PDA

View Full Version : What do you do if a player declares he holsters a big sword on his back?



MonkeySage
2015-09-10, 04:59 PM
I've a houserule that greatswords are always assumed drawn; bastard swords and longswords are assumed to be holstered at the hip, not on the back.

Still not sure what I should do if a player declares his sword is holstered on his back. Kind of a sliding scale of realism vs rule of cool, where I generally let some things slide, but I also like keeping my players on their toes; I want them to think about their actions, their words.

Honest Tiefling
2015-09-10, 05:13 PM
This is why you communicate before the game about expectations. That way, everyone is on the same page about tone and how much nonsensical bad***ery is okay and how much is just ridiculous.

If I had a problem with a player, I'd try to get across what I am expecting from players...Including things like theme and tone. And encourage them to adhere to what everyone else is doing. If there is an issue in that people want varying levels of rule of cool, then get other players to see what compromise can be reached.

Also, make sure the player knows that isn't feasible. Not everyone knows about medieval weaponry, but if they are a fighter-type with weapon skills, I would assume that the character knows and inform them that is a very silly action. They'll think more if they have the information, after all!

Knaight
2015-09-10, 05:15 PM
This seems like a pretty minor thing, that I generally wouldn't focus on too much; the weapon is drawn from a sheathe the same way the rules generally handle it. I get wanting the players to focus on what their characters are doing, but this in particular is a minor detail.

Thrudd
2015-09-10, 05:32 PM
I've a houserule that greatswords are always assumed drawn; bastard swords and longswords are assumed to be holstered at the hip, not on the back.

Still not sure what I should do if a player declares his sword is holstered on his back. Kind of a sliding scale of realism vs rule of cool, where I generally let some things slide, but I also like keeping my players on their toes; I want them to think about their actions, their words.

If a sword is slung on the back, it takes an action or a movement to unsling and ready it. So they can transport it that way if they want to keep hands free while they travel or are in town, it just takes longer to get at it.

Fiery Diamond
2015-09-10, 05:51 PM
In your modern games do you rule that all characters with handguns must have both hands free to fire? If not, drawing the line you are is unsupportable. Sword sheathed on the back may not be standard for history, but it IS a standard in fantasy, even "realistic" fantasy. In fact, I might actually quit a game where a DM sprung it on me that that was his idea of too unrealistic mid-game.

And what do you expect them to do with greatswords? Carry them in hand 24/7 except when stationary and resting? So that it's impossible to, say, climb a cliff without leaving their sword behind? I can see maybe declaring that (in, for example, D&D 3.5) without something like Quick Draw that drawing a greatsword in combat took longer than drawing something from the hip, but scoffing at the idea of sheathing a sword on your back is uncalled for in any setting unless it is designed explicitly to model real history.

Basically, if Legend of Zelda is your idea of too unrealistic for a tabletop game, you shouldn't be DMing/GMing without telling the players in advance.

Steampunkette
2015-09-10, 05:58 PM
A flimsy leather sheathe worn across the back will allow a sword to be drawn over the shoulder with little to no issue.

Pointless fluff debate is pointless. Let the player be fluffy.

Closet_Skeleton
2015-09-10, 05:58 PM
Its not a matter of historical accuracy (it did happen on occasion), its a matter of practicality. Wearing a sword on your back isn't a problem, only drawing it is.

Almost nobody in fantasy hangs a polearm on their back or worries about how its going to be carried. Greatswords shouldn't be treated differently.

Tying a object of any sort to yourself to make it easier to climb with is just sensible. It really just depends on how much detail you expect the players to put into their actions. You should just go with the assumption that if something was glossed over, the characters did the most sensible thing unless they have low wisdom scores or no ranks in the applicable skills.


A flimsy leather sheathe worn across the back will allow a sword to be drawn over the shoulder with little to no issue.

No it will not. It doesn't matter how flimsy the leather is, its stiff when it has a sword in it. You need a special harness design to make a sword drawable from that position and even then its going to be slow.

Enran
2015-09-10, 06:18 PM
I recommend looking at the sheath Guts uses in the early part of Berserk. It's not historically accurate, but it is practical, at least for somebody as ridiculously strong as Guts (and aren't most warriors using two-handed swords in fantasy RPGs pretty ridiculously strong anyway?). Basically, the "sheath" is more of a wedge that the tip and part of the blade go in, with a long strip of strong but flexible material (it's not left undefined, I just don't remember) hitched and attached around the hilt of the blade. It uses the guard to avoid slipping off, but can be detached by breaking the connection point of the two ends of the strip. Then you can pull the sword up a couple of inches (rather than most of its length) and have it free. It's kind of complicated to explain, but if you look it up you'll see what I'm talking about. Basically, it causes the opposite problem; it's only a little slower to unsheathe than a normal sword at the hip, but takes a while to re-sheathe.

Of course, there might be practical limits on stamina for a character who can't sheathe his weapon between phases of a battle; that worked for Guts because he's an absolute beast who has no problem hefting his unrealistically-large sword around for hours at a time without sheathing it between engagements. (Or during engagements, for that matter; he fought a hundred soldiers single-handedly between a sunset and the following sunrise, which according to my best science is at least a few hours.) This could present its own practical limitations for most characters who aren't Guts.

TheCountAlucard
2015-09-10, 07:00 PM
So let me get this straight, do you want to mechanically penalize a player character over something the player decided on as, most likely, visual aesthetics?

I'll admit, I'm not the player, but my first guess at the player's motives is that he's doing it to look cool, not as part of some tactical advantage.

Regardless, this is why I like Summoning the Loyal Steel.

Thrudd
2015-09-10, 07:22 PM
Obviously simulation of weapons in a realistic/historical way is a consideration in this case, or the topic wouldn't have come up. I would expect that this is something the players know based on knowing the DM.

How to carry your weapons is a tactical consideration, especially if you expect to be ready for action at a moment's notice, also if you are loaded down with other gear and traveling. A greatsword is close to the length of many polearms. So is a longbow, for that matter, and that is another thing that isn't practical to carry strung and slung on your back all the time. In game it makes a difference, because a character carrying a large weapon like this does not have two free hands, which might be required for some activities.

When players have misconceptions about what is realistic, you just need to inform them and let them know what their options are. I would err on the side of leniency, but make rulings in general consistent with realistic representation.

Berenger
2015-09-10, 07:30 PM
It is not at all unreasonable to carry a large sword on the back. While the weapon cannot be drawn rapidly in response to a sudden attack and has to be unwrapped carefully, it is a perfectly valid method of transportation while hiking in the wilderness or walking around the marketplace (where brandishing naked blades may be forbidden anyway).

Thrudd
2015-09-10, 08:06 PM
It is not at all unreasonable to carry a large sword on the back. While the weapon cannot be drawn rapidly in response to a sudden attack and has to be unwrapped carefully, it is a perfectly valid method of transportation while hiking in the wilderness or walking around the marketplace (where brandishing naked blades may be forbidden anyway).

Definately. You just need to make a decision about how to represent the time it takes to unslung it in the game. Also consider if the character is wearing a backpack, it might be even harder to get at the sword. People traveling long distance or that expect to transport things like large amounts of treasure are probably better off with pack animals to carry most of their gear.

Hawkstar
2015-09-10, 08:38 PM
... you don't store a sword on your back in a sheath - you use a hook! Seriously, people - just have a double-hook (One for each side of the blade) on the back of your armor to secure your greatsword or polearm's crossguard to, and you can draw it quickly and without issue.

If you do need a sheath, have it be separate from the hook - draw the (sheathed) sword off of the hook, and swing it to remove the sheath. You could probably use it to parry. You only need to move the sword 6 inches or so to unhook it - short enough to draw quickly and uninhibited, long enough it won't just bounce off.

Steampunkette
2015-09-10, 09:23 PM
http://www.sjleather.com/osCommerce/images/backscabbard.jpg

The sheathe is floppy. The weight and shape of the blade give it form. Pull the blade to pop the stud through the hole, then drag over shoulder.

Thrudd
2015-09-10, 09:27 PM
... you don't store a sword on your back in a sheath - you use a hook! Seriously, people - just have a double-hook (One for each side of the blade) on the back of your armor to secure your greatsword or polearm's crossguard to, and you can draw it quickly and without issue.

If you do need a sheath, have it be separate from the hook - draw the (sheathed) sword off of the hook, and swing it to remove the sheath. You could probably use it to parry. You only need to move the sword 6 inches or so to unhook it - short enough to draw quickly and uninhibited, long enough it won't just bounce off.

I don't think that would be very practical, it would restrict your range of motion a lot. So you have the blade hanging straight up and down between your legs, where it will be almost touching the ground. You could barely bend your knees before it would drag or hit and pop off the hooks. How would it react if you needed to look up, or bend back at all? This isn't the same as hanging it on a wall, you need to take into account a moving body and a wide range of activities. This would only even be possible on a plate cuirass, and it would need to be custom made to the size of the weapon you wanted to carry. It really is not reasonable, the amount of trouble it would cause is greater than any benefit from having a free hand.

Have you ever tried to walk with a spear attached to your back? It doesn't work all that well.

Thrudd
2015-09-10, 09:34 PM
http://www.sjleather.com/osCommerce/images/backscabbard.jpg

The sheathe is floppy. The weight and shape of the blade give it form. Pull the blade to pop the stud through the hole, then drag over shoulder.

That sword looks about two feet too short to be a great sword/zweihander. It does work better with smaller weapons. But why store a shorter weapon like that on your back, when it would be more easily accessible in a hip sheath? A backpack would get in the way of drawing it, it's slower and a more awkward arm motion to get to it. The only reason might be if you aren't expecting to need it, just transporting it, and your belt is already loaded with other tools and weapons.

Mr Beer
2015-09-10, 11:11 PM
Not super keen on this house rule, but if the player "should" have his sword ready to go at all times and it makes a mechanical difference in game, I would just let him insta-draw his sword as needed. Maybe give him a minor magic item to perform the task or a free feat or something. He obviously wants the back-sheath in order to look cool, having the sword turbojump into his waiting hands makes it even cooler IMO. Win win.

