know about Hoshkar, and I'm not sure how that's relevant to shaman pets.

Your links are from 2002 forward. None of that info is useful here. Infact the second post on the first link reads: This was changed after velious, aka it is correct on here, and probably will never change.

That person was found to be incorrect later in the thread. You can't point at 1 post as "proof" if it contradicts dozens surrounding it.

Saying that since it was posted in 2002 it can't be applicable is silly. Do you really think that Verant just randomly went and upgraded shamans by doing something silly like making their pets be able to equip weapons when they couldn't before? No. Not only does that make no sense, they had said that they felt that shamans were too powerful based on some of the mobs they were soloing in Velious. That's why this kind of information was held secret, and you can see people requesting that that thread get deleted since people were afraid that this would be nerfed now that it was posted on a public forum (the Shaman's Crucible, which was a very popular website during that time). Not a single person says "oh, this was recently changed, pets couldn't wield weapons before." It just happened to be a new discovery for the people in that thread at that time. Advanced mechanics such as these weren't universal knowledge during the first few years of the game, most players were pretty clueless about most of the things we know today.

I can find a post about Fippy Darkpaw from 2009 on Allakhazam, that doesn't mean that Fippy Darkpaw was not in the game until 2009.

I've posted proof that shaman pets did indeed equip weapons, if you would like to refute this then please provide your proof that they did not equip weapons. I'm not trying to sound rude here or anything, but I don't want this report to be influenced by other peoples' guesses and speculation.

You're going to need some evidence from 1999-2000 range because the dev that took shaman pet weapons out last year has evidence to the contrary.

Patch thread: http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...ghlight=shaman

Dev's evidence: http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...3&postcount=72