26 réponses à ce sujet

[Sir DeLoria]

This is a topic that's been really bugging me in the DA games: back-mounted weapons.

Now, this isn't about the fact that they magically stick to your back without a scabbard or sheath, but that they're on your back in the first place. Drawing swords from the back is incredibly silly, impractical and takes about twice the time as drawing from the waist. With a greatsword or larger weapon it's literally impossible without assistance. Not just that but it looks stupid and bad.

Now I know this is a fantasy game and a pretty trivial matter as well, but it would be better this way for realism and aesthetic reasons.

[CENIC]

How were large weapons carried, then? Just... not on your person? Obviously, that would be impossible. 

 

I agree about more waist sheaths, though. I'd like to see swords, daggers, and even quivers there.

[Sir DeLoria]

How were large weapons carried, then? Just... not on your person? Obviously, that would be impossible. 
 
I agree about more waist sheaths, though. I'd like to see swords, daggers, and even quivers there.

Well, very few historic swords were too long to be hung at the waist. Zweihänder and Ōdachi were usually simply carried by a servant or in the left hand. They could be transported on the back but not into the battlefield.

[Lieutenant Kurin]

Longswords (i.e. one handers), are sheathed at the waist in DA:I (no scabbard though) and I imagine all warrior one-handers follow suit. Everything else is on your back, that includes daggers, shields, staves, bows, Bianca and 2-hander weapons.

 

To me though, as two handers of Dragon Age length (which were rare to begin with) were either carried by horse or servant into the battlefield, the back thing makes sense for em, as you have neither (mounted combat being impossible and all). Shields and staves would also need to be carried on your back because of their size. It's the daggers and dual weapons that don't make sense to me.

[Enigmatick]

I just want the daggers at the waist. Please.

[aTigerslunch]

Weapons held on back are not so uncommon. When travelling long lengths of time, it is more comfortable having a weapon on the back. Anything hanging from the hip is alright depending on weight and length of timing. Gas masks at the hip eventually got annoying but had to have it there, and it was light. A rifle was best slung, weight of it at the side would drove me nuts, and its same about a sword in weight. Holding weapons would get moved upon a shoulder as well, but again this is all dependent on length of time frame. So, wielding weapons on the back is feasible, but yes, it will be slow, heavy weapons would need a sheathe to open to side to make it easier depending on weight, myself, I would put it over my shoulder as I carried an AT4, two weapons was less weight noticeable with my back brunting the weight with leg support.

[Sir DeLoria]

Weapons held on back are not so uncommon. When travelling long lengths of time, it is more comfortable having a weapon on the back. Anything hanging from the hip is alright depending on weight and length of timing. Gas masks at the hip eventually got annoying but had to have it there, and it was light. A rifle was best slung, weight of it at the side would drove me nuts, and its same about a sword in weight. Holding weapons would get moved upon a shoulder as well, but again this is all dependent on length of time frame. So, wielding weapons on the back is feasible, but yes, it will be slow, heavy weapons would need a sheathe to open to side to make it easier depending on weight, myself, I would put it over my shoulder as I carried an AT4, two weapons was less weight noticeable with my back brunting the weight with leg support.

Most historic swords weren't as heavy as you may think and there is no evidence they were ever carried on the back by anyone. Rifles are far heavier than swords, the heaviest and largest medieval two handers were at max around 4 kilos, about the weight of a loaded M16.

You're right in part, as like I said, very heavy, cumbersome swords were sometimes carried on the back for marching, but never into battle on the back. But the average longsword, dagger or rapier was always carried on the waist.

@Kurin and Enig I agree, daggers on the back makes the least of sense.

[Cainhurst Crow]

You don't draw a sword from your back, that's the way you get stuck, and then you get left wide open for the guy with his sword at his waist coming at you.

 

Problem though is the animation, which has you spending most of your time walking about. So yeah, a heavy sword on your person would need to be carried on your back, for walking. But then you get into combat, where it'd be tiresome to have to animate taking your sword off your back, then drawing it, then to just break physics and have you draw it from your back anyway.

