EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

 

Go Back   EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire > EverQuest II > Class Discussion > Fighter's Arena > Shadowknight
Members List Search Mark Forums Read

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-09-2004, 06:38 AM   #1
Tyd

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 52
Default

Knights use swords, shields and lances (spears). So why can't we?
 
I dont want crushing weapons, I want spears, lances and swords - thats it for me. That's what feels the most "Knightish". Also, i find a nasty halberd, or sword alot cooler then a meat-pounder.
 
And i want to be able to use that Brass Halberd! Shouldn't we be able to? This game is getting more annoying by the minute...
__________________
/Valayath - Shadowknight of Freeport, Runnyeye server.

(Hammerhe4d - TR Werner - Planetside)
Tyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2004, 08:23 AM   #2
E-Decepti

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1
Default

not everyone has the same opinion of knightly
E-Decepti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2004, 02:18 PM   #3
Drax

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 86
Default

I have to agree that the inability to use a Great Spear amuses me =P
 
It knocks out ability to weild Lances and Halberds out of the park. I'm still baffled by the Shiny Brass Halberd being out of our skill catagory =P
__________________
Draxis, Hunter of Undead
Iksar Shadowknight of Freeport
Member of Deceit
Lavastorm Server
Drax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2004, 06:28 PM   #4
Roland_Descha

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 58
Default

this is indeed one of the greatest unsolved mysteries of the game so far, the weapons available to us are kind of a joke, its almost as though someone didnt really want to think about it they just gave us 2 weapons and called it a  day
Roland_Descha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2004, 06:46 PM   #5
Deadjest

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 178
Default

Lol ya, the idea that any tank would have a limited weapon capability is absurd.   Knights does not mean wars who take the short bus to school.
 
But on the othe side of the coin, since this is a progression game, I do think we should start off with a limited selection of weapons we now have to reflect our time in spell studies and in return we get the ability to quest ( aka study ) to get options to other weapons.
 
Heh many cry and pout that this is not EQL, but at times they sure do fall in the same trap that EQL did and use some of the same ideas,  it didnt work well then and doesnt work well now.
 
Haruchai
22 Shadow Knight
Highhold
 
I don't see why we can't be friends till your back is turned and you are in weapons range.
Deadjest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2004, 06:57 PM   #6
Tyd

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 52
Default

I like limited selections - its what makes the classes different from each other. However, the question is WHAT the selctions are.
I like the idea of Berzerkers with huge mauls, i dont like the idea of evil knight, antipaladins with them though - its to brutish.
I like knights with lances and swords - no Lancelot or Ivanhoe would ever wield a maul, hammer or simillar, they would however use swords, shields and lances - that is the classic weapons of knights.
 
This is how i see things:
Knights (Pallys and SKs): Swords (1h and 2h), Lances/greatpears (We all know that military-lances looks more lake heavy spears then tournament versions of the same weapon.
Bruisers: Punchdaggers, knuckles, cresent axes.
Monks: Tonfa, bo, nunchaku and such
Zerkers: 2handed maulers, dual wield axes and such - axes, hammers, unsure about swords.
 
These are pretty much what i see as "typical" class-weapons. Also, i have no understanding to the fact that SKs have such few weapons to select from, i doubt giving us spears as skill would make us unbalanced, but it WOULD be logical...
__________________
/Valayath - Shadowknight of Freeport, Runnyeye server.

(Hammerhe4d - TR Werner - Planetside)
Tyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2004, 06:58 PM   #7
Alexander Dhar

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 22
Default

As a SK I could be expected to go up against my opposite number the Paladin from Queynos, who's going to be as heavily armoured as me.  As such a nice heavy blunt weapon like a mace or hammer is exactly the kind of weapon I would want to use against them.
 
Thats absence of a lance as such is a bit annoying, especially when our lvl 20 'fun' spell is a summoned mount.
Alexander Dhar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2004, 07:09 PM   #8
Deadjest

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 178
Default

If you are going by RPG style, axe and flail should be on our list of weapons to use.  We are SKs, the Knight part reflects our taining not our attitued.
 
