Tim Rightnour said: > I can see not having the bow and weapon on at the same time, and the idea of > switching the bonuses in and out as you switch weapons is good, though I think > having a bow and shield is justifiable. For example: > > 1) Many smaller crossbows were kept inside the shield arm to fire as a surprise > attack. Then you make a small crossbow that is one handed, limited range and damage. You don't hide a longbow or full crossbow behind a shield. A heavy crossbow you would have your hands full just loading it. > 2) Lets say you saw a horde of orcs ahead, and decided to pick them off. Many > archers would drive the point of thier shield into the ground and fire from > behind it, essentially giving them the armor bonus, at least to incoming fire. There may be examples in history where a shield was used this way, but then you would also say that anyone who had the foolishness to go into battles alone against 20 or 30 opponents like we do in the game wouldn't last 5 minutes. Thangor the archer would be Thangor the dead porcupine even with a shield. A magic shield might not work unless it was worn anyway... from Mark: > The change would basically modify equipable objects to specify whay body > location (or equip location) they go on. For example, helmets would have a line > added like 'equip_location head', armor would have 'equip_location torso', rings > 'equip_location finger', etc. Objects could specify multiple locations - > 'equip_location weapon_hand,shield_hand' could be used to allow 2 handed weapons. You can have it both ways, Changing the equip method like Mark suggests would allow you to have smaller missile weapons like you mention, but it also allows you to have larger two handed missile weapons. You would have to balance out the weapons of course.