His character wears a great helm, full plate armor, and has a shield at the same time

That's the best way to use classes, more as a sort of archetype that defines what you can do over a label that's hovering over your head.

What's wrong with fullplate + shield?

full plate is a body-shaped shield
a hand-held shield is pointless

Are people seriously making this argument?

I have never had a rogue character in any of my games that didn't dress in a skulker's cowl and hood and dark leathers like they were straight out of a Thief game.

That's something I did like with 4e, them going 'Yeah, use the rules for anything that fits it'. Rogues got a lot of 'I'm a dirty fighter, without needing everything to be backstabbing' stuff as well as 'I will just outduel you with skill' stuff.

>wear a mithril full plate forged for you by the giants with an ancient magical helm you found in some king's tomb and an elven shield enchanted to ward off dragonfire
>some fat peasant in the village square points at you and starts making reaction faces

Full plate wasn't worn with a shield, that's it. It's like having hoplite armor and an ak-47. Technically nothing wrong because fantasy is fantasy, but suspension of disbelief will suffer.

>Full plate wasn't worn with a shield

[citation needed]

>It's like having hoplite armor and an ak-47
No it's not, it's like having hoplite armour and a scutum.

Brb. Need to paintball some zebras for science

...

>putting armour on top of armour is redundant

Not every animal has the same colour distinction we have, user.

>It's like having hoplite armor and an ak-47
thats a terrible analogy

>"I'd like a set of armor to protect from harm in case I'm struck with a weapon."
>"Would you also like a shield so you can deflect blows or reduce their impact before it hits your armor?"
>"No, Veeky Forums said that's redundant."
>Gets stabbed through armor

I mean, in all seriousness, full-plate does its fucking job.

>inb4 le HEMEMEA

As someone who practices HEMA, wearing full plate is like a personal guarantee of safety from your life insurance provider. NOTHING can so much as touch you (or at least it feels that way). I'd rather be carrying a polearm of some sort in both my hands, with a small buckler, a longsword or an arming sword, a dagger, and maybe a small mace; and if this weren't a game and real life, I'd probably bring my armored-up war horsie too. That's been the general load-out for most knights since knights existed, and it's been that way for hundreds of years for a reason.

I know, it's crazy how many contemporary historical sources get it wrong.

Do you not think that you are using a very narrow definition of "Full plate" maybe? Like - post 15th-century really banging late-medieval full plates, sure THOSE weren't worn with shields. But a full plate in d&d terms could jsut as well be a 11th-century long coat of mail, with some armored boots and a helmet, maye pauldrons for style.

>Gets stabbed through armor

You didn't say you were fighting samurai and their katanas of destruction.

- This guy is wearing maille, not plate.
- Some guys doing it doesn't mean it's common
- You are essentially citing the equivalent of comicbook illustrations as your source.

At the battle of Tinchebray, 1106, where people def. weren't wearing full plates and using shields.

C'mon, guys. Don't bust my balls.

I literally invented that theory after seeing that ship camouflage picture somewhere in my Middle School history books. I didn't even know it was the "official" scientific explanation until way later in Highschool. For all intents and purposes, it was MY personal theory.

Predatory creatures are especially well-known for having vision based on movement. Lions, tigers, and wolves being among them.

that's a spicy meatball

The sources I am posting are at least illustrations that were created, if not at the time, then within a hundred years of it. And whether you consider them comic-cook illustrations, they are x100 times more credible than your personal experience doing HEMA.

>Anti-armor weaponry creating an environment necessary for the development of yet more armor upon an already armored creature

Here's your (You)

>D&D
>doesn't have an environment where full plate might not be enough
>not having a shield as an extra piece of protection against various ranged attacks that could pierce your armour or negate it (fire, acid, etc.) and for general parrying of weapons that could hurt you even with your armour

>He plays DnD

Checkmate

>Playing Chess
>When Othello exists

>comes into a thread of autistically screeching about druids, rogues and plate armour
>assumes it's not about D&D

This is Veeky Forums. Every single thread has autists screeching about druids, rogues, and plate armor.

Next, you're going to tell me Veeky Forums isn't gay and Veeky Forums is great with their money.

I think you meant to reply to , because he's the one who seems to have a problem with Veeky Forums being gay and Veeky Forums not being great with money.

you know that shields would be extremely useful to block shit that would be used against plate armor, such as:

>Maces

>warhammers

>spears trough the armour joints

>arrows trough the visor, because en-masse arrows are liable to go into it.