 

The fact that there are no sheaths help cut down the usual problem of drawing a sword from the back, that it gets caught on the sheath. But then you have the floating weapons issue.

 

Really there's no way you can win this when taking the problem seriously.

[aTigerslunch]

Immediate combat, yes, you want weapons more accessible.

 

15 lbs for a two-handed sword, m16/a2 I had was just barely 9 lbs. so, no, my rifle fully loaded was lighter...8.79 lbs to be exact.

 

at4 was 15 lbs.  Couldn't carry the AT4 on the side, could have it ready but not when just running around.

 

So, yes, its convenient on the side of course, but practicality of wearing is easier on the back.

 

edit out longsword meant to write two hander

[Cainhurst Crow]

Immediate combat, yes, you want weapons more accessible.

 

15 lbs for a two-handed sword, m16/a2 I had was just barely 9 lbs. so, no, my rifle fully loaded was lighter...8.79 lbs to be exact.

 

at4 was 15 lbs.  Couldn't carry the AT4 on the side, could have it ready but not when just running around.

 

So, yes, its convenient on the side of course, but practicality of wearing is easier on the back.

 

edit out longsword meant to write two hander

 

What crappy smith made a 15 lbs sword?

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

http://www.britishmu...=36130&partId=1

 

The british museum in london houses a claymore sword and give its weight at 2370 grams. This is roughly 5.2 lbs. This thing isn't just period accurate, its literally from the period these swords were used. This could have seen actual combat in the field, and probably did.

 

I trust this, over someone's 15 lbs estimate, unless they can provide a historical item of that precedent.

 

EDIT: I found one sword, that weighs close to 15 lbs. It's a Zweihander supposedly wielded by a historical person turned into folklore legend Pier Gerlofs Donia, also called Grutte Pier. The guy was a giant and basically a frisian version of conan the barbarian if he went pirate.

 

And this is a picture of someone holding his supposed sword.

 

 

Yeah. 15 lbs is pushing it even by qunari standards.

[aTigerslunch]

Largest claymore weighs 23 lbs, average weighs 5.5   Edit: under wiki for claymores

 

There are Zweihanders had characteristics of polearm instead of sword so was carried over shoulder, up tp 10 lbs for these (5-8lbs average)

 

 Yes, a lot were lighter than a rifle, but still same issue, long periods of time would prefer a sword on my back as the rifle too, when near or close to combat area, side would be easier of use. 15 lbs was based on one of the bigger weapons and isn't accurate.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Largest claymore weighs 23 lbs, average weighs 5.5

 

There are Zweihanders had characteristics of polearm instead of sword so was carried over shoulder, up tp 10 lbs for these (5-8lbs average)

 

 Yes, a lot were lighter than a rifle, but still same issue, long periods of time would prefer a sword on my back as the rifle too, when near or close to combat area, side would be easier of use. 15 lbs was based on one of the bigger weapons and isn't accurate.

 

I got no probs with a bag style carrying belt for those swords (don't know what they were called) but I think we can both agree anything excedding at minimum 9 lbs is getting into the ridiculous territory for applying it to the game.

[aTigerslunch]

http://www.thearma.o...html#.U-QgkId0zIU

Graz Austria is where these are found.

 

average is less than 8 but varied from 3.4 up to 13 lbs.

 

 

 

link isn't working: The Weighty Issue of Two-Handed Greatswords in ARMA The Association For Renaissance Martial Arts

[Deflagratio]

How were large weapons carried, then? Just... not on your person? Obviously, that would be impossible. 

 

I agree about more waist sheaths, though. I'd like to see swords, daggers, and even quivers there.

 

Large Weapons (Greatswords mostly) were carried by squires. They were battlefield weapons (Hence the name War Sword) and not the kind of thing you'd take around town.

 

Really though, I've been drumming on about this petty issue for a while, both as a serious wish to see things like "Back Daggers" go away, but also kind of as a joke, subverting my normal developer-apologist angle with what I really do believe is a petty request, albeit one I'd love to see.

