Wearing and sheathing on your back.

[swordmaster]

What do you think of being able to sheath/wear 3 things on your back so you could wear a quiver a longsword and a backpack perhaps?

[Delirium]

Two, at the most. Not three.

I'd love to be able to have a separate 'sheath' and 'wear' location on the back. That way you could wear a sword and a quiver, but you can't wear two big packs stuffed full of Kryl shells.

[swordmaster]

What about one backpack max and two/one other sheathing locacation?

[Delirium]

Well, yes, a 'wear' location would encompass a backpack, quiver, purse, whatever.

Then a separate 'sheath' location for wearing a big ass scimitar or a spear or longbow or what have you.

The problem I see with this is coding it, since it would probably be a lot of headache and mumbo-jumbo.

[krelin]

Adding a wear-location shouldn't be that hard.

I can see wearing one pack, and also being able to sheath one thing.

[swordmaster]

Dose everybody hate my idea? I think its great

[HaiWolfe]

We don't hate your idea; most people just think that three locations is a bit too much.  Two locations--one wear and one sheath--seems all right.

Its just illogical to assume you can wear a pack, and 2-3 weapons on your back. Most weapons that you can even wear on your back are large -huge. Someone with a filled pack, and a pair of battleaxes on their back's is ridiculous when you consider the weight of these usually.

A sword and a pack might be okay. Or an axe over or under your pack might be okay. Or a pack, with a shield laid over it. But more then that is just too much I think.

[5 day lifespan]

What about a pack that IS a shethe location?  I mean we have all these sneaky boots and packs and wrist wraps and stuff, why not ties on the outside of a pack for sheathing a spear or sword?  Or has a spot built in that holds arrows?

[gfair]

Its just illogical to assume you can wear a pack, and 2-3 weapons on your back. Most weapons that you can even wear on your back are large -huge. Someone with a filled pack, and a pair of battleaxes on their back's is ridiculous when you consider the weight of these usually.

On the other hand, what if the pack has straps on the outside of it - there should be room for at least two items on the outside of the pack.  Then there's also the potential room in the gap between the wearer's back and the pack - that could hold a long weapon presuming it dangles at that point.

There may also be room to put longer items vertically, in the space between the edge of the pack and the edge of your shoulder, assuming the pack doesn't take up all the width on your back, which it could - perhaps a smaller pack has room for more strapped items on the back.

However, there should be a longer time penalty for items strapped/worn on your back due to the awkward posturing you have to do to get at the item. Untying anything is a huge time penalty alone, so items tied up would be horribly expensive.

But I'd rather not see the Rambo effect, with people literally covered in weapons, front and back.

Well thats also alot different then adding 3 <back> wearlocs.

Id much rather see sheathable packs, the someone with 3 weapons hanging off their scrawny little shoulders.

[Armaddict]

Me and a friend of mine had a talk about this and came to an idea.  Why aren't there backsheathes?  Strapping a sword to your back beneath a backpack is going to make it cumbersome to draw and be very uncomfortable with a pack pressing it against your back.  So why not put in back scabbards?  Simple leather items that work similar to wrist-sheathes.  You load items into them, and draw items from them.  Then you could wear a backpack over the scabbard, and still have free motion for the blade, since it's just slipping out of leather.

It would probably work like this, equipment-slot wise.

<worn on back> backpack
<worn as scabbard> A simple, leather-thonged back-scabbard.

Or something like that.

[creeper386]

I was thinking, there should be a spot for backpacks and packs and other things slung over the shoulders and such like that. Then another spot for a weapons, sheath like objects, maybe some other things like quiver and such. Although it may take more then just adding a wear location to get it to work like that.

Then maybe have weapon harnesses, that you can sheath stuff into, maybe hold more then one weapon. Still have the backpack. Or have you backpack and one weapon there and what not. Have a backpack and a quiver... But not have two backpacks, or two weapons, or two weapon harnesses or anything like that... Just for the fact that something like that, although possible, would make for some playability issues... Like making disarm completely ineffective when someone has 15+ drawable weapon slots or something.