Also, a shield is a handy weapon in trained hands, since using it to hit people is much more effective than throwing a punch.

so yeah, fuck off with your "hurr durr shields is pointless" argument

>doubling down this hard
There's no shame in admitting you heard the zebra thing before.

What if it's a proper Barry Lyndon-type rogue and not the modern fantasy version which is essentially a thief/assassin? WHAT THEN?

Tigers go for color-blind creatures.

Hey maybe he wanted to play a rouge and made a typo on his character sheet.

>Are people seriously making this argument?
You're in the daily "15th century great helm" thread.

This guy begs to differ.

Im not that familiar with DnD, so please forgive me if I am wrong on the internet.
But aren't rogue supposed to be bold, high charisma and I dont know, maybe flashy as fuck?
Isn't a fancy outfit a must buy for a rogue?
If you want to go unrecognized, just wear a jacket or a cloak like every other generic person walking over the streets.

>Barry Lyndon rogue

My good man.

Rogue covers both sneaky beaky thieves and assassins as well as flashy swashbucklers.

Ideally rogues in D&D are a broad archetype of 'sneaky guy' that can mean multiple things. It can be a precise, silent assassin, a tough-headed scoundrel, a scheming thief, a flamboyant charmer of a duelist, etc etc etc.

Unfortunately modern D&D is kinda shit at diverse characters.

Lol

longer weapon > a shield

So why were the Romans so effective with their shields and short swords, when everyone else was sporting spears and shields?

They’re more likely to breaks that wooden shield than do too well. Besides, go for a two hander

Because of group tactics, methods they used, and not having armor and strategies that’s good enough to ditch the shield for.

dude, metal shields were a common thing, and generally thicker than plate

For a start, that was before full plate. And Romans did have short Spears and pilum which were basically javelins. They basically won by outmaneuvering their slower opponents and getting to the squishy bits.

A full plate formation doesn't have squishy bits. Its a matter of smashing your front line into their front line until someone breaks and flees.

So you're saying tactics > weapons?

>A full plate formation doesn't have squishy bits.

Sure it does, inside it. Whack them over the head with a mace and watch it all leak out.

Their weaponry allowed for their tactics

How was what they had different?

Think about this for like half a second. Think of the motions required to brain someone with a mace, how good of a hit you'd require, and what your opponent would be doing while you are swinging this thing around like some fairy with a wand.

Now imagine there are a hundred people all around you, crushed together, and you're still trying this.

>metal shields were a common thing
Wooden shields were the common thing.

>C'mon, guys. Don't bust my balls.

Where the fuck do you think you are

A long spear is quite heavy, and a shield is also heavy. Imagine yourself turning while holding a really long spear, it would be quite difficult. Especially if the guys around you are also trying to turn while maintaining the shield wall. Add to that some asshole has been throwing six foot long sticks into your ranks which are sticking up and getting in the way.

Now imagine turning with a sword and shield. Charging with a sword and shield. Much simpler, isn't it?

>calling it othello
>not reversi

>- Some guys doing it doesn't mean it's common
Commonality has nothing to do with player characters. Adventurers are unique, aberrant, and often insane people who utilize completely atypical combat styles.

Are you implying that you could see a stalking tiger in the jungle?

I thought it was called King Lear?

Why are you giving US-style fantasy so much thought? It's silly, if not downright retarded, to begin with.

Keeping with the context of the OP, you're not fighting in a full plate blob, you're a lone fighter.

>were a common thing
>a common thing
>a
Just because not every peasant had access to it, it doesn't mean that those rich enough to have armour in the first place wouldn't.

>I tie the barrel of blubber to the dwarf prisoner, set it on fire, open the door and release him in the direction of his friends.

I was talking about a full plate formation. It's even what was quoted to argue against me. Regardless, in a 1v1 a mace is still a less than ideal weapon. They look cool, I agree, but they are an inefficient use of energy.

I'm trying to keep to the gripe OP has. We can pull out all the stats on how no modern military uses weapon X or body armour Y, yet find images of a mercenary or an individual having said armour and/or weapon.

Shields did not magically disappear from the world when plate was invented, plate armoured people didn't all automatically drop using shields like it was a class restriction, and nothing in plate armour makes a shield absolutely useless on an individual base, even if vast majority of military formations in plate didn't use them.