 

As for Greatsword, and even Warhammer weight, they very rarely exceeded ten pounds (4~5Kilos), the fact is that a weapon should never be heavier than it has to be, and often what dictates how "Heavy" a weapon feels is more about the point of balance than it's physical weight. A seven-pound battleaxe may feel like it's 20lbs because all the weight is up toward the head, but this is just the leverage acting upon your body.

[addiction21]

 

 

As for Greatsword, and even Warhammer weight, they very rarely exceeded ten pounds (4~5Kilos), the fact is that a weapon should never be heavier than it has to be, and often what dictates how "Heavy" a weapon feels is more about the point of balance than it's physical weight. A seven-pound battleaxe may feel like it's 20lbs because all the weight is up toward the head, but this is just the leverage acting upon your body.

 

And you will be wielding and swinging it for extended period of time. I know when I have to split wood my maul is not all that heavy but after 15-20 minutes muscles start to tire and that is something I have been doing for many years. 5-10 lbs might not seem like much but swinging it around for a while it gets heavy.

 

But for the thread I honestly have no strong opinion either way.

[In Exile]

The issue with a sword at the waist is clipping. The scabard might be missing because of the difficulty of creating, so you've got an unseathed sword that might be flapping around and going through a character model 

[Nerevar-as]

Drakensang: River of Time has 1H weapons at the waist, shields slung over the back when not in combat, but no sheaths. Come to think about it, I can only remember sheaths in The Witcher 2. They are on the back, but only tied in the upper section, so they move away from the back in the unsheathing motion. The blades aren´t very long either, about 1 meter or so.

 

Big weapons on the back, well, there´s Berserk, the Dragonslayer is held by  just a few straps.

[In Exile]

Drakensang: River of Time has 1H weapons at the waist, shields slung over the back when not in combat, but no sheaths. Come to think about it, I can only remember sheaths in The Witcher 2. They are on the back, but only tied in the upper section, so they move away from the back in the unsheathing motion. The blades aren´t very long either, about 1 meter or so.

 

Big weapons on the back, well, there´s Berserk, the Dragonslayer is held by a just few straps.

Sheaths work only where the blades are all the same model. People often use that as a defence of the lack of sheaths. But there's no reason to have all these bizarrely shaped blades that fantasy games have recently fallen in love with like in DA2. 

[Sir DeLoria]

Drakensang: River of Time has 1H weapons at the waist, shields slung over the back when not in combat, but no sheaths. Come to think about it, I can only remember sheaths in The Witcher 2. They are on the back, but only tied in the upper section, so they move away from the back in the unsheathing motion. The blades aren´t very long either, about 1 meter or so.

Big weapons on the back, well, there´s Berserk, the Dragonslayer is held by a just few straps.

Dark Souls has sheaths for all swords, just as an example.

The issue with a sword at the waist is clipping. The scabard might be missing because of the difficulty of creating, so you've got an unseathed sword that might be flapping around and going through a character model

But clipping issues are often even worse with back-mounted weapons. In both DA:O and 2 weapons would usually clip through the character model or float awkwardly in the air.

[In Exile]

But clipping issues are often even worse with back-mounted weapons. In both DA:O and 2 weapons would usually clip through the character model or float awkwardly in the air.

 

I've never seen the model clipping through the character. You mean through a pauldron? 

[Sir DeLoria]

I've never seen the model clipping through the character. You mean through a pauldron?

That too, but some of the uber-huge greatswords can clip through the character model/clothing.

[Dantrag]

  I can't stand oversized weapons in games, I call it flagpole wielding.  I think we should get a squire in later levels to carry our gear and to mistreat.

[afhdjs]

Can we have scabbards for swords? That would make carrying a weapon look more realistic?

[Nefla]

I can understand the big weapons since they're ridiculously oversized unlike real historical weapons and would drag on the ground. You just can't sheathe a surfboard at your waist. However it makes zero sense for daggers (or one handed weapons) to be back mounted. Daggers are supposed to be small and you should be able to have them at the waist or even in a strap going across the chest.