Haruchai
22 Shadow Knight
Highhold
 
Why can't we be friends till your back is turned and in weapons range
 
Deadjest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2004, 08:01 PM   #9
vwlsskng

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 710
Default

I only saw one person mention it, but knights would be wielding flails (even a morningstar) much sooner than either a sword or a lance as crushing damage was needed to combat plate armour . . . a lance would make sense while on horseback, not running about on foot. Wouldn't it be interesting if we could wield a lance, though only while mounted? That would surely add some flavour.

Message Edited by vwlssknght on 12-09-2004 07:01 AM

vwlsskng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2004, 08:35 PM   #10
Bladezil

General
Bladezil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 131
Default

Ohh.... jousting!
 

- Bladezilla Killa - The Absolute Sexiest Ogre Paladin Ever.. One to Walk the Lonely Path of Redemption.
- Valcutio Phoenix - The Absolute Sexiest Wood Elf Troubador Ever.. One to Walk the Famed Path of Popularity, Grandeur.. and all that other happy go lucky spoony bard stuff.

__________________
Bladezil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2004, 10:28 PM   #11
Bihl

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 57
Default

Samurais were knights too, you know.  They were renouned as excellent archers, but we aren't using bows either. 
__________________
************************
Bihlbo on Test:
Sabra - monk and Guild Tailor for Children of War
Bihl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2004, 10:51 PM   #12
Poena_De

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 35
Default

I do not have any problems with our use of crushing weapons personally.  Infact I agree that quite often knights should brandish blunt type weapons be them maces, flails, morning stars, and great hammers.  Most people quickly dismiss the ideas of knights using blunt type weapons but they did use them quite often on the battlefield.  Mostly to combat fellow knights who also donned plate mail.  The loss of two handed spears and lances is quite annoying though.  I do realize that they want to limit our weapon pool due to the fact that we have other abilites such as spells.  But that doesn't make me apt to accept the fact that we can't use the Shiny Brass Halbred.  That personally set off bells and whistles in my head.  I know this isn't EQ live but I remember getting a Shiny Brass Halbred a very long time ago and quickly arming it to slash through the waves of orcs and gnolls stupid enough to get in my way.  I just wish that they would be a bit more liberal with our weapon choice.  Maybe eventually they will give us access to great spears but I am not holding my breathe.  I am sure this post will seem a bit long winded the only main points I was really trying to get across are the following.
 
1.  Knights in the past quite frequently DID use blunt type weapons.
 
2.  Please let us use great spears, Shadowknights need Shiny Brass weapons too!
 
 
__________________
Poena Deae
Evil Pally of Freeport
Poena_De is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2004, 02:23 AM   #13
khuurb

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6
Default

Everyone here is missing the real issue. We can't use axes!! J/K. But really, I don't think that a knight would really use a spear like weapon except for in a joust. They are only good for infantry that are in ranks or that are fighting from an elevated point. They would use weapons like swords and maces that they can fight with just as effectively on foot as on horseback. Plus, going back to EQL, the epic and epic 2.0 are both great swords, and the better weapons in the end of the game were 1HS and 1HB. Just my 2 cents. Feel free to flame my comments at will.
khuurb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2004, 02:32 AM   #14
xrippe

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 341
Default

Knights were very prone to use peircing weapons.  They are the best weapon used against an armored opponant.  Wether set for a charge or on a mount.. thrown or used hand to hand.. spears, lances, arrows.. anything that could penitrate steel plate was a weapon of choice.  Bashing weapons were also popular, a bashing weapon is good for creating metal fatigue and actually detroying the armor and causing concusion damage especially if you hit someone up side the helmet.  Swords were virtually inaffective unless you were riding down some peasant or something =)
xrippe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2004, 04:21 AM   #15
Deadjest

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 178
Default

The Broad Sword was invented for use against heavy armor, but armor got even heavier and blunt and axe was the way to go.  Spears were not used that often for the fact that you could lose it do to a toss or it getting it stuck. (horsemen loved them, they always had back up weapons and the force a spear could generate from a mounted Knight was very nasty indeed)
 
Blunt and Axes in the end won out, even if you didnt get past the armor, it could be nasty to the person inside, when you actuly got tht good hit and caved that armor in, the armor was just as much as a weapon against the person who it was to protect as the weapons that were being used against you.   Caved in armor often held open a wound and could keep cutting you or effected the Knight by hampering his fighting abilty as his armor was now working against him in what ever area took such a nasty hit.
 
