Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kabouter Games" data-source="post: 6768726" data-attributes="member: 6788812">An interesting topic. I've used bucklers, too, in HEMA pursuits. I can testify that they really shouldn't be subject to the RAW/RAI, because they really are much easier to deal with than larger shields, from targets to heaters. I've also used them with two-handed weapons without much difficulty; a strapped buckler held in the hand is laughably easy to manipulate with spear or pike. Other great weapons, not so much. With great sword or halberd or any weapon that isn't pretty much &quot;poke poke poke,&quot; forget it.All that said, I'd stick with RAW/RAI and make a shield=shield=shield. The rule is simple. Simplicity: One of the things to adore about 5e. Simplicity! Conversations like this confuse me. I don't understand the point. If I wanted an intricate ruleset which encompassed different types of shields, weapons, whatever, I'd play a ruleset that embraced that. Instead, we're counting angels dancing in order to take the existing game outside of its intended scope. It seems easier, and ultimately more satisfying, to use existing, tested, proven rules which do what you want them to do. Take baseball: It'd be easier to simply call a ball hit to the wall a &quot;boundary&quot; and let the hitter score without the physical effort of rounding the bases. But that's not baseball; it's cricket. It's a different game.Anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kabouter Games, post: 6768726, member: 6788812"] An interesting topic. I've used bucklers, too, in HEMA pursuits. I can testify that they really shouldn't be subject to the RAW/RAI, because they really are much easier to deal with than larger shields, from targets to heaters. I've also used them with two-handed weapons without much difficulty; a strapped buckler held in the hand is laughably easy to manipulate with spear or pike. Other great weapons, not so much. With great sword or halberd or any weapon that isn't pretty much "poke poke poke," forget it. All that said, I'd stick with RAW/RAI and make a shield=shield=shield. The rule is simple. Simplicity: One of the things to adore about 5e. Simplicity! Conversations like this confuse me. I don't understand the point. If I wanted an intricate ruleset which encompassed different types of shields, weapons, whatever, I'd play a ruleset that embraced that. Instead, we're counting angels dancing in order to take the existing game outside of its intended scope. It seems easier, and ultimately more satisfying, to use existing, tested, proven rules which do what you want them to do. Take baseball: It'd be easier to simply call a ball hit to the wall a "boundary" and let the hitter score without the physical effort of rounding the bases. But that's not baseball; it's cricket. It's a different game. Anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification