Ride and two handed weapons

[Tamarin]

I have come across a dilemma...in an attempt to be different from every other dual wielding character on this game, I decided to go with a weapon that -must- be wielded in both hands...

The dilemma is: when I'm riding, I can't use it, because I have to have at least one hand free.  So, I keep a one handed weapon handy incase I get jumped.  Unfortunately, since my skill with a weapon in a single hand SUCKS, I get my ass whomped.

To me, riding along on a mount with a staff or very long sword sitting on your lap is feasable...even for a non-ranger.  You are still holding the reins....you still have only one weapon...it wouldn't take much to hop off the kank or whatever and place the other hand on the weapon, and you wouldn't sacrifice your ability to control the kank.

Maybe the "your hands are full" clause should only apply to those actually holding two weapons, not those with both their hands occupied (i.e. wielding a two-handed weapon).

Thoughts?

[grog]

Then just keep in it your inventory, setting up an alias to use it when you dismount?  The whole one weapon thing mainly takes place during mounted combat anyway, and I think the time to get it ready would be you dropping the reigns and gripping the weapon.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I'll agree with uberjazz here. You can carry a two-handed weapon with one hand.

[ashjpd]

I don't know how hard that would be to code, but I would just do what Grog said with the inventory thing.

[Lazloth]

It puts you at a serious disadvantage, unarmed and mounted, if attacked.  I would imagine that this is the sentiment that the original poster meant to evoke.

[Tamarin]

Exactly...if you walk into a room with a hiding gith, and you are unarmed, and on a kank, and not a ranger...you are screwed.

[Malifaxis]

Could it be that there's a reason that Earth has very, very few legends of people on horses wielding fucking zweihanders?

You're on the back of something...

You have a weapon that weighs approximately twenty to thirty pounds...

You swing that weapon with both arms...

Result?

The God of Physics rears his/her ugly head and goes "Hey, fucker, you can't do that."  And you promptly do a fucking face plant in front of the opponent... who may be too paralyzed with laughter to react.

Just the two sids I stole from My 2 Sids

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

A current solution is to use a big sword that you can barely wield with one hand, and simple change hands ep etwo when you dismount. Then you are not required to ride unarmed, and you can still use your talent for two-handed weapons.

[Carnage]

Could it be that there's a reason that Earth has very, very few legends of people on horses wielding fucking zweihanders?

You're on the back of something...

You have a weapon that weighs approximately twenty to thirty pounds...

You swing that weapon with both arms...

Result?

The God of Physics rears his/her ugly head and goes "Hey, fucker, you can't do that."  And you promptly do a fucking face plant in front of the opponent... who may be too paralyzed with laughter to react.

Just the two sids I stole from My 2 Sids

What if I want to use a spear like a lance?

[flurry]

Use a one-handed spear?

[grog]

It puts you at a serious disadvantage, unarmed and mounted, if attacked.  I would imagine that this is the sentiment that the original poster meant to evoke.

From what I know of mounted combat, unless your ride skill is through the roof, your going to be knocked on your ass if you have a weapon or not.  If you were holding a two handed weapon, in one hand, so you could use the reigns, you definitely wouldn't be able to swing it when attacked by surprise.   So you might as well be unarmed anyway.  That's just my opinion.

[da mitey warrior]

The answer is simple: Bastard sword.

You use a two-handed bone greatsword as your main weapon, but keep a bastard sword as your secondary weapon.  All warriors worth their boots have back-up weapons.  Sheathe the bastard on your belt and the greatsword on your back.

The concept of a bastard sword is a sword that is designed to be wielded either one or two handed (hand and a half).  It's also the biggest weapon you can find that's wieldable in one hand.

So when you are riding you wield the bastard sword one handed, but when you jump off to smack down some gith you "change ep etwo" and slice him in two.  Switching weapons mid-battle is not recomended.

But if you see the gith first and have a moment to prepare for the battle you draw your big bad greatsword and charge in.

The same idea applies, more or less, to other weapon classes.

[Malifaxis]

What if I want to use a spear like a lance?

Then, Carnage, I would suggest that you look at how lances are employed.

You brace it (couch it, actually, is the term) against your shoulder/side, and you keep that arm's hand under the cup.  Most times, your other hand is on the reins.  The point of the lance, believe it or not, was not to skewer your opponent (as you would do with a spear) but to instead de-horse them.

If you use a spear as a lance, then you best have another damn weapon ready, because you are NOT pulling that thing back out without some serious effort... unless you're a real wus, riding on the back of the three legged kank.

