Previous Thread
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
from combat folder:
"Worn Shields and Armor Hindrance ? on 9/17/2003 1:42:45 PM
Worn shields no longer impose armor hindrance.
Thanks to GM Veyl for the nod of approval.
Enjoy.
/salute
-Ssra "
cool thanks guys
<<This is a bad, bad sign.>>
There was a good discussion on this topic in the combat folder today and I said hey Veyl ... what do you think? We agreed and we changed it. That's about it. No great conspiracy.
As for changes to hindrances .... wait and see when the weapon/armor/ammo evaluation is complete. The change made today has absolutely nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with the fact a worn shield was nothing but burden and hindrance that did absolutely nothing. It was no different than that worn piece of fluff so the right thing to do , in my opinion, was to remove the combat, stealth, and swimming hindrance it imposed.
If we decide to code special things for worn shields in the future that will actually allow it to be a defense while worn -- we'll reintroduce that hindrance.
It's that simple.
/salute
-Ssra
There was a good discussion on this topic in the combat folder today and I said hey Veyl ... what do you think? We agreed and we changed it. That's about it. No great conspiracy.
As for changes to hindrances .... wait and see when the weapon/armor/ammo evaluation is complete. The change made today has absolutely nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with the fact a worn shield was nothing but burden and hindrance that did absolutely nothing. It was no different than that worn piece of fluff so the right thing to do , in my opinion, was to remove the combat, stealth, and swimming hindrance it imposed.
If we decide to code special things for worn shields in the future that will actually allow it to be a defense while worn -- we'll reintroduce that hindrance.
It's that simple.
/salute
-Ssra
>If we decide to code special things for worn shields in the future that will actually allow it to be a defense while worn -- we'll reintroduce that hindrance.
That is something I've always wanted to see. I've never understood how someone can backstab a paladin who has a shield almost (or as) big as him/her covering their entire back.
~Coine
"Walks are therapeutic, especially when taken by people that annoy me." - Coine
That is something I've always wanted to see. I've never understood how someone can backstab a paladin who has a shield almost (or as) big as him/her covering their entire back.
~Coine
"Walks are therapeutic, especially when taken by people that annoy me." - Coine
<<That is something I've always wanted to see. I've never understood how someone can backstab a paladin who has a shield almost (or as) big as him/her covering their entire back.>>
Why would a shield stop it? They slice right through plate armor.
Big as Pebbles, Strong as Talc, Smarter than you, I am - Lennon's Bulldog
Why would a shield stop it? They slice right through plate armor.
Big as Pebbles, Strong as Talc, Smarter than you, I am - Lennon's Bulldog
>It was no different than that worn piece of fluff so the right thing to do , in my opinion, was to remove the combat, stealth, and swimming hindrance it imposed.
Thanks for the super quick reply. Thats a very reasonable and sensible explanation.
I should have given you folks a bit more credit. Call me gun-shy, and maybe a little protective of armor, of which shield is a part.
-Slaris, Tursa reness kad fruna.
Thanks for the super quick reply. Thats a very reasonable and sensible explanation.
I should have given you folks a bit more credit. Call me gun-shy, and maybe a little protective of armor, of which shield is a part.
-Slaris, Tursa reness kad fruna.
>Why would a shield stop it? They slice right through plate armor.
Well, I can kinda see the 'going thru plate armor' more as they are managing to get that blade in between the joints of the armor. Armor comes out undamaged and we don't...that's what has always made sense to me. A shield, however, is a solid piece of metal. Tower shields are big. Wall shields are huge. Someone shouldn't be able to hit a Paladin (or any other guild for that matter) wearing one on their back from behind, period, in a realistic sense.
~Coine
"Walks are therapeutic, especially when taken by people that annoy me." - Coine
Well, I can kinda see the 'going thru plate armor' more as they are managing to get that blade in between the joints of the armor. Armor comes out undamaged and we don't...that's what has always made sense to me. A shield, however, is a solid piece of metal. Tower shields are big. Wall shields are huge. Someone shouldn't be able to hit a Paladin (or any other guild for that matter) wearing one on their back from behind, period, in a realistic sense.
~Coine
"Walks are therapeutic, especially when taken by people that annoy me." - Coine
<<<Someone shouldn't be able to hit a Paladin (or any other guild for that matter) wearing one on their back from behind, period, in a realistic sense.
That is the rub. If backstab cannot pierce through the armor (with or w/o a shield), it loses a slice of its fantasy pie, and that would be quite unacceptable. Since armor hasn't any of that "fantasy pie" in the first place, there is apparently no loss.
Humm "Proud Ears" Breaux
Prydaen Refugee Freedom Fighter.
That is the rub. If backstab cannot pierce through the armor (with or w/o a shield), it loses a slice of its fantasy pie, and that would be quite unacceptable. Since armor hasn't any of that "fantasy pie" in the first place, there is apparently no loss.
Humm "Proud Ears" Breaux
Prydaen Refugee Freedom Fighter.
