On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Tempus Fugit. MUD Administrator wrote: > I agree that it'd be nice if all weapons would have be readied (is primed > a good term here?) and/or wielded and shouldn't be wielded every time > (drinking from a fountain while wielding a bastard sword and a Rose shield > looks kind of uncomfortable, not mentioning most of the socials..:) Noone > wants to be poked on the ribs by someone wielding a dagger and holding a > staff while having a light and a shield hanging too..:) I think, actually, that the term applying to a readied weapon is one which is brandished or wielded, otherwise, you are simply holding it. There's quite a difference between holding something and holding it with the intent of using it (eg., you can hold a hammer without ever having the intention of hammering). > Now, about the sheathe thing... I am not sure if guards should fight you > only for having your weapon ready, they should, maybe, harrass you, or > not let you enter public places (like the inn, bars, guilds, etc), flag > you as 'troublemaker' ..:) A sheathed sword (eg., one within a scabbard) should be primarily allowed. First, one must be able to defend oneself. Second, usually it's not of great threat when in a scabbard, since you normally have to loosen a sword from it's scabbard in order to draw it (so no-one can come from behind you, pull out your sword and kill you, or so that if you end up toppling [which seems to happen a lot on uneven, wet terrain for me] on top of someone, if their sword is rather subdued or unavailible, it'd be rather bad if they could just draw your short sword (many swordsmen carried two swords, especially the japanese, who carried a katana (long sword) and a wakizashi[sp?] (short sword)). > BTW, if you have your weapon not wielded it should have the same effect on > guards than if you do, since they can see it, a cloak could cover a sword, > a hat or helmet could disguise a dagger... You could go on forever..:) I think guards would only worry about a sword when it's drawn and in hand. If it's in a scabbard, they might make a side-ways glance or warn, if it's drawn and not readied, they might make some threats and demands, and if it's readied they'll probably attack (eg., someone who would go around with a sword readied could not be intending to stop and dance with a girl, but is probably intending to use the sword). > How do you sheathe a crossbow, BTW? You can't. Sheathing implies putting something into a scabbard or holster-type thing. A bow would either be unstrung and carried as a stick, or put around the arm for a long bow, when travelling. I'm not sure, but a crossbow would probably hang from a belt. > While I am at it, bows and crossbows usually take longer (even for > experienced users) to ready for battle... You don't use bows and crossbows for fighting, you use them from attacking the front-lines of an opposing legion in a battle. It'd not make sense to key pulling arrows, drawing the string, firing, pulling an arrow, drawing the string, letting it fly, etc. at close range. You'd be killed before you could even draw an arrow. > Ok, here I am lost, what is exactly (in this case) "encumbrance" or > "encumberence" or "encumberance" or whatever, and what is the result of > it... Encumberence, would be, a modifier to the ability to move effectively. In other words, something which would be difficult to handle under conditions would be an encumberence. Using the example given, a 10 foot pole being caried in a room or dungeon is an encumberence, because you cannot move quickly or easily with such a large pole in a closed in place. But encumberence does not apply strictly to objects which are inconvient to carry in some rooms, but those which are best to have worn during combat but an encumberence in both combat and in moving otherwise. Like heavy arm plates. They are convenient as to the fact that they protect you heavily from damage to your arms, but an encumberence since it's much harder to move about your arms carrying 10 or 20 pounds of weight on them. > This is a question from someone that still has problems with non usual > english words, just define that above and I'll understand the rest..:) What is your primary language? "Non usual" is uncommon wording, since the word "unusual" covers the same thing in one word. Means the same thing, just a quirk. Dunno where in the hell '.mx' in an address is from... :) -- Daniel Koepke dkoepke@california.com Forgive me father, for I am sin. +-----------------------------------------------------------+ | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: | | http://cspo.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list_faq.html | +-----------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/18/00 PST