Creeper

[Sakra]

Yes. And let Half-Giants get double the amout of everyone else.  :twisted:

Pulling a half-dozen enormous poleaxes of -DOOM- from his back, the massive, dull-witted half-giant says in sirihish, 'What you only can cary one?'.

[crymerci]

I would like to see backs sheathe one weapon plus the bag that is worn there, or possibly two weapons without a bag.

I would, however, like to see a "over shoulder" wear location that could be used for bows and certain bags...sometimes you have a character that would need to carry plenty of stuff but either uses large weapons so can't wear a backpack, or wouldn't wear a backpack for other reasons.

I know there are shoulder bags that can be worn around neck or throat, but they're not as available as one might like.

I like one back and one backsheathe location, but I don't like the slung over shoulder location, it seems to be... too much.

[Delirium]

Shoulders are for stuff like patches and songbirds, I think, not really meant to ever be used for a pack or bag or what have you.

[crymerci]

That's why I was suggesting a new slot called 'over shoulder', not that the shoulder slot be used. Also, that would ensure there'd only be one such addition.

[Angela Christine]

Hmm, I think there is some danger in having too many container slots.  Maybe not for elves, but with enough location slots a half-giant could carry as much as a small wagon.  

You've got your belt location, and there are belts that can hold up to 20 stone.  Some quivers can also been worn as belts, and it is easy to find 20-30 stone capacity quivers.

Then the waist location, where you can wear a second belt, sash or some quivers.  Or you can forgo a container and wear a breachguard.

The neck location, allowing you to wear some packs, gourds, and such, or you can wear neck armor.

You've got your back, where you can wear a weapon, a quiver, or a massive backpack.  Backpacks that hold 60 stone can be found in every city, and there are even larger ones around.

If you are really pressed for carrying capacity, many bags can be held in your hand, and you get the same weight bonus as if the item was worn.  There is another easy 60 stone container.  (Depending on your strength you may have to hold the bag when it is empty and then fill it, but that is trivial).

Then there are smaller locations all over your body.  If you are willing to wear containers instead of armor (for some reason armor never seems to have pockets) you can usually find clothes that hold between 1-10 stone for your body, wrists, neck, throat, head, torso, legs and feet.   Each container is small, but they add up.

A dedicated container seeker could probably get 200 stone of container space, plus whatever they carry in their inventory.  The thing is that most of these locations are also armor locations (barring throat, body, back and belt) and if you don't  wear armor you risk injury.  Right now you need to make a choice: combat or carrying capacity.  If a new non-armor location was added, you wouldn't need to make that choice, you could increase your carrying capacity without putting yourself at greater risk.  Is that a good thing or a bad thing?  I don't know, but it would be a shift in the play balance.  It has consequences, and that has to be considered.

AC

[masterofblades]

Its real annoying because I have a quiver but i want to wear a backpack as well so this idea that everyone thinks will be bad becuase people will go round carrying huge amounts of stuff the couldent carry anyway cuz of the cumbersome code,I think is great cuz whats the point of having a backpack if you have to take if off just to wear a quiver cuz u wanna shoot something?.

[tfjhgf]

Arrrrgh dont you get it??? no way people are gonna be able to wear huge axes an stuff on there back it would be too heavy anyway why does everyone think somethings wrong with it every complaint you think of i have an answer too and they seem like stupid complaints to start with sorry im just nuts and confused :?  :?    :cry:  :?

[X-D]

All I want is to be able to do is get that weapon or shield that is strapped to my back into my hands during combat without having to disengage/flee to do it.

That (and they may exist, I have not found one) and a belt that I can hang more then two things from, three would be perfect as long as the third had to be non-weapon, no reason why you could not sheath two swords and hang a quiver from the back of the belt and still be able to pull arrows from it.

[Angela Christine]

Keep looking, there are plenty of quivers you can wear around your waist.  So you can have a pack or weapon on your back, a belt with two weapons as a belt, and a quiver around your waist.