[Armaddict]

Er, yes, it's to unmount your opponent.  But that's because of -metal- armor.  A lance on Zalanthas...unless you miss and strike a head or leg...will more than likely cripple, if not outright kill, your opponent.  So, you don't -have- to hope for another weapon on hand, unless that skewered guy has friends.

[Lazloth]

So you might as well be unarmed anyway.

That's suicide.

uberjazz is addressing a code issue, not a realism thing.  Get down the nuts of it, how realistic is it to ride league after league, waving a heavy sword in your hand?

[Twilight]

Lances generally need stirrups to be at all effective.  I can't remember if I have seen a saddle with them, but I've always imagined most people riding bareback.

There is no way I could even begin to use a true two handed weapon while horseback (since we don't have kanks on earth).  I would have problems carrying, truly carrying in your hands not strapped to your saddle, across the back, etc which would be different, and managing a horse, and I have been riding for 25+ years, and can fairly easily handle something like roping.  Kanks would probably have the disadvantage of having chitin sides, which means that your leg control through knee and spur pressure is gone.  There is just no freaking way.

[spawnloser]

how realistic is it to ride league after league, waving a heavy sword in your hand?

None...so I'm with everyone on this.  If you want to ride waving a weapon around all maniacal-like, get a smaller weapon.

[SailorMars]

I vote for allowing ride with a 2-h weapon.

Why do you ride with a weapon--any weapon--out anyway? Surely it would be nicer to travel with your hands free. It's so when a mob enters the room, that you didn't "see" diagonally, doesn't maul you. That's a mud convention. If you could "see" normally, the amount of things that could ambush you would be greatly reduced, and you might not need to ride around armed all the time.

Why can't you hold a 2-h weapon in one hand? Mud convention. Someone strong enough to effectively wield a 2-h weapon can hold it in one hand.

Thus, since we're dealing with conventions, I see no reason to screw ppl that favor 2-h weapon style over riding.

Heh, the 2-h style contributes flavor to the world. Do we want to discourage that? That style already has disadvantages. If you're disarmed you're the most fucked, versus dual or weapon/shield. I don't think another code disadvantage is going to encourage people to use it.

If you need quasi-fantasy logic to explain it away: Rest it on your lap while you ride. You could easily hold a 2-h spear in one hand while riding... There's a million ways to explain how it's possible.

Edit: BTW, you can already fight with any weapon or weapons while mounted, it's just riding along that's the issue.

[Tamarin]

Exactly....the code here limits reality, so allowing ride with 2handed weapons would just balance that off...i mean, you still shouldn't be able to fight while mounted, but at least you won't get spanked if you dismount in time.

And yes, I think not enough people use twohanded weapons, and not being able to ride while wielding them is definitely one of the main reasons for this.

[Tmp]

I've seen too many people screwed over because of a little lag, riding, and no weapon in hand. That's enough to never make me use a two-handed weapon as my choice, and that takes away from the world flavour whatever you RP grunts think.

It should be fixed, -realism- be damned, this isn't real life anymore than a kank is a real beast.

[Angela Christine]

I slept on it and decided that allowing etwo to be treated as ep in some non-combat situations would be good.

Like riding, have the ride check treat etwo as being the same as ep.  It isn't like the etwoers would have an advantage, everybody else would still have one weapon out (avoiding the disarmed penalty) and be able to whip out their second weapon fast.  It would level the playing field, and it wouldn't hurt anyone.

The code could also treat etwo as ep for skinning.  Ok, it doesn't make a hole lot of sense to be skinning with a giant two-handed weapon, unless you are hacking meat off a mekillot.  The problem is that when you go buy that two handed axe the code tells you the damn thing can be used for skinning, then why you try to use it for skinning it tells you that you have to wield a weapon in your primary hand to skin.  So the poor bastard is stuck somewhere with a corpse and no way to skin it.  Sure, a skinning knife makes more sense, but that RP truth doesn't affect the code bug that has shops lying about the capabilities of certain weapons.  And if you etwo that skinning knife, you won't be able to use it for skinning either.  That is just weird.  New characters have limited funds, so often they can only afford so many coded weapons and tools, and have to make do with things that are less than perfect.


Angela Christine

[Anonymous]

Keep a weapon on your belt on one on your back.

Create the following alias:

mnt:
sheathe twohanded back
draw onehanded
mount kank

dismnt
dismount
sheathe onehanded
draw twohanded etwo

dismntcity
sheathe onehanded
dismount

[Tamarin]

You don't understand!!!  Its not that I care about having to sheath my one hander and pull the two-hander off my back....Its the split second that it takes for those macros/aliases to run can mean the difference between life and death that bothers me...I don't think its too much to ask, considering it will add a lot more flavor to the game world.