Sacrieur
2015-09-10, 11:16 PM
Highlander style of carrying your sword.

Really why does it matter. Realistically you shouldn't be able to jump in lava and then come out like you're fine but you can do that with enough HP. If you really want to argue this, you're playing the wrong game. Do you really want me to open the big box of Extraordinary abilities that are impossible in real life?

JCAll
2015-09-10, 11:18 PM
I never realized there was a penalty for being too anime.

Enran
2015-09-10, 11:25 PM
I never realized there was a penalty for being too anime.
You haven't been on these forums long enough, then. At least not the 3.5 subsection.

Steampunkette
2015-09-10, 11:34 PM
That sword looks about two feet too short to be a great sword/zweihander. It does work better with smaller weapons. But why store a shorter weapon like that on your back, when it would be more easily accessible in a hip sheath? A backpack would get in the way of drawing it, it's slower and a more awkward arm motion to get to it. The only reason might be if you aren't expecting to need it, just transporting it, and your belt is already loaded with other tools and weapons.

Look at the size of that man's hand, all four fingers, in relation to the size of the hilt. That is, clearly, a two handed sword.

How long do you honestly think a two handed sword is?

Enran
2015-09-10, 11:45 PM
Look at the size of that man's hand, all four fingers, in relation to the size of the hilt. That is, clearly, a two handed sword.

How long do you honestly think a two handed sword is?
Well, he seemed to consider "two-handed sword" interchangeable with the zweihander, which is, perhaps rather appropriately, about a foot and a half longer or more than your standard two-handed sword. So I guess it's a matter of perspective.

(Seriously, if you've never seen a zweihander, look it up. It's crazy to me that people can use that as effectively as they can.)

Thrudd
2015-09-10, 11:55 PM
Well, he seemed to consider "two-handed sword" interchangeable with the zweihander, which is, perhaps rather appropriately, about a foot and a half longer or more than your standard two-handed sword. So I guess it's a matter of perspective.

(Seriously, if you've never seen a zweihander, look it up. It's crazy to me that people can use that as effectively as they can.)

Zweihander literally means two hands.
That picture above is a long sword/lange schwerte/ bastard sword. It could be used one handed if you wanted, but the hilt is long enough for two.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html#.VfJdH1nn9ms

Enran
2015-09-11, 12:01 AM
Zweihander literally means two hands.
That picture above is a long sword/lange schwerte/ bastard sword. It could be used one handed if you wanted, but the hilt is long enough for two.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html#.VfJdH1nn9ms
Which is why I used the phrase "rather appropriately." If the name of a weapon is in German and it wasn't built in the last thirty years, it's probably far larger than the people of most other countries would find practical, but that doesn't discourage them from being just as scarily effective as they look.

Mr.Moron
2015-09-11, 12:08 AM
This is such a minor stylistic choice with no impact on game mechanics or even really social situations I just can't see nitpicking anyone over it in any but the most rigorous attempts at historical simulation. I mean this long the lines of questioning hairstyles that wouldn't be in-period, or stopping people when they drop a "Dude" or "Cool" into their IC conversations.

YossarianLives
2015-09-11, 12:16 AM
I never realized there was a penalty for being too anime.
Can I please sig this? This is just fantastic.

Thrudd
2015-09-11, 12:20 AM
This is such a minor stylistic choice with no impact on game mechanics or even really social situations I just can't see nitpicking anyone over it in any but the most rigorous attempts at historical simulation. I mean this long the lines of questioning hairstyles that wouldn't be in-period, or stopping people when they drop a "Dude" or "Cool" into their IC conversations.

It has more than stylistic impact, if the game is tracking resources and carrying capacity and encumberance. It makes a difference if a character wants to carry something and you need to know if they have an open hand, or if they are in an ambush and need to know how fast they can get to their weapon. Having perspective on the size of a weapon and how it is carried makes a difference in visualization and immersion, too.

Mr.Moron
2015-09-11, 12:26 AM
It has more than stylistic impact, if the game is tracking resources and carrying capacity and encumberance. It makes a difference if a character wants to carry something and you need to know if they have an open hand, or if they are in an ambush and need to know how fast they can get to their weapon. Having perspective on the size of a weapon and how it is carried makes a difference in visualization and immersion, too.

Are you tracking Draw speed values for individuals containers, along with their weights/volumes and the position of the items therein. Are you tracking the order things are placed in backpacks such that it takes longer to grab items on bottom than packed on the top?

Unless you're using a system with the kind of granularity needed to track these things and are being consistent about doing so the sheath thing isn't relevant. If you're differentiating between items stowed in the belt on the right side of the body, vs the left side and accounting for hand dominance when reaching for them - sure put a value on the sword thing. If you're just using a D&D-esque or other simplified system you're already losing things of equal or greater importance in the abstraction noise, so why pick on this in particular?

Thrudd
2015-09-11, 12:48 AM
Are you tracking Draw speed values for individuals containers, along with their weights/volumes and the position of the items therein. Are you tracking the order things are placed in backpacks such that it takes longer to grab items on bottom than packed on the top?

Unless you're using a system with the kind of granularity needed to track these things and are being consistent about doing so the sheath thing isn't relevant. If you're differentiating between items stowed in the belt on the right side of the body, vs the left side and accounting for hand dominance when reaching for them - sure put a value on the sword thing. If you're just using a D&D-esque or other simplified system you're already losing things of equal or greater importance in the abstraction noise, so why pick on this in particular?

No, but there is enough granularity to say that drawing a weapon is either a free action or a move action or a full action or somesuch. A back sheath is less accesible than a hip sheath, it will take more time, just like it takes time if you want to get something out of your backpack. That's really the only distinction needed; a back sheath is not a combat-ready position for the weapon, it is a means of storage for transportation. A weapon that size isn't easily stowed away on your body, you keep it in your hands if you plan on using it.

MonkeySage
2015-09-11, 01:27 AM
Try drawing a big sword from a back sheathe. :P Your arm needs to be longer than the weapon to draw it effectively and quickly, and a zweihander is typically of body length or longer. You're gonna spend more time struggling to get it out than you'll spend if you're already holding it(say, for instance, slung over you're shoulder). A back harness may be useful purely for transport, but it's gonna get you killed in a fight. Also, if you've got a nice small sword on your back, an assassin can always walk up behind you and stab you with your own weapon. :)


Basically, back sheathes are not as cool as they look unless your name is Luffy or Mr. Fantastic.

For me this has nothing at all to do with historical accuracy. We're already working with a setting with magic and dragons... But humans are still humans.

I will point out though that so far, the player appreciated having the sword in hand; as a cleric, he had very little feat economy so it helped to be able to just start swinging without having to take quick draw.

goto124
2015-09-11, 03:15 AM
Why does the player want the sword on his back? Why does the OP want the sword... I dunno where... on his hips? Is there some Inventory Management Puzzle somewhere?


I never realized there was a penalty for being too anime.

We had an entire thread arguing about the meaning of 'too anime'. It wasn't that long ago, either.

Closet_Skeleton
2015-09-11, 03:40 AM
The actual historical solution to this problem is to tie your sword to your friend's back. Then its much easier to retrieve.



The sheathe is floppy. The weight and shape of the blade give it form. Pull the blade to pop the stud through the hole, then drag over shoulder.

The sheathe is so close to nonexistant that its basically just a harness. It has almost no actual functionality as a scabbard.


I never realized there was a penalty for being too anime.

Anime didn't invent this at all. Its just as common in western media.

But the nickname "book of weaboo fightin' magic" wouldn't have been invented if frowning upon anime inspired stuff wasn't a thing, even when its not relevant and Book of Nine Swords is based of Hong Kong movies.

rrgg
2015-09-11, 04:35 AM
If a player really wants to carry a greatsword or a polearm slung over their back somehow I would go ahead and let them. It's convenient and quite frankly it is going to get really old really fast if you force them to describe how they're doing everything one-handed as they wander around a market or if you have them describe running back to the mule every time they get in a fight. Just have the weapon take a little longer to draw since it needs to be unsheathed first and suggest that they also carry a shorter sword on their hip to draw quickly like the actual landsknechts did.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-09-11, 05:03 AM
So, the sheath weights 3 pounds, drawing is a full round action and maybe he gets an extra armor check penalty of 1 to doing dexterity stuff when carrying his weapon this way?

I can imagine carrying a polearm in my hands almost the entire time, it doubles as a walking stick. Maybe I'd improvise a way to tie it to me or my luggage or something when scaling a cliff face. But for a sword it doesn't sound unreasonable to want a way to carry the thing hands free and stop yourself from gaining damage penalties for the damage you did dragging your sword across the ground. Even if it has substantial drawbacks.

I mean, it's your game, but I think many players enjoy it more when you don't railroad their equipment choices too much. Just make sure it doesn't become unfair to those that did follow your rules, have some balance in the mechanics.

rrgg
2015-09-11, 05:05 AM
Look at the size of that man's hand, all four fingers, in relation to the size of the hilt. That is, clearly, a two handed sword.

How long do you honestly think a two handed sword is?

Most two-handed longswords like this one were short enough that they could just be worn at the hip like a normal sword. Really big swords like the Scottish claymore or the Zwiehander are the ones that are tricky to carry.

Now, if a player wanted to carry a normal longsword in some sort of ahistorical quickdraw back holster instead of at the hip that's a different question. Honestly I probably wouldn't let them unless were being super duper adamant about having it their way.

SowZ
2015-09-11, 05:06 AM
It makes no mechanical difference. If I want historical realism I won't play D&D. Why not let him do it?

bulbaquil
2015-09-11, 05:43 AM
I allow verisimilitude to be broken and say nothing. The weapon is sheathed, and drawing it is a part of a move action provided the character has +1 BAB or higher.