AC

[X-D]

Hhhmm, I know, I currently have a quiver that can be attached to belt, wear back, neck or waist, hell, may be able to wear in the belt location, not what I want, not gonna give up breech anyway, definitly would not be IC.

No, I want a quiver like the one I have IRL that attaches to the belt in the back, in a sort of sideways manner, love that thing, I can wear it and it does not hang and knock on stuff and does not get in the way of slinging the bow/crossbow across my back and it is far easier and faster for -me- to reach across to my left for an arrow pull it and knock it then to reach over a shoulder.

But anyway, I have yet to find a belt with more then 2 locations to hang items, so you are stuck with one weapon and a quiver or two weapons and the quiver someplace else, Just think you should be able to hang two weapons -and- at least one non-weapon item on a belt, (beltpouch, waterskin, quiver etc)

Funny thing is, this would actually allow my char, who, though not a HG can carry a wagonload, to travel lighter with less items.

Combine that with being able to -draw- a weapon or maybe even shield from your back would mean I would even forgo the backpack and not have to carry shield and or big weapon in inventory, currently the back is a wear location so once a weapon or shield is on it it counts as clothing, in combat you try and remove it and you get the fighting for your life message, which always makes me say WTF telling me that a high strength char can't reach back and rip that axe off his back to wield it in combat, but he can reach over his shoulder into a quiver and pull a single arrow in a sigle motion in combat or reach down into his boot and draw a knife the same way......oops, ranting a bit...sorry, long time sore point with me:)

Here is what I picture, for your standard roaming the world walking-weapon shop.

head- Helmet
neck- neckguard
backwear- a shield
back- pack that you can draw from (his trusty throwing spears extending out for quick grab)
shoulder- backscabbard (in which would probably be his great axe)
arms- sleeves
chest- breastplate
wrists- bracers
waist- breechguard
belt- belt (not container type)
on belt1- a sheath item for sheathing items (his trusty sword)
on belt2- his pouch of regenerative magick herbs
legs- leggings
feet- boots

that doesnt seem like alot, =but= then you get people with ankle and wrist and neck sheaths, and pouched pants and boots, belts worn as belts, belts worn around the waist. pocketed gloves, quivers as large as packs for drawing of arrows spears and storage, and then sheath/pouch items on their belt for more storage.

[Angela Christine]

Ok, then go with city/off duty gear and wilderness/on duty gear.  

When you are safe, inside and off duty, take off your helmet, gauntlets, gorget, breechguard or whatever seems ICly appropriate for your character.  These things are uncomfortable, no one in their right mind is going to wear them all the time.  A sturdy helmet & gorget combo is going to impare your visibility and make it hard to relax.  People don't hang out in the taverns or sleep in their full plate unless they have to, or are insane klingons.  So you are safe, you take off some of your armor, and this frees up those locations for containers.  You can wear your quiver around your waist, you don't need a breechguard while you drink your ale.  You can wear a backpack, a round the neck container and a waist container.  

When you go outside, you pack your backpacks, and other containers on your mount, it just makes sense to get that extra weight off your body if you are going to have to fight.  Keep a few fruit in your belt, just in case you get seperated from your mount.  This frees your back location for your quiver, or you can hang your quiver on your belt since you will have at least one weapon drawn all the time.  

I carry around a lot of junk, especially when I play a merchant type, and I still like to wear armor because the hostile NPCs and raiders will happily attack a merchant or other character who wasn't looking for trouble.  A decent set of armor can mean the difference between getting insta-killed and successfully fleeing the danger.  So I would love to have more non-armor wear locations.  Seriously, for me personally I'd like more wear locations.  Despite that, I do not believe more wear locations are necessary, because I can carry a hell of a lot of crap now, I just have to make choices about what is most important to my character.  I am unsure if more wear locations would be a good idea or not, it would have an effect on play balance, but I'm not sure what effect or how severe an effect it would be.  There would also be a hassle for the staff having to make new items or adjust a bunch of old items to be worn in the new location, so even if it is a good idea it may be that no staff member wants to do it.

