You're not penalized for having a shield....

Or would you say polearms / two handers, are penalized for not having a third layer of defense?

The third layer of defense provided by a shield significantly outweighs losing the use of a manica on the shield arm.

I'd have to check to verify, but I thought you could use a buckler or small shield even if the shield arm is armored?

The third layer of defense is severely lacking or non-existent for every one-handed weapon that isn't a gladius. Until that is fixed, considering the mythical third layer as a benefit isn't a strong argument. If it significantly outweighed loss of armor you'd see a different outcome when pairing any one-handed weapon against any two-handed weapon in an evenly matched PvP fight. Your current top tier weapons are all without shield, and there's not really a close shielded comparison.

You'll have to remove a right leather manica before you can wield a bronze buckler. < Taken a couple of minutes ago.

This isn't a boat rocking change. It's a minor quality of life fix to help balance a currently stacked deck and get rid of an outdated mechanic that was never revisited after changes were made to combat. I would be perfectly fine with manica usage being restricted to bucklers, shield absorption going away if one is in place, or whatever other oddities someone might want to throw in the mix.

I wonder what the original reasoning was for not being able to wear arm armor if you are wielding a shield. Anyone know? Does it even apply anymore? 

And does the shield replace the arm armor? For instance, if I use an attack that targets an opponents left arm, and they are wielding a shield in the left hand, does the shield become the armor piece that the hit damage is rolled against? Or is the left arm basically "unarmored" for combat purposes?

Ok here we go in no particular order cause ranks in the weapon, shield, or CMs will change what is the actual layer order is,

1st layer = weapon blocks, if the weapon has any

2nd layer = CMs

3rd layer = armor

4th layer =Shields if using a 1h weapon.

Only Whips have the worst handicap here with no weapon blocks and not being able to use manica.

All 2h weapons only get 3 layers of defense.

Shields not only is better then armor as a layer, they also offer additional attacks and stuns.

Do an image search of what real world manica looked like, they are huge and we are lucky they do not weigh more.

Once you see what real manica are you will also notice that there is no way to "fast" swap a shield and then strap on the manica or vice versa.

1. Lelex is right, this is a very minor request, very likely without huge consequences.

2. No one addressed if shields are so huge, why don't any top-tier weapons (Staves & Pank) need a shield.

3. If you consider what weapons actually use shields: swords, knives, clubs, 1ha & whips (debatably excluding spears). Every weapon on that list outside of swords has such gaping weapon holes without a shield, they should practically be considered having 1 layer of defense. It's not like without a shield 1-handed weapons & 2-handed weapons are on the same playing field defensively. 80% of 1-handed weapons need a shield just to be on par with polearms.

4. As for the "real life" argument... Really?? Are we also going to compare how fast you can hit someone with a knife vs a two-handed axe or compare the damage you'd take from a full-force punch vs a full-force iron mace being swung at you? Or why not see how many gaping wounds to the face someone could actually take without dying? Any time I see "in real life..." as an argument for a game we're playing, it's just a sad and disappointed head shake. Try switching the argument to game balance instead, please.

Since when was pankration a top tier combat style?

It's always been fun, but top tier? Unarmed is always less than top tier. You're just seeing people who know how to use it really well.  Plus, it's really fun.

But anyway, top tier weapons don't need a shield, because they're highly accurate, and damaging, so they tend to win faster than something less accurate, but more defensive. Take a sword for example, it's good for war, in a group fight it'll work, as long as there aren't more than three of them on the same target (due to approach limits) but a spear has options, like impaling someone, and pulling out another one and going to town... A quarterstave, or double mace, has so much basic utility and high defense that a shield would just make it overpowered more than it already is... sweep and strike being a prime example, know any other weapon that can knock you down AND hit you in the same move? Plus the multihitters....

Etc. Did that address your number two?

Posted by: @archmagi

Since when was pankration a top tier combat style?

It's always been fun, but top tier? Unarmed is always less than top tier. You're just seeing people who know how to use it really well.  Plus, it's really fun.

 

I have no idea what you're basing these statements on, but it's a discussion for another thread. I'll just agree to disagree on Pank/Brawling not being top tier.

Posted by: @archmagi

A quarterstave, or double mace, has so much [...] high defense that a shield would just make it overpowered more than it already is.

If shields are such a significant defensive advantage, then polearms would never be described as having "high defense". But In many cases, polearms are covered just a well defensively, without needing the extra weight or SP investment of a shield. In most skill sets, shields are more of a must-have or you'll get ruined, not some super advantageous bonus to defense. Yet needing a shield seems to come with extra penalties of carrying less armor and even being restricted on what armor is available.

Again, I agree with Lelex that this is a very minor quality of life change for many below-par skill sets and this restriction does very little in terms of game balance.

@dragonus It was a genuine question, I did play a very high skilled pankrationist, and I was wondering since when it became top tier... when I was rocking an unarmed character, it was not top tier, so when did it get buffed?

Not really looking for a debate, just a simple answer of (it got buffed to become top tier around 2019) sort of thing.

It was good when you knew it, and still is one of the top sets. You also didn't have a maxed out character, so I'm not shocked you have an incorrect impression of the set. Pretty-much anything that can use a shield is inferior to anything that can't use a shield right now, even tridents. The addition of Cunning Opportunist made this disparity worse.

@lelex I actually did have max stats for combat, and around 5-6 thousand combat ranks... and I talked with other people who were completely max stated, and used unarmed. But sure, lets just go with I wasn't god tier.