Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Talislan" data-source="post: 3973409" data-attributes="member: 56858">Ok, so I have been explaining myself very badly with regards to a shield not being used to 'cover up'. I realise now how stupid i've been sounding.What I am trying to get at is the difficulty in attacking from behind a shield in comparison to attacking with a weapon in each hand. As I mentioned earlier this is where the current rules fall down.Shields are better defensively, that is not an arguement. I am trying to relate the currently innacurate (IMO) rule that it is harder to attack with a weapon in each hand (ie severe penalties to attacks with offhand weapons) with-out super advanced TWF, and yet you get an extra attack.This is a bizarre rule. Yes it is easier to defend with a shield, but then you're effectively putting a wall of deflection between you and the oncoming blow. That wall is in the way, and has to be moved in order for you to counter. With TWF you have no wall to put in the way (or get in the way). You are trusting your dodge/maneuverability to get you out of the way. This means that defensively you are at a disadvantage but from an attacking stand point you couldn't be in a much more advantageous position.So, what I would like to see:Basic defensive advantage to carrying a shieldBasic attacking advantage for TWF (no disadvantage)no extra attacks unless because of feat/style taken belowFeats for individual weapon & board trained style advantages (sword and shield, spear and shield etc)Feats for individual twf trained style advantages. (sword & dagger dual Kukri etc)Far more advancement/prereq's in order to gain two weapon defence would seem fair (min DEX15-Lvl10 IMO).Bottom line, any style of fighting should require training otherwise you may as well do away with the wonderful variety of weapons out there...all stated in my humble opinion.T.</blockquote>

Verification