LE No more overswing / better weapon swings

[skeithgaming]

If you don't know what overswinging a weapon is or looks like, this is the best example I could find in a quick manner of time. The idea of attacking being one motion is honestly a side thing for me, it doesn't bother me as much as some of the swings where it looks like you're trying to cut your opponent and trim the grass at the same time. I mean seriously look at this nonsense, and that isn't even the moving power attacks.

Is it viable to fix or fixed already? (or is it too much work for this pedant?)

 

Also, don't bother with dual-wield if you are going to go after this kind of thing. Realistically dual-wielding makes absolutely no sense :)

[Samuhell666]

Honestly the swing animations aren't too terrible (they ain't great), but don't think any modder is going to touch animations mainly because of how difficult it can be.

 

Dual wielding however is a very viable concept within the real world due to how much flexibility it gives a fighter, personally I use dual-wielding within reenactment all the time due to how fun it can be and guess what you can even parry when dual-wielding

[noobax]

Wow, I hadn't noticed how far back your character really swings on the 1H sword backswing. Damn, that is literally a 360 swing

[AfroGamerNinja]

Dual wielding however is a very viable concept within the real world due to how much flexibility it gives a fighter, personally I use dual-wielding within reenactment all the time due to how fun it can be and guess what you can even parry when dual-wielding

 

But you'd still get your ass kicked by a Sword and Shield guy.

[skeithgaming]

Dual wielding however is a very viable concept within the real world due to how much flexibility it gives a fighter, personally I use dual-wielding within reenactment all the time due to how fun it can be and guess what you can even parry when dual-wielding

 

No, sadly it isn't (this video will provide a visual summary mostly). Mostly DW is something that was used in street performance and there are extremely rare cases that we have found from historical manuals and depictions of battles where a fighter uses two of a single weapon type (then again there are some manuals with absolutely insane ****, like unscrewing your pommel and throwing it at the opponent). One of the extremely rare exceptions include the Sai (actually my favorite weapon!) which were commonly used DW, however it is an extremely difficult martial art to master to the point where even without his/her weapons if you got in a fist fight with someone who could wield dual Sai it'd be like trying to beat up a champion MMA fighter. Trying to master a blunt weapon AND DW them is insane. DW takes years of practice to even learn - even longer than what it takes to learn a Katana (expect up to 7 years to fully learn) - and at least the Katana was an extremely effective weapon when mastered. Another example was in duels aka 1v1 with a rapier, where you would take an off hand weapon (if you have any rapier training you know why), but to put it simply, having a dagger of sorts allowed for more versatility against the extreme danger of the thrusting rapier - it was used almost entirely for defense.

The main thing you have to remember is that a shield is a weapon. Hell, even in skyrim a power bash can do rather extreme amounts of damage. In real life if I was sparring, I would never bash my opponent because even with a lighter and smaller shield, I'd still be likely to break bones in one blow. Additionally, when you're being bombarded by archers, your second sword isn't exactly going to save you from the volley of arrows that blots out the sun. Skyrim takes archery rather lightly, but in real life if an archer had a real longbow (approx. the size of the archer) from atop a tower or other great area for a "siege bow" you could expect the arrow to otherwise straight up kill you or gravely injure you, likely to only have an opponent in the other army simply finish you off. Mind you, Longbows have so much power behind them that they can literally go completely through your entire set of bulky, thick, heavy armor (whereas a normal bow would often just get half way into your body.. you're kinda screwed regardless). If they're using a crossbow, well your shield could still save you but god help you if a single shot hit you unless you were wearing the right kind of armor (the same goes with bows, just not as extreme) or were out of range as longer distances make crossbows kinda a terrible idea to use. On a similar point, using a bow when someone was close was straight up suicide and you wouldn't even hurt them.

Going even further, a shield is an excellent parrying tool on its own, as you can change the direction of the shield's face so that whatever type of cut the opponent tries to do can actually be deflected off of your shield leaving them extremely open to attack, often getting them killed for such a rookie mistake. This is why I like combat mods that add parrying and proper blocking to Skyrim, as it was a very serious and very dangerous thing that you and your opponent have to consider. If you try to make an attack at your opponent who has a shield, you might "miss" because you struck their shield instead of them and suddenly you feel their sword cut right through you, often with the opponent abusing the momentum you used in your strike against you.

