I agree with this statement. At least I feel I need to be. Also, I feel much more restricted when it comes to movement as a) exposing my shield is a must, b) attacking from left to right is preferable since if I miss a blow I am still covered to some extend, c) I would try to encircle the enemy anti-clockwise, which is a result of point a).
Any reason not to use shields?
- Thread starter Ketobor
- Start date
Anthony Obilor
Insider
I find myself being more mobile, rushing in for strikes then slipping out and repositioning myself. I also use more R-L swings, attacking right after enemy does a large swing that opens him up. I found rushing 2hd sword welders is a better tactic as I don't give them the space to do dangerous swings. Block and get in like 1-3 hits to the side while using shield to hold trap their weapon in their right side.
Nomad
Member
I too find 2 handed weapons better, but I do run around with a shield setup in campaign quit a bit. It's better if you get surprised or if it's too dark. In arena I use 2 handed swords as my main go-to-weapon.
To me, the only good think about a buckler over a 28" shield is that is dosen't get in the way while trusting... as much. Neither is really in the way. So I don't know what you mean about being more "nimble" in this case. ?
To me, the only good think about a buckler over a 28" shield is that is dosen't get in the way while trusting... as much. Neither is really in the way. So I don't know what you mean about being more "nimble" in this case. ?
Nomad
Member
Going counter-clockvise sounds like a good tatic. I often run into enemies with 2 handed weapon to prevent them fom swinging - taking up their space while "stabbing" at them.
Satorii
Member
Sometimes when using just a 1h, the character puts their left arm out for balance while stepping and gets it inadvertently caught by the swing they were trying to dodge. Using a shield definitely reels that in and protects that arm, though as I understand will be added later on, at the cost of some balance
Mikodzi
Insider
Will bump this threat a bit.
I really love the combo of shield + 1H weapon. It will protect you from heavy blows, arrows and all sorts of stuff.
But now, in Exanima, shield is totally useless. Player without any exp can block with weapon almost any type of attack - it's sorta cheating...
I'd prefer that when character is using for blocking and parring his weapon - he should get a higher chance to get hit by an opponent. In contrast, shield should protect better and provide additional abilities to block, parry or advance.
I really love the combo of shield + 1H weapon. It will protect you from heavy blows, arrows and all sorts of stuff.
But now, in Exanima, shield is totally useless. Player without any exp can block with weapon almost any type of attack - it's sorta cheating...
I'd prefer that when character is using for blocking and parring his weapon - he should get a higher chance to get hit by an opponent. In contrast, shield should protect better and provide additional abilities to block, parry or advance.
Hedgehog-of-Fog
Member
It's all about how are you moving through the battle. If you're moving right then you'll be able to block (or evade) most of blows. If not - well, you know.
That's for now - without any shield skill. How shall it be with skills - time will tell.
Mikodzi
Insider
Ёжик, you can block all types of blows with or without shield - that's the point.
I will say that person without a shield should take more hits - you can't just block with sword as easily as you do with shield.
Bullethead
Member
I'm of mixed mind about the presence and usefulness of shields in Exanima. This is because the game includes plate armor, which is what killed the shield, at least in the West. Prior to plate, body armor really wasn't that great so you required a shield as your 1st (and possibly only) line of defense, which meant you could only use 1-handed weapons. But that was OK because 1-handed weapons could deal with contemporary armor, which was why you had a shield in the 1st place.
But then plate armor came along and you really needed a 2-handed weapon to defeat that. Which meant you couldn't use a shield, but that was OK because 2-handed weapons are great at parrying, too. And thus shields rapidly disappeared (except for a few, special cases) even for guys in cheap or no armor because they still needed both hands on a big can-opener to deal with the plated guys.
So there's always a bit of anachronism in fantasy RPGs having plate armor, chain mail, and shields all at once. Sure, there was some overlap between these things in real life, but it wasn't very long because all political entities had to keep up with current military technology or cease to exist. Thus, really and truly, you should either have a Dark Ages / Early Medieval setting with 1-handed weapons, shields, and chain mail, or a Late Medieval setting with 2-handed weapons, few if any shields, and plate armor (but not chain mail).
Of course, character development is a key aspect of RPGs, so it's become traditional to include the whole temporal spectrum of weapons and armor in the same game, so that a character can upgrade through many small steps of equipment. Despite this making zero historical sense. Once plate came along, it cut the middle out of this RPG equipment progression. You still had gambesons and brigandines at the bottom but nobody was still making Dark Age-style chain mail and shields anymore., so the only upgrade was straight to plate. Also, because RPGs like to allow as much choice as possible in character equipment and fighting styles, they allow 1-handed weapons to be effective against plate armor. But plate armor killed 1-handed weapons just as surely as it killed shields, so this isn't realistic.
