Hammerspace
BelgarathMTH
Member Posts: 5,653
Hello, the use of Hammerspace is starting to bother me more and more lately and causing me to lose immersion and willing suspension of disbelief in Baldur's Gate and games like it.
For a definition, if you don't know what that is, see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammerspace
I find it ludicrous to think that any warrior could switch at will from fighting with archery to pole weapon to large blunt weapon or sword and shield. I also don't find it believable that a shield and a large sword can be mounted on the back in addition to a heavy backpack, as is done in Dragon Age and many other games that use Hammerspace.
I am starting to self-restrict myself in my runs based on what I can imagine is actually possible. So, for example, my player character berserker is using archery, but, I am forbidding him to use either a polearm or a shield. He explores areas with his bow in hand, a quiver on his back or waist belt, and a notched arrow. On sight of enemies, he fires, as do his ranged-equipped companions.
Once his position is overrun, I am imagining that he throws the bow on the ground, and draws a weapon, which must be sheathable on the belt, on the side opposite the quiver.
"Squishy" characters are allowed to switch freely between short sword, dagger, or small hafted weapon and bow, being imagined to hold the bow in the left hand while fighting with the drawn light weapon in the right, which can be re-sheathed easily if there's a chance to go back to archery.
Crossbows require two hands to operate. One to hold it, and one to load it and crank it. There is no way that I can see that you could have any melee weapon on your person other than a light one (short sword, dagger, or light hafted) and still hold and operate a crossbow and its bolts, while being able to switch to melee if and when your position is overrun.
There is *no* way you could have a heavy shield strapped to your left arm, and then fight with your right hand with anything but a one-handed weapon. So, I am starting to self-restrict my shield warriors from using anything but darts or throwing axes as ranged weapons.
I am making an exception for clerics and slings, where I am imagining that they are actually using darts, as the idea that a cleric wouldn't use a dart is also very silly to me. A real sling would take two hands to operate. There is no way you could use a sling with a heavy shield on your left arm. *Maybe* you could do it with a buckler on your left wrist.
What are your thoughts about this?
For a definition, if you don't know what that is, see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammerspace
I find it ludicrous to think that any warrior could switch at will from fighting with archery to pole weapon to large blunt weapon or sword and shield. I also don't find it believable that a shield and a large sword can be mounted on the back in addition to a heavy backpack, as is done in Dragon Age and many other games that use Hammerspace.
I am starting to self-restrict myself in my runs based on what I can imagine is actually possible. So, for example, my player character berserker is using archery, but, I am forbidding him to use either a polearm or a shield. He explores areas with his bow in hand, a quiver on his back or waist belt, and a notched arrow. On sight of enemies, he fires, as do his ranged-equipped companions.
Once his position is overrun, I am imagining that he throws the bow on the ground, and draws a weapon, which must be sheathable on the belt, on the side opposite the quiver.
"Squishy" characters are allowed to switch freely between short sword, dagger, or small hafted weapon and bow, being imagined to hold the bow in the left hand while fighting with the drawn light weapon in the right, which can be re-sheathed easily if there's a chance to go back to archery.
Crossbows require two hands to operate. One to hold it, and one to load it and crank it. There is no way that I can see that you could have any melee weapon on your person other than a light one (short sword, dagger, or light hafted) and still hold and operate a crossbow and its bolts, while being able to switch to melee if and when your position is overrun.
There is *no* way you could have a heavy shield strapped to your left arm, and then fight with your right hand with anything but a one-handed weapon. So, I am starting to self-restrict my shield warriors from using anything but darts or throwing axes as ranged weapons.
I am making an exception for clerics and slings, where I am imagining that they are actually using darts, as the idea that a cleric wouldn't use a dart is also very silly to me. A real sling would take two hands to operate. There is no way you could use a sling with a heavy shield on your left arm. *Maybe* you could do it with a buckler on your left wrist.
What are your thoughts about this?
6
Comments
Also, mid to late game in either BG1 or 2 I tend to carry around tens of thousands of gold pieces and considering the weight of gold (and the sheer volume of 10k gold pieces) could you justify carrying anything else than the gold (regardless of your characters' weight allowance)
This is not meant to trivialize your point (I used to play PnP with a DM who was very strict with these things), I just don't think BG is the right game to bring up these concerns in.
