Has anyone else noticed how you can easily switch back and forth between a large 2-handed weapon and a bow and then back again?

Let's say a warrior is using a halberd (or any 2-handed pole arm) in combat and then quickly switches to a composite bow. What does she do with the halberd?

If she were using a 1-handed sword, you might think she quickly sheathes the blade before unslinging the bow from her shoulder. But how can she switch from a 6' halberd to a bow without dropping it?

If she drops the halberd, how can she switch from bow to halberd again if she's running around during combat?

The game does not permit equipping both a 2-handed weapon and a shield, but a fighter can equip five 2-handed pole-arms if desired. It seems more logical that you could have a shield in one arm and a spear in the other, like the ancient Greeks and Romans used to carry, than carrying five halberds and no shield.

Well, are you complaining? [img]smile.gif[/img] It is, after all, to your potential benefit that you can do so. Maybe all IWD halberds have collapsible handles so that adventurers can sling them on their hip like a battle axe. ;)

Or mabye victory music plays, the character spins the weapon around a few times, and then slaps it to their back where it miraculously attaches.

Aerich, I can't speak for Otto, but it seems like just an observation rather than a complaint (though some of his messages read a little like critiques -- sorry, Otto, I calls 'em as I sees 'em).

Maybe he (or she?) is just suggesting that you should at least be able to equip a shield and spear if you can equip 5 spears... I know it's to our benefit to be able to do this, but such benefits might be considered by some as "exploits", and players with self-imposed rules might avoid practicing them. I realize that not everyone shares my rather parochial perpective, and encourage people to enjoy playing IWD however they like.

[ 11-06-2004, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: jmsteven ]

Well...thanks for not speaking on my behalf, though you did a fine job articulating my thoughts.

Aerich, I agree with jmsteven: (1) I'm just offering my point of view; (2) I do try to avoid taking advantage of "exploits"; and (3) Yes, everyone should play in a way that is fun for them.

[ 11-06-2004, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Otto ]

Yeah, I know it's an observation, and I was just responding to it in a lighthearted way I find humorous. Apologies if I come across heavy-handed. Many of my posts should be read as slightly tongue in cheek. Hmmm, maybe I need to use this [img]graemlins/kidding.gif[/img] smiley a bit more.

I realize that the game has a number of unrealistic things in it (foremost among them pausing the game and moving armor on and off during combat :rolleyes: ). However, it is a game from the late '90s and the designers were under a fair amount of time pressure, which is, for example, why the Ranger does not get a true double wield but gets an extra attack instead. I agree that the game is not totally realistic in many ways, but it's a bit too much to expect. Certain things are allowed or simplified for ease of use or ease of designing.

Further, if the designers had added some rules, say you could only carry a maximum of three two-handed weapons and two sets of armor, it would complicate the game enormously (especially for non-AD&D players or anyone who doesn't read manuals).