All of the above is based on the battlefield, not the RPG theme of the lone adventurer. But lone adventurers do their adventuring in the context of a wider world, and that wider world is shaped by the battlefield. So the battlefield will largely dictate what military gear is available on the consumer market at a given point in time. Sure, you don't need a 2-handed can-opener to deal with thugs on the street or in taverns, or zombies in the easier levels of dungeons, so that even in a Late Medieval game setting there are still plenty of valid targets for 1-handed weapons, and thus a justification for using a shield (assuming you could still buy/find/make one AND get proper training with it). But specializing in this should put you at a grave disadvantage later in the game when you start fighting plated guys all the time.
Just my $0.02
But then plate armor came along and you really needed a 2-handed weapon to defeat that. Which meant you couldn't use a shield, but that was OK because 2-handed weapons are great at parrying, too. And thus shields rapidly disappeared (except for a few, special cases) even for guys in cheap or no armor because they still needed both hands on a big can-opener to deal with the plated guys.
So there's always a bit of anachronism in fantasy RPGs having plate armor, chain mail, and shields all at once. Sure, there was some overlap between these things in real life, but it wasn't very long because all political entities had to keep up with current military technology or cease to exist. Thus, really and truly, you should either have a Dark Ages / Early Medieval setting with 1-handed weapons, shields, and chain mail, or a Late Medieval setting with 2-handed weapons, few if any shields, and plate armor (but not chain mail).
Of course, character development is a key aspect of RPGs, so it's become traditional to include the whole temporal spectrum of weapons and armor in the same game, so that a character can upgrade through many small steps of equipment. Despite this making zero historical sense. Once plate came along, it cut the middle out of this RPG equipment progression. You still had gambesons and brigandines at the bottom but nobody was still making Dark Age-style chain mail and shields anymore., so the only upgrade was straight to plate. Also, because RPGs like to allow as much choice as possible in character equipment and fighting styles, they allow 1-handed weapons to be effective against plate armor. But plate armor killed 1-handed weapons just as surely as it killed shields, so this isn't realistic.
All of the above is based on the battlefield, not the RPG theme of the lone adventurer. But lone adventurers do their adventuring in the context of a wider world, and that wider world is shaped by the battlefield. So the battlefield will largely dictate what military gear is available on the consumer market at a given point in time. Sure, you don't need a 2-handed can-opener to deal with thugs on the street or in taverns, or zombies in the easier levels of dungeons, so that even in a Late Medieval game setting there are still plenty of valid targets for 1-handed weapons, and thus a justification for using a shield (assuming you could still buy/find/make one AND get proper training with it). But specializing in this should put you at a grave disadvantage later in the game when you start fighting plated guys all the time.
Just my $0.02
Anthony Obilor
Insider
I understand where you are coming from but I disagree on alot of points you made. You seem to be constantly comparing an rug game Again and again to real life history. The game is a fantasy role playing game. It takes inspiration from real life history but does not in any way need to conform to our historical time. Already we can use short swords to defeat plate wears, this is a gameplay decision so all weapon choices are viable, if already we can accept this as a gameplay feature why must it be justified by a real life historical reason. We know it isn't realistic but if we decided to be real then everyone will have to use the same weapon to be able to fight against plate.
Also your last few paragraphs makes it seem like everyone after a certain point in the game will be running around in plate armor, this is incorrect and even from a real life history standpoint, full armor was expensive and only owned by nobility and high ranking military officials, plate armor wasn't used by every soldier on the battlefield. There could be an elite squad of Knights but footman, pike men, archers, and others did not wear full plate. I have noticed that experts in medieval warfare have brought up the battlefield as a reference to correct gear and use real life history as reasons why things shud be one way, pls remember this is first a game based in a world that only takes inspiration from real life and is not in any way defined or restricted by it. I know it is probably irksome to you guys but think of the implications behind things. If only 2 handers could defeat plate then why bother even adding 1 handers or plate? What is the history of this world? Are they on earth or some other fantasy world? Real life history has no place here except as a guide. Madoc has mentioned such before. What if only nobility and elite guards in the game wear plate? I doubt we would walk into a Tavern with everyone sitting in plate armour
You need to be able to see things from a gameplay perspective, making plate invulnerable to all but specific weapons is realistic but limits gameplay. It's a tradeoff but it is logical from a gameplay standpoint.
