So Many Choices, So Few Proficiencies

[EiriktheScald]

Choice #1 would allow those of you who prefer dual-wielding to add that slot at a higher level.

 

Or, some of you may want to go with Short Bow, Long Sword and Single Weapon

Style (choice #2). This way you can switch back and forth between weapons without having to add an extra weapon/shield to your second hand. Single Weapon Style also gives an AC bonus. I think either of these allow more versatility.

 

Since he is +1 to hit and damage with all weapons, that is nearly the same as being Specialized in any weapon that he is already proficient. It also makes the penalty for not being proficient less severe.

[berelinde]

I know that some characters are born melee fighters and other s kick butt with ranged weapons, but I firmly believe that it's just plain stupid to waste the time it takes the enemy to close the distance between you.

 

I usually equip everybody with at least one melee and one ranged weapon, and usually manage to take out most of the enemies before they even get within melee range.

 

In cases where the party is greatly outnubered, I'll send in the tank with a melee weapon to draw the attacks, and halt forward movement, and then pick everybody off with bows.

 

That's been critical this time, because I've only got one single-class fighter-type: a paladin.

[Miloch]

I already told you my choice in the PM (two-handed style melee). It seems more in character and makes him less of a jack-of-all-trades. And yeah, dual-wielding is great, but overused IMO - and is he a swashbuckler or a Viking?

 

But as I said in the original "how would you use Eirik" poll, I would normally use a bard in the back ranks with a ranged weapon. However, since he gets a natural +1 hit/dam as you say, it doesn't mean you can't give him a bow anyhow.

[BigRob]

I chose a melee and ranged weapon for versatility, in the same manner as Berelinde. There are certain creatures that you don't want weaker characters in melee with, and single weapon style (picked up later) allows characters without access to heavier shields to have their axe in one hand, still get an AC bonus and still have their bow equipped for easy use.

 

 

However, that's what I'd be doing if I made the character for myself. I do think that Eirik shoudl probably have his proficiencies based on character. Does he like to use missile weapons? If not, then perhaps he's never bothered to train in their use. If he prefers the big two handed bastard sword, then two handed weapon style would be a better fit.

[EiriktheScald]

 

He's got a sword and an axe. Why would you need both?

 

Note to self: Eirik needs one of them conical helmets.

[EiriktheScald]

Does he like to use missile weapons? If not, then perhaps he's never bothered to train in their use. If he prefers the big two handed bastard sword, then two handed weapon style would be a better fit.

Actually, I have him reciting this poem: Battle Poem So, yes, he's used a bow.

[Luiz]

I voted melee plus ranged, but if that figurine is important in your conception of Eirik's character, then long (or bastard) sword + axe are ideal starting proficiences (axes = ranged as well as melee weapons).

 

I think weapons styles should be always be left to the player's discretion, as far as possible.

[EiriktheScald]

I voted melee plus ranged, but if that figurine is important in your conception of Eirik's character, then long (or bastard) sword + axe are ideal starting proficiences (axes = ranged as well as melee weapons).

 

I think weapons styles should be always be left to the player's discretion, as far as possible.

 

No, that was for Miloch's benefit. Well, that's what this poll is for. I want to set his proficiencies to accommodate the majority of players. (This poll might also show that isn't possible.)

[Miloch]

He's got a sword and an axe. Why would you need both?

That could be an effective fighting style in realistic terms. In this case, he's probably using the axe as the main weapon, and using the sword in the off hand to parry and occasionally get past the opponents guard to stab (you could also switch it around and use the axe to parry). For BG though, I wouldn't recommend it, since you'd have to put points in sword, axe and dual wielding. Though once he gets a few levels, that might not be an issue, since he can't put a lot of points in any one thing.

 

You might find this article on Viking fighting styles interesting. It doesn't appear to mention a sword-and-axe style, but then it also admits we don't really know how they fought, and there are swords and axes found together in single graves. There's also this:

"Rather than being crude and slow, Viking age axes were light, fast, well-balanced, and capable of many nasty tricks..." and "However, we know from the sagas that axes were used to parry incoming blows."