The concept would be a wanderer/ adventurer type (probably either a Stalker or Barbarian), with the following kit:
- lightly armoured (a guy who walks the earth living on his wits and skills doesn't want to double his weight with armour)
- longbow (a guy has to eat!)
- sword (primary defence - worn on the left hip)
- dagger (right hip - back up defence and eating utensil)
- quarterstaff (walking sticks are handy, as is a non lethal way to drop an angry drunk)
Agree on crossbows btw... They always struck me as unit weapons rather than a useful tool for an isolated warrior. (Same goes for spears & halberds too, by my reckoning... My hero doesn't rock a guard's weapon.)
For potions, I imagine them to be very small vials that can be grabbed from a utility belt or pouch, a tiny stopper broken with the thumb, and then quickly downed in one gulp. Since they are magical spells cast into liquids, only a consumed drop or two would be necessary to trigger the spells. They could maybe even be in wax "bottles" instead of glass, such that they can be popped into the mouth and chewed open, like a capsule.
The imagery is a little bit helped along by remembering that hit points themselves are an abstraction representing stamina and physical energy expended by taking glancing blows, or by avoiding effectively lethal hits, not literal "hits". Only the final "blow" that renders you unconscious or dead has literally connected with lethal force.
I regularly leave suits of armor behind or on the ground for realism's sake. Only if the party is going directly to a vendor would I pick up such heavy "junk" items. I often call the practice of low-level carrying back and forth of normal heavy weapons and armor as "junk-running". After a few levels, junk-running should become unnecessary.
I can think of a couple or three ways around the problem:
-Imagine that the party is accompanied by horses and pack mules, and the care of these animals is left out of the game implementation because it would be boring to the players to have to actually manage the animals in-game.
-Imagine that the mages in the party are managing an actual subspace, from which they can magically conjure items at will. This would be sort of like on "Bewitched" or "I Dream of Jeannie" - the mage waves his or her hand, or wiggles lips and nose, or blinks, and any item imaginable appears in the hands of anyone targeted by the conjuration spell. This would still leave some limitations on what can be done in combat, though, especially if the mages are directly under attack.
-Imagine that the party is accompanied by squires, who do nothing but avoid attacks, but try to be ready to hand equipment around. Their role and presence is sometimes represented in "retainer" or "hireling" screens, but not always.
All these things are irrelevant to anyone who plays rpg's as simple loot fests and powergames, but they become kind of important to thinking story and character roleplayers, who want to become self-immersed into a realistic story that doesn't strain willing suspension of disbelief.
EDIT: Oh, and as for the gold, the Might and Magic world has primitive banks in the towns. It's not hard to imagine that temples of Waukeen in the FR might do something similar. The ability to store gold is fundamental to any economy more advanced than simple bartering.
EDIT #2: About "rummaging around in your bag" during combat - the original BG prevented this through the "no pause on inventory" system. I wish there was a mod to put that back in for BG2 and the various backconversions.
I'm leaving bows and swords on the ground that I know to be worth 6 gold each, because I can't think of a good enough reason why we'd encumber ourselves with those kinds of things. We are picking up and carrying only gems, scrolls, and artillery. The gems, scrolls, and gold pieces will be our primary source of income.
With my cleric-mage using a sling along with a shield, I noticed something - a sling bullet does exactly the same damage as one Magic Missile, only without the guaranteed hit. Also, my cleric-mage has dexterity 10, giving him a high probability of missing with the "sling" anyway.
So, I have started to imagine that when he uses his sling, he is actually shooting a beginner's version of a Magic Missile or Melf's Minute Meteor out of his bare right hand. The difference between the actual spells and his "sling" based cantrip, is that his beginner's magical projectiles have exactly the same chance to hit and damage as a normal sling bullet thrown by a combatant of his (relatively low) dexterity.
Later, he will adopt Magic Missiles and Melf's Minute Meteors as his favorite damage spells, tying into his extensive practice with the skill of throwing magically generated projectiles effectively.