Hedgehog-of-Fog
Member
Really? And what about this thing?
And for the shields - you completely forgot about crossbows and lances: only shield can make crossbow bolt's strike weaker then deal it with armour or take a lance blow away (or weaken it).
Last edited:
MathieuG89
Member
Until late middle ages plate armor was mostly restricted to the wealthy. A full set of plate armor was very expensive to produce. Everyone else wore different pieces of armor and mail remained prevalent. Out of all the different armor types mail armor was the most succesful and longest lasting. Shields were thus a more common sight than full plate armor was on the battlefield.
ZaratanCho
Insider
Shields are good but when the shield skills are added(bash and others) they'll likely shine. You'd be able to use them offensively and tactically.
Bullethead
Member
Most of my post WAS about the gameplay side of things, and the conflict between the traditional RPG approach of spamming every conceivable item of equipment with the reality that, for both technological and cultural reasons, only a small subset of that stuff was ever available in 1 place at any given time.
Sure, the game is in an imaginary world, and that imaginary world does not have to mirror any particular era or culture of the real world. HOWEVER, "Ye cannae change the laws o' physics, Captain!" The game's main claim to fame is its physics-based combat, and it's physics that both gave the shield its initial usefulness and then ultimately killed it. Besides, it's a low-fantasy world, meaning most things in it, especially combat, have to work pretty much like they do in this world. Otherwise, the game's whole premise fails due to lack of believability.
Seriously, what's the point of having a physics-based combat system if you ignore the physical realities of the very type of combat the game attempts to portray? Once plate armor came out, the limits of human strength dictated that only certain types of weapons were effective against it, so those types of weapons became dominant while other types became obsolete. That's physics. To ignore this is to reduce the game at the same level as the button-mashers it (and us players) scorn. It might as well be a button-masher if a short sword can still take down an armored knight.
Therefore, I reject the notion that the current ability of obsolete weapons to be effective against plate is a final and consciously made "gameplay decision" by the devs. Rather, I see it as an as-yet uncorrected bug in an early access game. It's a glaring weakness in a system that strives for realism and I expect it to go away in the near future. Enjoy exploiting it while you can.
Most FRPG players these days think they're entitled to be able to do whatever they want. They litterally think that they should be able to bring a knife to a gunfight and win routinely. They excuse this by saying "it's a fantasy game, and this is my fantasy". And most FRPGs cater, even pander, to this type of player, trying to be all things to all people, to attract the widest possible customer base and thus increase sales. And that further reinforcing this sense of entitlement in the players.
I certainly hope BME does NOT follow this philosophy. The fact that it's low-fantasy, the fact that it's got physics-based combat, the fact that it's deliberately a niche-market game, give me hope that it doesn't. But going this way means that to be internally consistent, it has to abide but a much greater fraction of real-world physical restrictions than other FRPGs. Otherwise, it's just a button-masher with a few gimmicks in how you push the buttons, such as T'he Witcher.
Speaking of the Witcher, it seems to be a rather successful franchies despite the fact that it imposes quite harsh limits on the player's choices for character design and equipment. You can't use just any weapons or armor you find, you have to follow the story instead of doing what you want, you can't even change the character's name. Your only character development choices are in emphasizing certain skills over others, which just refine what you're already stuck with doing simply by choosing to play the game. You are always The Witcher, and Witchers are defined as a specific thing with a specific role. If you don't want to be The Witcher, then don't play the game.
I see the same thing in Exanima/SG. If you don't want to be bound by the laws of physics, then don't play the game. By playing the game, then you accept certain physical realities will apply, and will limit your freedom of character development. But OTOH, you're still free to play Skyrim, WoW, or whatever.
Weapon? Yes. Realistic? Yes. One-handed? No. That's a warhammer, a 2-handed weapon. Sure, it was small enough that you could, for limited periods of time in special situations, use it with 1 hand, especially when grappling as in the 2nd picture. This is no different from the "long/bastard" sword.
The real question is, where's his shield? He doesn't have one because 1) his weapon is 2-handed, and 2) shields weren't necessary due to his armor.
Actually, I said that shields remained in a few specialized cases. Jousting, for one. But that was a controlled, contrived environment. There were also the sword-and-buckler guys, although that also was largely a contrived thing.
