Dark Knight

[Bloodclaw]

Well in exploring the idea of a Gladiator being the class for the DRK, I remember that shields since the Roman period were often sharpened. They were the single "no-nice you suck now" weapon of the period when made out of metal. They would bash an opponent then harshly thrust the shield to the side cutting the opponent. Due to the lack of prevalent metal armor, this was about an unstoppable tactic. So i could see a stance that made all the enmity production split between damage and enmity reduction with the exclusion of provoke (perhaps pure damage for provoke?). It would be an interesting take, on the entire job due to its history of getting a lot of attention and dealing with it, constantly fighting over enmity with the tank in XI.

[Kitru]

Well in exploring the idea of a Gladiator being the class for the DRK, I remember that shields since the Roman period were often sharpened.

Weaponizing shields happened through their entire use so it's not just a Roman era thing. Sharpening the edges of a shield doesn't even make much sense given that it weakens the defensive capability of the shield (thin outer edges) and adds significant weight (since you can't really sharpen wood, the outer rim would need to be made of metal). The only common offensive addition to a shield was a spike bolted/screwed to the center to improve the traditional shield bash without screwing with the center of balance or weakening its structural integrity. Punching with the edge of a shield wasn't an unknown tactic, but it wouldn't really need a sharp edge to cause appreciable damage since it would accomplish much the same thing as brass knuckles.

GLA already has Shield Bash and Shield Slam which cover the most of the offensive shield tactics (they're held by your hand and forearm so you have limited range of motion and, with the exception of smaller shields like bucklers and targes, they're too large to move around a great deal). The only really missing attack is punching with your shield (hitting with the edge of the shield rather than the face) but that's basically impossible with anything larger than a targe.

P.S. The roman shields everyone thinks of (scuta, sing. scutum, the tall ones that Roman infantry used) were cylindrically curved so as to deflect arrows (as opposed to block them, which is basically asking for an arrow through your arm or a broken shield) and too large to effectively move around tactically (you kept it vertical at all times). Sharpening the sides would basically be useless as would the top since it's so tall. The only edge you would bother sharpening would be the bottom though the only use would be used to slam it into the ground and attack an enemy's feet/toes in a full on melee rather than moving from side to side but that's something of a specialized and not particularly deadly tactic (if you're looking to distract, slamming their foot with an blunt edge is just as effective).

P.S.S. Metal armor was actually very common in the Roman era. Mail armor (lorica hamata) was standard issue for heavy infantry (you wouldn't want to put much armor on light infantry) and plate armor (lorica segmentata) was basically the choice of anyone who was looking to spend money on armor.

[Bloodclaw]

P.S.S. Metal armor was actually very common in the Roman era. Mail armor (lorica hamata) was standard issue for heavy infantry (you wouldn't want to put much armor on light infantry) and plate armor (lorica segmentata) was basically the choice of anyone who was looking to spend money on armor.

Yes, I brain farted. I was thinking Greek Spartan period.

[Kitru]

Yes, I brain farted. I was thinking Greek Spartan period.

Sparta has been in Greece for about as long as Greece has been Greece. "Spartan period" makes absolutely no sense.

Even then, assuming you're referring to either Classical and Ancient Greece, bronze armor was in common use and was only supplanted by the glued linen armor because of weight considerations, not due to the rarity of metal itself. Still, the glued linen was remarkably resilient and wouldn't simply cave immediately under any kind of cutting force (else what's the point of wearing it in the first place).

At no point was the sharpening of shields actually performed for much the same reason that the Roman scuta weren't sharpened: hoplons were too big to be wielded as cutting weapons, and those shields small enough to be used as weapons would not have benefited from sharpening the outer edges because a blunt edge works just fine for the purpose and doesn't hinder the functionality of the shield itself (by increasing weight and decreasing structural integrity).