Necroticplague
2015-09-11, 06:01 AM
Actually, the most practical way to carry a greatsword (other that in your hands) is to strap it to your back. When I tried to look up 'greatsword sheathe', I found this relatively simple design:
http://www.thecelticcroft.com/Weaponry/back_scabbard.gifAll you need to do is undo the fastener at the top, then you only have a couple inches of sheathe you need to "pull" it out of. Remember that most greatswords are actually rather blunt except for the last bit on the end, all the better to half-sword with. So it terms of realism, a back sheathe is actually pretty practical. In terms of gamism though: who gives a sh**? That's practically the definition of a minor, irrelevant detail. Heck, he's basically nerfing himself by making it take an action to draw his greatsword, instead of assuming he always has it drawn.

Razgriez
2015-09-11, 06:09 AM
By any chance, and no disrespect meant to anyone, just your question made me think about it... you aren't Skallagrim of youtube fame in disguise, are you Monkeysage?

That asked... let ask another question regarding yours:

Why?

No seriously. "Why?".

What value does such a house rule about how historical/realistic a blade is carried outside of battle, and into battle, bring to your table?

What's your game system, and how realistic is it? Because if you're playing 3.x DnD/Pathfinder, than I really don't know why you're bothering with such a house rule, when A. there's people who can turn bat guano into exploding fireballs. B. Why force a nerf onto melee fighting? and C. There's already rules for a sheathed weapons, it's a move equivalent action, unless they have a +1 BAB. Then they can move and draw a weapon together, or Take the Quick Draw feat and make it a free action. Doesn't matter if it's in a scabbard, axe frog/ring, back sheath/baldric,etc. That's how it goes.

WH40K Dark Heresy 2nd ed.: same thing, there's rules already for this. The Ready action, and the Quick Draw Talent. It doesn't matter how it's stored, whether it's a lasgun hanging by a sling, a bolt pistol in a holster, a power sword in a sheath, or an Eviscerator (Chainsword greatblade/buster sword sized) strapped to your back when not used. There's rules already for it.

TheTeaMustFlow
2015-09-11, 06:33 AM
Only if I'm playing a ridiculously simulationist GURPS-is-for-sissies-who-can't-do-maths system (not that I ever do such a thing when sober). Even in something like D&D, focusing on the debatable practicality of a method of carrying something when you're allowing things like practical two weapon fighting or getting off multiple crossbow shots in a six second period seems ridiculous.

FlumphPaladin
2015-09-11, 06:40 AM
Do like the samurai did when they were carrying a nodachi/oodachi and have a follower draw it for them!

mephnick
2015-09-11, 06:54 AM
If this was brought up as a serious complaint by a DM I would laugh them out of their own house, then realize I should be the one leaving and think it was weird he ran from his own home.

But to each his own?

MonkeySage
2015-09-11, 07:21 AM
Why do I care? Well, mostly its because I study anatomy and the whole back sheathe thing is kind of cringe worthy as a result. I'm very OCD, I think a lot about the small details. :P Actually what got me to thinking about this was a Metatron video, he was speaking from both an anatomical point of view and a historical one, but I tend to not care much about the historical argument.

And it actually does bring a bit to the table; like I said, I want my players to think from a tactical standpoint, and while I'll still let them back holster if they really want to, I let them know that it isn't a very practical option in combat.

The player in question wasn't interested in back holster after I filled him in on why I didn't feel it was very practical.

Milo v3
2015-09-11, 07:37 AM
But the nickname "book of weaboo fightin' magic" wouldn't have been invented if frowning upon anime inspired stuff wasn't a thing, even when its not relevant and Book of Nine Swords is based of Hong Kong movies.

Well, in the section it mentions Hong Kong movies, it does mention anime first, then talk about ninja, samurai, monks, and the yakuza, and then even mentions Final Fantasy and Soul Caliber.... I'd say japanese media was more of inspiration for the book than Hong Kong movies.

Hawkstar
2015-09-11, 07:57 AM
I don't think that would be very practical, it would restrict your range of motion a lot. So you have the blade hanging straight up and down between your legs, where it will be almost touching the ground. You could barely bend your knees before it would drag or hit and pop off the hooks. How would it react if you needed to look up, or bend back at all? This isn't the same as hanging it on a wall, you need to take into account a moving body and a wide range of activities. This would only even be possible on a plate cuirass, and it would need to be custom made to the size of the weapon you wanted to carry. It really is not reasonable, the amount of trouble it would cause is greater than any benefit from having a free hand. How are you getting 'straight up and down"? Angles work wonders.


Try drawing a big sword from a back sheathe. :P Your arm needs to be longer than the weapon to draw it effectively and quickly.

Not if the sheath or hook it's suspended from work like in the picture above (That blade could easily be another 2 feet longer without further inconvenience) - pop the hilt ring, pull the blade off of the end cap (and possibly a hilt hook for greater security), and it's free.

The sheathe is so close to nonexistant that its basically just a harness. It has almost no actual functionality as a scabbard.It offers even more protection than just carrying the bare blade does (Though not much), protects the stabbing end, and keeps the weapon securely on your back, while still quick to retrieve. How does it not function?

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-09-11, 08:10 AM
I'm very OCD

Isn't GM'ing supposed to cure that? ;)

Garimeth
2015-09-11, 08:29 AM
I think its funny how many assumptions are being made about the OP.

1. Its assumed he is playing D&D.
2. Its assumed that he is play 3.5/3.P
3. Its assumed there is some kind of mechanical game penalty involved.
4. Its assumed he does not place equal consideration on other things involving handed-ness and encumbrance.

I also think there is a problem when its suggested he is making things un-fun for the player, what if the player is making things un-fun for him? The DM is the one creating the content being consumed, he gets a vote too! Also, nobody knows if there were conversations about the level of realism involved in this game ahead of time, and the OP even mentions that the player had no issues when they talked about it.

I run primarily 13th Age these days, which is super rules light, but I use a very thought out setting, try and make it gritty, and also micro-manage where people carry things on their person. Each character sheet has their inventory in a format similar to the following:

Armor: studded leather, worn
Weapons: shortsword on hip, quarterstaff carried as a walking stick, unstrung shortbow and quiver of 20 arrows on back.

Rucksack (waterproofed): bedroll, two waterskins, 7 days field rations, swheststone, fletching tools, sewing kit, 20 feet of rope strapped to outside of pack, spare cloak, 1 set of common clothes. Most of the characters money in a sound proofed leather bag.

Belt: coin pouch with 5 gold (spending money), handful of pouches containing various herb mixtures.

IN TOWN: XXX leaves his pack in the room of wherever he is staying, and carries either his staff or shortsword, whichever is more appropriate for the area. The shortbow and arrows are also left in the room, and unless wearing his cloak, will wear loose common clothing with a leather jerkin concealed under it.


Now some may wonder why I like the inventory to be laid out like this. Let's say somebody falls in a river, oh, well you had on your sheet that your pack is on the horse. The horse falls in the river, on your sheet you say that you carry your pack. Your in town and get mugged, on your sheet you listed all the things you do not carry on your person. Your inn gets burned down in an attempt to kill you, but you listed everything you are carrying. In addition to those kinds of things, it forces people to think more about what they bring and what they have readily accessible. Maybe its cause my group is all Marines and a firefighter, but nobody has balked at this kind of inventory management ever.

Also on the note of realism... I think its not a good argument to default to the existence of magic as a reason for things not to make sense in the world. Just because the system doesn't make the world make sense does not mean that many DMs do not go on to build worlds where they think out the logical ramifications of some of these things (see the world building section of this forum). Additionally, the two things are entirely unrelated.

To be clear I do not care one whit whether people could, would, or did carry large two handed swords on their backs just a comment on the conversation.

Milo v3
2015-09-11, 08:33 AM
I think its funny how many assumptions are being made about the OP.

1. Its assumed he is playing D&D.
2. Its assumed that he is play 3.5/3.P
3. Its assumed there is some kind of mechanical game penalty involved.

1. This is a forum that's attached to a 3.5e webcomic and a giant 3.5e subforum, 3.5e is the assumed default most of the time
2. See 1.
3. Well he does say " but I also like keeping my players on their toes; I want them to think about their actions, their words." Which doesn't make sense unless there he springs a penalty on them to "keep them on their toes." and make them "think about their actions, their words."

sovin_ndore
2015-09-11, 09:05 AM
I participate in LARPs that use thickly foamed weapons boffer weapons that are anatomically larger and notably lighter than realworld weapons. Two handed weapons in this enviroment are truly oversized and generally pretty horribly balanced.

Combat ready weapons of all types are almost always stored hung from frogs (true sheaths are not quick to draw from). And I can vouch that the sort of hook and catch system that has been posted a few times in this thread already is the only viable way to store particluarly large two handed weapons. Drawing a weapon of any type that is in a 'stored' position is always harder than keeping a weapon in hand or picking it up from the table beside you. That said, I have not found the zweihander storage method to be particularly more difficult to draw from than a one handed weapon such as a longsword from a frog.

I wish I had some actual pictures of my setup, but serve it to say that I can't really relate with the functional difficulty that you are identifying here.

If you are storing a weapon in a sheath or wrapping it, that is generally so that you can keep a weapon safe from the elements and oiled to prevent rusting. It would not be how you would handle a weapon if you were moving through hostile territory.

If you are wanting to represent 'stored weapons' retrieval as if it were in a bag or sheathed for storage, I fully agree that will take more time. If you are concerned that over shoulder combat-ready storage is unrealistic or noticably slower to draw, my experience would speak against that suggestion.

I hope this is helpful

Garimeth
2015-09-11, 09:07 AM
1. This is a forum that's attached to a 3.5e webcomic and a giant 3.5e subforum, 3.5e is the assumed default most of the time
2. See 1.
3. Well he does say " but I also like keeping my players on their toes; I want them to think about their actions, their words." Which doesn't make sense unless there he springs a penalty on them to "keep them on their toes." and make them "think about their actions, their words."

