Make all long weapons non-sheathable

[Digglez]

Realistic argument are irrevelant, it's a game, nothing is really realistic.
In terms of balance, the change made by devs are imo good now.

Btw in a realistic way, someone on a horse would have more slots, as he can put many weapon on his horse...

good points, +1 agree.

would be nice if heavy 2h/polearms gave users speed penalty like shields do

[Lech]

would be nice if heavy 2h/polearms gave users speed penalty like shields do

Cannot be done without WSE.

[ArchonAlarion]

All, but the shortest polearms should be 0 slot unsheathable. The sheathable ones should be 1 slot.

0 slot because you are not storing them on your body, but holding them. I can sheath all my 4/4 equipment and fight with fist, so this argument is at least consistent.

You could make the argument that other weapons should be 0 slot if you  never sheath them, in which case I wouldn't mind 1 slot for unsheathable.

[Ylca]

Damug = LLJK = Ignore him and move on.   

I too ignore valid point because of personal grudges. Debate is so much easier that way, I always win!

[Revelation]

All, but the shortest polearms should be 0 slot unsheathable. The sheathable ones should be 1 slot.

0 slot because you are not storing them on your body, but holding them. I can sheath all my 4/4 equipment and fight with fist, so this argument is at least consistent.

You could make the argument that other weapons should be 0 slot if you  never sheath them, in which case I wouldn't mind 1 slot for unsheathable.

Terrible idea, any class apart from polearms in the game will laugh their asses off.

Anyone can just bring a 0 slot long spear along for the ride for the first bit to get them past enemy cav, then drop it and have 4 full slots of cqc gear.
All this would accomplish is cav and polearmers being pissed off and everyone else laughing their socks off.

[ArchonAlarion]

Anyone can just bring a 0 slot long spear along for the ride for the first bit to get them past enemy cav, then drop it and have 4 full slots of cqc gear.
All this would accomplish is cav and polearmers being pissed off and everyone else laughing their socks off.

Anyone who only takes three other items that amount to 4 slots, yes (significant difference). A 0 slot weapon still counts for the maximum of 4 weapon/shield/ammo items.

Also, you'd still pay the gold for that item, so if its worth it great, but it is likely many will not want to spend the gold. The better the polearm, the more expensive it will be for a weapon that is essentially useless when it comes time to switch to your "real" weapon.

If everyone did this, melee cav might be find it harder to attack in the beginning of the battle, but horse archers would have a field day. To counter this, people would have to resort to 1h unsheathable polearms so they could have shields, but of course this would decrease their effectiveness against melee cav. Further, not everyone is proficient or strong enough to wield a pike.

You are wrong, but as I said in my above post the reason why 0 slot polearms IS a bad idea is because it is inconsistent with sheathable weapons, i.e., why couldn't I choose to never sheath my 1h/2h/whatever so that it is 0 slot?

Anywho...

[Gorath]

I too ignore valid point because of personal grudges. Debate is so much easier that way, I always win!

orly?
Fine

I'd like to see some video evidence of just how 'easy' it is to draw a 1.2 meter long weapon using such a device, rather than merely taking your word for it.

The reality is that the whole back-scabbard thing is a rediculous hollywood invention for the most part.  However there have been SOME cases where large blades were slung across the warrior's back out of necessity rather than ease of use or comfort.

"Back scabbards were never used in European, Near East, or Indian military cultures, and depictions of such are a modern invention and have enjoyed great popularity in fiction and fantasy, to the point that they are widely believed to be a Medieval invention.[citation needed] A well-known example of this is the back scabbard depicted in the movie Braveheart. There is some limited data from woodcuts and textual fragments that Mongol light horse archers and some Chinese soldiers wore a slung baldric over the shoulder, allowing longer blades to be strapped across the back.

However in "The Ancient Celts" by Barry Cunliffe, on page 94 of that book, Mr. Cunliffe writes,"All these pieces of equipment [shields, spears, swords, mail armour], mentioned in the texts, are reflected in the archaeological record and in the surviving iconography, though it is sometimes possible to detect regional variations. Among the Parisii of Yorkshire, for example, the sword was sometimes worn across the back and therefore had to be drawn over the shoulder from behind the head."

Just as one reference.

In modern days we've figured out many easy ways of both wearing large weapons on your back comfortably while being able to draw them, mostly in response to the silly hollywood/anime fad of back-scabbards.  It's still silly, however this is a game and it's "stylish" rather than wearing the blade at your hip where it would have really been held.