This doesn't even take into consideration that an adventuring individual might find more uses for a simple sword over a long spear or a polearm, and if you're armed with just a sword and aren't proficient in two weapon fighting, a shield might make a perfectly reasonable thing to have in your other hand, especially if you might not be wearing your plate 24/7.

Anything that stabs through plate armor will likely break your shield (And possibly arm) into tiny splinters.

>weapon that places a lot of energy on a small area in order to get through a sheet of metal and into the squichy flesh inside
>splintering a shield into pieces, rather than just put a hole in it if not getting parried aside altogether

Plate armor has a better deflection curve than most shields, and is held in place by far more reinforcing straps and overlapping plates. If the shield can deflect it, the stronger, more deflective plate can deflect it. If it can pierce the better, more deflective plate, the shield isn't going to do diddly except tie up one arm.

you seriously think a coat of mail with a gambeson underneath is the same as a full suit of plate armour?

yeah, you're retarded.

>when researchers put a distinguishing mark on a zebra, such as a bright colour spot, those individuals were far more likely to get killed by lions
Imagine being a fucking zebra, trying to mind your own business, when a bunch of asshole humans show up, capture you, and paint you red or something. And now you're the only dumb cunt in the zebra herd who looks different. And then you get killed by lions.

Fuck scientists.

>romans in mail or lorica segmentata were faster and more manouverable than german barbarians who fought shirtless and without any armour at all
romaboo logic everybody

Are you assuming that a shield only takes hits on the flat front surface? You know you can use the edge of the shield as well, right? Why would you rather have a weapon that might pierce your armour hit you instead of an expendable shield. If the shield gets pierced or breaks, you can get a new shield. If you get pierced or break, well, that's it.

Okay, so now you've got a shield with a massive rent in it and probably a dislocated or partially severed arm because you blocked with the edge against an attack powerful enough to go directly through plate armor. Congratulations, you're not better off.

>I'd rather be dead than have a broken arm

And yet again you're assuming that something like a warhammer, which asserts a lot of force on a small area, is going to fuck your shield up anymore than your plate. Except your shield is not against your body and the piercing spike isn't going to hit your flesh, just the empty air behind the shield.

Well I think Shields went away because plate armour was so effective it meant you had to start carrying two handed polearms to bust through it. MaKing it impractical.

Pavise carrying crossbowmen carried on forever.

A warhammer objectively will fuck your shield up more than your plate. Anything other than a headshot will barely dent, while a shield hit will directly impact your arm through the shitty strap system it has to use because it's only attached to one limb. Plate is distributed and usually fat and padded enough that a "solid" hit against it isn't going to have much impact. You will fuck up your arm if you get hit in the shield by a melee attack so absurdly strong that it can go through plate. We're talking "smacked by a literal giant using a giant sized mace" here, because that's the amount of melee force that would be needed. The normal method for going through full plate armor was to wrestle the guy down and stab him through one of the tiny, hard to reach weakpoints around the armpits or behind the gorget using a dagger.

>because plate armour was so effective it meant you had to start carrying two handed polearms to bust through it.
Not even. People carried two handed weapons around because they are generally more effective, but they still couldn't just willy nilly bust through plate. It took advances in firearm technology for that to happen. Polearms let you trip and hook other armored guys to deal with on the ground, and mess up less armored guys way better than a one handed weapon could.

>a war hammer
>smacked by a literal giant using a giant sized mace

>he thinks a wow mallet is a real warhammer

Have you never heard of redirecting a blow?
When you use a shield, you use it actively, you don't just wait for a fool to smack it, not that any opponent is going to specifically try to hit your shield, they're going to try to get around it. Also, only a small portion of you is closely under that shield, whereas exactly all of you is under that plate.

Would you prefer a bec-de-corbin or a pollaxe on the face, or on the shield?

When you actively use a shield, you are getting the same effect as using plate passively. Plate armor is bulbous. It curves all the way around at almost every angle except for certain parts directly in front of the shoulders. Actively using a shield with one or two angles on it is the same effect, but for more effort and covering less of your body. Shields were the first thing to go when melee-graded armor evolved. Curved breastplates were the last.

I'd rather just move my head and use my own polearm as a foil rather than have to take the hit at all. With two hands free, that is possible.

Bust through/otherwise defeat it in some way, the point is when you started needing 2 handed weapons to do it then a shield becomes impractical

Zebras stomp babies to death

Everything with half a brain stomps baby lions to death, because a baby lion now is soon a fully grown adult lion that will try to eat you.

...

Realism is for no-fun-allowed faggots.