Weapon sheath on the character?

[J.G. Elmslie]

NachoDawg, those are good points for stowage - all valid too.

to be honest, I'm going to have to try to see if I can find good reference images of 2h sword suspension systems on the saddle - its not an area I've researched at all.

 

[Adrianna]

Jg if the game was made by you there wouldnt be any women characters eaither.. as women in the middle ages did not fight as it was not allowed. Any female armor is an invention of the modern age and thus would be against your ideals.

As they did not make female armor in the middle ages.

 

[J.G. Elmslie]

Thanks for the assumption, @Adrianna .

Would you like me to demolish that by posting a few hundred images of different women in armour, in training manuals (dear old Walpurgis.), and of course, the thousands of references in text, from the 8th century to the 18th?

Please, dont assume that just because I like physical objects like a scabbard to work based on their real physical characteristics rather than some magic glue that sticks it to the back, that I am either a sexist dinosaur, or that I'm advocating the simulation of society in medieval europe.

I'm arguing for a realistic approach to physical objects, not social constraints. I hardly feel that the socio-political structure of a fantastical world being either grotesquely misogynistic, or one of perfect equality has any bearing on whether a scabbard style works, or doesnt.

 

[Elaxter]

--attempt at finding sexism where none is--

A beautiful attempt at derailing the topic.

I believe all that has been said has been said. Elmslie knows his stuff better than many of us. If he says there were no back scabbards in the way that we think of them, then it is probably truth.

Though there should be a middle ground somewhere. Where do you put your giant Zweihander? You can't carry it around and you simply don't want to give your expensive weapon to the guards. A middle ground is necessary. How about this:

Not so much a scabbard as a way to carry your sword on your back. A wrapping that your character wraps around his or her weapon and then shoulders it using a strap. It's holstered in a believable fashion. It would have to be one of the lighter swords, seeing as carrying a thing of large weight on your back is pretty annoying.

 

[J.G. Elmslie]

Elaxter, its not even that its not historical, its just that its not practical. Zombies, magic, and giant monsters aren't historical, after all. I've got no objections to stuff that's not out of a history book.

But practicality is something I think important. Its a bit like making a racing game, and then putting square wheels on your design of car. Sure, it might look good, but anyone who knows how a wheel works is going to think its pretty daft.

I Fully agree that some sort of solution is needed. But the big question there is of course, will scabbards and sheathing weapons be an integral part of gameplay, or not? And given polearms arent scabbarded, can we work out a solution that can be applied to all large weapons, not just 2-handed swords.

 

[Vold]

If I understand it correctly, the idea is that while out of combat, the player sheathes the weapon and unsheathes it when entering combat, automatically? In other words, purely cosmetic. I guess that it might look cool, unsheathing a two handed sword, but as it has been said, what would happen with all the other weapons?.

I remember reading in a thread about archery, that they will add a weapon swapping mechanic to allow us to "rapidly" swap from a ranged weapon to a melee weapon. Realistically speaking, I woudn't be surprised if we end up pressing a button to magically put a weapon in the backpack and draw another, because otherwise it would be a PITA. Same goes from swapping between melee weapons.

 

[nrage]

Here is what I would do to maintain realism and give us interesting choices/gameplay options.

For weapons which were sheathed historically make it possible to find and use sheath(s). Have a hotkey (or simply the current enter combat mode key) drop anything in hand and draw the weapon(s)/shield.

For 2 handed weapons, outside combat, they are carried over the shoulder in one hand allowing the offhand for a torch. Entering combat drops the offhand item, and readies the weapon in 2 hands.

So, one handed weapons/shields have the advantage of being sheatheable allowing 2 hands for adventuring items. 2 handed weapons allow only 1 hand for adventuring items. 2 handed weapons might ready slightly faster perhaps, as in both cases you're dropping in hand items, but in the 2 handed case you're not drawing from a sheath, just stepping back into stance and letting the weapon drop into a ready position.

Perhaps we have multiple weapon combinations and a button to select them, or cycle them. Perhaps we allow only 1. Ideally it would depends on the number of sheaths you have and what weapons/shields you can attach in them.

Sheaths would become a valuable item to find/buy and add real gameplay advantages, just like they would in the real world. They would give you free hands outside combat with a faster "ready for combat" action than not having them.

 

[NachoDawg]

@Vold, No one said automatic! I'd be against that solution. I believe we need all that kind of control over the character.

The actually result of having this mechanic is a new way to interact with NPCs with body language, and equipping/clearing your hands for holding other things by the press of a button; instead click-and-dragging inside the inventory. Also to change weapons without going out of combat mode while in combat. (opening the inventory while in combat mode disables combat mode right now)

So this would be a lot more than just cosmetic

 

[Hedgehog-of-Fog]

Hmm... well, sheath for daggers, short and long swords - yes, that's good. However, not every sheath is suitable for every sword... But we are talking about "game realism" not about "RL realism" now, aren't we?
But axes and maces/clubs - in RL you could simple shove them on belt... BTW some daggers and knives could be worn in the boots.

