This is Carrion Fields, not third edition Dungeons and Dragons. Things work differently here, but no less logically. CF seems to take into account what D&D doesn't: if someone is properly trained in a two weapon combat technique they are just as or even more effective then someone with only one weapon. Fencing with both sword and dagger is a real world example of an attempt at this, though possibly not as effective as Carrion Fields dual wielding.

The Imms haven't weakened dual wielding, therefore they appear to feel it's balanced and shouldn't be changed. As someone else pointed out, there's advantages to dual wielding and advantages to not.

As for two handed weapons, their inherent average damage and dam bonuses appear to already take it into account, as do the skills used with them. If the damage were not set at a level to make a two handed weapon reasonably hard hitting, I'd think the Imms would already have looked into it. Again, this isn't D&D, so the game mechanics can't be expected to be the same. In other words don't expect the character's total +dam to be increased just because they're using a two handed weapon, any appropriate +dam bonuses would be included as part of the weapon.

(disclaimer: I'm fairly sure I understand the mechanics on this issue, but I could be wrong. If I am, I'd appreciate corrections from someone who knows how it works for certain)

As you say, there are many situations where wielding two weapons outweigh the benefits of a shield. (As an aside though, there are shields that add a lot of dam too.)

However, there are also situations when having a shield is better than having two weapons. Going to fight a shaman? who uses preps? Give me a shield that I'm not going to lose to -str any day, and something like a single light whip, rather than a pair of nasty axes that I'll find myself unable to wield, be blind and therefore stuck weaponless.

Dual wield is generally better than using a shield. That's one advantage given to classes with dual wield. Classes without dual wield have other advantages to make up for it. Like immolation + anti-lag shields, or sleep + -str (rendering the dual wield history), etc.

Right now I don't think the weight of a shield is taken in consideration with regards to your strength. It isn't like a dual wield. I *think* you can be at 3 strength wearing a 30 pound shield. Anyone else think this should be changed? Would give more strategy for fighting people that use shields, like paladin shield dedicates.


Hutto, the Sleepy Nitpicker

Assassin's wrist breaks drop offhand items, I think it would stand to reason that your offhand should have weight checked on it.

Gabe

Shields are typically straps rather than hilts, much easier to keep on your arm and to keep a grip on. Even if you're too weak to stand, the shield you already had on shouldn't just slip off your arm.

If someone's losing a shield to being weak, maybe there should be a check to see if you're strong enough to stand? Probably not. I don't expect to see either ever happening, and would be disappointed if they did.

They can put chains on the hilt, so that you cannot let go of the weapon =)

One issue is control.

With a weapon, you're trying to hit a highly mobile opponent in a vulnerable spot. How are you going to do that with a sword dangling off your wrist by a chain? If you're lucky, you won't hit yourself in the face. Or, if it's really heavy, your foot. Even if you're still carrying it around, what good does it do you if you can't swing it properly?

With a shield you're probably not all that bothered if it *does* hit you in the face -- better the shield than that spiked ball on the other side of it. Plus, the shield is bigger and just keeping it near your vulnerable spots is a decent (if not stellar) way to use it.

> Plus, the shield is bigger and just keeping it near your vulnerable spots is a decent (if not stellar) way to use it.

Nobody is going to try to swing their weapon AT your shield. Think about it. Are you going to walk up with your sword and start beating on a guy's shield if you're trying to kill them? That's like a boxer punching his opponent's gloves that are hanging around his stomach. I'll give you the -AC for the shield even with low strength, as it is still armor, but the shield block skill could feasibly become ineffective at some point.

Hutto, the Sleepy Nitpicker

>Nobody is going to try to swing their weapon AT your shield.

Sure they are. Oh, certainly, not at the center, but at least some of the time they'll try for spots near the edge -- and what with the fact that you're moving, your shield is moving (it's strapped to your arm, so you've got some good leverage), and they're moving.

If you've got a big shield, you can twist your body to avoid a blow and duck behind it. If you've got a small shield that's less likely, but also less likely is loss of strength or broken wrist to prevent you from moving it.

>Think about it. Are you going to walk up with your sword and
>start beating on a guy's shield if you're trying to kill them?
> That's like a boxer punching his opponent's gloves that are
>hanging around his stomach. I'll give you the -AC for the
>shield even with low strength, as it is still armor, but the
>shield block skill could feasibly become ineffective at some
>point.

Conceivably, sure. But shields -- especially big shields -- doen't have to move anywhere near as fast as a weapon to be effective.

That said, there is a certain amount of "real life cause" for a stronger person to have an advantage over a weaker person when blocking with a sheild. In game, though, I think that's mostly handled with classes ability with the skill.

Assuming the generic shield is strapped to your arm... shouldn't the following apply?

a) When you remove the shield, there's a slight lag since you have to remove the strap. (Of course then there should be lag on removing breastplates etc also.)

b) If you are too weak for your shield, you cannot lift your arm to use it. I don't think losing weapons comes from being so weak that you can't even lift the weapon, but from the fact that it's useless in your crippled state.

But #### realism... it's never brought anything good

However there should be some more strategies to dealing with shields than offhand/shieldcleave/kote/deflect shield

>But #### realism... it's never brought anything good

Exactly, that sums up why things are how they are. It's the general rule that realism is good, but only when it brings something to the game instead of taking something away. Too many little details just become a pain, imho.

>However there should be some more strategies to dealing with
>shields than offhand/shieldcleave/kote/deflect shield

It would be nice. Can you think up some good ones? I'm fresh out of ideas right now.

BTW, to josiah: there are in fact some weapons that can't be disarmed. Nifty, isn't it?

PALLY GIMME YOUR SHIELD syntax pallygimmeyourshield
With threatening postures and expressions, an orc attempts to scare a Paladin to hand him over his shield. This will however only work if your level is 10 levels higher than the Paladins.


CUT OFF BASTARDS SHIELD ARM syntax cutoffbshieldarm
A warrior specializing in axes may attempt to cut off an opponents shield arm. This diffucult manuever may can only be attempted when the opponent has blocked your axe four times, and if it fails, you will instantly die due to game balance issues.

THE REALLY LONG SKILL THAT CAN'T BE ALIASED OR YOU WILL BE BANISHED SHIELD REMOVAL SKILL syntax thereallylongskillthatcantbealiasedoryouwillbebanishedshieldremovalskill
Taught in ancient times by men with nothing better to do, this skill effectively removed an opponents shield, destroyed it, gave you 50,000 gold for destroying it and made you invincible for the remainder of your characters life. These days, it only destroys the opponents shield.


Mr. Shield, Circ.

No thank you my good sir, let us not start ####ing over warrior classes.

Maybe wielding a two-handed weapon already is advantageous? And polearms, spears/staffs aren't, atleast not in the way you think.

Two handed weapons should add hit/dam bonus twice? That sounds very nice. I would like to see a lowbie giant wielding two guardian swords from Arkham, with a total damroll of 24! Just from the swords! WOOWEE! I WILL MAKE THAT GIANT RIGHT NOW!

>In my opinion, dual wielding really hasn't enough of a
>disadvantage.

Maybe dual wielding isn't supposed to have that much of a disadvantage? You would know this if you looked over spec skills, and saw how many of them need two weapons to be used. I suppose you think giant axe specs make the best of tanks when dual wielding.

All crap aside though, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SPECIAL GLOVES FOR HAND SPECS WHICH ARE WIELDABLE! Not that all those new hand spec changes aren't nice, and not that they're not actually damn scary as a main spec now.