Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoutonRustique" data-source="post: 6428883" data-attributes="member: 22362">I would wager a very great deal that we have vastly different images in mind when we both think &quot;boards as shields&quot;. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Yeah... we're not coming at this with any kind of similar optics I think.My position :&nbsp;- any kind of action (even the simple &quot;punch&quot;) by an untrained person will put them out of balance. In fact, an untrained person in combat is, most probably, out of balance - not matter what he or she is doing.&nbsp;- any kind of person wielding a shield with what I equate to D&amp;D-level proficiency is proficient with it in a good range of settings - including offense.&nbsp;- any kind of adventurer is not equatable to an untrained person (at minimum, I consider even a wizard type to be of equivalent combat ability to a &quot;mass-market&quot; black belt level - barring fluff that he or she isn't really an adventurer: he or she's been caught up in events outside his control, etc)&nbsp;- I know that an &quot;arm swing&quot; is very often a very weak attack as opposed to strikes powered by legs or hips/core (ie. a shield &quot;swing&quot; will usually have less power than a shield &quot;shove&quot; - the damaging aspect will come more from the angle of the shield, which part of the shield strikes and where it strikes)None of this is trying to imply that my point is better - I'm simply trying to explicit where I'm coming from and what I consider as baseline.You seem to have a different baseline - one that is quite possibly shared by more people - with regards to the level of skill implied by proficiency. I'm pretty sure we'll have to agree to disagree on topics such as these, but I wanted to share where I stand.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoutonRustique, post: 6428883, member: 22362"] I would wager a very great deal that we have vastly different images in mind when we both think "boards as shields". :) Yeah... we're not coming at this with any kind of similar optics I think. My position : - any kind of action (even the simple "punch") by an untrained person will put them out of balance. In fact, an untrained person in combat is, most probably, out of balance - not matter what he or she is doing. - any kind of person wielding a shield with what I equate to D&D-level proficiency is proficient with it in a good range of settings - including offense. - any kind of adventurer is not equatable to an untrained person (at minimum, I consider even a wizard type to be of equivalent combat ability to a "mass-market" black belt level - barring fluff that he or she isn't really an [I]adventurer[/I]: he or she's been caught up in events outside his control, etc) - I know that an "arm swing" is very often a very weak attack as opposed to strikes powered by legs or hips/core (ie. a shield "swing" will usually have less power than a shield "shove" - the damaging aspect will come more from the angle of the shield, which part of the shield strikes and where it strikes) [B][I]None of this is trying to imply that my point is better[/I][/B] - I'm simply trying to explicit where I'm coming from and what I consider as baseline. You seem to have a different baseline - one that is quite possibly shared by more people - with regards to the level of skill implied by proficiency. I'm pretty sure we'll have to agree to disagree on topics such as these, but I wanted to share where I stand. [/QUOTE]

Verification