PS If we talk about realism, then - sooner or later - we will talk about bags for inventory, some addition bags - for extended inventory "windows", and bags with more or less place in it (it will affect size of inventary window).
BTW, what about bandoliers?
And there is also little problem - how common real bag will contain bunches of halberds, two-handed axes, great swords, voulges, etc?

 

[NachoDawg]

Hmm... well, sheath for daggers, short and long swords - yes, that's good. However, not every sheath is suitable for every sword... But we are talking about "game realism" not about "RL realism" now, aren't we?
But axes and maces/clubs - in RL you could simple shove them on belt... BTW some daggers and knives could be worn in the boots.

PS If we talk about realism, then - sooner or later - we will talk about bags for inventory, some addition bags - for extended inventory "windows", and bags with more or less place in it (it will affect size of inventary window).
BTW, what about bandoliers?
And there is also little problem - how common real bag will contain bunches of halberds, two-handed axes, great swords, voulges, etc?

Going by the slippery-slope fallacy by arguing for everything mimicking realism, we're going to end up with two designated buttons. one to breathe in and one to breathe out. So lets draw a practical line at "mechanics that affects the game in a way that furthers enjoyment of the game, remains practical and within the intended vision and experience the developers has planned, and that are within our ability to suspend belief". Distinguishing game- and RL realism then become pointless, as we already has a function to achieve the good game design by. Maybe knives in boots aren't the best idea if its not fun game-play, maybe it's a great idea. Don't let the decisions be ruled by realism alone

I personally enjoy your idea on extra inventory. Maybe your horse has an inventory window, or a backpack. neat. Having a pack mule suddenly becomes practical on adventures! (but that's not what this thread is about!)

 

[Vold]

Hmm, but you could just bind keys to a weapon to put it in the inventory or equip it, without the need of a sheathe; it would not look realistic, but it would not need additional animations. That's what I mean with purely cosmetic, in the sense that the functionality can still be there without the sheathe; I think. :3

 

[NachoDawg]

Hmm, but you could just bind keys to a weapon to put it in the inventory or equip it, without the need of a sheathe; it would not look realistic, but it would not need additional animations. That's what I mean with purely cosmetic, in the sense that the functionality can still be there without the sheathe; I think. :3

Honestly, best suggestion so far. Just let us bind items to number keys and be done with it, haha

Throw in a small "reach into pocket" animation and call it the day

 

[Zotis]

I personally would like sheaths for the cosmetic appeal. I'm for a practical solution over a meticulously realistic one. The game already shoulders 2-handed weapons. So for cosmetic purposes a dagger in the boot would be cool. Seeing a 2-handed weapon on your horse would also be cool. It makes sense that a 2-handed sword in a back sheath is impractical for drawing the weapon. The 2-handed sword back sheaths that were posted in pictures had exposed blades, which is not practical. So what about a proper sheath that is fastened on the back with straps or something? The character would loose the straps, take the scabbard down and then draw the blade from the scabbard? A polearm could also be fastened similarly with straps. The application would be for travelling on foot and dungeon delving. Would this be a practical solution?

 

[J.G. Elmslie]

A baldrick, or similar over-the shoulder strap to carry a two-handed scabbard is practical (though not particularly historical). You could carry it like that, swing it off the shoulder, and draw it. The important thing to remember of course, is that its not particularly fast to do that.

The pertinent point about back scabbards isnt that you cant carry them like that, its that you cant draw the sword from the back. In exactly the same way that carrying stuff in a backpack is perfectly practical for you, but you dont pull your laptop out from your backpack while its still on your back, either.

The same goes for virtually any long item pulled out over the shoulder. Arrows on the back? not particularly common, despite what Legolas might have taught you - on the hip was more common.

The only exceptions really to the general rule that you cant pull stuff from your back are short objects like daggers being drawn not over the shoulder, but from the small of the back - that's something particularly fashionable in the mid-16th C, as the place to carry your left-hand dagger, the main-gauche.

Its still a fairly impractical place, though. if you get thrown in grappling or fall to land on your back, trust me, a dagger-hilt in the kidneys hurts.

That's a position to put a dagger that's far more likely than in a boot. Not least because most footwear wasn't shaped like a pair of modern cowboy boots.....

 

[J.G. Elmslie]

the real core problem, in all honesty, is people are way, way too fixated on the idea that the Great Barbarian Hero™ must, for some reason carry the Two-Handed Sword of Power™ on their back.