And yet he did not post his thread in the 3.5 section, not to mention the vast bulk of that sub-forum was before the launch of 5e - it could be equally assumed that he was playing that, my point being that this thread is outside of a system sub-forum. Counterpoint 3 can be accomplished without mechanical penalty, I make my players tell me how they carry their weapons, but I never impose any kind of extra "action" on their drawing of their weapon, unless obviously its like "my spare dagger is in my pack!"

Also, the list at the beginning was only 25% of my post, not some kind of TL;DR. Though maybe you just didn't have anything to say about the rest of it, in which case ignore this part, lol.

EDIT: I won't be on the forum again until Monday, so if I don't comment on responses until then, please don't take it as directed at you or anything you say. (This is for anyone, not just Milo.)

Shackel
2015-09-11, 09:25 AM
You know, there was a period of time where I, too, didn't get how this would apply to anything. Instead of being rudely dismissive, if not bordering on insulting, however, I took the time to read it over again, along with the thread itself. Come on, now. There's no need to just go making tons of assumptions.

My guess is that it would have to do a lot with ambushes. It's as important as the donning armor numbers: it doesn't seem pointless until it actually comes up. Probably in the same situation too: being caught off-guard. If a greatsword needs to always be drawn, that means if you're moving something around or otherwise doing something else, you can't even have your primary weapon on your person. That is something pretty important to track, then: where is your weapon if you don't have your hands free?

Razgriez
2015-09-11, 10:04 AM
Exactly Milo

To Garimeth: Few, outside of a munchkin/powergamer, would argue against things like "Is the gear with you/on your body, or not". That's not the issue discussed here.

Nor am I arguing against the matter, for rule systems that favor such micromanaging.

However, as far as I know, no game system was mentioned by the thread's author specifically for this. See Milo's counter points 1 and 2.

My point is, it's one thing if a specific game system, makes use of such micromanagement, but even if games don't use such micromanagement and realism, many already have a rule in place for equipping items, or drawing them out, or at least guidelines of how long it takes.

As for my citing DnD's spell casting, I' speak of it from a Gameplay balance stand point. When a mage can do much, much worse in the time frame it takes to draw a weapon, why even bother at that point, continue to worry about whether you are drawing a weapon from a back baldric, or a hip scabbard or a shoulder sheath on your harness. It's either sheathed, and there for, not ready until you spend the listed action time it takes to draw and ready it, or it's in your hands, and ready to go.

Worgwood
2015-09-11, 10:10 AM
I'm making a few assumptions here, but here's how I see it: D&D and other fantasy role playing games assume that a party of four to six individuals, many of which will include one or more fighters (or fighter variants), will tackle challenges ranging from occupied fortifications to fully grown dragons without outside assistance. In such an environment, you can expert your average fighter's peers to possibly include kung-fu-fighting ascetics who can run faster than a horse and punch harder than an ordinary man wielding a sledgehammer, musicians who can literally affect the outcome of a battle with a sick guitar solo, scholars who learn to fundamentally alter the physical laws of the cosmos through book learning, and more.

It's true that, realistically speaking, a back scabbard isn't exactly practical, but it's a long-standing fantasy trope, and in the context of a game like D&D, a very mild one.

That said, if you're playing something a little more grounded, in which time and HP are limited resources, the second or two extra it would take to draw your sword would certainly justify worrying about how it's worn.

Segev
2015-09-11, 10:35 AM
Magnets. :smallcool:

Aetol
2015-09-11, 10:36 AM
Magnets. :smallcool:

How does that work ? :smallbiggrin:

Raimun
2015-09-11, 10:42 AM
Well, do you think people in this world could do that particular thing?

If yes? Just let him do it. I know some people would like the image of drawing a greatsword from their back. Plenty of people do that in comics, anime and video games. Perhaps there are magnets involved? :smallcool:

If no? Just explain that most humanoid creatures couldn't actually do it because their arms aren't long enough. In real life people either carried their twohanders rested against their shoulders or had them strapped to their backs with the assumption that they couldn't draw it (at least as a Move Action, in RPG-terms), without taking the holster/harness (with the sword in it) off their backs at first. In this case you could also point out that carrying them against the shoulder gives him a mechanical advantage, since the sword is always on hand.

Either way, this is a very minor thing.

The Fury
2015-09-11, 11:01 AM
Not everyone knows about medieval weaponry,

How many of these kinds of arguments have you had? To me it seems like everyone "knows" all about medieval weaponry.

Most of the points that I'd like to make have been made already. Carrying a greatsword/claymore/zweihander/whatever across the back can be done, drawing it from such a position is problematic but possible with a modified harness of some kind. Though getting it back into such a carrying harness would be difficult to do without taking it off, sheathing the big ol' sword and putting it back on.

I seem to recall reading years ago that the Landschnects carried their zweihanders in scabbards resting on their shoulders much like a more modern soldier might do with a rifle. Though like has been mentioned earlier, this might present a problem for an adventurer that needs to scale a cliff. How do you resolve this if a player uses a polearm? Is it presumed that they have some kind of sling or do they wedge it behind their backpack or something?


How does that work ? :smallbiggrin:

A wizard did it.

Sacrieur
2015-09-11, 02:20 PM
This thread is a giant facepalm.

Drawing a weapon is a movement action. But if you really want to apply "realism" to it then sure let's do that. I'm guessing smaller weapons like daggers you're permitting to draw as a free action since they take a fraction of the time to draw. Also I'll just have a character walk around with an open blade on his hip. That should be a free action too since he doesn't have to pull it out of his scabbard.

I sincerely hope your players abuse this so you can see how bad of an idea it is.

shadow_archmagi
2015-09-11, 02:32 PM
Let the kid have his candy I don't see the issue

Keltest
2015-09-11, 03:02 PM
That sword looks about two feet too short to be a great sword/zweihander. It does work better with smaller weapons. But why store a shorter weapon like that on your back, when it would be more easily accessible in a hip sheath? A backpack would get in the way of drawing it, it's slower and a more awkward arm motion to get to it. The only reason might be if you aren't expecting to need it, just transporting it, and your belt is already loaded with other tools and weapons.

Ive seen zweihanders work more or less as well with a similar concept. You aren't going to draw it on a dime to deflect an arrow or something silly like that, but you could definitely get it out quickly provided you had room to swing the thing around in the first place.

The real bugger is putting it back. You basically had to take the thing off completely and do it from there, or stand still and have someone do it for you.

Milo v3
2015-09-11, 05:36 PM
And yet he did not post his thread in the 3.5 section, not to mention the vast bulk of that sub-forum was before the launch of 5e - it could be equally assumed that he was playing that, my point being that this thread is outside of a system sub-forum.
I'm not saying I agree that it he is playing 3.5e (I don't think it really matters immensely), simply saying why that assumption was made.


Counterpoint 3 can be accomplished without mechanical penalty, I make my players tell me how they carry their weapons, but I never impose any kind of extra "action" on their drawing of their weapon, unless obviously its like "my spare dagger is in my pack!"
No. Because he already asked how they are carrying the weapon, and is now trying to think of ways to "Keep them one their toes" and make them "think about their actions, their words." in relation to that decision. Those sections of text only make sense if he was going to punish the character in some way for doing so.


Also, the list at the beginning was only 25% of my post, not some kind of TL;DR. Though maybe you just didn't have anything to say about the rest of it, in which case ignore this part, lol.
I have no issues with your inventory system, I myself have players list the location of their gear in a similar manner.

Hiro Protagonest
2015-09-11, 08:52 PM
...I guess you could say you have a hip sheathe which is also a gun, and your first strike with the sword is when you shoot the thing at them (though it'd be pommel-first. Maybe a spike?).

Alex12
2015-09-11, 09:35 PM
I'd say "go for it. And I assume those other four greatswords and 3 polearms you're taking back to town to sell for gold are going in your masterwork backpack?"

Granted, I'll admit I'm lenient with my players in terms of "what fits in where" as long as they're paying attention to the encumbrance rules. A non-3.5/Pathfinder system might handle things differently.

Kane0
2015-09-11, 09:51 PM
Thats totally fine, except for perhaps the most gritty of realistic games.

If for some reason you take issue with a large weapon strapped to your back, play some FF7 or something.

Telwar
2015-09-12, 05:15 AM
A while back, I had the thought that for my Shadowrun game, I should have the players track how often they took an actual bullet wound (or 15) and degrade their armor per hit, to represent the ballistic plates shattering etc.

Then I decided that would be not fun enough for me to keep track of, so I handwaved it and went on with my life.

Yuki Akuma
2015-09-12, 05:21 AM
I say "Okay" and carry on. I care about where characters keep their weapons, but only so I can describe the world more accurately.

The characters are trained professionals (usually). They know what they're doing.

Dimers
2015-09-12, 07:16 AM
I apply standard game mechanics for the situation. If the player cares about the interaction between game mechanics and the sheathing style and is not satisfied with the standard, I find an experienced SCAdian to tell me how it works during 'fighter practice', and probably get something like the following quote, plus a brief history lesson:


I participate in LARPs that use thickly foamed weapons boffer weapons that are anatomically larger and notably lighter than realworld weapons. Two handed weapons in this enviroment are truly oversized and generally pretty horribly balanced.

Combat ready weapons of all types are almost always stored hung from frogs (true sheaths are not quick to draw from). And I can vouch that the sort of hook and catch system that has been posted a few times in this thread already is the only viable way to store particluarly large two handed weapons. Drawing a weapon of any type that is in a 'stored' position is always harder than keeping a weapon in hand or picking it up from the table beside you. That said, I have not found the zweihander storage method to be particularly more difficult to draw from than a one handed weapon such as a longsword from a frog.

I wish I had some actual pictures of my setup, but serve it to say that I can't really relate with the functional difficulty that you are identifying here.

If you are storing a weapon in a sheath or wrapping it, that is generally so that you can keep a weapon safe from the elements and oiled to prevent rusting. It would not be how you would handle a weapon if you were moving through hostile territory.

