Timothy Toomey's page

Draco18s wrote:

duje wrote:

Real shields were not actually sturdy, because it was beneficial for the sword to bite in your shield because that way you trap the sword and disarm the other guy.

Shields were basically one-time use items, in battles if you had any action, you would probably need to replace parts of your shield afterwards, maybe even just boss would be all that is left.

[Citation Needed]

This guy, who wrote an entire book about shields, says otherwise.

well he is wrong, when shields were most used, i.e they were common armament. they were very thin, especially at the edges, as many survived shields of the era show, they were not made heavy.

Only later in full plate era, we see metal shields and heavy wooden shields with metal around the edges, those were also much smaller because added thickness and material made them heavy.
Those shields were made for minority of full plate guys fighting against hammers and polearms, they are vastly inferior against swords than those before, but because full plate makes you invulnerable to swords it doesn't matter how good they are against edged weapons.

What matters is context, now i dont think an RPG should be that complex to go that much into realism, because basically to kill someone in full plate you need to knock them out by hitting them in the head with high impact force weapon then finish them while they are out, or wrestle them to the ground, open visor and dagger to the face.
Chainmail makes you immune to slashing and resistant to piercing when worn with gambeson as it should be, but maces break bones through them...
Or successfully catching a sword with a large thin shield would give you disarm, and million other minutia

You are so completely and fundamentally wrong it's not even funny. If shields were even half as fragile as you're trying to claim, they would never have been as prevalent in battle as they were historically.

https://youtu.be/C54OIRhyEhI here, have a link to some empirical, physical evidence that shields were FAR tougher than your ridiculous assertions.

They needed to do something to make two-handed weapons more attractive.

No, they didn't. Two handed weapons were THE definitive melee choice in PF1. It's SHIELDS that needed to become more useful and attractive in 2E.

gigyas6 wrote:

DC scales 12(1), 14(2), 16(3), 18(4), 20(5), 22(6), 24(7), 26(8), 28(9), 30(10), and so on and so forth.

I see the DCs increasing, but don't see a problem. I thought DCs were rather easy and hope they get tougher.

One skill rank per level takes care of half the increase. Ability boosts every 5th level. Mark 1, 2 and 3 ability augmentation by 9th level. Computer improvements in the ship every third level. Items and boons. Class features improving skills. Feats.

Don't see the problem. Same for many of the skill checks built into the game. A Ghost Operative can take 10 on Trick Attacks from seventh level on.

Several people have carefully detailed out the math of how player bonuses do not grow at a rate that even comes close to keeping up with the DCs. How do you not see the problem?