[berelinde]

Don't know about Vikings, but I know to the West Saxons (who later became the Anglo-Saxons), an axe was symbolic of title. If you were a landowner, you'd have an axe on your person, regardless of whether or not you actually perferred fighting with a sword.

[seanas]

He's got a sword and an axe. Why would you need both?

 

see, now yr forcing me to dredge up very old wargaming knowledge... huscarls of the form you depict here usually carried two main weapons: the 2-handed axe (yes, wielded with shield) (2HCW, for anyone else who remembers ) and the 1-handed sword. the axe cut thru chain like no-one's business, but it was heavy: if yr killing a prone opponent, it was far easier to stab the with a sword than to hack them with that axe. other than the axe and the sword, the huscarl typically carried a spear, for defeating mounted charges, and a saxe, or long-bladed dagger.

 

huscarls typically carried no missle weapons - one of the reasons the normans got in trouble (altho they did win, of course) at the battle of hastings was cos they ran out of arrows: usually, you retrieved arrows nid-battle from those shot at you, but as the huscarl didn't use bow weapons, the normans found their archers ran out of arrows.

 

the problem of verisimilitude thus raises its head: if you want an 'accurate' viking/ huscarl/ thegne/ then they're going to need a 2-handed axe (which in BG, means a halberd), longsword, spear and shield. except you can't have a shield and two-handed weapon, and if you give an NPC longsword and axe proficiency, they'll almost certainly end up using the longsword, as there are much better (and much more plentiful) longswords in the game than axes. and a bard without a missile weapon is, as berelinde points out, a wasted NPC (that's the major reason i never take HD along. who wants a guy without many HP and with poor THACO going hand-to-hand? stay back and cast spells, sing songs and use a missile weapon, man!)

 

vikings - as distinct from huscarls - did use bows (short bows, of course), and there's plenty of evidence of arrow heads to be found at the jorvik viking centre; the (putative) descendents of the huscarls, the varangian guard, used enormous 2-handed axes (ie, poleaxes: halberds in BG) altho the wiki tells me that they were 'often skilled archers as well', but doesn't give a citation. there's always that favourite of the fantasy genre, the throwing axe (there were some germanic tribes who reputedly used them again the romans, but i can't find the reference at the moment) - but throwing axes are heavy in BG, so until you get the first returnable one (unless you give yr NPC a returning-but-otherwise-unremarkable throwing axe as a unique weapon), a character relying on throwing axes for the missile weapon is likely to be doing a lot of meleeing.

[EiriktheScald]

My intent was not to have an 'accurate' viking, as you say, but the north men of the moonshaes are rooted in the viking legend. It's more a question of balance: giving him weapon proficiencies that are practical/useful for the majority; at the same time having characteristics of a north man (norse warrior). Thank you all for the interesting historical data BTW.

[Guest erik]

I've seen local reenacters here in Oslo fight with light axe and buckler... hooking the axe over the opponent's shield and pulling it out of position, for example, is a nicely effective trick. Or hooking an ankle.

 

The reenacter's axe seemed too narrow-headed and light to be effective for throwing. But the sagas mention thrown axes ... the sense seems to be that it was the combatant's normal battle axe. And indeed, even a normal light wood-chopping axe should be workable for short-range throwing.

 

... anyway, in sum, I'd like to see him proficient in axe and bow. Both are useful in non-combat situations, swords aren't.

[EiriktheScald]

I've seen local reenacters here in Oslo fight with light axe and buckler... hooking the axe over the opponent's shield and pulling it out of position, for example, is a nicely effective trick. Or hooking an ankle.

 

Could this be simulated in the game? (i.e. opponent drops shield or is stunned 1 round or something like that?)

[Domi]

I'm pretty sure that the reasons I voted for 1 melee and 1 ranged were already listed. Versatility and it is very annoying when a character cannot do ranged.