A shield could just as easily break your face as a mace. The edge of the shield focuses a lot of force into a small area. Shield uppercut = broken jaw. Shield to a knee or thigh...maybe won't break anything, but you will instantly regret that that leg happens to belong to you.
Shield Master
Have you seen the movie Gladiator?
Thats how I see Warriors who wield shields. Use it to block and even attack when the chance permits. Though obviously you keep your sword as your primary attack.
Come on people, the idea of anyone using two shields is just silly. Why use two shields when you have one shield, and a weapon you can still parry with, but will inflict a lot more damage than the shield?
Obviously, my point is just that getting busted in the face with a shield is a whole lot nastier than you would think it is.
I don't think anybody is under the impression that swinging any large lump of metal into someone's face isn't going to do anything. Just, I don't know... I imagine some guy storming the battlefield with two shields in his hands and I just start laughing, and if you're going to use one shield, then why not throw a sword in there too?
Dey
Have you seen the movie Gladiator?
Thats how I see Warriors who wield shields. Use it to block and even attack when the chance permits. Though obviously you keep your sword as your primary attack.
YEAH! And also in troy... in the battle between hector and achilles... One of the best fight scenes ever imo.
Thats what a shield warrior should be like... Defensive to the days. Like a staff x10 but still the offensive capability of their weilded weapon.
YEAH! And also in troy... in the battle between hector and achilles... One of the best fight scenes ever imo.
Thats what a shield warrior should be like... Defensive to the days. Like a staff x10 but still the offensive capability of their weilded weapon.
That's all well and good until you realize these guys could only take one good shot before going down, as opposed to our ogre warriors, whom you have to hit 75 times before they die.
You guys are great.
I was just searching something on your tube about the shield fighting when i found this guys Pearls of wisdom. It really made my day.
As it is funny and broke so many preconceived notions i got from watching movies and reading books.
- Quite interesting.
Why don't people wear sheaths on right side ?
I didn't click the link, but because, in some cultures, if you tap sheaths with someone on accidental/intentionally, it's considered a challenge.
Why would you be more likely to bump sheaths with somebody if you both wore them on your right side, as opposed to wearing them both on your left side?
I didn't click the link' date=' but because, in some cultures, if you tap sheaths with someone on accidental/intentionally, it's considered a challenge.[/quote']
That sounds a lot like the reason my Aikido teacher gave us for samurai's always being right handed....
See the link, its about the reason why you don't draw a right sheathed sword with the right hand. It's supposedly "impossible".
Just see and have fun.
He has also another video on swords sheaths on back ninja like and how it is impossible to draw them, and why you never see people draw them in movies.
Why would you be more likely to bump sheaths with somebody if you both wore them on your right side, as opposed to wearing them both on your left side?
Somebody walking past you/against your traffic.
Somebody walking past you/against your traffic.
You'd still bump into them if the sheath was still on the left side, for both of the people involved.
If your right handed, it's really hard to draw a sword from a sheath on your right hand and when you need to draw a sword, you need quick access.
About swords on the back, as long as your arm is longer than the blade of the sword, you should have no problem drawing that weapon. 
Or how about making some shields size-specific. So when a giant tries to wear a shield, sometimes it might say "This weapon is too small for you to wield."
Eh?
Oh, please no. I've played muds with size-specific eq, and it's just...blech.
Or how about allowing a shield to count as a primary weapon, so that you can get a better defensive with one, but a poorer offense?
The more ideas I pitch, the higher my probability to pitch a good one.
dual shields ftw! Why not? You should be able to block and attack with shields. And if you can why not dual them? This should be the most defensive use with some offense combo. 
as long as your arm is longer than the blade of the sword, you should have no problem drawing that weapon.
If your arm is longer than the blade of the sword, I must say that would be one pretty crappy sword.
You guys are great.
I was just searching something on your tube about the shield fighting when i found this guys Pearls of wisdom. It really made my day.
As it is funny and broke so many preconceived notions i got from watching movies and reading books.
- Quite interesting.
Cool links mya!
So I am guessing if you are going to dual wield shields and use them as weapons you would have to have dual wield. Comparing shield to any other weapon, we would have to say that they have crappy offensive capabilities.
Why do you want to dual wield shields with such a penalty? You are fighting a strong melee class.
So which class who can dual wield would like to have almost zero melee offense? A hybrid class, most likely, so they can throw spells while they are hard to hit. Which hybrid class has dual wield? Druids, paladins and DKs (I can't imagine a DK not using his malformed weapon, but meh).
Do you really think that your spells as a druid, pally or DK are going to take down a strong melee class?
Quite honestly, no idea, but I leaning towards NO.
EDIT: Maybe elf pally.
Elf paladin melee is VERY important still. Character melee output only truly ceases to matter for invokers and necromancers (also arguably shamans and assassin ninjas)... for everyone else it matters a great deal