Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mageslayer" data-source="post: 2491675" data-attributes="member: 34824">&quot;Historical fact&quot;?&nbsp; I've been through this a million times on Defend.net.&nbsp; The Moros (southern Filipinos) Thais, and Burmese had armor (mostly piece and chain), and all used double weapon fighting techniques.&nbsp; They were taught from early childhood.&nbsp; And Japanese armor was primarily designed for defense against arrow barrages, not swords -- that's what swordsmanship was for.&nbsp; The Chinese practiced double weapon techniques and also had armor.&nbsp; Armor does not negate the value of double weapons, and apart from that their ability to defeat armor isn't the point.&nbsp; Their value in defense against attack is the issue here.&nbsp; I've practiced often against shields, and I can get around them with two weapons.&nbsp; I am not unique in this.&nbsp; If I had trained like the Moros of old, it wouldn't be a question at all.&nbsp; It's all about context.&nbsp; In the FMA you pick up a weapon on the first day.&nbsp; This is not the case in most living arts.&nbsp; Field systems (systems designed for field combat) always incorporate weapons early, or even solely.&nbsp; European soldiers often used shields because, yes, they were effective, but also because they were cheaper than more elaborate armor.&nbsp; You didn't truly need a shield in the more advanced plate armor during dismounted melee combat -- if you could afford it.&nbsp; Getting around a shield is not hard -- it just means a lot of shorn tibias.&nbsp; It guards many sectors of the body easily, but can be turned against the user.&nbsp; Most weapons are like that.But none of this answers my response in my last post.&nbsp; Why would you be so attached to the idea of preserving the shield anyway?&nbsp; Even if my rules had the effect that you envision on shield-users, who cares?&nbsp; It would just balance out in the end.&nbsp; Within a given context, you won't see other things as well.&nbsp; For instance, it would be ludicrous for a game based in the Ancient Orient to contain full plate mail, heavy lances, and bastard swords.&nbsp; You can change the context to match that, but only if you aren't planning on being historicaly accurate.&nbsp; Maybe you aren't.&nbsp; And maybe it doesn't matter whether people use shields or not.&nbsp; But I submit that shields would still have a place either way.What I'm trying to say is that I need ideas on how to improve this.&nbsp; It's in early stages, and people telling me it can't work or it will somehow destroy the game doesn't help me.&nbsp; If you want to keep shields, help me balance the idea with shields, not shoot it down.&nbsp; For instance, I never said the bonuses were set in stone.&nbsp; It could be just a +1, rather than a +4, in which case even given everthing else, shields would still have basic value.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mageslayer, post: 2491675, member: 34824"] "Historical fact"? I've been through this a million times on Defend.net. The Moros (southern Filipinos) Thais, and Burmese had armor (mostly piece and chain), and all used double weapon fighting techniques. They were taught from early childhood. And Japanese armor was primarily designed for defense against arrow barrages, not swords -- that's what swordsmanship was for. The Chinese practiced double weapon techniques and also had armor. Armor does not negate the value of double weapons, and apart from that their ability to defeat armor isn't the point. Their value in defense against attack is the issue here. I've practiced often against shields, and I can get around them with two weapons. I am not unique in this. If I had trained like the Moros of old, it wouldn't be a question at all. It's all about context. In the FMA you pick up a weapon on the first day. This is not the case in most living arts. Field systems (systems designed for field combat) always incorporate weapons early, or even solely. European soldiers often used shields because, yes, they were effective, but also because they were cheaper than more elaborate armor. You didn't truly need a shield in the more advanced plate armor during dismounted melee combat -- if you could afford it. Getting around a shield is not hard -- it just means a lot of shorn tibias. It guards many sectors of the body easily, but can be turned against the user. Most weapons are like that. But none of this answers my response in my last post. Why would you be so attached to the idea of preserving the shield anyway? Even if my rules had the effect that you envision on shield-users, who cares? It would just balance out in the end. Within a given context, you won't see other things as well. For instance, it would be ludicrous for a game based in the Ancient Orient to contain full plate mail, heavy lances, and bastard swords. You can change the context to match that, but only if you aren't planning on being historicaly accurate. Maybe you aren't. And maybe it doesn't matter whether people use shields or not. But I submit that shields would still have a place either way. What I'm trying to say is that I need ideas on how to improve this. It's in early stages, and people telling me it can't work or it will somehow destroy the game doesn't help me. If you want to keep shields, help me balance the idea with shields, not shoot it down. For instance, I never said the bonuses were set in stone. It could be just a +1, rather than a +4, in which case even given everthing else, shields would still have basic value. [/QUOTE]

Verification