|
Post by robbi22 on Apr 11, 2005 5:07:18 GMT
Can you carry over backpack items to the next book? And what weapons(like the warhammer) make the shield unusable as a bonus, example being using both hands?
|
|
|
Post by Zipp on Apr 11, 2005 7:28:05 GMT
The answer to your first question is yes, sort've. Meaning, technically yes, but most people play that meals cannot be saved, as they would go bad. I do believe you are not allowed to carry backpack items from the magnakai quests over to the grand master quests, however.
The answer to your second question is anything that uses both hands. This includes spear, quarterstaff, broadsword, warhammer, and bow.
And, because I feel it beggin to be asked: The Sommerswerd can be used in conjunction with a shield.
|
|
|
Post by outspaced on Apr 11, 2005 9:46:26 GMT
Actually, Zipp, you can take all Backpack Items through from the Magnakai books into the Grand Master books; it's the Special Items that are severely restricted. If someone decides to implement the 'can't take a Meal through' rule, surely it holds true that the Meal becomes inedible during a long journey? But you can keep a meal for a month or more, why do you have to dump them between going to bed in FFTD and waking up the next day in FOTW! Personally, I'd go with keeping Meals, simply because it's not beyond the scope of belief that Lone Wolf can replace mouldy food with a new Meal between books, if he needs to.
|
|
|
Post by Doomy on Apr 11, 2005 10:07:59 GMT
Of course, by the point of reaching the Grand Master books Lone Wolf has apparently learned how to photosynthesise - food is strictly optional.
|
|
|
Post by North Star on Apr 11, 2005 13:58:46 GMT
If he photosynthesised, he'd get hungry underground, in the Plane of Darkness etc. He still doesn't! NS.
|
|
|
Post by Relenoir on Apr 14, 2005 2:37:26 GMT
Food is never optional. There are places that even with Grand Huntmastery you can lose EP if you don't have a meal. Hate those spots!
|
|
|
Post by North Star on Apr 14, 2005 12:20:41 GMT
The Caverns of Kalte! My first ever book and it nearly put me off Hunting for life! NS.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Apr 14, 2005 20:30:53 GMT
The answer to your second question is anything that uses both hands. This includes spear, quarterstaff, broadsword, warhammer, and bow. The warhammer? I thought only the spear, quarterstaff and broadsword were two-handed (and the bow, of course, but that's not a melee weapon anyway), and that the dagger, short sword, sword, mace, warhammer and axe were one-handed.
|
|
|
Post by Zipp on Apr 15, 2005 1:50:22 GMT
Actually, I think you're right. That one is confusing, because in reality, the warhammer is coinsidered a two-handed weapon. You just can't get any decent damage out of it swinging it around one handed, and you're liable to pop a socket or blow a wrist joint.
|
|
Moo
Kai Lord
Mooooooo
Posts: 101
|
Post by Moo on Apr 15, 2005 5:50:57 GMT
Erm, I dunno about the crappy replicas, but real warhammers tended to come in both one and two hand versions. One-handed ones weighed between 1 and 1.5 pounds (453 to 680 grams). Very, very light and maneuverable. War axes and maces were around that weight, too. Yes, the crappy replicas weigh 5 pounds (2268 grams) or more. That's because they're crappy. Two-handed ones were about sword weight, 2 to 3 pounds (907 to 1361 grams). Cold steel makes a nice, functional two-hander that's 2.5 pounds. www.coldsteel.com/warhammer.htmlSimilarly, actual swords were in the 2 - 3.5 pound (907 - 1587 gram) range, including the huge "greatswords." Yeah, the crappy wallhangers you can get are much heavier. That's because the decorative swords are machined (ground from rectangular plates) rather than forged (beaten to shape on an anvil, using a hammer). It's nearly impossible to machine a distal taper (blade gets narrower towards the tip, in terms of thickness), but forging one is very easy. Gus Trim is the only swordsmith today who machines swords with a proper distal taper. www.angustrimswords.com/Plus, the crappy wallhangers are usually made of stainless steel, so you don't need to oil them. Stainless is far too brittle to make a durable blade longer than about 12", so they're usually as thick as possible and un-heat-treated. That way, the sword won't shatter like glass if you decide to hack up the backyard tree.
|
|
|
Post by Relenoir on Apr 15, 2005 12:07:20 GMT
Well said Moo! Zipp, I believe what your thinking of is more along the lines of a maul, which is a very heavy two-handed warhammer with a wedge-shaped head on one side. BTW, going on vacation and be back in a week and a half. Catch you all then! ~Relenoir, off to Disney World. . . again! ;D
|
|
Moo
Kai Lord
Mooooooo
Posts: 101
|
Post by Moo on Apr 15, 2005 14:56:58 GMT
I thought mauls were wood-splitting axes?
In general, the best way to distinguish between tools and weapons is that weapons are lighter and more expensive, because soldiers complain a lot if they have to carry heavy stuff.
That's pretty easily borne out if you look at, say, machine guns today.
The old 1895 "potato digger" weighed 35 pounds (15.9 kilos). Totally non-portable, had to be mounted on a tripod, and soldiers were complaining constantly about the weight.
Then the Browning Auto Rifle came along, which weighed 20 pounds (9.07 kilos), and soldiers were expected to walk with this thing, firing a shot with every step of the right foot.
Then the M-14. 11.25 pounds (5.1 kilos), still too heavy to lug around on patrol all day, every day.
Then the M-16. 8.3 pounds (3.77 kilos) empty, still too heavy for our apparently delicate soldiers, though the poor saps that were stuck with M-14s and M-1 Garands and BARs in Vietnam sure appreciated it when they were finally given M-16s.
Now we've got the M-4 carbine. 5.56 pounds (2.52 kilos) empty, and soldiers have finally shifted their complaints from weight to stopping power.
Next is gonna be the XM-8 thingie, that looks like some kind of phaser rifle. 5.87 pounds empty (2.66 kilos), so it should still be in the (comfortable) weight range.
If you look at medieval European weapons, their main battle weapons (lances, spears, pikes, pollaxes, halberds, glaives, etc.) were in the 4 - 6 pound (1.81 - 2.72 kilo) weight range, exactly the same weight range that soldiers like today.
Medieval European sidearms (swords) were, as stated before, in the 2 - 3 pound (907 - 1361 gram) range. The 1911 pistol was the standard issue sidearm from 1911 until pretty recently, and no one ever complained about the weight, 2.5 pounds (1.13 kilos) loaded. The current sidearm is the Beretta 92 (M9), which weighs pretty much exactly the same, and once again no one is complaining about the weight, just about the stopping power.
The more things change...
|
|
|
Post by North Star on Apr 16, 2005 17:54:39 GMT
A maul is an enormous hammer. A mattock is the huge spade-like thing.
NS.
|
|
Moo
Kai Lord
Mooooooo
Posts: 101
|
Post by Moo on Apr 17, 2005 0:43:22 GMT
Looks like everyone was semi-correct. My dictionary says:
Maul 1. A heavy, long-handled hammer used especially to drive stakes, piles, or wedges. 2. A heavy hammer having a wedge-shaped head and used for splitting logs.
|
|
|
Post by Zipp on Apr 17, 2005 18:11:38 GMT
Well said Moo! Zipp, I believe what your thinking of is more along the lines of a maul, which is a very heavy two-handed warhammer with a wedge-shaped head on one side. BTW, going on vacation and be back in a week and a half. Catch you all then! ~Relenoir, off to Disney World. . . again! ;D Actually, I was more drawing on my old D and D knowledge, rather than reality. I seem to remember warhammers being two handed... To be honest, I am more an expert on Japanese weapons than European. The Japanese did have a small one handed variation of the warhammer, however, they were not common and were considered an "exoctic" weapon, thus making them dishonorable in combat.
|
|