Many a time Knights lost battles not do to weapons but do to fatigue.  The armor was made so good, you just beat on each other till one just got to tired to fight any more and then you nocked him down and pulled out that slim dagger and stuck it in a joint or face peice.
 
But mostly they took each other as hostage and would ransom the Knight, his Armor AND his Horse.   A well trained War Horse was no joke in price and training.
 
As a side note the term bullet proof came from the age when guns first started to be used, each Armorer would shoot the BP of the suite he was trying to sell, in the coller or the bottom side, if it resisted the bullet, it was fit to sell and would fetch a good price.
 
No historian here but I do read up on it and love the history channel  =)
 
Haruchai
22 Shadow Knight
Highkeep
 
Deadjest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2004, 06:16 PM   #16
xrippe

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 341
Default

Someone has been watching Mailcall hehe
xrippe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2004, 06:22 PM   #17
Deadjest

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 178
Default

Yes and No, I work construction and my Trade at times keeps my work habits sorta random on time frame.   My boss was over and goofing off on my roomates PC while we were waiting for a job across town for other Trades to get done with what they had to do much later in the day,  so I had nothing better to do then scan the boards,   but I still get paid for the day even if I only work part of it, so its not so bad.    =)
 
So if you see a post written by me bast 8am Est, my boss is gooffing off again and I am just reading boards till somthing happens
 
Haruchai
22 Shadow Knight
 
 
Deadjest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2005, 09:23 AM   #18
Zokaab

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 14
Default

Knights used flails and maces :p
Zokaab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2005, 09:53 AM   #19
vTenebr

General
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 254
Default


vwlssknght wrote:
I only saw one person mention it, but knights would be wielding flails (even a morningstar) much sooner than either a sword or a lance as crushing damage was needed to combat plate armour . . . a lance would make sense while on horseback, not running about on foot. Wouldn't it be interesting if we could wield a lance, though only while mounted? That would surely add some flavour.

Message Edited by vwlssknght on 12-09-2004 07:01 AM


I said it. SMILEYThink of this, if you're wielding a sword or hammer you have to be within a reasonable distance to have a strong, affective swing. So fine, we use the weapons of shorter reach while we're on foot.However, when we're mounted up. It only makes sense that our weapons would have reach. A sword or hammer, logically, would mean we would have to bend down to take a swing which could possibly off balance us and make us easier to throw off our mounts. Knights used pole arms/pole axes to accomodate for a longer reach while atop a steed. This way the could still have a dangerous and affective swing, without destabilizing themselves and getting knocked on their butts SMILEYI fail to understand why we're unable to use pole arms of ANY kind.

Message Edited by vTenebrae on 02-07-2005 02:44 AM

vTenebr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2005, 03:28 PM   #20
The_Witchfind

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 96
Default

Knights should (if we're speaking historically), be able to use pretty much any hand weapon.  Many knights fought on foot, and polearms were highly favoured for this task.  Hooks were used to snag an opponent's armour and drag or knock him over.
 
On the other hand, I can see why SOE have chosen not to allow us to wield polearms.  Access to the Shiny Brass Halberd for instance, would make us overwhelmingly "uber" in the early 30s.  Considering the wealth of powers (melee damage abilities, damage spells, wards, buffs, lifetaps and summoned pet) that we get, inflicting massive melee damage would tip the balance too far in our favour from guardians and beserkers.
 
