Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Virago" data-source="post: 104615" data-attributes="member: 2045">Arcane Runes Press:I had a longer response to your post, but I'll sum it up:Note that NONE of the following have been established:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The &quot;common conception&quot; of the monk in the West includes use of a shield.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The &quot;traditional conception&quot; of the monk (whatever this means) includes the use of a shield.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The &quot;historical monk&quot; closest to the PHB concept includes the use of a shield.</li>
</ul>The first one seems false beyond question.The second one is vague.&nbsp; Are we talking about &quot;traditional&quot; Chinese conceptions of a monk?&nbsp; Whose traditional ideas?&nbsp; Do you mean perhaps that in the martial arts world, some styles called &quot;shaolin&quot; styles include the use of a shield?When you say that use of some shields is relatively common in some &quot;extremely well known&quot; (snicker) martial arts forms in southern China, and that these forms are descended from styles used in the Shaolin temple, you can't actually claim to prove that monks, historically, used them?One other thing:Second, the katana is mechanically identical to the masterwork bastard sword. Identical. In fact, in the DMG, they say to simply call your bastard sword a katana in asian settings. Why then are the shields in the core rules restricted to &quot;medieval-style shields&quot;? A rattan shield and a buckler shield would be mechanically identical for game purposes.When you find a rule in the books about how asian bucklers work, let me know.&nbsp; This is not an argument of whether shields have any place in an OA style campaign.This argument is about the core rules.&nbsp; This is in every campaign, with every shield.&nbsp; That is the implication of the interpretation of &quot;shields != armor.&quot;Sure, you can hedge with all sorts of house rules or inconsistent interpretations (as Artoomis does) to clarify which shields, to try to keep things meaningful and balanced.&nbsp; But then you're actually suggesting a from-scratch campaign enhancement based on a deliberately incorrect rules reading.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Virago, post: 104615, member: 2045"] Arcane Runes Press: I had a longer response to your post, but I'll sum it up: Note that NONE of the following have been established: [list] [*]The "common conception" of the monk in the West includes use of a shield. [*]The "traditional conception" of the monk (whatever this means) includes the use of a shield. [*]The "historical monk" closest to the PHB concept includes the use of a shield. [/list] The first one seems false beyond question. The second one is vague. Are we talking about "traditional" Chinese conceptions of a monk? Whose traditional ideas? Do you mean perhaps that in the martial arts world, some styles called "shaolin" styles include the use of a shield? When you say that use of some shields is relatively common in some "extremely well known" (snicker) martial arts forms in southern China, and that these forms are descended from styles used in the Shaolin temple, you can't actually claim to prove that monks, historically, used them? One other thing: [b]Second, the katana is mechanically identical to the masterwork bastard sword. Identical. In fact, in the DMG, they say to simply call your bastard sword a katana in asian settings. Why then are the shields in the core rules restricted to "medieval-style shields"? A rattan shield and a buckler shield would be mechanically identical for game purposes.[/b] When you find a rule in the books about how asian bucklers work, let me know. This is [i]not[/i] an argument of whether shields have any place in an OA style campaign. This argument is about the core rules. This is in [i]every[/i] campaign, with [i]every[/i] shield. That is the implication of the interpretation of "shields != armor." Sure, you can hedge with all sorts of house rules or inconsistent interpretations (as Artoomis does) to clarify which shields, to try to keep things meaningful and balanced. But then you're actually suggesting a from-scratch campaign enhancement based on a deliberately incorrect rules reading. [/QUOTE]

Verification