Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="shurai" data-source="post: 612791">Based on the context of your post, I'm going to assume that by 'Knights' you mean historical aristocrats rather than D&D fighters.  In any case, I think the modern idea that plate armor was so immoble and heavy is largely false, for a few reasons.First, plate is custom made to fit the wearer by an expert smith (the best in the area the knight has dominion over, since he can afford it and he probably gets dibs, after all).  This means that it fits the knight's body very well, and is made to the knight's specifications.  Remember that plate was around for awhile, so both the knights and the smiths had many years of practical experience in improving upon the design.Second, it's often underestimated what a stupendous badass the average fighting knight was.  They purposely wore their armor away from the battlefield all the time, so they could learn to bear its weight effortlessly.  On top of this, they trained all the military arts (swordsmanship, horsemanship, lance-work, etc) in their armor, so they'd have the strength to kill someone while wearing it.I think most of the time our image of an armored knight as a clumsy but well-protected warrior is the result of weak, untrained hollywood actors who can't move well in the likely sub-quality costume armor that they wear.  Also, I think sometimes when people 'suit up' for fun at a Rennaissance Faire or Society for Creative Anachronism meeting, they're wearing stuff made by an ameteur that's not designed to fit them personally.  Nevermind that they're likely weak and untrained by a knight's standards.  I don't mean to say that the plate wearers of history suffered no disadvantages, for certain, but most games seriously over-penalize plate in particular.So for fairness (read: balance) I'm willing to accept D&D's rules about dex bonuses and armor, but in real life I don't think it was nearly so extreme.  The fact is, if you get someone who's only moderately agile and someone who's naturally canny and train them both to fight in armor, the dextrous one will win more often than the average guy.  D&D says that in Plate, they're on equal terms.As to the shields issue, the use of a shield is a part of one's fighting art.  Nobody who learns to fight with a sword (or other melee weapon) learns how to attack but not evade, counter-attack, block, disarm, etc.  I think most games get this dead wrong:  A person's skills at melee fighting should be applied to both attack and defense, and having a shield is just part of the techniques.The shield doesn't provide cover alone unless you just hold it in front of you.  The proficient swordsman (not just experts) will use his shield to deflect the enemy's weapon, or bind it, or beat it out of the way, not just intercepting it but drawing it out of line so that a counterattack is more likely to succeed.  The advantage of having a shield to even the average footman is an incredible one.For an example, check out the video game Soul Calibur (or Soul Calibur 2 these days).  The game has its unrealistic moments, but Sophitia (or Cassandra) will show you how a shield ought to be used.  She smashes into her opponents with it, uses it to set up attacks, smack her opponent's weapon out of the way, etc.  Gladiator also has some excellent shield-work.  In fact the fighting coreoghraphy in that movie was very good, and mostly realistic from what I saw.A +2 armor bonus?  Please.  : ]Whoa, who brought in the Cursed Soap-Box of Ranting?  My bad.</blockquote>

Verification