As for crossbows, plate armor was proof against them---that was actually one of the main reasons why it was invented. And also one of its main selling points. Before it left the shop, a breastplate would be shot at point-blank range by a crossbow, which would leave a small dent with a distinctive shape recognizeable for what it was. This was the "proof mark", and the customer would not buy the suit without it. You can see these dents in many suits of antique field armor today. When you don't see it, you're usually looking at tournament armor that would never have to face crossbows anyway.
Yes, plate was restricted to the wealthy, although during the Late Middle Ages "the wealthy" increasingly meant "the king", at least on any scale beyond the individual. Sure, every lesser noble worth his spurs was expected to have a suit for personal use in tournaments, but could no longer afford to equip his retinue similarly. So fielding large forces of plate-armored guys was the business of the king. Thus, actual field plate for real live battlefield combat came into the hands of many who could not afford it themselves.
The presence on the battefield of large bodies of guys in field plate is what killed the shield. Even if you didn't have plate yourself, you still had to be able to defeat it, which meant using a 2-handed weapon, which meant you didn't have a shield. Even though a shield would still have been useful against guys equipped the same as yourself, you couldn't afford to use one because you'd then be powerless against the guys in plate. But 2-handed weapons work fine against guys without plate, so you had a 2-handed weapon to cover all the bases.
-----------------------
Generally, I have no problems with shields in games. After all, the vast majority of FRPGs out there try to be all things to all people, so you accept a high level of unreality by playing them, and you usually play them specifically because of that high level of unreality. Then you get what you want and everybody has fun.
Exanima, however, is trying to be realistic, using actual physics to determine the damage done by blows. If it wants to go that way, then it can't be all things to all people, and by playing it you have to accept the heavy hand of the real world imposing limits on you. One of those limits should be that plate armor is largely invulnerable to most types of weapons. That was the WHOLE REASON for inventing it, after all. Why go around wearing a hot, heavy, movement-slowing steel can if it doesn't actually do you any more good than a cloth shirt and tunic?
So, there's the thing. If you want to have shields be significant in the game, so that characters have to commit rare and precious skill points to using them at the expense of other choices, then you really shouldn't have plate armor in the game. OTOH, if you have plate armor, then shields CAN still be in the game, but those choosing to invest heavily in them must accept that they're going to be badly outclassed when it comes to fighting guys in plate.
I only see problems accepting stuff like this in the FRPG community, accustomed as it is to blythely ignoring physics. Wargamers accept physics as a matter of course. They know that the 37mm gun on an early panzer was worthless against a T-34, that a destroyer's gun isn't going to penetrate a battleship's armor, etc. Why? Because of physics.
Exxanima/SG is bringing physics to the FRPG universe, whether it's ready or not. I'm sure this will cause much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and many traditional FRPG tropes will have to be abandoned in te process. The continued usefulness and, thus, availablity of the shield in a world containing full plate armor is one of the things that needs to go away
[/quote]
Tony
Insider
@Bullethead you make a lot of good points and share interesting information. However, I don't think in either Exanima or SG we're going to be fighting in massive battles on a battlefield so what made sense for medieval warfare on Earth during such scenarios isn't applicable to the game. Also, if you read the history it seems the world in SG has gone through quite a few major problems, catastrophes and changed quite a bit from what it used to be:
"On a treacherous world with a tortured history the meagre remnants of humanity live in awe of a misconceived past, haunted by forgotten gods and fearful of the very ground they tread. A vast sprawling underworld ever present below their feet, baleful demons lying in wait. Thaumaturges, people with powerful psychic abilities, have abandoned their once benevolent nature turning to cruel and dark activities in their quest for ultimate power. Awoken by impending threats, an abandoned and damaged being gives rise to its ancient weapons who now walk amongst the people again."
Because of this people may be scrounging for whatever improvised weapons and armor they can find or get their hands on. Also keep in mind that other strange creatures exist that aren't necessarily human. Various types of weapons and armor may still be used because they've proven effective against fighting such creatures, such as shields for example.
We must also take into consideration what is normal for the environment and culture of SG. Is it a hostile place where people usually carry a weapon because it is necessary to do so? These people wouldn't necessarily run around wearing full plate for their daily activities but carrying a one-handed sword or some other type of portable weapon may make a lot of sense.
Lastly, I think one-handed swords vs. armor are currently working as intended. They require striking someone considerably more to do any real damage (as opposed to using a weapon that does decent impact damage) and most of that is stamina damage, not permanent. You basically have to tickle someone to death if they're wearing full plate when using a one-handed sword.
