Crosspost: Reflex and agility for shield plus Ranmadar Rant 07/10/2004 05:35 PM CDT
Can be found in combat folder, under shield, The poster made a solid point on reflex aiding smaller shields and Strength helping larger shields. this was my response and my own personal thoughts on how shield could/should/or might work


______________________________


<< I was thinking Reflex should help with smaller shields and stength with larger ones wich in dr's instant is pretty closely related to hinerence >>

I'd agree with that, reflex would help you more moving a small shield, and strength more with reflec moving a heavy one


One thing i'd like to note though, since a shield split is talked about theres a few theories how shields wil, be split up.

First mentioned has been sorting shields by Appraisal (i think ssra noted this aswell)

The only problem i have with this is I'll never be able to get a "better shield, if a buckler apps low to great or high (lets say its a quest of 400 plat buckler) Will it count as a small shield? Of because of its app will i be holding a buckler in my hand as a largfe shiel. Basically i have alot of reasons for not likeing it this way.


Secondly is by Hinderance (Ssra noted this aswell i belive) I personally like this idea much better, it allows your go get a better protecting "buckler" as long as the hinderance is down, leaving many openings for better forged and tanned shield, new fest, quest, and mechie items, whill still keeping All the shields in thier "place". No J shields as bucklers etc (i'm sure alot of the weapons and armor/shield rewirtie and overlooking will fix any oxy morons in this example as example 1 but 2 better!)



Thirdly, By wieght. i'm mostly against this idea, because light is everything, and there are some light, excellent shield that i wouldnt expect to be small enough to go on an arm.


Fourthly, by size, Not a bad idea, aloows all of the above save number firstly to be included when deciding size of shield. I'd expect shields would have to be looked at and resized to be sure all fit in thier corect placement, i thinkt his would allow even more Customization in a career system, allowing your best bang for your Lore and job bustring butts.

Reflex should as the above poster said, Mean alot, as should strentgh for the shields types they help, perhaps an even base it on the hinderance or size of the shield.

Well thats my take, BTw i am Pro shield skill split. Armor needs alot of stuff too, and honestly, shield makes alot more sense then just adding new body armor. Though dont take that as a no to new body armor, we will take that too!!!!

Ranmadar, yes, a Paladin.


***********************************
Let the ranks fly baby

***********************************
Reply
Re: Crosspost: Reflex and agility for shield plus Ranmadar Rant 07/11/2004 01:00 AM CDT
<<The only problem i have with this is I'll never be able to get a "better shield, if a buckler apps low to great or high (lets say its a quest of 400 plat buckler) Will it count as a small shield? Of because of its app will i be holding a buckler in my hand as a largfe shiel. Basically i have alot of reasons for not likeing it this way.

I think with flexibility in a design or system, there comes an expectation of responsibility upon a designer's part. What I mean, is that a buckler should never be created that ever has an appraisal that encroaches to obviously into another shield types range... low to impressive, for example.

I would think once the templates are defined for each shield type, that any future created shields (and even the current ones) would be forced to fit into one of those three templates for 99.99% of the time.

That 0.01% is a shield that is prolly sitting in the hands of Ssra's in-game character.

Soooo... the system sounds great, I just hope that bucklers are never created with apps that exceed the templates for small shields in a large manner. If they do, then they shouldnt be called a buckler, and should be some kind of "400 plat" shield that is extra special, in that Mcdonald's secret sauce sort of way.
Reply