Belt dagger limit

[hcobb]

I'm willing to accept a 3 oz small knife (ST 6, 1d-2 damage) alongside the 8 oz dagger (ST 8, 1d-1 damage), 16 oz Main Gauche, and 32 oz Small Sword (ST 9, 1d damage).

But only after clubs get nerfed down one point to match Melee/Wizard HTH damage.

[KevinJ]

If you are playing TFT as a tactical combat game the RAW make things fair for both sides. If you are running a using TFT as a Fantasy Role Playing Game, then the GM can do whatever he or she likes.

I've seen real chest rigs designed to hold 20 combat size knifes and while it might be just the thing your player wants, it does make you look like a doofus in everyday wear. If a player wants to put a dagger or fighting up every sleeve and inside their hat bands, then they should suffer social consequences for being a doofus.

[Terquem]

If you don't have a dagger (Sgian Dubh) in your sock,

bruh do you even kilt?

[oldwolf]

Originally Posted by hcobb

ITL 65: "A limited amount of gear can be carried on the belt, where it is out of the way but can be readied quickly. You may carry up to six items on your belt. No more than two may be “large” (over 2 lbs.)."

Since daggers (or flasks) aren't over 2 lbs you can carry six on the belt, right?

ITL 107: "A character can have two secondary weapons and/or shields slung at his side. Daggers or flasks on the belt are also secondary weapons."

I.e. only two daggers can be worn on the belt.

Which is correct?

It strikes me both are correct and page 107 sets a limit on what page 65 says. Essentially you can have 6 items on your belt(s) or its equivalent with two of them being secondary weapons of some type, able to be readied in combat. Note that one of the 6 might be a primary weapon. So a character could have a sword and two daggers on his person, positioned so as to be readyable in combat. His "belt" could also carry three pouches with a bunch of "stuff"in them as long as they arent over two pounds. None of the "stuff" could be readied in combat. Since someone might choose to use a dagger as his primary weapon it seems reasonable that a "belt" could carry three readyable daggers if one is the primary weapon.

It seems clear to me that belt implies more than a simple strip of leather or rope to hold up ones pants and the actual location is not necessarily just at ones side. I say that because the text speaks of slinging a shield from it, with no mention of type. Try hanging a tower shield from a belt around your waist and then running, walking, etc.

I believe these two rules are making sure that characters are outfitted sensibly as for equipment and what is available in combat.

While on the topic, is a quiver of arrows one of the secondary weapons? Personally, I would say that it is.

[KevinJ]

Originally Posted by oldwolf

It seems clear to me that belt implies more than a simple strip of leather or rope to hold up ones pants and the actual location is not necessarily just at ones side. I say that because the text speaks of slinging a shield from it, with no mention of type. Try hanging a tower shield from a belt around your waist and then running, walking, etc.

I believe these two rules are making sure that characters are outfitted sensibly as for equipment and what is available in combat.

While on the topic, is a quiver of arrows one of the secondary weapons? Personally, I would say that it is.

I concur, in this interpretation it would make the 'belt' a series of slots into which you can place specific objects. Each character has two ways of carrying gear, a 'backpack slot' with the 'backpack' and everything in it being much less accessible in combat than items carried in one of the 6 'belt slots' which can be relatively easily accessed in combat.

I would posit that there are actually 7 belt slots, one being specifically for the 'ready weapon' when you aren't carrying it in your hand. This, however, would depend on your ready weapon. If you carry a one handed weapon you have a sheath or ring on your belt and for some two-handed weapons it would be slung over your shoulder in some way. But it's obvious that you aren't going to hang that Halberd from your 'belt' no matter what form it takes.

[oldwolf]

"If you carry a one handed weapon you have a sheath or ring on your belt and for some two-handed weapons it would be slung over your shoulder in some way."

Actually, two handed swords, at least, tend to be too long to put over your shoulder, if you intend to draw them from a sheath. Try it sometime with a broomstick or some such. Assume about 38" of blade, mark where the crosspiece is with tape. The short part beyond the tape is your grip. Pin a small loop of cloth to your shoulder to represent the mouth of the swords sheath. Slip the blade through the loop, grab the grip and try drawing it. I think you will find yourself stuck, with the last few inches of the blade still in the loop and the blade perilously close to your own carotid artery. Place the same at your left hip and a draw across your body with your right hand is possible.

[HeatDeath]

This was a serious problem when they were filming the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The full-length Anduril prop would drag on the floor when it was pinned at Viggo Mortenson's hip.

They had to choose their camera angles quite carefully, and use a shorter fake scabbard for medium shots where he wasn't going to be drawing the thing. :)

[hcobb]

Anduril is on the long end of English longswords, which can be worn at a the belt like so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2OeMstdna0

Of course you'd also need to replace Viggo Mortensen with a full scale actor.