1.2 meters = 3.93700787 feet

A sword of that size could, was and can be sheathed upon the hip because the sword is angled when in the scabbard instead of pointing straight down.  Most scabbards were leather as well meaning that once unsheathed it wouldn't be rigid and prohibit movement.  Alot of sword sheathing techniques for larger swords didn't even involve a full scabbard on the hip, but rather a partial scabbard "loop" that would hold the sword at the proper angle and position until drawn.

TLDR
Yes, on the back is retarded.  However those weapons could have been held on the hip just fine.  As another point in reality most 1h'd swords would have been worn on the right hip and drawn with the right arm so as not to make yourself vunerable by exposing yourself when moving your shield out of the way in order to draw the sword as you would have had to do with it worn on the left hip.

Half-scabbard
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

w/ backstrap (for claymores and other 2h'd swords especially)
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


D/O rings - for use with simple hilt-hooks or leather straps/ties
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[MouthnHoof]

as I said in my above post the reason why 0 slot polearms IS a bad idea is because it is inconsistent with sheathable weapons, i.e., why couldn't I choose to never sheath my 1h/2h/whatever so that it is 0 slot?

I doubt anyone will trade 2-slot sheathable sword for a 0-slot unsheathable one. What build will use this?
I'd also strongly support any suggestion to make all long 2H weapons unsheathable and made 0-slot as well.

[ArchonAlarion]

I doubt anyone will trade 2-slot sheathable sword for a 0-slot unsheathable one. What build will use this?
I'd also strongly support any suggestion to make all long 2H weapons unsheathable and made 0-slot as well.

You may be misunderstanding what I said. I meant that if the only reason why unsheathable polearms were 0 slot is because they are entirely held in hand, then any other weapon should have the option to be entirely held in hand (never sheathed) and thus cost 0 slots.

In other words, what is the difference between an unsheathable pike and a 2H sword that you happen to never sheath? Both should be taking up 0 slots if the slots are reasoned to be non-hand held storage places on the char's body. Unfortunately, 2H swords must take up slots for the potential that they will be sheathed at some point.

I'd support unsheathable polearms being 1 slot to be consistent with the logic of the other weapons' slot values.

*edit: Ugh, reading your post again I realized I interpreted "I'd also strongly support any suggestion to make all long 2H weapons unsheathable and made 0-slot as well." as you being of like mind to make polearms (long 2H weapons) 0 slot, but now I think you might have meant the longest of the weapons using 2H proficiency, rather than weapons actually held in two hands that are long relative to all weapons, i.e. polearms. I still stand by my above points, anyways (the argument can be applied to 1H never sheathed, bow, etc.)

[Archimedes]

Interestingly, I’ve never heard of swords being sheathed on the right.  All the evidence I’ve ever uncovered, anywhere from the 13th century to the 16th shows swords sheathed on the left hip.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

  Additionally, most weapons used in two hands were not sheathed on the back or otherwise.  The Zweihander (known in this game, ambiguously enough, as the Flamberge) was never sheathed as we currently have it, but rather carried over the shoulder.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

  Additionally, halberds, two-handed axes, and cleavers were not sheathed. 
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


 visitors can't see pics , please register or login
 
In fact, the longsword of the 14th century onwards is the only weapon used in two hands that was sheathed, as far as I can remember.  And the longsword was used alternatively in one hand, two hands, or half-sworded.

Additionally, the limiting factor of a hip sheath is not the point at which it touches the ground, but rather the point at which you can free it from the scabbard or similar contraption.  In my experience, a fourty inch blade is at the bare edge of what can be drawn from a scabbard, and this only with full arm extension, and not very quickly. 

Of course, none of this has any relevance to the balance of the game mechanics.  Just wanted to add my two cents.

PS:  Sorry for length of post.   

[Nemeth]

(click to show/hide)

orly?
Fine
The reality is that the whole back-scabbard thing is a rediculous hollywood invention for the most part.  However there have been SOME cases where large blades were slung across the warrior's back out of necessity rather than ease of use or comfort.

"Back scabbards were never used in European, Near East, or Indian military cultures, and depictions of such are a modern invention and have enjoyed great popularity in fiction and fantasy, to the point that they are widely believed to be a Medieval invention.[citation needed] A well-known example of this is the back scabbard depicted in the movie Braveheart. There is some limited data from woodcuts and textual fragments that Mongol light horse archers and some Chinese soldiers wore a slung baldric over the shoulder, allowing longer blades to be strapped across the back.