[jmordetsky]

I don't think you should be able to ride and hold a two hander.

Where would you hold the reigns?

Although...a shield and a sword...(or lance?)

jousters held shields while they rode right?

[Tamarin]

The point is, realistically, most people could hold a two-handed weapon in one hand, with the weapon resting across their lap while they ride atop a mount, with a firm grip on the reins...don't tell me this isn't feasable, because you are wrong.

[spawnloser]

It's not unfeasable...so hold it in your inventory, which is what that setup describes, uberjazz.  If you want it wielded, don't ride.  Try holding a huge mother of a sword while riding a horse that is trotting along...you will have problems doing both, I guarantee it.

[ashjpd]

I don't know about all you guys, but I always copy and paste -dismount- when I am out in the desert and such. It is extremely helpful, you have to be careful, but it has saved my life in the long run. Maybe that would help with the sheating/drawing/equiping while on or off a mount.

[SailorMars]

Try holding a huge mother of a sword while riding a horse that is trotting along...you will have problems doing both, I guarantee it.

What's harder: Riding along with a weapon in each hand (or weapon and shield), guiding the mount purely by the knees (already possible), or riding along with a 2-h weapon held in one hand? Give me a break. Also, Zalanthans aren't us. These people have come up hard. I promise you if we all suddenly warped into Arm, you'd learn to do all kinds of shit you didn't think you were capable of. Or die trying. Sorry, it's just dangerous ground to limit a fantasy setting with "realism", especially a coded fantasy setting where there are certain limitations inherent.

This isn't a realism-factor thing. It's a code limitation thing. Don't screw the 2-h wielders.

[Tamarin]

Exactly...as it is, two-handed has a ton of limitations...especially the ride factor which can be seriously detrimental to one's health.

[creeper386]

Yeah... Skilled rangers ride with no hands at all... On beasts that it'd be impossible to control with your legs... Unlikely to control by sound, or just general sixth sense of how the rider is feeling.

If you want realism... Well, you could hold the weapon and the reins all together.

Honestly, if the excuse was you couldn't swing a two handed sword from kank back... From the description of them, it'd be hard to use anything but a spear and reach or be reached... They aren't huge, but you aren't straddling them like a horse and considering if you assess then with even tall characters they are taller then you... Your probably sitting up high. Lets just take mounted combat out for kanks... As really they are about as suitable to combat as a donkey, or a lame mule.

Over all, I think there is alot about the game that isn't realistic. A WHOLE lot. Some of its because of the game world. Some of it is also because of playability. Over all I don't think it really needs to be added in, but I see little reason to limit choices. As thats what this does. Riding kanks is fairly important. Etwoing weapons is a new skill. Probably why people are using it more. It makes little sense for it to be around when the code makes it difficult to live by that choice. Which it isn't from what I've seen an easy thing to live with as it is.


Creeper is done.

[Malifaxis]

For fucks sake.

I don't think its too much to ask, considering it will add a lot more flavor to the game world.

How, HOW, I ask you, would it add flavor?  It wouldn't.  It would merely make it easier to survive in unrealistic situations.

Have you ever, as a person, held a two handed weapon?  Have you ever tried to swing one?  A two handed sword is not an easy thing to maneuver, it's big, it's bulky, and it's annoying as fuck to turn.  So you've got your big ass treated baobab, obsidian razor-edge zweihander across your lap, and you're riding along.  Suddenly Joe Shit the Gith Man jumps out at you and goes RAWWR!

Your sword is across your lap, you have one hand on it.  You start to pull it up... since you have to flex your mighty zalanthan arms to do it, that gith is going to know EXACTLY what you're doing.  Since it's going to take you approximately 5 seconds to get your damn sword into a position to do ANYTHING, that gith is going to charge your 2h using ass and eat your brains.

Why does it take 5 seconds you ask?
Because the damn sword is horizontal.
Because the damn sword weighs about 20 lbs.
Because the damn sword is very very NOT good for defense.

And lets say you're lucky, and that the blade is facing AWAY from your opponent... then you can, if you are insanely strong and wicked fast, you can bring that big mother over in an arc of demise in about 3 seconds.

3 seconds would easily give any gith enough time to get around to the other damn side of your kank.  If the blade is toward your gith buddy when he enters, then you have one option... and that's to thrust... from a position with that sword on your waist... without leverage... without ANY DAMN POSSIBILITY of parrying.