And now this bit may sound odd in contrast with the last paragraph, but in some fights a warrior might actually drop his shield. Why? Because it's so riddled with arrows that (s)he's better off using that open hand for grappling as it is extremely likely at this point that you are within grappling range, if not quickly approaching it. Both sides of the army can easily have this problem if both sides have archers.

Edited February 3, 2015 by skeithgaming

[AfroGamerNinja]

 

Dual wielding however is a very viable concept within the real world due to how much flexibility it gives a fighter, personally I use dual-wielding within reenactment all the time due to how fun it can be and guess what you can even parry when dual-wielding

 

No, sadly it isn't (this video will provide a visual summary mostly). Mostly DW is something that was used in street performance and there are extremely rare cases that we have found from historical manuals and depictions of battles where a fighter uses two of a single weapon type (then again there are some manuals with absolutely insane ****, like unscrewing your pommel and throwing it at the opponent). One of the extremely rare exceptions include the Sai (actually my favorite weapon!) which were commonly used DW, however it is an extremely difficult martial art to master to the point where even without his/her weapons if you got in a fist fight with someone who could wield dual Sai it'd be like trying to beat up a champion MMA fighter. Trying to master a blunt weapon AND DW them is insane. DW takes years of practice to even learn - even longer than what it takes to learn a Katana (expect up to 7 years to fully learn) - and at least the Katana was an extremely effective weapon when mastered. Another example was in duels aka 1v1 with a rapier, where you would take an off hand weapon (if you have any rapier training you know why), but to put it simply, having a dagger of sorts allowed for more versatility against the extreme danger of the thrusting rapier - it was used almost entirely for defense.

The main thing you have to remember is that a shield is a weapon. Hell, even in skyrim a power bash can do rather extreme amounts of damage. In real life if I was sparring, I would never bash my opponent because even with a lighter and smaller shield, I'd still be likely to break bones in one blow. Additionally, when you're being bombarded by archers, your second sword isn't exactly going to save you from the volley of arrows that blots out the sun. Skyrim takes archery rather lightly, but in real life if an archer had a real longbow (approx. the size of the archer) from atop a tower or other great area for a "siege bow" you could expect the arrow to otherwise straight up kill you or gravely injure you, likely to only have an opponent in the other army simply finish you off. Mind you, Longbows have so much power behind them that they can literally go completely through your entire set of bulky, thick, heavy armor (whereas a normal bow would often just get half way into your body.. you're kinda screwed regardless). If they're using a crossbow, well your shield could still save you but god help you if a single shot hit you unless you were wearing the right kind of armor (the same goes with bows, just not as extreme) or were out of range as longer distances make crossbows kinda a terrible idea to use. On a similar point, using a bow when someone was close was straight up suicide and you wouldn't even hurt them.

Going even further, a shield is an excellent parrying tool on its own, as you can change the direction of the shield's face so that whatever type of cut the opponent tries to do can actually be deflected off of your shield leaving them extremely open to attack, often getting them killed for such a rookie mistake. This is why I like combat mods that add parrying and proper blocking to Skyrim, as it was a very serious and very dangerous thing that you and your opponent have to consider. If you try to make an attack at your opponent who has a shield, you might "miss" because you struck their shield instead of them and suddenly you feel their sword cut right through you, often with the opponent abusing the momentum you used in your strike against you.

And now this bit may sound odd in contrast with the last paragraph, but in some fights a warrior might actually drop his shield. Why? Because it's so riddled with arrows that (s)he's better off using that open hand for grappling as it is extremely likely at this point that you are within grappling range, if not quickly approaching it. Both sides of the army can easily have this problem if both sides have archers.

 

 

Why can't we upvote posts in this forum?

[notmyhome]

Allow me to chime in with

video of real-life archery feats.

[Seattleite]

No, sadly it isn't (this video will provide a visual summary mostly).

 

I hate to break it to you, but Lloyd is an idiot. I kinda find it sad that people still take him seriously. Matt has already debunked his stance on dual wielding. TWICE. And I'm not even going to touch your misgivings on archery, or the fact that you're assuming battlefield conditions in a game with very few battles where your character is an *adventurer*, and their prime concern should be their ability to *adventure*, not their ability to win a hypothetical battle they'll never be in. Which, really, means the most impractical things in the game are shields, heavy armour and two handed weapons, since those would realistically impair their ability to *adventure*. Unless they left it on the horse, but then what's the point of bringing them? (I don't think the bandits are going to wait patiently for half an hour while you carefully strap yourself into your ebony armour and carefully strap on your shield or draw your huge f***-off sword.)