However in "The Ancient Celts" by Barry Cunliffe, on page 94 of that book, Mr. Cunliffe writes,"All these pieces of equipment [shields, spears, swords, mail armour], mentioned in the texts, are reflected in the archaeological record and in the surviving iconography, though it is sometimes possible to detect regional variations. Among the Parisii of Yorkshire, for example, the sword was sometimes worn across the back and therefore had to be drawn over the shoulder from behind the head."

Just as one reference.

In modern days we've figured out many easy ways of both wearing large weapons on your back comfortably while being able to draw them, mostly in response to the silly hollywood/anime fad of back-scabbards.  It's still silly, however this is a game and it's "stylish" rather than wearing the blade at your hip where it would have really been held.

1.2 meters = 3.93700787 feet

A sword of that size could, was and can be sheathed upon the hip because the sword is angled when in the scabbard instead of pointing straight down.  Most scabbards were leather as well meaning that once unsheathed it wouldn't be rigid and prohibit movement.  Alot of sword sheathing techniques for larger swords didn't even involve a full scabbard on the hip, but rather a partial scabbard "loop" that would hold the sword at the proper angle and position until drawn.

TLDR
Yes, on the back is retarded.  However those weapons could have been held on the hip just fine.  As another point in reality most 1h'd swords would have been worn on the right hip and drawn with the right arm so as not to make yourself vunerable by exposing yourself when moving your shield out of the way in order to draw the sword as you would have had to do with it worn on the left hip.

Half-scabbard
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

w/ backstrap (for claymores and other 2h'd swords especially)
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


D/O rings - for use with simple hilt-hooks or leather straps/ties
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Damug was obviously refering to the "worn on the back" thing. Don't understand why you wrote such a wall of text on a subject that was never the point of a discussion.

[Gurnisson]

Interestingly, I’ve never heard of swords being sheathed on the right.  All the evidence I’ve ever uncovered, anywhere from the 13th century to the 16th shows swords sheathed on the left hip.

That's because most guys were right-handed. Lefties would sheath the weapon on the right hip.

[Archimedes]

Yes, I'd figure as much.  I was primarily responding to this:

As another point in reality most 1h'd swords would have been worn on the right hip and drawn with the right arm so as not to make yourself vunerable by exposing yourself when moving your shield out of the way in order to draw the sword as you would have had to do with it worn on the left hip.

[MouthnHoof]

Interestingly, I’ve never heard of swords being sheathed on the right.  All the evidence I’ve ever uncovered, anywhere from the 13th century to the 16th shows swords sheathed on the left hip.

The only advantage of wearing it on the right is if you intend to draw it while already in combat. For carying it around with you it is more convenient to carry it on the left - think about mounting a horse, which you always mount from its left side. You have to get you right leg over it and a long dangling sword will get in the way. Normally soldiers will have the weapon drawn long before they actually intend to use it, so convenience is more important that the draw. On the other hand, if you are a Roman soldier that first intends to throw his pilum from short range and then has barely 2 seconds to get the sword out before the Gauls trample you, you want to be able to draw your weapon fast in that time and without moving the shield aside.

Another advantage of wearing it on the right, given that your sword is short enough to be used while grappling is that you can use it as a large dagger. While grabbing and grappling an opponent with your left hand it will be difficult to draw a weapon from your left hip with the right. A short sword carried on the right can be pulled out with a dagger grip (thumb opposite to the blade) and used to stab the other guy in the side/thigh or if you hug him, even in the back. It could even be pulled out in a normal grip and (since short) get the tip between you and the opponent. The gladius was surely suitable for this kind of use.

Though definitely possible, I do not see a real advantage of wearing a long sword on the right. Maybe if you intend to throw a Franssisca and then get it out just before the charge collides?

[Gorath]

Well I was referring to a specific setup:  That of using a sword and shield.

so as not to make yourself vunerable by exposing yourself when moving your shield out of the way in order to draw the sword as you would have had to do with it worn on the left hip.

If a soldier carried no shield then it didn't matter.  You can draw a standard longsword from the right hip just fine as well, not just short swords.  Still, as you mentioned with the roman's, this is mostly for the ability to draw your sword whilst engaged with the enemy or when needing to swap weapons (from lance to sword, pilum/thrown weapon to sword, etc.)