Unless and until the code changes, creative packing and gear switching can let you get most of what you want.

AC

[Callisto]

... in combat you try and remove it and you get the fighting for your life message, which always makes me say WTF ...

Next time try:

>draw axe back
>draw axe

You just need to add the extra 'back' part to the sting in order to draw a weapon from your back. If you have just one weapon of the type on your back, just plain 'draw <weapon>' will work. Keep in mind it will not work for shields, since a shield is considered armor and cannot be drawn.

So I kicked em in the head til he was dead!

From Baldur's gate, thats what the bandits say when they attack. Just couldn't resist the chance to prove I am the nerd of nerds. Carry on.

[Kalden]

Ok, then go with city/off duty gear and wilderness/on duty gear.

The question is, who has the time and patience to do that, and where do you store all your old armor? I hate to feel twinkish just because I don't take the time to take off my helmet everytime I walk in the city.

[Callisto]

The question is, who has the time and patience to do that, and where do you store all your old armor? I hate to feel twinkish just because I don't take the time to take off my helmet everytime I walk in the city.

Nothing twinkish about it... if you've got the time to strip out of your armor and pull on your disco suit before struting off to the Traders to wow lady skank, then thats all fine and good. If you don't, thats fine too.

No one is going to fault you for something like forgetting to take your helmet off. Well, some people might, but those people are complete assholes and should be ignored.

[Angela Christine]

Ok, then go with city/off duty gear and wilderness/on duty gear.

The question is, who has the time and patience to do that, and where do you store all your old armor? I hate to feel twinkish just because I don't take the time to take off my helmet everytime I walk in the city.

Why, you store it in a container that hangs on the location you just freed up by removing your armor, of course.  You unpack your kank,  take your <whatever> off your back, put on your backpack, and stick your junk in the backpack.  If that isn't enough space, take off your collar and wear one of those packs you can wear on your neck or take off your breech guard and wear a container around when your waist.  

If I think of it, my characters will usually remove their helmet, gorget and gauntlets when off duty, because those are the items I think would be most uncomfortabel and inconvenient.  On the other hand, If I'm wearing a comparitively small studded cap or a surmac I'll leave it on, because those aren't nearly as uncomfortable as a full helmet with only a T-shapped hole for your eyes.  Likewise a thin collar and thin leather or cloth gloves might be comfortable enough to wear all the time, but stiff gauntlets or thick gloves will make it difficult to preform fine motor actions like eating, drinking and pinching the barmaid's butt.  

I don't think baddly OOCly of people who keep their armor on all the time, nor do I think baddly of people who take off some of their armor to carry other things.  ICly I may think someone trying to drink while wearing a gigantic helmet, face guard or silk face covering is an idiot, but that is IC not OOC.  OOCly, if they don't emote how they are drinking around their veil or armor I usually assume they have just forgot they are wearing it, like people who forget they are wearing sunslits on a calm, clear night.

AC

[swordmaster(]

So the anwser is no?

[X-D]

To AC, I not saying I want wear locations to carry more stuff, I bet my current char can carry A LOT more then yours unless you have a mul or HG, I actually want to carry less, I just want to be able to carry it properly, I suppose that would be the proper wording.

No reason a weapon and a quiver could not ride on you back together and both be in easy reach, or an extra non-weapon spot on the belt.

Callisto, Ok, gonna try that draw back...now, what about a shield, anyway to get that from your back during combat?

X-D wrote:
So I kicked em in the head til he was dead!

Callisto wrote:
From Baldur's gate, thats what the bandits say when they attack. Just couldn't resist the chance to prove I am the nerd of nerds. Carry on.

Woohoo, that one took forever for somebody to get, now I can change it, still waiting on the other one though :wink:

Ohhh man! Those friggin bandits, I could never beat that game, so I just filled all the characters' inventories complete with bandit scalps. Boy was -that- fun.