It would be nice to be able to equip polearms, but I'm not going to get too upset that we can't.  The range of 1-handed weapons, on the other hand, is another matter entirely.  There simply aren't enough 1-handed weapons to choose from, particularly in the mid 20s to mid 30s.
__________________
Johia Ravenwood
Lucan D'Lere
The_Witchfind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2005, 03:43 PM   #21
vTenebr

General
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 254
Default

My response was 1 starred? If I'm off base.. why?Just curious. Didn't think that I'd given bad information or an off base opinion..And Witchfinder, I agree. It'd be *nice*, but given the reasoning you stated... I can see why we're not given the array we'd like. SMILEY

Message Edited by vTenebrae on 02-07-2005 02:45 AM

vTenebr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2005, 07:04 PM   #22
vwlsskng

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 710
Default

I gave you five stars, just to balance things out.
 
You know, seeing these posts about the inability to wield axes and spears is getting old, though I do agree. I find it amusing that the manual states that knights can wield axes, though we cannot. I would love to see an official statement regarding this. They obviously intended for it to be but it is not. Are they just too lazy to implement the code, or too embarassed by the blatent mistake?
 
 
vwlsskng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2005, 07:21 PM   #23
Ashur

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11
Default

While I agree that not being able to wield spears and axes is detrimental to our weapon choices, we also have to stop trying to use 'Real World' comparisons. This will probably be 1 starred but oh well it comes down to this: Our vision of what a shadowknight or paladin can wield may not mesh with SoE's vision. For example: I'd be really REALLY hard pressed to find historical references to any Knights in the real world to using magic of any sort. Yes there are tales of magical weapons (Excalibur etc) and armor (Aegis, Perseus' shield)  but it'd be rough finding any sort of magic in use by these hero's. So, let it be.

Sure it's annoying we can't use Spears/Lances (Which were generally disposable in real life, they almost never, ever, survived the first charge so the knights had to go back for another if they could wheel away and make it out alive) but in historical fact, a knight more often than not used the lance once, lost it on the charge, then reverted to swords/flails/hammers/axes. A reliable spear (not meant for the charge) was used by infantry, footmen who used them in combination with shieldmen or a shield to try and get past another's shield or harm them without getting in range of their swords etc. Bills, hooks, Lochaber Axes (which is ineptly named really) were used by footmen to dismount riders, usually knights so one of the major advantages of being a knight was removed: Namely being mounted.

While mounted every swing is generally going to hit the arms, head, torso of an enemy. This usually results in maiming, death, or at least removing the enemies ability to wield a weapon. Fighting from a mount also made it very hard for any of the cavalryman's vital organs to be hit as well as the torso and head were out of general melee range.

In a world like Norrath of EQ2, where disposable weapons and large scale combats definately is out of the norm, it makes very little sense for a Knight wether paladin or Shadow variety to worry about such things as weapons that are very limited in use outside of large scale battle. We aren't charging into a general mass of foes (which is where the lance ruled as it could kill/incapacitate several of the enemy in one charge), the world of Norrath seems to be based off small unit tactics which requires a whole different plethora of weaponry and abilities.

So, while it hinders our ability to wield certain weapons, it is pointless to argue about the 'History' of 'real' knights in our world. Just a thought.

Message Edited by Ashuran on 02-07-2005 06:23 AM

Ashur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2005, 07:53 PM   #24
vwlsskng

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 710
Default



Ashuran wrote:

While I agree that not being able to wield spears and axes is detrimental to our weapon choices, we also have to stop trying to use 'Real World' comparisons. This will probably be 1 starred but oh well it comes down to this: Our vision of what a shadowknight or paladin can wield may not mesh with SoE's vision. For example: I'd be really REALLY hard pressed to find historical references to any Knights in the real world to using magic of any sort. Yes there are tales of magical weapons (Excalibur etc) and armor (Aegis, Perseus' shield)  but it'd be rough finding any sort of magic in use by these hero's. So, let it be.

Sure it's annoying we can't use Spears/Lances (Which were generally disposable in real life, they almost never, ever, survived the first charge so the knights had to go back for another if they could wheel away and make it out alive) but in historical fact, a knight more often than not used the lance once, lost it on the charge, then reverted to swords/flails/hammers/axes. A reliable spear (not meant for the charge) was used by infantry, footmen who used them in combination with shieldmen or a shield to try and get past another's shield or harm them without getting in range of their swords etc. Bills, hooks, Lochaber Axes (which is ineptly named really) were used by footmen to dismount riders, usually knights so one of the major advantages of being a knight was removed: Namely being mounted.