 

Dual wielding makes PERFECT sense for Skyrim's protagonist. They can reasonably carry a sword and a dagger at all times, or even two swords. It takes NOTHING from you to carry a dagger, you'll probably have one anyway because you'd be a complete idiot not to carry such a useful tool, and a second sword (especially a shorter sword) is pretty light and convenient too. A shield, on the other hand, is an extra ten pounds of crap that gets in your way all the damned time unless left in a place where it won't do you any good anyway, and a buckler (the only shield light enough to be reasonable for an adventurer) wouldn't be better than a second weapon.They can use one weapon to parry while striking with the other weapon, allowing them to freely attack and defend at the same time without either weapon getting in the other's way. Is it as good as having a shield? Not from a defensive standpoint, though it allowing you to attack from either side without dropping your guard makes it superior offensively, and you'd be right about that. But it is much more reasonable to carry a second weapon than it is to carry a shield, given what you have to do on a daily basis in Skyrim.

 

Now, as for the original request, to replace ridiculous overswings with more reasonable swings, I whole-heartedly second that.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Seattleite

[skeithgaming]

Oh boy here we go.

 

 

 

I hate to break it to you, but Lloyd is an idiot. I kinda find it sad that people still take him seriously. Matt has already debunked his stance on dual wielding. TWICE.

In the first 14 seconds Matt was wrong and explicitly showed his lack of knowledge and research on the topic.

: Just making a video to talk about so called "dual-wielding" which is a modern term - very modern term - I'm only aware of it for the last 5 or 10 years.

If we're going to go just with the Sai I talked about - one of the most recognizable melee weapons - they were at they're peak in the 15th century. This was a weapon that was known for being wielded in both hands and he's off by 600 years off of one famous example alone. The second weapon I mentioned was the Rapier, a weapon used mainly in the 16th and 17th centuries and is also an even more well known blade than the Sai by a few orders of magnitude.

These are also time periods where writing was in full swing worldwide, as the printing press was a 15th century invention, meaning we have dozens (at least) of historical manuals on these subjects that were mass produced. You literally cannot miss them if you are educating yourself on the topic, even if you're just looking at Wikipedia.

 

[3:37]When you've got to weapons... ...You've essentially got two options. When someone attacks you, you can either marry the two weapons together in such a way that you form a very strong defense, then you leave one weapon there while giving your riposte.

So from point to point:

Bringing the two blades together is dumb as hell and he's clearly not tried it in sparring. "Marrying" the two weapons together allows for whatever blow your opponent just threw to strike at least one blade, meaning your blade is going to slide off the "married" blade. They aren't welded together instantly because you made them touch. In a downward cut, this would make the married blades fall towards each other at the hilts and let the attack completely pass through, or at least pass through to your chest. In the case of an upward attack, you cannot "marry" the two blades in any such way where you are either going to be entirely open or going to cut yourself on contact with the opponents blow, only to have them follow through with their cut. In the case of an angled attack, it would very literally defeat the defense as not only can your opponent break through your guard as the married blades have different levels of blocking strengths behind them now (meaning inevitable blade slipping) but they're also going to strike your neck/shoulder/arm, disabling you at best, killing you at worst. In the case of a horizontal cut, again each married blade has a different level of blocking strength than the other so they will fold like opening scissors and the attack gets through. There is a reason why a blade has a hilt and Matt does not understand why on a fundamental level (else he would see why this would be a suicide move).

To make matters worse, he then says to use one of the married blades that somehow stopped the attack to strike back at the opponent. First, this gives the opponent an instant telegraph as the release of pressure from the bind means you are about to do something, so you've just telegraphed your attack pretty hard. Secondly, by removing the strength behind whatever stance you would use to get yourself into a bind with a DW bind, your opponent immediately puts more pressure on the bind and they get a free push or pull cut as the strength behind your end of the bind is gone. This is assuming of course that your opponent didn't already exploit the opening you made with the married bind and literally just thrust his weapon through your body.

All of this is assuming your opponent decided to stick with that bind. With the DW bind displayed, you aren't threatening your opponent with either weapon whilst in the bind as all of the edges and points are facing away from them. They have their blade threatening you, and you pose no immediate threat to them, meaning a next move could be to break or leave the bind, leaving you open to attack and giving you the only solace of an unlikely double-kill and you both fall over dead. If they back off just enough to leave the bind then step forward with a thrust, you're literally defenseless and now dead.

