Shields and Swords

[Paperbell]

I'm not sure if it is true, but I read on the wiki that blocking took effect before dodging, so that attacks you would normally have to dodge are blocked first. However, long blades only riposte on dodges. Does this mean that shields, while helping defense, will lower damage output for more nimble characters who can take advantage of the riposte effect?

[duvessa]

yes

[Shard1697]

The effect on damage is pretty minimal however, you probably shouldn't worry about it too much.

[Siegurt]

Well, and more to the point, damage per time isn't the most useful measure, it's damage inflicted per *opportunity to receive damage* that is really important.

To look at it another way, if you are in melee combat with something, paralyzing it reduces your damage inflicted per time, because you spend a turn inflicting paralysis on it, but all the turns you spend whacking on it while it's paralyzed are effectively *free damage*, while your damage per *turn* is reduced, your damage *per attack you take* is massively increased.

Now shields only work *sort of* like that. While they do negate an attack, which gives you a "free" turn, they also have another cost, notably that you can't use a two-handed weapon with them, that's the real cost to using a shield, the reduction in your change to riposte is actually a benefit, because if you're deprived of the chance to riposte, the critter is also deprived of a chance to hit you, so you get a free turn to hit them.

If you're comparing the same sword with or without a shield, and you aren't figuring in the XP costs to use the shield without penalizing yourself, or the missed opportunity to use a bigger sword, shields come out the clear winner.

Of course once you look at the XP needed to use shields, and the missed opportunity to use bigger swords, shields look very unappealing, but riposte has nothing to do with why that is.

[TonberryJam]

If a monster can break your shields and dodge, they deserve a riposte for being that terrifying.