It's not hard to imagine that a straight cleric is doing the same thing, only that the straight cleric will never get a guaranteed hit or an advanced +5 enchantment magic application of the Magic Missiles and Minute Meteors, the way a mage, bard, or sorcerer will.
So, yeah. Some of you may not relate to the way I think, but for me, this is really, really fun.
Moreover, the gold can be roleplayed to be stored at a safe location. Most stores are in cities anyway, and in other places, trade contracts can be roleplayed, I guess.
In fact, most playable characters have exceptional strength, but they cannot in any possible way manage such a large volume of objects without being inhibited some way or another...
As for the bags of holding, I will allow those in my self-challenge, *but* there will be no going into them during combat.
I am *really* wishing I could turn back on the vanilla BG "no pause in inventory" feature for this. I replayed the original unmodded BG a couple of years ago, and that feature added a *huge* amount of excitement to planning for combat.
Pretty much covers it, doesn't it?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicAIsMagicA
If you wanted something that wasn't in a quickslot you had to rummage through your inventory screen while the fight kept happening.
I really miss that.
@belgarathmth: Casts Maze
jackjack: No saving throw
jackjack: Mazed
What i find problematic is the immediate swap of weapon (to use immunities) or immediate find of potion/scrolls.
Easy way to partially fix this is to remove the pause while in inventory, as it was in BG1 (as syllog just said)
Meanwhile, what i try to do is to limit myself to the quickslot during combat.
Spears (especially on rangers): I can see having a spear strapped to their back as likely, you might need it to hunt as well. Plus, unlike the longsword and shortsword you're likely to bring out, it gives you range from your opponent might need it.
This allows your ranger to have:
Bow or Crossbow: Long range weapon for picking off small game, targets of opportunity etc.
Spear: Ranged weapon for tight quarters, or otherwise needing to keep distance from your opponent while in melee. A staff might also apply here as both could also serve as a walking stick if need be.
Longsword and Shortsword or Dagger: for when you need to get upclose and personal.
For a paladin or otherwise plate wearing warrior (if you use a shield):
While swords have scabbards, usually blunt weapons or axes would hang on your belt (from what I've read).
I don't know, I pick what fits my character. I personally love the idea of a paladin who uses Greatsword, Quarterstaff and Spear or Halberd.
What I WISH I could see, granted this would make your hammerspace problem bigger not smaller, is the IWD2 weapon system. This allowed my dwarf warrior to have a crossbow +bolts (which makes sense for the cave type combat they're exposed to) on one slot, hammer and shield on another slot, twin axes in a 3rd slot and a 2h axe in a final slot.
But I'm weird and I'd like having most of my characters (sans fighters who are super specialized in 2e as compared to 3e) with a proverbial tool for every job, rather than something like this.
I do kinda wanna make an elven stalker (even if they were illegal in 2e, stalkers were human only), that was longsword/shortsword and shortbow driven.
But assuming I understand you correctly, I totally agree with you! I kinda liked how BG 1 Vanilla prevented you from sorting through inventory whilst paused in a battle, even though it did make life really hard at times...
I imagine the party have pack animals, like horses, when they travel, particularly outdoors. Otherwise there is no way they can carry the amount of stuff that they do.
In the BGEE MP game (which is goin great!) I'm having with some of the forumites here, I remember remarking "Oh look donkeys! Let's put our fallen on them and carry everything back to Beregost!", when our party was reduced to just 2 or 3 standing in the wilderness, and I couldn't see how Immy, a scrawny sorcerer and a Fighter/Thief Charname could carry home 3 fallen comrades and all their gear!
A leather shoulder strap for a crossbow is an interesting idea, although it still seems like it would be cumbersome, and a huge disadvantage, to have to do hand-to-hand armed melee with that heavy thing dangling there.
What I am having trouble with on the back-mounted polearms idea is imagining how this could be done in a way that would allow the polearm (or greatsword) to be drawn and put back into the back straps with any ease, especially during mortal combat.
Do any of you guys and gals who are medieval weaponry and combat experts know if that was possible, and maybe where to find a picture of a real back weapon holder? What would really help me accept the possibility of carrying a pole weapon as a roaming archer would be to see a picture of it being done.