If you are wanting to represent 'stored weapons' retrieval as if it were in a bag or sheathed for storage, I fully agree that will take more time. If you are concerned that over shoulder combat-ready storage is unrealistic or noticably slower to draw, my experience would speak against that suggestion.

JenBurdoo
2015-09-12, 08:59 AM
Just a thought, from one of my favorite authors:


Back in North Africa, the old Colonel had been inflamed by something he had read in a book about Rob Roy; it had said, he told us, that in the old days many Highlanders had worn their broadswords on their backs, with the hilt at the right shoulder, so they could whip them out more quickly than from the hip. We would do this on ceremonial occasions, and the English regiments would go green with envy.

So he had us out behind the mess, practising, and how the adjutant didn't decapitate himself remains a mystery. Even the Colonel had to admit, reluctantly, that to have all his officers minus their right ears would present an unbalanced appearance, so the idea was shelved.
-- George MacDonald Fraser, McAuslan

ZeroGear
2015-09-12, 09:40 AM
here's another reference picture.
http://www.eeldrytcharmouree.com/ScansGallery/ZweiBack2.jpg

As far as I know, these kinds of sheaths have a quick-release that allows you to unlatch the sheath from you back before drawing the blade. Often, the sheath is either dropped (if the battle was an ambush) or removed ahead of time and stored at the camp (if this battle had preparation time).
Sheaths like this (I'd imagine) were only used to carry the blade for long marches.

Edit: Also, as far as I know, Zweihander are actually bigger than what you may think of as a "greatsword". They are closer to pole arms (carried over the shoulder), while the D&D greatsword is closer to the scottish Claymore (hooked sheath in the previous picture).

Fiery Diamond
2015-09-12, 08:23 PM
This is such a minor stylistic choice with no impact on game mechanics or even really social situations I just can't see nitpicking anyone over it in any but the most rigorous attempts at historical simulation. I mean this long the lines of questioning hairstyles that wouldn't be in-period, or stopping people when they drop a "Dude" or "Cool" into their IC conversations.


Are you tracking Draw speed values for individuals containers, along with their weights/volumes and the position of the items therein. Are you tracking the order things are placed in backpacks such that it takes longer to grab items on bottom than packed on the top?

Unless you're using a system with the kind of granularity needed to track these things and are being consistent about doing so the sheath thing isn't relevant. If you're differentiating between items stowed in the belt on the right side of the body, vs the left side and accounting for hand dominance when reaching for them - sure put a value on the sword thing. If you're just using a D&D-esque or other simplified system you're already losing things of equal or greater importance in the abstraction noise, so why pick on this in particular?

This exactly.


Try drawing a big sword from a back sheathe. :P Your arm needs to be longer than the weapon to draw it effectively and quickly, and a zweihander is typically of body length or longer. You're gonna spend more time struggling to get it out than you'll spend if you're already holding it(say, for instance, slung over you're shoulder). A back harness may be useful purely for transport, but it's gonna get you killed in a fight. Also, if you've got a nice small sword on your back, an assassin can always walk up behind you and stab you with your own weapon. :)


Basically, back sheathes are not as cool as they look unless your name is Luffy or Mr. Fantastic.

For me this has nothing at all to do with historical accuracy. We're already working with a setting with magic and dragons... But humans are still humans.

I will point out though that so far, the player appreciated having the sword in hand; as a cleric, he had very little feat economy so it helped to be able to just start swinging without having to take quick draw.

"But humans are still humans." No, no they aren't. I cannot understand why anyone would think that fantasy story humans are anything remotely like real-life humans. They aren't. At all. A normal, non-magical fantasy human main character is more like Beowulf than a real-life human, and in modern fantasy they are often even further out of whack compared to real humans.



Most two-handed longswords like this one were short enough that they could just be worn at the hip like a normal sword. Really big swords like the Scottish claymore or the Zwiehander are the ones that are tricky to carry.

Now, if a player wanted to carry a normal longsword in some sort of ahistorical quickdraw back holster instead of at the hip that's a different question. Honestly I probably wouldn't let them unless were being super duper adamant about having it their way.

So you're saying Link in Legend of Zelda is too unrealistic and immersion-breaking for you? Seriously, that's a completely ridiculous stance for anything but a game that specifically bills itself as being based on "realism" or actual history. It's a pretty good benchmark for me about whether I can take other people's stances seriously or not, actually: does their stance invalidate Link from the Legend of Zelda series. Except for the games where he explicitly uses magic, the only thing about Link that should have any caveat is his ability to carry a seemingly limitless supply of items which don't have any effect unless being used. (My answer is that Link has a Bag of Holding type thingy.)


I'm making a few assumptions here, but here's how I see it: D&D and other fantasy role playing games assume that a party of four to six individuals, many of which will include one or more fighters (or fighter variants), will tackle challenges ranging from occupied fortifications to fully grown dragons without outside assistance. In such an environment, you can expert your average fighter's peers to possibly include kung-fu-fighting ascetics who can run faster than a horse and punch harder than an ordinary man wielding a sledgehammer, musicians who can literally affect the outcome of a battle with a sick guitar solo, scholars who learn to fundamentally alter the physical laws of the cosmos through book learning, and more.

It's true that, realistically speaking, a back scabbard isn't exactly practical, but it's a long-standing fantasy trope, and in the context of a game like D&D, a very mild one.

That said, if you're playing something a little more grounded, in which time and HP are limited resources, the second or two extra it would take to draw your sword would certainly justify worrying about how it's worn.

Exactly.

The Glyphstone
2015-09-12, 08:32 PM
So you're saying Link in Legend of Zelda is too unrealistic and immersion-breaking for you? Seriously, that's a completely ridiculous stance for anything but a game that specifically bills itself as being based on "realism" or actual history. It's a pretty good benchmark for me about whether I can take other people's stances seriously or not, actually: does their stance invalidate Link from the Legend of Zelda series. Except for the games where he explicitly uses magic, the only thing about Link that should have any caveat is his ability to carry a seemingly limitless supply of items which don't have any effect unless being used. (My answer is that Link has a Bag of Holding type thingy.)
.

I am firmly opposed to storing nutritious organ meats in open-topped ceramic containers or hidden in dense clumps of grass, BTW.:smallcool:

Roxxy
2015-09-12, 08:45 PM
Look at the size of that man's hand, all four fingers, in relation to the size of the hilt. That is, clearly, a two handed sword.

How long do you honestly think a two handed sword is?Although the word zweihander simply means two hands, in sword terms it typically refers to something rather more specific than just any two handed sword. Typically, it refers to something like what D&D calls a greatsword, which would be a couple feet longer than that there sword, usually at least six feet. What you show looks very much like a longsword. Despite what D&D tells you, longswords were almost always designed for use in two hands (they can be used in one hand, but the balance isn't as good), but were worn from the hip, as they weren't so long as to make that impractical. So, you are right that two handed swords aren't usually massive (zweihanders were only used for a short period, and don't seem to have been all that good), but at the same time what we think of as a greatsword doesn't represent most two handed swords.

A zweihander wouldn't be sheathed at all. It'd be carried over one shoulder, and if that were impractical you'd put it on a pack animal or wagon. If you tried to draw something as long as a zweihander from the type of sheathe you showed, it wouldn't work at all. The elbow just doesn't bend the right direction and the arm isn't near long enough to pull the sword up out of the leather at the tip. Or pull it up at all, really.

Also, zweihander isn't a historical term, but that's beside the point.

goto124
2015-09-12, 08:59 PM
So you're saying Link in Legend of Zelda is too unrealistic and immersion-breaking for you? Seriously, that's a completely ridiculous stance for anything but a game that specifically bills itself as being based on "realism" or actual history. It's a pretty good benchmark for me about whether I can take other people's stances seriously or not, actually: does their stance invalidate Link from the Legend of Zelda series.

Deadly chickens (http://pre15.deviantart.net/eab9/th/pre/i/2013/339/c/0/legend_of_zelda_comic__don_t_mess_with_the_cucco_b y_cmorigins-d6wswgw.jpg).

Hiro Protagonest
2015-09-12, 09:01 PM
For the zweihander thing, Volkswagen literally translates to "people's wagon". If I show you a picture of an 18th century wagon, is it not a wagon because it's not a Volkswagen car?

Thrudd
2015-09-12, 09:21 PM
"But humans are still humans." No, no they aren't. I cannot understand why anyone would think that fantasy story humans are anything remotely like real-life humans. They aren't. At all. A normal, non-magical fantasy human main character is more like Beowulf than a real-life human, and in modern fantasy they are often even further out of whack compared to real humans.

I don't think you understand. What that means is, fantasy humans still have two arms, with elbows that bend in a certain range of motion, and of a length that are proportional to their bodies. Fantasy humans could no more stretch their arms an extra few feet than real-life humans can. If they could, they wouldn't be humans. A fantasy human might be able to rip the arm off an ogre or jump over a river, and resist injury a real person would die from, but their anatomy remains the same.

Holding Legend of Zelda as a benchmark of how much reality should be in your game is a very low bar. There's nothing wrong with wanting your RPG setting to reflect elements of physical reality, rather than simulating a video game.

Coidzor
2015-09-12, 09:26 PM
Start a big pedantic brouhaha because at my table swords are sheathed and guns are holstered.

I mean, probably, anyway. Using holstered for swords just leaves me nettled.


This is why you communicate before the game about expectations. That way, everyone is on the same page about tone and how much nonsensical bad***ery is okay and how much is just ridiculous.

I think you can just type "badass." :smallconfused:

Pluto!
2015-09-12, 09:46 PM
I show him where the door is, crumple his character sheet, scatter his dice across the floor, jump on the table and shriek "Out! Out, UNCLEAN ONE!" before collapsing on the floor in tremors, gibbering unearthly blasphemies in a tongue long lost to human ears.