I'd also love to know how you would stop a hammer or flail with this defense other than with your body.

I'd also love to see a two handed strike stopped before it could make contact - something you can do with a hilt of a blade that you can't with a married block.

There is nothing about this strategy that would work unless you're fighting a peasant after a great deal of practice and god help you if the peasant even knows a thing or two about fighting.

3:58 Or you do have the option to give a single tempo (sic.) i.e. in one time, to defend and attack in the same time.

How does one stop a downward cut with a misaligned hilt/blade? Die? The best this tactic can do is get both of you killed - you thrust him and he cuts open most of your body from the neck down. This concept revolves around not knowing something you learn in your first days of training - don't forget about your opening when you go after your opponents opening. Both people sparring will kill each other a lot at the same time for a while until they get to understand what an opening looks like for both them and their opponent as well as the practice of sacrificing neither for an attack and that's perfectly normal. But not knowing this and proposing combat techniques that revolve around this lack of understanding? That's silly.

4:05 Of course that's true when you've got a shield or a buckler (comment: bucklers are shields?)...

 

My sides.

4:50 And that is done even more with Rapier and Dagger.

 

Oh god stop please you are killing me this is too funny now, he had to research the topic then disregard any evidence or context surrounding it. He even has a proper parrying dagger too, so he has to know.

6:16 [Mentions he has read historical manuals]

 

This just keeps breaking down more and more, I can't take him seriously anymore. I'm sorry I can't. You have to cherry pick so much with this and he's clearly doing it.

He doesn't know what he's talking about. Please don't cite him as a source.

 

 

 

 

And I'm not even going to touch your misgivings on archery...

Oh please do, I'd love to know where I went wrong.

...or the fact that you're assuming battlefield conditions in a game with very few battles where your character is an *adventurer*, and their prime concern should be their ability to *adventure*, not their ability to win a hypothetical battle they'll never be in.

 

Do enlighten me on these battles that will never happen in any of your adventures through Skyrim's vast expansive world, where there are clearly no forts, towers, or military encampments and everything is very much safe and away from any potential civil war.

Which, really, means the most impractical things in the game are shields, heavy armour and two handed weapons, since those would realistically impair their ability to *adventure*.

 

Armor clearly had no serious impact on movement as you can see here, the french demonstrate it well. (more on weight later)

 

 

A shield, on the other hand, is an extra ten pounds of crap that gets in your way all the damned time unless left in a place where it won't do you any good anyway...

Like on a horse.

You know, when you won't be using it.

Like with everything else actual soldiers used when they're busy on a horse.

Also you weren't about to take off your armor and your weapons would be very readily available to you on your horse.

 

The rest of the paragraph doesn't address the shield being a weapon of it's own at all and you also assume that an opponent would open themselves up for a second strike. Also, a properly made shield weighs FAR less then you think. A Scottish Targe 24" in diameter - a shield capable of actually stopping musket balls and grapeshot - weighs about 7lbs. Yes, the huge shield that stopped early gunfire weighed 7lbs or less. The same thing goes for swords - the accompanying weapon for this shield would have of course been the Scottish Basket Hilt Sword, with a well crafted broadsword weighing in at about <3lbs with about a 2.5' reach. (Actually if you drop about $400 you can get beautiful, historically accurate, battle ready versions of both of these by the way)

 

 

Thanks for agreeing on the animation issues, though. That's what the thread is overall about.

[Seattleite]

Oh boy here we go.

I temper my sense of decency in expectation.

 

 

In the first 14 seconds Matt was wrong and explicitly showed his lack of knowledge and research on the topic.

 

Except, no, he doesn't.

 

 

If we're going to go just with the Sai I talked about - one of the most recognizable melee weapons - they were at they're peak in the 15th century. This was a weapon that was known for being wielded in both hands and he's off by 600 years off of one famous example alone. The second weapon I mentioned was the Rapier, a weapon used mainly in the 16th and 17th centuries and is also an even more well known blade than the Sai by a few orders of magnitude.

These are also time periods where writing was in full swing worldwide, as the printing press was a 15th century invention, meaning we have dozens (at least) of historical manuals on these subjects that were mass produced. You literally cannot miss them if you are educating yourself on the topic, even if you're just looking at Wikipedia.