Absent that, the only way I can imagine to travel with an archery/polearm combo at the ready would be to carry the bow in one hand and the polearm in the other, and then throw one of them on the ground when a fight begins. If you started with the bow, it would be awfully tricky to time the point at which you must throw the bow down and pick up that heavy pole weapon off the ground and bring it to the ready position - that seems to me like it would take precious seconds that could be fatal if you were being rushed by an enemy.
With archery, a bow/smallsword or dagger combo makes a lot more sense to me.
Also, is there such a thing as a bow holster? What does an archer do with his bow when he needs both hands free?
In fact, I believe the U.S. military trains its soldiers to do exactly that in warzones.
However, having a backpack strapped to your back while fighting means that you cannot mount a useable weapon or shield there, and, it also means that you cannot access anything in that pack during a fight.
Looked at this way, the backpack is able to contain anything of the appropriate size, up to the strength-based carry limitations of the combatants. But, it is limited by its space. "Magic" containers (which could also be written to have sci-fi equivalents), could be carried in the backpack, but again, you would not be able to access them during combat.
Unless I have a blue Bag of Holding in my backpack, I am assuming that it is impossible to carry a suit of armor without wearing it on your person. It simply wouldn't fit in pieces into a normal backpack. Bulk matters.
Also, I am self-imposing the original devs' idea of no pausing on inventory screen - if it's not in a quickslot, I can't use it until the end of battle.
What I'm finding, is that I can do my realism challenge by simply refusing to exploit anything that's unrealistic in the game implementation.
It's really fun to me, and is greatly increasing my sense of immersion. I just had the most exciting time collecting the canon party, up through the rescue of Dynaheir, that I've ever had, (that I remember, other than maybe the very first time in 1998), and that's after 15+ years of playing this game.
I have a theory, that I'm now testing, that most of what people do to take advantage of game rules ("powergaming" and "hammerspace") is actually extreme overkill. That's why people get bored with how "easy" the games are, and start to seek difficulty increases.
I want to see how far I can get, using my self-imposed "realism", in a minimal reload game. So far, I haven't had any reloads, and I've had lots and lots of nail-biting excitement.
I end up opening my inventory, getting something, then waiting x seconds before I can play the game [which, in practice means getting temporarily out of combat first].
It's a passable adaptation - but it does lack the emotional immediacy of the old version.
(I just wish it were an option - even if it required Near Infinity to mod in.) @Bigfish Of the original-original versions I only played BG2. There was definitely a point where no pause on inventory screen was true there. (Things changed with different updates though - there wasn't initially a button to highlight lootable spaces either.)
You can (and probably should) just cut off a lock of hair from a fallen comrade and then take that back with you.
So all you'd actually need to do would be to carry back their items.
(Actually: as long as we're discussing PnP: there was an item something-something's Handy Haversack - it was basically a bag of holding backpack that magically gave you whatever you wanted out of it.
Obviously, we don't have enough to outfit 6 characters, especially in BG1... but for a BG2 solo rationalization... ?
I must say the character I would like to role-play has very things around and looks at everything as if that were pointless, so he carries a long sword, maybe besides his leg or in his back (11/19/11/18/18/15, elven Mage/Thief seeking knowledge beyond mortal's comprehension), a short bow (maybe he does not have arrows even...) or a crossbow, a staff in his hand to walk, but only if its very lightweight, as armor he should be using a robe or either leather, maybe elven chain mail, but he won't use anymore things, outside magic stuff, he will base on things to make himself even more powerful a lot, he disagrees doing that but he is sure he has to be better to reach his ultimate goal: an unanswered question needing at least one correct answer.
Then, in BG, it is very strange for a two handed sword to take the same space as a gem, an the same space as an armor plate... Even in Diablo II, where a scroll used up the same inventory space that a book, and bows weren't very large at all. Also, the title made me think this was something related to a place where @booinyoureyes is or some joke like that. And the Bag of Holding seems to be like a Pocket Plane, put in stuff and put in stuff!! Or maybe just a zipped archive, one will never know (a geeky joke: the codes for a Bag of Holding weight more than the codes for a dead body of about 100 Ibs).
Time elapsed? 0.00 seconds
Cheese utilized? ∞
Perhaps this would destroy the universe?