The combo of ride lag and draw lag make it PERFECTLY realistic, imnsho, and it should not be changed.

And if a middle ground must be reached... then I would say that if you have a 2h out and you're riding, then your ride lag is increased, to simulate the fact that anything with half a damn brain is going to know what you're doing the second you even try to twitch that damn canoe/blade out of your lap.

Malifaxis
-who wonders why the bloody fuck he's still arguing this.

[Angela Christine]

But wouldn't those problems also apply to most single hand weapons too?  Anything bigger than, say, a light shortsword is probably going to be lying accross your lap.  Even  a dagger probably won't be held up at the ready, even holding up an empty hand gets tiring after a few minutes, much less hours.

Keeping things the way they are restricts mounted two-handers to rangers, which isn't a big deal.  There are people who don't ride, mostly elves and unlucky half-giants, or people with tents and know how to use them.  I'd like two-handers to be a little easier to use, but I can deal with it either way.

AC

[Malifaxis]

Even a longsword is relatively easy to get into position once you get used to it.  Not THAT easy, mind you, but easier than a blade that is twice to three times its weight.

Although, I could go on and on and bitch and bitch about mounted combat.

Especially when dealing with those bastards that think it's possible to knife fight from the back of an anything... you know who you are, you choads.

[creeper386]

This is alot of rambling. I don't give a shit if you think I'm wrong or I am. Or whatever. Still is the point this is a game. Realism is nice sometimes, but hardly neccessary, and it isn't like realism is the back bone of the game and just EVERYTHING is like real life to a T. Banning that which doesn't exist.

Most likely if weapons in Armageddon are going to weight that much for a two handed sword, a longsword alone well probably weight about ten pounds... But you know... I guess longswords in real life way 6-10lbs... Okay... I still get a kick out of people that think weapons way just incredible amounts. When the little amount they do way is plenty heavy enough.

I can't decently tell the weight of alot of Zalanthan weapons... But Earth swords certainly aren't ever that heavy. Most the time a longsword at MOST might be 5 lbs. Ussually around 3. A bastard sword ussually between 4-5 lbs. A two handed sword... I'd say alot of times whats common now of days to see in stores or on walls wouldn't be that common, and even if they were twice the size of a longsword in every possible way that'd be between 12-20lbs or so... Although they ussually aren't that much thicker then a longsword, width, it'd depend, maybe abit wider at the base. Ussually probably wouldn't be twice the length, a good eight feet of steel wouldn't work well for a sword. And I don't know about you... But reaction time with weapons is fairly quick even a huge thing like that... If you couldn't react quickly with them. They wouldn't be used. As anyone that tried to use them would get killed and the idea would stop with them.

There are alot of 'realistic' things that could happen when a gith comes along. If it's that quickly that he can charge you... When he just entered... Even if he was in the room laying an ambush there is a good chance he's no where near you... Realism honestly doesn't come into play that often... The code does what it does. Very really doesn't it include alot of variables that would be in place if things were 'realistic'.

And still ... Want realism... Anyone with any sort of small weapon won't be able to fight from kank back. Probably not from an erdlu and certainly not an inix. They can't protect themselves or anything. Then have the same apply to the people attacking them. Want to hurt them, get them off the kank first. As it'd be hard to reach them. Lets have mounts run off, when combat happens... Most aren't trained in combat, I doubt most could EVEN be trained in combat. Insects aren't exactly easy to work with I imagine. Want realism... Well get it in real life. Honestly shit isn't real.

Creeper

[Rindan]

I think a simple solution would be to get a weapon for riding and a weapon for killing.  Keep your weapon for killing sheated and have your smaller riding weapon out when on kank back.  If you get attacked at any point it is a simple enough matter to drop your riding weapon once off your kank and draw your two handed weapon.  I think you can probably do this without any sort of delay so I don't think there is even a coded disadvantage.

The bigger issue is that a two handed weapon might just be a shitty choice for a guy who needs to ride around.  It might work great for your militia man, but is probably somewhat of a pain in the ass for your Byner.  It might very well turn out to be that Byners generally run around with two weapons for a good reason, the poor dumb bastards like to walk into ambushes and it is good to have a weapon ready when ambushed.

I don't think it is a deal breaker, you are just going to have to work out a way around it.  There are ways around it, they just are not as clean and simple as simply using two weapons or a weapon and a shield.

Really, just get a second smaller weapon you hold for riding.  The IC justification is simple, you like having a weapon at ready when riding in case of ambush, and the tree you normally lug around simply can't be used from kank-back.