Telwar
2015-09-12, 09:49 PM
I show him where the door is, crumple his character sheet, scatter his dice across the floor, jump on the table and shriek "Out! Out, UNCLEAN ONE!" before collapsing on the floor in tremors, gibbering unearthly blasphemies in a tongue long lost to human ears.

Player: (skips beat) "Okay, no back-sheath. Fine, whatever. I guess I just have my adamantine-bladed chainzweihander+12 on my left hip, then."

Zale
2015-09-12, 11:19 PM
Meanwhile, in Creation, Exalts spin their one ton, two-headed, warhammer-nunchucks (http://forum.theonyxpath.com/forum/main-category/exalted/291713-artifact-showcase) while giggling histerically at the concept of sword sheaths.

Fiery Diamond
2015-09-12, 11:23 PM
I don't think you understand. What that means is, fantasy humans still have two arms, with elbows that bend in a certain range of motion, and of a length that are proportional to their bodies. Fantasy humans could no more stretch their arms an extra few feet than real-life humans can. If they could, they wouldn't be humans. A fantasy human might be able to rip the arm off an ogre or jump over a river, and resist injury a real person would die from, but their anatomy remains the same.

Holding Legend of Zelda as a benchmark of how much reality should be in your game is a very low bar. There's nothing wrong with wanting your RPG setting to reflect elements of physical reality, rather than simulating a video game.

No, it isn't a low bar. I would place Link (the character, mind you, not necessarily the specifics of his opponents) at the LOW end of heroic fantasy.

nedz
2015-09-13, 12:56 AM
It's a minor challenge so I'd ask the player and turn this into a RP situation. From my LARP experience doors are a real pain for large weapons, especially if worn over the shoulder. Doors, low hanging branches, low bridges, ..., are all now challenges for the character.


A zweihander wouldn't be sheathed at all. It'd be carried over one shoulder,
so that you can slip straight into the vom tag guard.

Hiro Protagonest
2015-09-13, 01:00 AM
Also, we should start doing combat in real-time and asking players how exactly they shoot lightning from their fingers.

TheCountAlucard
2015-09-13, 04:27 AM
Meanwhile, in Creation, Exalts spin their one ton, two-headed, warhammer-nunchucks while giggling histerically at the concept of sword sheaths.First off, I already referenced Exalted before, back on the first page, even.

Second, not every Exalt wields an artifact weapon (and even the ones who do, some possess a mundane secondary weapon, perhaps in case of emergencies).

Third, not only are there sheaths in the Exalted setting, there are even ones for artifact weapons (including an artifact sheath for daiklaves).

Fourth, not only are there sheaths and artifact sheaths, there's even a martial arts style in 2e that uses them as a form weapon.

Don't misrepresent the setting, is all I'm saying.

ThinkMinty
2015-09-13, 06:57 AM
I never realized there was a penalty for being too anime.

Can I sig this?

ThinkMinty
2015-09-13, 07:06 AM
As to the original poster's question...

This is as dumb as making a wizard carry around jars of bat poop and making them do accounting for each Fireball. It's a Rule Zero nitpick that adds no fun for the player at all, there's really no point to it other than the boring parts of verisimilitude.

Aetol
2015-09-13, 09:01 AM
Just a thought : why are we assuming that D&D's greatsword must be a 16th-century zweihander ? Slight anachronism aside, these were weapons of war, used in pitched battles, not the sort of thing you carry around when you expect to run into skirmishes. They were more polearms than swords (of course, you can also use polearms in D&D...).

So maybe it's not entirely unreasonable to suppose the "greatsword" is a larger longsword (Oakeshott XIIa, XIIIa, XVIa, XVII ?) that could fit in one of those back harness, rather than a 6-foot long monster.

Louro
2015-09-13, 09:17 AM
http://www.paperspencils.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/tumblr_lsq09wsmmw1ql55zvo1_500.jpg

Louro
2015-09-13, 09:21 AM
Arming Sword: One-handed sword meant to be easily carried around. Your daily weapon.
Longsword: Also know as bastard sword. Designed for 2 hands although can be used with one.
Two-handed sword: Huge blade. Some even bigger than the wielder, like the Zweilander.

*None of them was meant to be used in Conan-Style, swinging around in wide arcs that leave you vulnerable.

Keltest
2015-09-13, 12:30 PM
Arming Sword: One-handed sword meant to be easily carried around. Your daily weapon.
Longsword: Also know as bastard sword. Designed for 2 hands although can be used with one.
Two-handed sword: Huge blade. Some even bigger than the wielder, like the Zweilander.

*None of them was meant to be used in Conan-Style, swinging around in wide arcs that leave you vulnerable.

Translation: D&D doesn't know how to sword. Surprise!

Solaris
2015-09-13, 01:26 PM
Why do I care? Well, mostly its because I study anatomy and the whole back sheathe thing is kind of cringe worthy as a result. I'm very OCD, I think a lot about the small details. :P Actually what got me to thinking about this was a Metatron video, he was speaking from both an anatomical point of view and a historical one, but I tend to not care much about the historical argument.

And it actually does bring a bit to the table; like I said, I want my players to think from a tactical standpoint, and while I'll still let them back holster if they really want to, I let them know that it isn't a very practical option in combat.

The player in question wasn't interested in back holster after I filled him in on why I didn't feel it was very practical.

I've made a formal study of anatomy and a lifelong informal one of medieval swordsmanship (that's what being in the SCA practically since birth will get you). There's no reason a sheath like Steampunkette and Necroticplague posted wouldn't work.
After all, if they didn't work then they wouldn't have been used.

Here's the funny thing: If you want to get accurate, the length of a sword depends on its wielder. For example, a bastard sword (including pommel) should reach from the bottom of the sternum to the ground while the wielder stands upright, with a grip long enough for him to securely grasp with both hands. In essence, one size does not fit all and a sword too big to be reasonably comfortably carried or wielded is one that's too big for you.

Examining proportions, the D&D longsword (which maps to an arming sword (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightly_sword), not the historical longsword (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword)) is about 2/3 the length of the D&D greatsword. Historical arming swords average about 35" in length (including hilt). That corresponds to a greatsword averaging about 52.5" long, or 4'5" for your average knight or similarly wealthy warrior. Now, while the average peasant was significantly smaller than the modern average, the same is not true of the average nobleman - which is important, because that tells us greatswords are going to be around 4/5 or less the length of the wielder and somewhat below the average size of a historical zweihander. This is handy, because D&D has something that works like the late, huge zweihander - the fullblade. This information also tells us that the D&D greatsword maps well to the claymore, which averages about 47-55" and is slightly smaller than the zweihander.
The claymore is also that weapon being carried in those specialized sheaths on the back.

Note that I'm disregarding weights here. That's because D&D got weapon weights hilariously wrong... unless you're using Conan the Barbarian for your 'historical' research, which I strongly suspect TSR and WotC did.

The problem with drawing a weapon from the back isn't because it doesn't work, because that's just silly. You don't put a weapon worn on your back in a solid scabbard, and if you do you don't secure it to your person enough that it can't angle out. No, the problem is that drawing a weapon from the back leaves you open and vulnerable to all the attacks, whereas drawing from the hip is better for providing defense and swifter.

Vitruviansquid
2015-09-13, 01:39 PM
I see a lot of dismissing the question as pointless. I think it's a lot less productive to do that than to argue it for the eventuality of a situation where the same principles apply, but it does matter, like if a player wanted to knock someone out nonlethally with a swift hit to the back of the head with a blunt object. It's a Hollywood trope, but not actually realistic in that you'll actually usually either hurt them but not incapacitate them, or kill them outright with a move like that.

So your first resort is to see what the game rules say. If your game has rules for drawing your weapon, and does not differentiate between a hip sheathe or a back sheathe, or even, say, an ankle sheathe or a forehead sheathe, I don't see why you'd want to mess with it as long as there was no mechanical benefit for the same thing... and honestly, do you really want to harass players about what's in their hands all the time?

The second resort is if the issue matters a lot, but the table can't agree or look up what makes the most sense. In that case, I'd just say whatever the GM says, goes. That's the GM's job, after all. Now, this doesn't mean the GM lets players take a back sheathe, and then goes "oh, btw, the way you've stored your sword means you can't draw it - GOTCHA!" Ideally, the GM works out a compromise that's agreeable to everyone. I would generally allow the player to get away with something I don't agree with (within reason) at first ("okay, you can draw your sword this time, but next time you need to take a turn taking the sheathe off your back, and then drawing") , and then change later, or retcon it on the spot ("Nobody else in the setting would be using a back sheathe, do you want to say that you were just using a hip sheathe the whole time?")

Louro
2015-09-13, 03:14 PM
As far as I know D&D weapon's weight is fine. 3lbs for a longsword (arming sword) seems accurate.

About how do you carry a big two-handed sword... Historical treaties show that the most common way was over the shoulder. You could indeed carry it on your back, but that means you are not expecting to need it because you will need someone else to unsheathe it for you (it is physically imposible to unsheathe a longsword from your back).

Those modern sheathes won't work because the main objective for a sheathe is to protect the sword.

---

Anyways, I wouln't mind a player doing this. It is just fantasy.

Zale
2015-09-13, 03:17 PM
First off, I already referenced Exalted before, back on the first page, even.


I'm sorry that my attempt at hyperbole fell flat with you?

I mean, I was just trying to juxtaposition the obvious fact that in Exalted this discussion wouldn't even be something to worry about, because Exalted is all about gloriously impractical weapons and fighting styles.

I mean, if it were really an issue you could just learn Summoning The Loyal Steel or something and just wave your hands while shouting magic.

Your response seems to come mostly from caring about the setting; I can agree about that, but I feel like your response could easily have been interpreted the wrong way. Just something to think about.

Hawkstar
2015-09-13, 03:30 PM
As far as I know D&D weapon's weight is fine. 3lbs for a longsword (arming sword) seems accurate.D&D says 4 lbs for a long sword, and they only get overestimated from there.