While mounted every swing is generally going to hit the arms, head, torso of an enemy. This usually results in maiming, death, or at least removing the enemies ability to wield a weapon. Fighting from a mount also made it very hard for any of the cavalryman's vital organs to be hit as well as the torso and head were out of general melee range.

In a world like Norrath of EQ2, where disposable weapons and large scale combats definately is out of the norm, it makes very little sense for a Knight wether paladin or Shadow variety to worry about such things as weapons that are very limited in use outside of large scale battle. We aren't charging into a general mass of foes (which is where the lance ruled as it could kill/incapacitate several of the enemy in one charge), the world of Norrath seems to be based off small unit tactics which requires a whole different plethora of weaponry and abilities.

So, while it hinders our ability to wield certain weapons, it is pointless to argue about the 'History' of 'real' knights in our world. Just a thought.

Message Edited by Ashuran on 02-07-2005 06:23 AM



You've hit the nail on the head. It's a mistake to weigh "real world" history against that of SoE's fantasy world of Norrath.

I'm still trying to understand why Thanatos is walking about East Freeport, being he's the Greek god of Death. It's rather lame that they would use a mythological name for one of their NPCs.

vwlsskng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2005, 07:59 PM   #25
Goldfyst

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2
Default

Well hey , Ashuran, you just gave me a neat little idea, how about giving the knight class a new combat skill of cavalry charge or the like, allow us to buy or summon spears, give us a bit of a longer re-use timer on the skill, and let us be able to charge into combat on horseback for a high damage attack ? Or even, let us equip any sort of spear weapon in our ranged slot and base the damage off that weapon, whether or not you either lose the weapon, based on the spear breaking in the charge, as you stated basically a disposable type weapon, or keeping the weapon equipped in the range slot for your next charge.  I dont know, just throwing out an idea, but I think that would be a kinda neat skill.  Then again, I used to play a shaman in EQL, and keeping all those [Removed for Content] weaps for alphadog was a pain at times...
__________________
Kurg Facechewer, Shadowknight of Blackburrow
Goldfyst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2005, 08:07 PM   #26
Ashur

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11
Default

Just a quibble, but Thanatos wasn't greek in origin was it? I was fairly certain Greek was Charon (The boatkeeper) and Hades was the god of Death and the Underworld. I know Thanatos is an old world mythological being... damnit to much comic books, I keep getting flashes of Silver Surfer... heh. Hard to get all those religions in my head. Maybe Thanatos was a roman theft of the greek boatkeeper? Don't remember. ARGH!
 
Ashur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2005, 08:41 PM   #27
vwlsskng

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 710
Default



Ashuran wrote:
Just a quibble, but Thanatos wasn't greek in origin was it? I was fairly certain Greek was Charon (The boatkeeper) and Hades was the god of Death and the Underworld. I know Thanatos is an old world mythological being... damnit to much comic books, I keep getting flashes of Silver Surfer... heh. Hard to get all those religions in my head. Maybe Thanatos was a roman theft of the greek boatkeeper? Don't remember. ARGH!
 



LoL! You know, I'm not sure now. I know Charon was, indeed, the ferryman of the River Styx . . . I'm going to have to research this. At any rate, they shouldn't have used the name, as it contradicts their own naming policy.

SMILEY

vwlsskng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2005, 08:45 PM   #28
vwlsskng

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 710
Default

Okay, I found an entry at greekmythology.com: http://www.greekmythology.com/Other_Gods/Thanatos/thanatos.html
 

Thanatos

Thanatosos was the greek god of death. He may be thought of as a personification of death. He plays little role in the myths. He became rather overshadowed by Hades the lord of death.

vwlsskng is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:43 AM.

vBulletin skin by: CompleteGFX.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All threads and posts originally from the EQ2 and Station forums operated by Sony Online Entertainment. Their use is by express written permission.