[Angela Christine]

To AC, I not saying I want wear locations to carry more stuff, I bet my current char can carry A LOT more then yours unless you have a mul or HG, I actually want to carry less, I just want to be able to carry it properly, I suppose that would be the proper wording.

No reason a weapon and a quiver could not ride on you back together and both be in easy reach, or an extra non-weapon spot on the belt.

I think a persistant sheath location on the back would be cool, really.  Having a long weapon, a bow, a lumber axe or a glasshacker is part of the character's identitiy, and having it on your back makes it visible and tells people something about your character.  If you see a bow you assume the person is an archer, if you see a lumber axe you assume the person is in the wood industry.  This can be useful.  A while back I had a Merchant (of the merchant guild) who wore a bow and the sort of light armor (reinforced sandcloth, etc.) a bow hunter might wear when she went out to forage for materials, the armor helped protect her from animal attacks but also might slightly discourage amature  raiders from attacking her; a merchant alone in the woods in "merchant clothes" is anybody's meat.  Wearing these large items in a visible location is like wearing a badge that says "Hi, I'm a hunter/warrior/lumberjack/scavenger," except better because if you actually wore a badge that said that nobody would be able to read it except the templars, who would probably kill you for wearing it.   :roll:

Besides, it is hard to know what to do with these gigantic items anyway.  You probably won't get in trouble for carrying a bow in your hand all the time, it's not a weapon without an arrow, but it looks kind of silly.  Putting the bow in a container, even if you emote unstringing and/or tieing it to the outside of container, looks silly too.  Keeping a large weapon in your hand all the time is frowned upon in most cities, but making it disappear by putting it in your inventory or pack feels cheesy (unless it is a staff weapon that can be unscrewed into two smaller weapons, like the one the Beastmaster has).    A lumber axe or glasshacker has to be held in two hands, which makes them too cumbersome to hold while sitting around ye olde tavern, and they probably count as law-violating weilded weapons even if you were willing to carry one of them in your hands all day, every day.  The only reasonable place to keep one of these things is on your back.

However, since you can't currently wear two items on your back, I have found another stop-gap measure.  As I mentioned previously, there are many containers that can be worn around your neck or around your waist, but unfortunately these containers prevent you from wearing armor in that location.  I completely forgot about another class of containers that do occupy a non-armor location, the "about body" or cloak location.  I believe quiver cloaks fall into this catagory, as do some very large packs that can be worn in the cloak location, a few bandolier and harness items, and some very large beverage containers.  I've seen items with 60 stone capacity that can be worn instead of a cloak, letting you haul all your junk and still wear a non-pack item on your back.  There are downsides of course: you lose out on the stamina bonus granted by most cloaks, you can't do this if a specific cloak is a required part of your uniform, and most of the large capacity items I've seen that can be worn instead of cloaks don't close, so you probably won't want to store your most precious items like keys and piles of 'sids in them so you'll need to find a belt that closes.  Still, it's another option for people that want to shift their load off the back location.

As for a third location on the belt . . . I'm still not convinced that is necessary or even all that helpful.  I've tried using belt packs a couple times, they get stolen almost immediatly.  Belt packs are thief magnets.  A very heavy item like a full waterskin, full large beltpack or full quiver might be less likely to get stolen, but I'm not sure it makes sense to have a third large, heavy item hanging on the belt.  There are already belts with built in pouches that hold up to 20 stone (44 pounds) and that is plenty, I feel comfortable putting waterskins and such in a pouch that big.  Add two weapons that probably weigh from 3-12 stone each (most non-daggers weigh at least 3 stone) and you've got another 6-24 stone (13-53 pounds).  If wearing a quiver on your belt is really important to the character, then wear just one weapon on the belt and carry a shield or wear extra weapons in wristsheaths, anklesheaths and bootsheaths.  