 

Except that he said the TERM was modern. The term "sulphuric acid" is also a modern term, but just saying it's a modern term is NOT saying that sulphuric acid itself is in any way modern. They just called it something else before it was called "sulphuric acid". (In that case, the old term was "oil of vitriol", sometimes just "vitriol".)

 

The term "dual wielding" IS older than Matt thought, but not by that much. The term traces back to the early '70s, where the people at TSR pulled it straight out of their asses. Never the less, it's a good term, and it works well enough.

 

 

So from point to point:

 

...That you clearly don't understand.

 

 

Bringing the two blades together is dumb as hell and he's clearly not tried it in sparring. "Marrying" the two weapons together allows for whatever blow your opponent just threw to strike at least one blade, meaning your blade is going to slide off the "married" blade. They aren't welded together instantly because you made them touch. In a downward cut, this would make the married blades fall towards each other at the hilts and let the attack completely pass through, or at least pass through to your chest. In the case of an upward attack, you cannot "marry" the two blades in any such way where you are either going to be entirely open or going to cut yourself on contact with the opponents blow, only to have them follow through with their cut. In the case of an angled attack, it would very literally defeat the defense as not only can your opponent break through your guard as the married blades have different levels of blocking strengths behind them now (meaning inevitable blade slipping) but they're also going to strike your neck/shoulder/arm, disabling you at best, killing you at worst. In the case of a horizontal cut, again each married blade has a different level of blocking strength than the other so they will fold like opening scissors and the attack gets through. There is a reason why a blade has a hilt and Matt does not understand why on a fundamental level (else he would see why this would be a suicide move).

 

You don't have to *STOP* an attack, you just have to make sure it doesn't hit you. All that takes is deflection, and the two weapons together ensures you catch the weapon and can redirect it towards whichever side it happens to be closer to.

 

Do not forget that Matt has limited camera space, and has to make his motions where he knows the camera can see them. He can't do the full motion there, because by the end both of his weapons would be off camera. He's also never fully acted out actions, there's no reason to make an exception here.

 

 

To make matters worse, he then says to use one of the married blades that somehow stopped the attack to strike back at the opponent. First, this gives the opponent an instant telegraph as the release of pressure from the bind means you are about to do something, so you've just telegraphed your attack pretty hard. Secondly, by removing the strength behind whatever stance you would use to get yourself into a bind with a DW bind, your opponent immediately puts more pressure on the bind and they get a free push or pull cut as the strength behind your end of the bind is gone. This is assuming of course that your opponent didn't already exploit the opening you made with the married bind and literally just thrust his weapon through your body.

 

Except that by this point, their weapon already has its point to the ground off to your side, making it easily avoidable by simply stepping in closer towards them.

 

 

All of this is assuming your opponent decided to stick with that bind.

 

No, it doesn't, because the bind only lasted about two seconds and ended with their weapon pushed down and to the side.

 

 

With the DW bind displayed, you aren't threatening your opponent with either weapon whilst in the bind as all of the edges and points are facing away from them. They have their blade threatening you, and you pose no immediate threat to them, meaning a next move could be to break or leave the bind, leaving you open to attack and giving you the only solace of an unlikely double-kill and you both fall over dead. If they back off just enough to leave the bind then step forward with a thrust, you're literally defenseless and now dead.

 

You keep assuming this is a static block. It is not. It's just used to catch the opponent's blade for a split second, and then push it down away from you. That's IT.

 

 

I'd also love to know how you would stop a hammer or flail with this defense other than with your body.

I'd also love to see a two handed strike stopped before it could make contact - something you can do with a hilt of a blade that you can't with a married block.

There is nothing about this strategy that would work unless you're fighting a peasant after a great deal of practice and god help you if the peasant even knows a thing or two about fighting.

 

All of this is flat-out wrong, because you are NOT TRYING TO STOP THE ATTACK. You are just REDIRECTING IT, as you should be doing with EVERY parrying method. Because, and I hate to break it to you, but making a static block is NEVER effective. No, not even a shield. A static block is a good way to end up with a broken arm, and that's about all it's good for.

 

How does one stop a downward cut with a misaligned hilt/blade? Die? The best this tactic can do is get both of you killed - you thrust him and he cuts open most of your body from the neck down. This concept revolves around not knowing something you learn in your first days of training - don't forget about your opening when you go after your opponents opening. Both people sparring will kill each other a lot at the same time for a while until they get to understand what an opening looks like for both them and their opponent as well as the practice of sacrificing neither for an attack and that's perfectly normal. But not knowing this and proposing combat techniques that revolve around this lack of understanding? That's silly.