About how do you carry a big two-handed sword... Historical treaties show that the most common way was over the shoulder. You could indeed carry it on your back, but that means you are not expecting to need it because you will need someone else to unsheathe it for you (it is physically imposible to unsheathe a longsword from your back).It is possible to unclasp and draw a two-handed sword from your back by using a frog/hooked clasp, as many have demonstrated. If you do sheath, you put the sheath on the clasp as well to draw both at once (Then ditch the sheath)


Those modern sheathes won't work because the main objective for a sheathe is to protect the sword.Not in these circumstances. The main objective of the 'sheath' is to leave your hands free when the sword is not in use. The alternative to a clasp, carrying the sword, also doesn't protect the blade.

It's really not that hard to figure out.

Louro
2015-09-13, 04:56 PM
The point is wether you need your sword ready or not.
A sword in a hip sheathe is "ready for action" while the one in the back isn't. Also it is worth to note that carrying something as big as yourself attached to your back... might be not very comfortable (or even practical). People were no carrying those things aroud on a daily basis, they were war weapons. You don't need your two-handed sword to be ready for action, you just pick it before the battle. Same with a polearm weapon. So, those things were carried by horse, cart or by the soldier itself over the shoulder, as shown in the remaining contemporaneous depictions.

My Player's Handbook says 3 lb for the longsword and 6 for the two-handed. Might be indeed a bit higher than it should be but it's still pretty close. I have seen much worse "estimations".

EDIT: Among the hundreds of depictions we have, there is not a single one showing a single sword carried on the back. Not a single mention either.

Keltest
2015-09-13, 06:16 PM
The point is wether you need your sword ready or not.
A sword in a hip sheathe is "ready for action" while the one in the back isn't. Also it is worth to note that carrying something as big as yourself attached to your back... might be not very comfortable (or even practical). People were no carrying those things aroud on a daily basis, they were war weapons. You don't need your two-handed sword to be ready for action, you just pick it before the battle. Same with a polearm weapon. So, those things were carried by horse, cart or by the soldier itself over the shoulder, as shown in the remaining contemporaneous depictions.

My Player's Handbook says 3 lb for the longsword and 6 for the two-handed. Might be indeed a bit higher than it should be but it's still pretty close. I have seen much worse "estimations".

EDIT: Among the hundreds of depictions we have, there is not a single one showing a single sword carried on the back. Not a single mention either.

Id imagine the number of people running around crawling through random dungeons for days at a time was somewhat smaller than it is in your average D&D world. A claymore across your back leaves your hands free for whatever you need them free for, but is more ready for action than having it bound up and wrapped and stuffed in your pack with the rest of the stuff you anticipate having time to retrieve if you need them. And you more than likely don't have a pack animal at hand navigating the dungeon with you in order to have a sheathe for your sword that isn't on your back or hip.

Knaight
2015-09-13, 06:57 PM
As far as I know D&D weapon's weight is fine. 3lbs for a longsword (arming sword) seems accurate.
Upwards of 10 pounds for two handed axes, hammers, etc. is significantly less accurate, and that's before we get into the editions where weapons upwards of 20 pounds made an appearance.

Hawkstar
2015-09-13, 08:51 PM
My Player's Handbook says 3 lb for the longsword and 6 for the two-handed. Might be indeed a bit higher than it should be but it's still pretty close. I have seen much worse "estimations".Yeah, the 5e is better than 3 and earlier editions for weapon weights.
And six lbs is the weight of a claymore, which WAS carried on the back by Scottish warriors, not the massive Zweihander.

Coidzor
2015-09-13, 09:43 PM
3.5: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#tableWeapons) Dagger: 1 lb, Short sword: 2 lbs, Longsword/Scimitar: 4 lbs, Bastard sword: 6 lbs, Greatsword/Falchion: 8 lbs, Two-bladed sword: 10 lbs

5e: (http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/BasicRules_Playerv3.4.pdf) Dagger: 1 lb, Shortsword: 2 lb, Longsword/Scimitar: 3 lb, Greatsword 6 lb.

Amusingly Scimitars are a Light, Finesse weapon for TWFing with in 5e(*cough*Drizztrules*cough*) while Longswords are a Versatile weapon that deals more damage when wielded in two hands, essentially having had bastard swords folded into them.

No idea what weapon weights are in 4e/Essentials or in earlier editions of D&D.

Pathfinder seems to use identical weapon weights to 3.5.

Deified Data
2015-09-14, 12:20 AM
No offense to OP, but I honestly don't see how this is an issue. I have little doubt that a functional back sheath could be devised for large weapons. It's clear your player wants this small concession for coolness' sake - resisting it feels a little petty. I'm sure that's not your intention, but there's no reason to oppose it. Having a back sheath confers no real advantage.

sovin_ndore
2015-09-14, 10:54 AM
I've made a formal study of anatomy and a lifelong informal one of medieval swordsmanship (that's what being in the SCA practically since birth will get you). There's no reason a sheath like Steampunkette and Necroticplague posted wouldn't work.
After all, if they didn't work then they wouldn't have been used.

[...]The problem with drawing a weapon from the back isn't because it doesn't work, because that's just silly. You don't put a weapon worn on your back in a solid scabbard, and if you do you don't secure it to your person enough that it can't angle out. No, the problem is that drawing a weapon from the back leaves you open and vulnerable to all the attacks, whereas drawing from the hip is better for providing defense and swifter
I think Solaris has probably made the best points I have read to date on this thread. I am 100% in agreement with the analysis he has given. Drawing a weapon quickly has always been a consideration historically and changes made for the sake of realism should not make a properly stored over shoulder weapon recieve a penalty for being drawn in the intended, realworld manner.

If your goal was extra rules for realism, you conversely might want to look at an additional AC penalty for being empty handed when flat-footed (as you can't parry) or even better, look at the weapon profiles from a system like Arcana Evolved where they take into account that some weapons grant parry bonuses (which you obviously would be unable to use when not yet armed).

TheIronGolem
2015-09-14, 11:20 AM
If your goal was extra rules for realism, you conversely might want to look at an additional AC penalty for being empty handed when flat-footed (as you can't parry)

The denial of your DEX/dodge bonus from being flat-footed already covers this. Parrying is generally (in 3.x/PF game terms) a function of dodging, which is why there's no "parry bonus" and things like Combat Expertise and fighting defensively give dodge bonuses.

Garimeth
2015-09-14, 12:30 PM
No, it isn't a low bar. I would place Link (the character, mind you, not necessarily the specifics of his opponents) at the LOW end of heroic fantasy.

So don't take this the wrong way, but you have your Zelda fanfic linked in your sig. OF COURSE that's your bar for fantasy, lol. To many other people, probably mostly including older players, The Legend of Zelda is Monty Haul as hell! I mean seriously, he has more magic items than any of my PCs EVER have had, and I'm including 3.5 games that I ran AND played in! Many other people shoot more for LOTR, Conan, or Three Musketeers. One is not better than the other per se, depends on the group, but just because you aren't interested in the ACTUAL low end of the spectrum doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For the record I'm not interested much in it either. EDIT: Probably because I am among the younger demographic of this board. My groups grognard would definitely agree with the above! Sidenote: hates anime! lol

To the Thread in General:
The only way I could see justifying making the player spend more of their action economy on the draw, regardless of whether it is carried or on the back, is if it was sheathed on their back AND they were carrying a rucksack, but even then I would just have their draw action include shrugging off their pack onto the ground. THAT SAID, if the OP did NOT intend a mechanical disadvantage (and if he directly said he did I missed it) I could totally understand him mentioning that to his players BECAUSE the way you envision your character has a lot to do with how you envision the world, and if you are trying to strike a certain gritty or realistic tone for the game, those things are important. In my current campaign for example, there's no "penalty for being too anime" you just simply won't be anime, because it doesn't fit the game I'm running. Now if you had played in my 3.5/5e nautically themed game otoh, have at it.

Just my 2cp.

Nightcanon
2015-09-14, 01:12 PM
Four pages and no-one has commented on the inappropriateness of a 5-6' long slashing weapon for going into dungeons with the classic 10' corridor and 20' square rooms (but whether you could quickly unhook a sword from your back should you wish to carry it there is a deal-breaker)?

sovin_ndore
2015-09-14, 01:12 PM
The denial of your DEX/dodge bonus from being flat-footed already covers this. Parrying is generally (in 3.x/PF game terms) a function of dodging, which is why there's no "parry bonus" and things like Combat Expertise and fighting defensively give dodge bonuses.
I generally agree, but I think the 'attack the realism of the flat-footed condition" approach would be more realistic... and that could be done more easily than trying to attack adding initiative bonuses to weapons which could be drawn more effectively.

Keltest
2015-09-14, 03:04 PM
Four pages and no-one has commented on the inappropriateness of a 5-6' long slashing weapon for going into dungeons with the classic 10' corridor and 20' square rooms (but whether you could quickly unhook a sword from your back should you wish to carry it there is a deal-breaker)?

Depending on the sword and your opponent, you could easily end up stabbing more often than slashing with it. Some swords favored such a tactic over others, but most were generally at least capable of it should circumstances force it.

Roxxy
2015-09-14, 03:11 PM
Depending on the sword and your opponent, you could easily end up stabbing more often than slashing with it. Some swords favored such a tactic over others, but most were generally at least capable of it should circumstances force it.

If I was mostly going to stab, I wouldn't want a greatsword. I'd rather half sword with a longsword or carry an arming sword or short sword.

Keltest
2015-09-14, 03:28 PM
If I was mostly going to stab, I wouldn't want a greatsword. I'd rather half sword with a longsword or carry an arming sword or short sword.

Or better yet, a spear or polearm designed specifically for stabbing. That's not really the point though. If youre dungeon crawling with your +5 magical greatsword of killing things, using that will be a significantly better option than going in functionally unarmed and hoping you find a similarly powered dungeon-friendly weapon you are proficient with.

alaalba_123
2015-09-14, 03:33 PM
I show him where the door is, crumple his character sheet, scatter his dice across the floor, jump on the table and shriek "Out! Out, UNCLEAN ONE!" before collapsing on the floor in tremors, gibbering unearthly blasphemies in a tongue long lost to human ears.

