jtr7 on 4/12/2008 at 23:55
Hmmm...okay. :)
But of course, zombies don't need no eyes....
The Shroud on 4/12/2008 at 23:57
True, but they don't like fire of any kind either, do they?
jtr7 on 5/12/2008 at 00:01
It frikkin' cooks them and makes them pop like popcorn, like a tree exploding when struck by lightning from the super-heated sap trapped within.:D
Sizzle, crackle, and POP! Like a fire log, like bacon, plus we ain't seen no hunk o' carbon that was undead, yet.:p
Just let me know if you want me to shut up. :laff:
Ignoring the apparitions, just make the fleshy ones recoil from the heat. Remember, the heat has to be scary hotter than the hot living blood of an adrenalised man who's been carrying around a heavy load. A wee bit o' fast burning phosphorus!
The Shroud on 5/12/2008 at 00:55
Incidentally, regarding Garrett's "heavy load", he won't be looting anything during his missions other than the specific object he's after. So in Bafford's manor he's just there for the scepter, in Constantine's mansion he just takes the sword, in the Olde Quarter he just takes the Lost City map and the stone key, etc. I'd hope this would go without saying, but just in case... No looting. So Garrett will be traveling reasonably light on his adventures.
The Shroud on 5/12/2008 at 03:41
Garrett's bow will be a folding or collapsible short bow, which he'll keep stashed most of the time until he needs to use it. His quiver will hold about 25 arrows at maximum and he's likely to take fewer than that with him on most missions. Other than that, he'll have his coil of rope and the sword - and this is one of the main reasons I'm considering making the sword shorter, for easy portability. That's really the only bulk he'll be carrying. He'll have a sack to stash items in, like the Talismans or the Eye. The rest of his items are fairly small. This is yet another reason why I've left out half of TDP's weapons/items from the script - Garrett has limited carrying space and needs to avoid weighing himself down more than he has to.
jtr7 on 5/12/2008 at 03:49
:thumb:
Beleg Cúthalion on 5/12/2008 at 09:29
Folding bow? :weird: Maybe for one hundred years of steampunk later... :p A 48-50" horse bow (similar to the TDS one but without the eyepiece) is enough and can be worn with such a Mongol-like bowcase like (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1766072#post1766072) here. The sword in these pictures is only a little shorter than usual ones and expect for going down a stairway it's not really bulky. That's what I meant about the short swords, too: The pseudo adaption for thieves would have more disadvantages than benefits, so there's no reason why not to take the real thing if any.
And people fighting each other was somehow similar all over the planet since there's only a limited palette of what you
can do to kill your enemy after all. You have to show me some Asian etc. sources contradicting my thesis otherwise I won't believe you that shorter weapons were made to be put against normal ones. :sly: I'm not doing all this just for fun or to annoy you, I've simply seen too much nonsense in movies until now as that I would miss the chance to do better.
jtr7 on 5/12/2008 at 10:31
Thanks for the information!
Okay...Who said shorter weapons were made to go up against normal ones?:confused:
I said it would be unexpected if an ancient blade-type was used with adequate understanding of it...against a modern common blade-type with a modern and standardised training. You would certainly be surprised because you wouldn't believe it was happening, eh? :D
List out the disadvantages of the shorter blade, omitting combat-specific issues, if you would, please.
Con's sword could easily have been collected from another time, when it was more advanced than whatever else was around, and we don't know the stature of the wielder it was meant for, or if they were even human.
But as has been stated, blade-to-blade combat won't be taking place in the movie, thus, avoiding the awful cliché altogether. Relax, and share the facts. Educate, and elucidate. Seek out the plausibility in the concepts. Create a seed of truth based on this alternate dimension/reality. Bring credibility into it using the ingredients given.
The reason not to take a full-length sword is...the length. Same with the bow. For what Garrett does, a full sword and bow would be in the way and have to be removed frequently. Portability, not blade-to-blade combat, is the main thrust of the screenwriter's decision for Con's sword. Since no one has said they disagree specifically with making a change to Constantine's sword in and of itself, and the only concern has been usefulness in combat against another sword-wielder, and that situation has no part of the screenplay, then my own opinion is settled on the matter until further notice. Since it's not my project, I speak only for myself, but I keep hoping to hear more articulated opinion from others.
I'll get to the bow later. You make good points, but I have to pull your teeth to get them, and they are not taking the idiom of the Thief Universe wholly into account before modifying them.
Beleg Cúthalion on 5/12/2008 at 12:19
OK, I'll try to put it into one post. :p Sorry, treatise. The idea of (RPG) short swords, as I understand it, is to provide a weapon (with less damage points and) which is easier to handle, faster but maybe not so effective. I'm against this concept because...
1. The blade would have to be shortened to almost dagger-length if you want to gain any significant advantage in transport. I'm about 1,92m high (app. 6 1/3 feet if the calculator is not mistaken) and would need a 70cm (27 1/2 inch) sword (hilt included!) to go downstairs without having a blade hitting the ground. That's my measurement of the pure movement handicap. Now with such a sword (the blade would be app. 55cm/21 inch) there is no real chance I could win a fight according to what we know about fighting styles (see below). Since most people are smaller than I am, the blade would be even shorter. A normal one handed blade is app. 75-85cm (app. 30-33 inch). That's the one making problems with stairs.
2. The weight AND the balance point of a weapon decide about how fast you can turn it or strike with it. So while shortening a blade would of course result in less weight, you could achieve the same "handling" result with shifting the balance point towards the cross guard (usually it's about a hand before it) but without losing blade length. As I said, until a weight of app. three pounds the weight itself is negligible compared to the balance point. And three pounds are a lot for a one-handed sword.
3. After I've shown that the transport handicap cannot be achieved without a disproportional shortening of the blade length and that this would not be the best way to make a weapon faster either, let's take a look at the consequences of shorter blades. The (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.33) Tower manuscript is the earliest known fencing book in Europe. However, the techniques described in it are very complex and extremely lethal (usually stabs/thrusts to the face etc.), that's why I'm referring to it now. Although it doesn't really rely on blade lenght, you can easily see the advantages of having a longer blade ((
http://freywild.ch/i33/i33a.html#13) like here, 7r (13), the 2nd action on the picture). It's often only a matter of a few inches if you can get your enemy or not. Plus, significant longer blades allow you to keep your enemy at distance. In the worst case this is about thrusting in the air while being hit on the head. Of course there is a chance to win a fight even with a shorter blade but no one would take/forge a blade for this little chance in combat, even more if he's just a Thief with a couple of Keeper sword fight lessons. That's about as having no blade at all (or only to salve one's conscience) and I think because of that all "short swords" in the world - i.e. shorter swords than those in the same military context - were secondary weapons or tools (like seaxes or Dussacks) or some kind of last resort if someone was forced to fight and couldn't get anything better. But the whole short sword idea in Computer games is IMHO a different one, like mentioned above.
So summa summarum there cannot be a shorter weapon with the properties mentioned in my first assumption (see above) and still be a serious/useful weapon at the same time.
On the other hand, as long as Garrett doesn't walk through narrow corridors all the time (which doesn't happen after The Sword, left aside that wealthy medieval/older buildings had bigger rooms in general) there is no reason why he shouldn't wear a normal one-handed sword. And a 50" bow isn't so bad either, kneeling I can even shoot in rooms that are hardly bigger than I am. Of course you always have to care about your quiver and bow (the latter being in the bow case like on the photos, although you don't see it well on those) when going through houses and in fact they're not useful at all, but in older buildings and all the thievy context it could work.