 

No, what's silly is intentionally not understanding what's being proposed. You use one weapon, your offhand weapon, to parry the incoming attack, then COUNTER ATTACK WHILE YOU DO IT, MORON. They only have one weapon, you have two. You parry their attack and attack them while their weapon is still out of the way. And it is NOT hard to parry with an offhand weapon, either. It's harder than parrying with your main hand, sure, but it's harder to do ANYTHING with your off hand, and in this case the task is simple so it's NOT by that much.

 

And the other option Matt actually missed was that you can attack with one weapon while keeping the other up and ready to defend, so you can parry any counterattacks made.

 

Oh god stop please you are killing me this is too funny now, he had to research the topic then disregard any evidence or context surrounding it. He even has a proper parrying dagger too, so he has to know.

This coming from the guy who doesn't know what the term "tempo" means.

 

This just keeps breaking down more and more, I can't take him seriously anymore. I'm sorry I can't. You have to cherry pick so much with this and he's clearly doing it.

He doesn't know what he's talking about. Please don't cite him as a source.

And now you have hit the point where you can't even pretend to have a point anymore, and have resorted to personal attacks without any argument to back them up.

 

Oh please do, I'd love to know where I went wrong.

1. The idea that arrows magically ignore armour, when in reality they had great difficulty penetrating plate, which is part of the reason why crossbows were so revolutionary. There's a reason armour existed and was used at great expense despite its downsides, against enemies whose principle weapon was the bow. And it's not because arrows went right through it. Even your precious idiot Lloyd admitted that, and he loves to play up the power of the bow.

2. Your instant death arrow bulls***. Arrows have TERRIBLE stopping power, less than almost any other weapon out there. They leave a fairly small wound, and cause little in the way of secondary damage. You'd be more likely to stop somebody right away with a good sized knife. That's just a thing to remember, in general. Just because a weapon is fatal does not mean a weapon is immediately incapacitating. In fact, the amount of damage it takes to kill is SO much less than it takes to immediately incapacitate that it seems silly to even compare the two.

 

Do enlighten me on these battles that will never clearly no forts, towers, or military encampments and gunfire weighed 7lbs or less. The same thing goes for swords - the accompanying weapon for this shield would have of course been the Scottish Basket Hilt Sword, with a well crafted broadsword weighing in at about <3lbs with about a 2.5' reach. (Actually if you drop about $400 you can get beautiful, historically accurate, battle ready versions of both of these by the way)

Yes, yes. But there's a big difference between the weight of a shield and the weight of a dagger. There's also a difference in size. Owning a horse may make this whole miserable mess easier, it's basically a requirement for an adventurer to use a shield, but it can't stay on the horse all the time or it's doing you no good. Imagine yourself in a typical Skyrim barrow. Can you pull a lever or a pull chain with your shield arm? NO. You have to either sheathe your sword or put the shield down. Either one will take a while. Say there's a ladder you have to climb, can you do that with a shield? NO. You'd need to leave the shield behind or strap it to your back. What if you need to pick a lock, can you do that with a shield? NO. How about searching the chest? NO. What about sifting through books? NO. Can you even fit through the narrower passageways without a serious struggle? NO.

 

A dagger? Takes a second to take out, a bit longer to put away. Much faster than a shield. It also can be ready at hand when climbing a ladder, or swimming, or any of a number of similar tasks, and won't get in your way. It'll also be out faster than your primary weapon if something comes at you while you're reading some dead thief's journal, or picking a lock, or rooting through a chest. Oh, and the dagger, in case you forgot, is also a tool. A tool so valuable you'd be a fool not to carry one, so it's not extra equipment.

 

And if you don't have a horse, then how are you carrying your shield in the first place? On your arm? Do you even have a shield, sir? Strap it on your arm and go walk around with it for a couple hours. Now, tell me how much of your arm still has feeling. Yeah, that's not happening. So, on your back? Have fun getting a weapon out from your back when a bandit is coming at you with an axe. A shield may be easier to get off your back then a sword, but it'll still take some effort, and by the time it's out you've got an axe in your collar. So neither of those is really reasonable.

 

Thanks for agreeing on the animation issues, though. That's what the thread is overall about.

 

Supposedly.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Seattleite