I think a third item on the belt is going to be too unbalancing, I'm not talking play balance, I'm talking about falling on your ass.  Where is this third location supposed to be?  In front?  That is going to cause major stress and pain on your lower back if it is a heavy item.  In back?  That will make it impossible to sit comfortably, and it's already pretty hard to sit with most of the crap people have on their backs now.     Try it.  Go get a belt or fanny pack (pouched belt), a bunch of rocks, and some shopping bags with handles.  Thread the shopping bag handles through the belt, and fasten the belt.  Ok, now start loading those rocks into the shopping bags.  One shopping bag of rocks (or grocieries) one each side isn't too bad, but you start trying to put full shopping bags in front or back and they get really uncomfortable, they swing and get tangled in your legs, and they cause pain in your hips and back (I happen to know this from having carried grocery bags suspended from my fanny pack, the damn plastic cuts into my skin if I carry heavy plastic bags in my hands, I'm such a delicate flower.)  It is possible to carry 3 (or more) things suspended from your belt in real life, but it is mighty cumbersome and uncomfortable.  

If it were up to me, and it's not, I'd say yes to a persistant sheath location on the back or packs with built in sheaths, but no to a third carry location on the belt.

Angela Christine

[X-D]

Sure, carrying a bunch of stuff on a basicly normal belt in real life is awkward at best, but there are also many types of specialty belts, Look at your local roofer/carpenter/construction worker/ law enforcement officer to get ideas, A wide, thick leather belt made to carry things does not bother one too much and it is not the type that you use to hold your pants up.

As an ex-roofer I have a belt that is one of the smaller lighter styles in the construction business and it still can carry a roofing axe, framing hammer, tape measure, several pounds of nails, knife, pencil, large metal shears and....hhhmm, yup, Room enough to attach my quiver to the back, though I would not want to attempt to sit on a chair with a back:) Lets see here, the belt itself is 3.75" wide and .38 inches thick, not uncomfertable to wear either. Think I'm gonna go grab a pair of swords and see how they work attached instead of the axe and hammer and tape.   :wink:

[gfair]

Sure, carrying a bunch of stuff on a basicly normal belt in real life is awkward at best, but there are also many types of specialty belts, Look at your local roofer/carpenter/construction worker/ law enforcement officer to get ideas, A wide, thick leather belt made to carry things does not bother one too much and it is not the type that you use to hold your pants up.

Shoot, look at Batman!  Or police. Police have extremely functional belts, and I'm willing the US military does as well.

[Lazloth]

Woohoo, that one took forever for somebody to get, now I can change it, still waiting on the other one though :wink:

PMS: Just before their periods, women behave the way men do all the time.
-- Lowell Stone, M.D., 2144-

[X-D]

I think I'm going to faint....swoon...Hey, correct, now tell me, Heinlein fan or look it up on the web?

Ok, changed em, since both gotten, though it does suprise me anybody got the last one, which is why I had to ask if read the book or just looked it up:)

[crymerci]

I'm not bad...I'm just drawn that way

Jessica Rabbit, in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

[Samoa]

I'm not bad...I'm just drawn that way

Actually...

I'm pretty sure it's Holly in Cool World.

[X-D]

jessica rabbit is correct.

one to go:)

[crymerci]

Blert!

Having just reread Heinlein's The cat who walks through walls I can correctly attribute that to the title character, Pixel the cat.

[X-D]

X-D wrote:
Blert!


Having just reread Heinlein's The cat who walks through walls I can correctly attribute that to the title character, Pixel the cat.

Yup, wonder if I should start keeping score, anybody know which other book Pixel is in and what kind of cat is he?


Hhhmm, I will think up some new ones tonight or tomorrow...You guys are starting to get these too quickly, I figured Pixel's quote would last longer.

[crymerci]

Yup, wonder if I should start keeping score, anybody know which other book Pixel is in and what kind of cat is he?

Um, To sail beyond the sunset, which I know because it's the next natural book on my list after TCWWTW. No clue what breed of cat, don't think it was mentioned.

Hhhmm, I will think up some new ones tonight or tomorrow...You guys are starting to get these too quickly, I figured Pixel's quote would last longer.

Well, after the last Heinlein quote I felt badly for not getting it, so I had to go reread a little Heinlein, which is why I got "Blert!"

Elementary, my dear Watson.