And this trope has been embedded in the public consciousness as the only way that a two-handed sword should be carried for the better part of a century, first through stuff like Robert E Howard, later on through paintings by Frazetta and Vallejo, then Conan in film, then every pop culture since - Warhammer, Blade, LOTR, The Witcher, and so on.

its become so pervasive, that people cant think that there's any other way.

you don't need to use magically fastening straps to attach your pollaxe, daneaxe, halberd or spear to your back. it has a butt-cap (which may also be sharpened and used equally as much as the main part of you weapon) that means you could use it as a walking-staff. you propped the 2h sword on your shoulder, and walked with it, or put it on the horse.

You don't sheath a mace, or a staff, or a flail. the only weapons you sheathed were swords and daggers. Swords are the odd one out, really, for them doing that.

What would be far more logical, than trying to work out ways to sheath all items, is to ask yourself, what is this action meant to convey?
and the answer to this is: its meant to convey non-aggression in social interaction.

Well... its not whether a sword is sheathed or not that matters. its body language. So I would argue that what needs done is that the "sheathing" animations, are actually thought of as "being non-threatening" standing normally, instead of a fighting stance. lowering the arms, relaxing the body. Opening a full-face helm. Propping your crossbow on your foot. Putting your empty weapon-hand forward for a hand-shake, or a open-palm "hail" salute.
Its not if your weapon is wrapped in some leather that makes you sociable, its your body language and actions.

or in other words, its not a act which matters, its the body language animation that shows whatever weapon being stowed in a way that's non-aggressive.

 

[Don Kanaille]

Didn´t we start this thread by discussing sheathing as a practical and immersive way to switch your weapon fast when needed? Like, drop what you have in your hand to pull what you have in your sheathe or belt (or boot for all I care).

Of course simply assigning weapons to hotkeys to pull them from the inventory would do the trick - thats incredibly obvious... the sheathing was thrown in to make that weapon switching more pleasant to the eye than "weapon of choice warps into your hand" or "weapon gets pulled from hammerspace"; and at the same time more logical within the context of the game world.

Then, somehow the social aspects of carrying an open weapon got thrown in and the topic deviated rapidly.



I, personally, think you should simply be able to put a secondary weapon in your belt (1-handed only) - ideally just by dragging & dropping it to your paperdoll´s belt - and hitting a key drops whatever you have in your hand and pulls said secondary weapon. Sheaths for swords and other bladed weapons could either be
a) a requirement to carry a sharp weapon in the secondary slot or
b) just visual fluff which you could add to make your character look cooler.


If that one handed weapon is your primary, it stays in your belt/sheathe until you draw it. If you also carry a two handed weapon, you shoulder it when idle on top of that.

 

[J.G. Elmslie]

I'm inclined to agree ( very much so on the secondary weapon on the belt, a 2h weapon on the shoulder)... Even if it was me who acccidentally steered it off-course on the social aspects.

(conversely, I'm very much a fan of integrated solutions, where one detail links into others, that link into others etc. )

 

[nrage]

Personally I would prefer realism WRT what can be carried in the inventory and where it is carried.

So, I would say you can only carry a single two handed weapon and it's always in at least 1 hand (never in your inventory itself). Outside combat you could equip something in the other hand, and your character would rest the 2 handed weapon on their shoulder. Entering combat drops the off hand item and readies the weapon in 2 hands.

Additionally I think we should be able to inventory smaller weapons, and also place them on the paperdoll in belts/sheathes as appropriate for their size. We should be able to assign combinations of weapons to hotkeys and when pressed (provided we haven't been forced to drop the item) the character readies them.

So, for example, if one hotkey combination was sword and dagger but you were walking around with a poleaxe in one hand and the dagger in the offhand and you entered combat (dropping the dagger) then pressed the hotkey .. you would only draw the sword, having dropped the dagger.

I think this sort of realism will make weapon choices much more interesting, and will make choosing to use a more powerful 2 handed weapon more of a cost/benefit decision than necessarily a given.

I am a pack rat, so believe me when I say that this will annoy me on some level as well.. but I am prepared to pay that price for the added benefits of realism and hard choices.

Perhaps later in the game we will get horses or similar and then we can really go to town with 2 handed weapon choices.. in which case I can imagine assigning hotkeys to items on the horse, but for there to be a limited range in which they function and/or pressing them has your character dashing to the horse to draw the weapon

 

[J.G. Elmslie]

nrage, I'd say maybe ability to carry some in the pack as well - after all, you have your good sword for yourself, but what if there's some reason you need to bring one to someone, etc?

limit it a bit, but dont punish players too much...

 

[nrage]

For me, personally, I'd take the hard line.. but I'm not going to cry if the developers decide otherwise