>That is the rub. If backstab cannot pierce through the armor (with or w/o a shield), it loses a slice of its fantasy pie, and that would be quite unacceptable. Since armor hasn't any of that "fantasy pie" in the first place, there is apparently no loss.
As I said before, I can see them getting past armor, because armor isn't a solid piece of metal. There are places where one can jam a blade and do some real damage without damaging the person's armor at all.
A wall shield on the back on the other hand....
~Coine
"Walks are therapeutic, especially when taken by people that annoy me." - Coine
As I said before, I can see them getting past armor, because armor isn't a solid piece of metal. There are places where one can jam a blade and do some real damage without damaging the person's armor at all.
A wall shield on the back on the other hand....
~Coine
"Walks are therapeutic, especially when taken by people that annoy me." - Coine
It would be just a little too ridiculous if the only thing you had to do to completely cancel a backstab was wear a shield on your back. That would completely negate a thieves entire skill by the simple action of wearing an item. I could see if they made someone/something wearing a shield a more difficult target for that type of attack, but to completely offset an entire skill is a little ridiculous.
I do agree, that backstabbing someone with a shield would be nearly impossible. But I just don't see it becoming a reality in DR. It just would not be fair.
Litharius
No sprinkles! For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you!
-Stewie Griffin
I do agree, that backstabbing someone with a shield would be nearly impossible. But I just don't see it becoming a reality in DR. It just would not be fair.
Litharius
No sprinkles! For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you!
-Stewie Griffin
<<<It just would not be fair.
There are lots of things that aren't fair in DR, at least, imho, but it would be fair to us. Maybe not to "them", but to us. Somehow I don't worry about these issues in CvC sort of way. I think of it as them against the critters, and us against the critters. Maybe I take that attitude to an extreme, but I honestly thought that CvC is not adequate rational in evaluating character/guild abilities.
I mean, why would anyone worry about a critter being harder to backstab because it wears a shield? Its only about CvC, unless I'm overlooking something. I doubt shield carrying critters will insisting on having a shield to wear and one to carry, so the point is pretty much CvC by default. If critters don't wear their shields merely to protect them from backstabs, player characters are all that's left. That being said, why is it an issue, unless I'm wrong here?
Humm "Proud Ears" Breaux
Prydaen Refugee Freedom Fighter.
There are lots of things that aren't fair in DR, at least, imho, but it would be fair to us. Maybe not to "them", but to us. Somehow I don't worry about these issues in CvC sort of way. I think of it as them against the critters, and us against the critters. Maybe I take that attitude to an extreme, but I honestly thought that CvC is not adequate rational in evaluating character/guild abilities.
I mean, why would anyone worry about a critter being harder to backstab because it wears a shield? Its only about CvC, unless I'm overlooking something. I doubt shield carrying critters will insisting on having a shield to wear and one to carry, so the point is pretty much CvC by default. If critters don't wear their shields merely to protect them from backstabs, player characters are all that's left. That being said, why is it an issue, unless I'm wrong here?
Humm "Proud Ears" Breaux
Prydaen Refugee Freedom Fighter.
>That is the rub. If backstab cannot pierce through the armor (with or w/o a shield), it loses a slice of its fantasy pie, and that would be quite unacceptable. Since armor hasn't any of that "fantasy pie" in the first place, there is apparently no loss.
How about being chopped in half without having your armor damaged?
Nester
How about being chopped in half without having your armor damaged?
Nester
>Maybe I take that attitude to an extreme, but I honestly thought that CvC is not adequate rational in evaluating character/guild abilities.
CvC is almost always taken into consideration, I believe. Look at our paladin sense, for one. Does that serve any purpose other than CvC? Thief poison, too, is nearly pointless to use on creatures. There are several abilities solely in place for CvC. So you can't say that CvC is not taken into consideration.
Also, how many creatures backstab? The 3 or 4 creatures in Undershard, which, as my understand is, don't even use backstab mechanics? So what would be the point of the shield protecting from backstab? It would be a CvC tool.
Litharius
No sprinkles! For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you!
-Stewie Griffin
CvC is almost always taken into consideration, I believe. Look at our paladin sense, for one. Does that serve any purpose other than CvC? Thief poison, too, is nearly pointless to use on creatures. There are several abilities solely in place for CvC. So you can't say that CvC is not taken into consideration.
Also, how many creatures backstab? The 3 or 4 creatures in Undershard, which, as my understand is, don't even use backstab mechanics? So what would be the point of the shield protecting from backstab? It would be a CvC tool.
Litharius
No sprinkles! For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you!
-Stewie Griffin
http://gemm.com/q.cgi?rb=ANDYBURNETT&wild=Letters%20to%20Cleo
Just did a quick search for Letter's to Cleo, came up with this website.
No sprinkles! For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you!
-Stewie Griffin
Just did a quick search for Letter's to Cleo, came up with this website.
No sprinkles! For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you!
-Stewie Griffin