"On a treacherous world with a tortured history the meagre remnants of humanity live in awe of a misconceived past, haunted by forgotten gods and fearful of the very ground they tread. A vast sprawling underworld ever present below their feet, baleful demons lying in wait. Thaumaturges, people with powerful psychic abilities, have abandoned their once benevolent nature turning to cruel and dark activities in their quest for ultimate power. Awoken by impending threats, an abandoned and damaged being gives rise to its ancient weapons who now walk amongst the people again."
Because of this people may be scrounging for whatever improvised weapons and armor they can find or get their hands on. Also keep in mind that other strange creatures exist that aren't necessarily human. Various types of weapons and armor may still be used because they've proven effective against fighting such creatures, such as shields for example.
We must also take into consideration what is normal for the environment and culture of SG. Is it a hostile place where people usually carry a weapon because it is necessary to do so? These people wouldn't necessarily run around wearing full plate for their daily activities but carrying a one-handed sword or some other type of portable weapon may make a lot of sense.
Lastly, I think one-handed swords vs. armor are currently working as intended. They require striking someone considerably more to do any real damage (as opposed to using a weapon that does decent impact damage) and most of that is stamina damage, not permanent. You basically have to tickle someone to death if they're wearing full plate when using a one-handed sword.
Last edited:
Hedgehog-of-Fog
Member
Why do you think it's a 2-handed weapon? Because it's long enough? Well, by such logic, my small axe (which as axe of first zombie in Exanima) is 2-handed weapon.
...Or simple because the museum workers hanged the shield on the wall, not with armour.
Plate armor was tested not only by crossbows, but also with swords, axes, spears, halberds, etc - the whole spectre of weapons used in this period. And this was, of course, before polishing and etching.
Well, thanks for describing your point anyway.
Last edited:
Nynuc
Insider
I can confirm the fuck out of this.
The only problem with shields right now I find, are the fact that there's very little openings if any real ones at all. most hits seem to be luck when they go through. Other then that, I don't have any problem with them.
at the moment, it is extremely difficult to fight in the arena without a shield if you're only using a one handed weapon. I find you can only block well with a one handed weapon if you've practiced enough, and even then, Strikes will slip through now and again.
And about armor, I do believe this should remain a game, and not delve into the reality we're trying to get away from when we play this game.
Bullethead
Member
As I said above, while the lone RPG adventure normally isn't involved in major wars and battles, he lives in a world whose history has been shaped by them, and the political entities are always preparing for the next one. There is thus a prevailing level of military technology to the world as a whole, and the choices of equipment available to the lone adventurer, in shops or to custom order, will reflect this background level of military technology.
Now, in the Late Medieval period here on Earth, there was a divergence between military and "civilian" gear because at that point, the middle class was starting to put on the airs of the nobility, so went around carrying small swords designed for impromptu street fights and set duels to their own sets of rules. This is the type of gear that would most fit the fights that a lone adventurer would get into. But he would be hopelessly outclassed when facing battlefield equipment, just as today a civilian sporting rifle is no match for a military assault rifle.
And therein lies the problem for characters who want to specialize in "civilian" (as in obsolete by battlefield standards) weapons. He inevitably will meet somebody with top-end military armor, either as a boss or just a random group of brigands (deserting soldiers and/or unemployed mercs usually). When this happens, he's screwed. He might be an expert with his short sword but, realistically, his short sword is never going to be a real threat to a guy in plate no matter how good the character is with the short sword. It's just "not enough gun" under the laws of physics. The only way to make it "enough gun" is to break the laws of physics, which defeats the whole purpose of having physics to start with. So if things are realistic, then the character will just have to realize this is fight he can't win with his skills and equipment. Which could mean he never gets to advance the story because he can't defeat that boss (at least by honorable means).
So, even a lone adventurer is deeply impacted by the prevailing military technology, even though it might not his bread-and-butter. Making the fairly safe assumption that eventually he will have to defeat top-end military equipment, how should he develop himself in preparation? If he devotes most of his skills to light "civilian" weapons and armor, and only a little to military can-openers, then a plated boss who specialized in cans and can-openers will still probably waste him. Thus, the character will have to become adept with at least the can-opener himself, which means he should primarily use them throughout his career instead of "civilian" stuff.
If SG is going to be "Fantasy Fallout", then the perhaps the prevailing military technology has devolved back to Dark Age / Early Medieval levels. But you can't have a post-apocalyptic world without there being relics from better days lying around, so you'll still have to face plate eventually. It's already in Exanima, after all.
