Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iku Rex" data-source="post: 1724235" data-attributes="member: 752">No, it says that you can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. Which does not prove that you cannot bash an opponent with a shield, using it as a primary weapon. The logic involved is not that difficult to grasp. Ok. &quot;You can slash an opponent with a scimitar, using it as an off-hand weapon.&quot;&quot;You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon.&quot;The first sentence is a general rule, and does not prohibit you from inheriting the general rule for one-handed weapons. The second sentence is a specific restriction which EXPLICITLY prohibits you from inheriting the general rule for one-handed weapons. And this is all regardless of the writers intent - thus the word &quot;explicit&quot; (&quot;fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied&quot;).(How am I supposed to comment on this without the &quot;rolleyes&quot; smiley. &lt;sigh&gt;)&nbsp;&nbsp;I think I get it now.The reason shields have to be used as off-hand weapons is that shields have to be used as off-hand weapons. If shields, like scimitars, did not have to be used as off-hand weapons, the sentence proving that shields have to be used as off-hand weapons would not prove that shields have to be used as off-hand weapons. Bonus points if you can spot the fallacy. &nbsp;So, in your opinion most people can slam a shield as hard and as accurately into an opponent with their right hand as with their left hand. Gotcha.&nbsp;&nbsp; OTTOMH: &quot;You can bash with a shield. When a shield is used to bash it is always considered an off-hand weapon.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iku Rex, post: 1724235, member: 752"] No, it says that you [i]can[/i] bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. Which does not prove that you [i]cannot[/i] bash an opponent with a shield, using it as a primary weapon. The logic involved is not that difficult to grasp. Ok. "You can slash an opponent with a scimitar, using it as an off-hand weapon." "You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon." The first sentence is a general rule, and does not prohibit you from inheriting the general rule for one-handed weapons. The second sentence is a specific restriction which EXPLICITLY prohibits you from inheriting the general rule for one-handed weapons. And this is all regardless of the writers intent - thus the word "explicit" ("fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied"). (How am I supposed to comment on this without the "rolleyes" smiley. <sigh>) I think I get it now. The reason shields have to be used as off-hand weapons is that shields have to be used as off-hand weapons. If shields, like scimitars, did not have to be used as off-hand weapons, the sentence proving that shields have to be used as off-hand weapons would not prove that shields have to be used as off-hand weapons. Bonus points if you can spot the fallacy. So, in your opinion most people can slam a shield as hard and as accurately into an opponent with their right hand as with their left hand. Gotcha. OTTOMH: "You can bash with a shield. When a shield is used to bash it is always considered an off-hand weapon." [/QUOTE]

Verification