Can I sig this?

Aetol
2015-09-14, 03:59 PM
Four pages and no-one has commented on the inappropriateness of a 5-6' long slashing weapon for going into dungeons with the classic 10' corridor and 20' square rooms (but whether you could quickly unhook a sword from your back should you wish to carry it there is a deal-breaker)?

I totally did :


Just a thought : why are we assuming that D&D's greatsword must be a 16th-century zweihander ? Slight anachronism aside, these were weapons of war, used in pitched battles, not the sort of thing you carry around when you expect to run into skirmishes. They were more polearms than swords (of course, you can also use polearms in D&D...).

So maybe it's not entirely unreasonable to suppose the "greatsword" is a larger longsword (Oakeshott XIIa, XIIIa, XVIa, XVII ?) that could fit in one of those back harness, rather than a 6-foot long monster.

Again : IMO the "greatsword" of D&D is closer to 5' long – long, needs two hands, but can still be drawn from the back – than 6' or more. It would be called a longsword in real-life nomenclature. The "longsword" would be a short longsword or a long arming sword, just short enough to be carried at the hip. And the "shortsword" would be a shorter arming sword.

To give a clearer image, here's what I imagine the size of these swords to be, relative to the wielder : when the point of a "greatsword" touches the ground, its hilt is at the same level as the sternum. For a "longsword", it would be around the abdomen. And when a "shortsword" is held with the arm extended straight down, the point barely touches the ground. None of these swords are taller than their wielders : while this kind of weapons did exist on battlefields, it would be completely impractical in a dungeon crawl.

ZeroGear
2015-09-14, 07:33 PM
BACK TO THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD:

Can we all agree that nitpicking about swords being carried on or over the shoulder is pointless and therefore there should be no reason for the DM to take this any further than possibly having a small talk with the player, and possibly yielding to the 'rule of cool' or explaining to the player why he doesn't want his player to carry the greatsword on his back?

Louro
2015-09-14, 08:31 PM
You can not draw a longsword from your back in RL, because... well, you can't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IocQ_DZVAU0

Hawkstar
2015-09-14, 08:45 PM
You can not draw a longsword from your back in RL, because... well, you can't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IocQ_DZVAU0

That is a full scabbard, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Alberic Strein
2015-09-14, 09:06 PM
Lloyd is actually a bit overdoing it in this video, I know from empirical experience that you can indeed draw a blade with such curve and length from your back semi-slowly.

Is it still slow? Yes. Does it still open you up waaaaaaay too much? Yes. Is it still impratical? Yes. But you can draw a katana (relatively short sword with curve) from a scabbard strapped to your back.

One piece of evidence is not absolute proof, there are other videos of people managing to draw in that position. Still impratical though.

Now as for greatswords on your back, you can actually carry them like a rifle, with a shoulder sling. Just not across your body.

Also, don't be too quick to dismiss "drawing longswords from the back" as a rule of cool thing. It can be utility and the representation of your character. My trapfinding forest bandit needs both hands to do stuff and a massive sword not to be entirely irrelevant to fights since he isn't a full caster. Allowing him to carry and draw his blade from a back strap saves me the hassle of having to explain what he does with the blade he should be carrying in his hand while he fiddles with a trap, and it saves everyone the hassle of having to listen to me ramble on about constantly having to put the sword away and then back.

Anyway, yeah, there is no real reason to nitpick about this. It's a world of magic swords, dwarves, elves, and more importantly wondrous metal. I don't see why the player couldn't pay extra to have access to a metal scabbard that opens sideways, allowing him to draw from the back.

Rockphed
2015-09-14, 09:32 PM
So your first resort is to see what the game rules say. If your game has rules for drawing your weapon, and does not differentiate between a hip sheathe or a back sheathe, or even, say, an ankle sheathe or a forehead sheathe, I don't see why you'd want to mess with it as long as there was no mechanical benefit for the same thing... and honestly, do you really want to harass players about what's in their hands all the time?

My knight only uses a forehead sheath to hold his greatsword. He prances about the castle like a majestic unicorn.

nedz
2015-09-15, 01:23 AM
My knight only uses a forehead sheath to hold his greatsword. He prances about the castle like a majestic unicorn.

He should really try the groin scabbard — now there's a cod piece to remember.

Garimeth
2015-09-15, 07:23 AM
BACK TO THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD:

Can we all agree that nitpicking about swords being carried on or over the shoulder is pointless and therefore there should be no reason for the DM to take this any further than possibly having a small talk with the player, and possibly yielding to the 'rule of cool' or explaining to the player why he doesn't want his player to carry the greatsword on his back?

The OP did the second one.

Joe the Rat
2015-09-15, 09:50 AM
My knight only uses a forehead sheath to hold his greatsword. He prances about the castle like a majestic unicorn.


He should really try the groin scabbard — now there's a cod piece to remember.
Indeed. But my dual-wielder has both.

sovin_ndore
2015-09-15, 10:06 AM
Indeed. But my dual-wielder has both.
Oh yeah?! My Thri-kreen... yeah, I am dropping this before it gets worse.

hewholikespie
2015-09-15, 10:27 AM
I've a houserule that greatswords are always assumed drawn; bastard swords and longswords are assumed to be holstered at the hip, not on the back.

Still not sure what I should do if a player declares his sword is holstered on his back. Kind of a sliding scale of realism vs rule of cool, where I generally let some things slide, but I also like keeping my players on their toes; I want them to think about their actions, their words.

I created a custom magic item to allow such shennanigans for a character I had made. Based it on Tenser's floating disc. It essentially 'grabbed and held' the sword floating slightly behind the back and could sense when the owner was removing it.

GungHo
2015-09-15, 11:05 AM
I do nothing.

I also don't catch people's flowy robes in turbines or rule that they burned the s*** out of themselves because they tried to work on a car engine before it had a chance to cool down. I'm not there to find multitudinous ways to screw with the players.

Nightcanon
2015-09-15, 12:18 PM
Or better yet, a spear or polearm designed specifically for stabbing. That's not really the point though. If youre dungeon crawling with your +5 magical greatsword of killing things, using that will be a significantly better option than going in functionally unarmed and hoping you find a similarly powered dungeon-friendly weapon you are proficient with.

By RAW, for sure, but if we're going for verismilitude then it's piercing or short-hafted bludgeoning/ slashing you're after. Longspears would be fine apart from the potential difficulty turning round in corridors- ever tried carrying a 10' pole round your house without bashing everything in sight.
I'm inclined to say that if you're okay with two-handed swords in dungeons, it's safe to assume that someone in your setting has developed a harness such as those shown in the pictures others have posted, whether they are Real World historically accurate or not.

Nightcanon
2015-09-15, 01:03 PM
I created a custom magic item to allow such shennanigans for a character I had made. Based it on Tenser's floating disc. It essentially 'grabbed and held' the sword floating slightly behind the back and could sense when the owner was removing it.

How much extra for a Gregor's gigantic greatsword gizmo for a Heward's handy haversack?

Seriously, if we're talking D&D, it makes so little difference to the game it ain't worth bothering with. In RL scabbards were used to protect the blade, but D&D has no rules for damaging blades other than by sundering or hy rust-monster. It's generally assumed that all weapons are out in the dungeon anyway, and if you're doing something like climbing, even a 2-3' scabbard is going to be better strapped to the back than dangling round the legs (or better yet, in some sort of extra-dimensional storage).

Keltest
2015-09-15, 04:30 PM
By RAW, for sure, but if we're going for verismilitude then it's piercing or short-hafted bludgeoning/ slashing you're after. Longspears would be fine apart from the potential difficulty turning round in corridors- ever tried carrying a 10' pole round your house without bashing everything in sight.
I'm inclined to say that if you're okay with two-handed swords in dungeons, it's safe to assume that someone in your setting has developed a harness such as those shown in the pictures others have posted, whether they are Real World historically accurate or not.

As far as verisimilitude, I imagine that a fighter would prefer to fight with the powerful weapon he is well adapted to rather than trade it off for a lesser weapon that isn't as powerful. He might do so if using his greatsword is actively harmful, but otherwise the benefits of superhuman skill and powerful magic would outweigh the ability to more comfortably swing a strike.

Telwar
2015-09-15, 08:36 PM
I created a custom magic item to allow such shennanigans for a character I had made. Based it on Tenser's floating disc. It essentially 'grabbed and held' the sword floating slightly behind the back and could sense when the owner was removing it.

For our steampunk Planescape game, I borrowed a 3.5 FR Cloak of Sword-Holding and turned it into my Black Dragonhide Highlander Trenchcoat of Resistance +5 for my anthropomorphic tiger sword-saint.

OTOH, for our more traditional games, it really never came up where stuff was stowed, usually in a sheath at the hip or back, until we wound up with pairs of Gauntlets of Holding and Swimming and Climbing and Dexterity +6.

turkey901
2015-09-18, 11:54 AM
I say "ok" and move on. Assuming this is a D and D or Pathfinder style game there exists mechanics for drawing a weapon that does not require getting into specfic details.

Does it make sense in a realistic way?

Maybe not. But does it make sense that a level 10 fighter with 100 hp fights with the exact same stats if he loses 99 of those HP. If you're playing a system that has the rules for this level of details great.

But the overwhelming answer the community has given isn't what you were looking for. So do what you want

Segev
2015-09-21, 08:46 AM
I suppose it's worth noting that the RAW don't actually care how you store the weapon. It takes a move-equivalent action to ready it if you have BAB of 0, and can be done as part of any move action to ready it if you have a BAB of +1 or greater. With Quick Draw, it's a free action.

No specification is given for how you store it, and it takes special rules on the weapon itself to change the amount of time it takes to ready.