The more central authority has broken down, the less safe the world will be, like in Fallout
. And if the game doesn't "hold your hand" and drag you through a story, then you should expect "super mutants" to turn up at any point. Especially if, when you die, you respawn in a random location, far from the "beginner area" you originally started in I agree that plate armor isn't something you should encounter every day, expect perhaps on the city watch. It's battle gear, not everyday apparel. But the average brigand or robber knight plying his trade will be wearing it, as will any boss patiently awaiting your arrival at the bottom of a dungeon.
Tickling isn't fatal unless it causes the foe to fall off a cliff or something. Not even a long/bastard sword's blade swung like a baseball bat was really a problem to a guy in plate. So you had to turn the sword around and bash him with the hilt, still swing it with both hands. A 1-handed sword just doesn't have the length or mass for this, which is why they become obsolete on the battlefield when plate came along.
So I just don't see being able to take down a knight with a short sword as "working as intended" in the context of physics-based combat. The amount of non-lethal damage done per hit should be imperceptible. You might have a chance if you trip the knight and then stab a joint in his armor while he's down, but flailing on him in a stand-up fight shouldn't work.
Not at all. That's a hatchet, a tomahawk. That warhammer in your pictures is a good meter long at least, more in the size range of the sledge hammer / maul you find a bit later in Exanima. Try swinging one of those with 1 hand.
But the proof mark left by a crossbow bolt (and, in later eras, a musket ball) was left there. Even into the quirassier armor of the 1800s. It showed the customer that the armor could be trusted.
Bullethead
Member
ADDENDUM TO MY LAST
Sorry, I got called away to fight a fire (small barn with 2 pickup trucks inside, burned to the ground with much exploding) in the middle of typing that and so lost some of my train of thought when I got back just now. Here's something I meant to add....
In RPGs in general, characters have hit points so fights are just contests of seeing who runs out first. They're thus battles of attrition instead of the realistic thing where finds usually end from single debilitating hits.
In Exanima, characters still have hit points (boo!). HOWEVER, hits are determined by physical impact within the game world instead of the "d20 of Doom", and (AFAIK) the damage done is based on the armor at the point of contact, the nastiness of the weapon compared to that type of armor, and the quality of the hit in relation of the swing. I'd be very surprised if the game didn't also apply some situational modifiers to damage based on the particular type of armor struck, the particular type of weapon, and the type of attack. If that's the case, then all that needs to be done is make plate more effective against the weapons is made obsolete in real life, to the point of near invulnerability.
And then, of course, we'll eventually have the ability to stab at specific points. So a guy with a short sword, which is useless when used normally against plate, could still perhaps poke the plated foe in the armpit If this had enough force behind it, and the foe wasn't wearing voiders or other substantial undergarment, such a hit should be debilitating. So there's another way besides tripping for a guy with a short sword to beat a guy in plate. But normal swings should have essentially no effect with a weapon that small.
NOTE: The Latin in my sig means "Nothing is so unjust as taking equity too far". It's kinda my motoo, which is why I oppose short swords being on an unrealistic par against plate as 2-handed weapons.
Sorry, I got called away to fight a fire (small barn with 2 pickup trucks inside, burned to the ground with much exploding) in the middle of typing that and so lost some of my train of thought when I got back just now. Here's something I meant to add....
In RPGs in general, characters have hit points so fights are just contests of seeing who runs out first. They're thus battles of attrition instead of the realistic thing where finds usually end from single debilitating hits.
In Exanima, characters still have hit points (boo!). HOWEVER, hits are determined by physical impact within the game world instead of the "d20 of Doom", and (AFAIK) the damage done is based on the armor at the point of contact, the nastiness of the weapon compared to that type of armor, and the quality of the hit in relation of the swing. I'd be very surprised if the game didn't also apply some situational modifiers to damage based on the particular type of armor struck, the particular type of weapon, and the type of attack. If that's the case, then all that needs to be done is make plate more effective against the weapons is made obsolete in real life, to the point of near invulnerability.
And then, of course, we'll eventually have the ability to stab at specific points. So a guy with a short sword, which is useless when used normally against plate, could still perhaps poke the plated foe in the armpit If this had enough force behind it, and the foe wasn't wearing voiders or other substantial undergarment, such a hit should be debilitating. So there's another way besides tripping for a guy with a short sword to beat a guy in plate. But normal swings should have essentially no effect with a weapon that small.
NOTE: The Latin in my sig means "Nothing is so unjust as taking equity too far". It's kinda my motoo, which is why I oppose short swords being on an unrealistic par against plate as 2-handed weapons.
