Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Galethorn" data-source="post: 2965503" data-attributes="member: 7888">The problem with a weapon across the back is that it's impossible to draw anything with a blade longer than your arm. Of course, in real life, this was solved by pulling off the whole sling and throwing it to the ground at the beginning of a fight, or just keeping the sword in hand while fighting was expected, and then stashing it with the horse/wagon/henchman when not fighting.One thing you'll notice a lot in histortical records is the mention of sword-bearers, all the way back into biblical times. These were more or less guys that carried your sword for you while you weren't actively stabbing guys with it, because, as anyone who's ever done so will tell you, carrying a sword is mildly uncomfortable and awkward at best.Another thing to consider is that you have no 'good' reason to be carrying a long, unwieldy, decidedly battle (as opposed to self-defense) oriented weapon other than expecting a fight. And if you expect fighting, it makes sense to just have the weapon in hand.Of course, in a world of dungeons, and carrying multiple weapons, things change--you need to use a bow, or climb, or whatever--and you have to change your tactics. For 'realism' I would vote for using smaller, easier-to-handle weaponry, but, knowing all the players I've ever met, I'd opt for just ignoring the matter entirely.In short, if you want to worry about carrying weapons, you should also be thinking about the logic of bringing halberds down into narrow mine corridors and tombs. And, of course, none of this is covered by the rules, so it's up to you to either ignore the obstacles in the name of fun, or make the judgement calls if 'realism' is what your players want.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Galethorn, post: 2965503, member: 7888"] The problem with a weapon across the back is that it's impossible to draw anything with a blade longer than your arm. Of course, in real life, this was solved by pulling off the whole sling and throwing it to the ground at the beginning of a fight, or just keeping the sword in hand while fighting was expected, and then stashing it with the horse/wagon/henchman when not fighting. One thing you'll notice a lot in histortical records is the mention of sword-bearers, all the way back into biblical times. These were more or less guys that carried your sword for you while you weren't actively stabbing guys with it, because, as anyone who's ever done so will tell you, carrying a sword is mildly uncomfortable and awkward at best. Another thing to consider is that you have no 'good' reason to be carrying a long, unwieldy, decidedly battle (as opposed to self-defense) oriented weapon other than expecting a fight. And if you expect fighting, it makes sense to just have the weapon in hand. Of course, in a world of dungeons, and carrying multiple weapons, things change--you need to use a bow, or climb, or whatever--and you have to change your tactics. For 'realism' I would vote for using smaller, easier-to-handle weaponry, but, knowing all the players I've ever met, I'd opt for just ignoring the matter entirely. In short, if you want to worry about carrying weapons, you should also be thinking about the logic of bringing halberds down into narrow mine corridors and tombs. And, of course, none of this is covered by the rules, so it's up to you to either ignore the obstacles in the name of fun, or make the judgement calls if 'realism' is what your players want. [/QUOTE]

Verification