PDA

View Full Version : Regarding shields...



Winged One
2007-02-07, 07:49 PM
Is there anything that affects a wooden shield worse than it affects a steel shield? Is there, in fact, any mechanical reason whatsoever to wield a steel shield over a wooden one?

Matthew
2007-02-07, 07:52 PM
Sunder attempts are pretty much the only reason.

Saph
2007-02-07, 07:53 PM
Steel shields are stronger and harder to destroy.

There are also a bunch of spells and special abilities that affect wood but not metal, and vice versa. If you know in advance what you're going up against, you can pick accordingly.

- Saph

Tengu
2007-02-07, 07:56 PM
Most shields, apart from very small bucklers, are made mostly of wood.

OOTS_Rules.
2007-02-07, 07:58 PM
Wood will burn easier than steel.

Winged One
2007-02-07, 07:59 PM
Steel shields are stronger and harder to destroy.

There are also a bunch of spells and special abilities that affect wood but not metal, and vice versa. If you know in advance what you're going up against, you can pick accordingly.

- Saph

Are there any wood-affecting spells that adversely affect a shield?(I checked Warp Wood, which doesn't do jack to a shield.)

SpiderBrigade
2007-02-07, 08:12 PM
Repel Wood will knock that shield out of your hand, or push you backwards if you don't drop it. Of course, choosing a metal shield just in case a druid uses that spell, is...

Thomas
2007-02-07, 08:27 PM
Most shields, apart from very small bucklers, are made mostly of wood.

The idea of all-metal shields is pretty hilarious. Then again, so is the idea of 4-pound one-handed swords and 8-pound two-handed swords...

BCOVertigo
2007-02-07, 10:40 PM
The idea of all-metal shields is pretty hilarious. Then again, so is the idea of 4-pound one-handed swords and 8-pound two-handed swords...

What's wrong with that? Half the number of hands, half the weight. Makes sense to me.

Hehe, anyways I can think up several effects off the top of my head that could mess up a metal shield(previously mentioned + rust monster or rust grasp). It seems to me metal shields can be made of better materials but might be targetted more often by spells. While wooden shields are vulnerable to sundering but have less magical problems. Who knows, maybe you'll need to make a fire and have no other fuel? :smalltongue:

SpiderBrigade
2007-02-07, 10:47 PM
What's wrong with that? Half the number of hands, half the weight. Makes sense to me.His point was more that these weights are way too high. I think, anyway. It's certainly true.

Thomas
2007-02-07, 11:58 PM
Exactly. One-handed swords weighed from 1 to 2.5 pounds or so (and over 2 pounds is fairly heavy). Two-handed swords were mostly 3-6 lbs. There do exist examples of ceremonial two-handed swords that were over 5 feet in length and weighed as much as 8 (sometimes more!) pounds, but they weren't for actual combat use - just for show.

I don't know much about shields, but D&D's 10-15 pounds on your arm sounds fairly impossible to fight with...

Winged One
2007-02-08, 12:00 AM
Thanks for your answers.

Arceliar
2007-02-08, 12:14 AM
Not to be picky, but the one real sword I own is 16 lbs and much to my own dismay I can use it fairly comfortably in 2 hands and less comfortably but still manageable in 1 hand. At 73 inches long that's alot of torque to deal with too, but nothing impossible. And going off the max load charts I have like 10 strength at best. You underestimate the potential of someone with 15 strength who's profession in life is "Fighter" if you think an 8 lb sword is too much...

Just like today how longbows are vastly underpowered compared with what people COULD use. Back in the day, a competent archer would carry a 100-120 lb bow, and when you shot the thing the target went down, nuff said.

*Note: before some 12 year old asks, that doesn't mean the bow weighs 120 lbs, it means it takes 120 lbs of force to pull a knocked arrow back the full length...

OzymandiasVolt
2007-02-08, 12:24 AM
Wooden shields catch on fire. This is usually a bad thing.

Gerrtt
2007-02-08, 12:43 AM
I dunno. I know that it says nothing specific about shields but I would rule that warp wood on a wooden shield renders it useless. If it can make wooden weapons suck why not shields?

Cybren
2007-02-08, 01:08 AM
I dunno. I know that it says nothing specific about shields but I would rule that warp wood on a wooden shield renders it useless. If it can make wooden weapons suck why not shields?
Because a shield is just a thing that you put between you and something else?

Rockphed
2007-02-08, 01:19 AM
Now wood shape, that would screw up your sheild. I would probably turn it into masterwork manacles.

Thomas
2007-02-08, 01:44 AM
Not to be picky, but the one real sword I own is 16 lbs and much to my own dismay I can use it fairly comfortably in 2 hands and less comfortably but still manageable in 1 hand. At 73 inches long that's alot of torque to deal with too, but nothing impossible. And going off the max load charts I have like 10 strength at best. You underestimate the potential of someone with 15 strength who's profession in life is "Fighter" if you think an 8 lb sword is too much...

Not "too much to handle," but "too much to be realistic."

73 inches is pretty immense, but even then 16 pounds is amazingly heavy. How long do you think you'd be able to fight with that? (And do you think you'd actually be able to move between stances and attack quick enough to be effective?)

Good article on sword weights. (http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html) 69 swords, and the heaviest is 13 pounds, at 78 inches length. That's staggeringly big.

Most well-balanced one-handed swords aren't going to weigh much more than 2 pounds (rapiers actually being among the heaviest, often being over 2 pounds) - although the balancing (distribution of weight) will play a significant role in their handling.


As for warp wood and wooden shields... unless all the wooden components warp exactly the same way, it's probably going to pull the shield apart or otherwise break it. I'd definitely rule it'd ruin a wooden shield. (It should ruin a "metal" shield too, strictly speaking, since those shields would probably have a wooden "back"...)

daggaz
2007-02-08, 05:46 AM
what rapiers are among the heaviest on that list? That just seems ...well... unbalanced.. heh. (This is turning into Real World Weapons and Armors, we should probably take it there).

Warp wood will definitely affect a wooden shield.

The SRD states, "You cause wood to bend and warp, permanently destroying its straightness, form, and strength."

If the form and strength of your wooden shield are permanently destroyed, you don't really have an effective shield anymore, do you? While shields aren't explicitly mentioned, this lack wouldn't free them from the more general statement above. As weapons take a -4 penalty to hit (thats a heavy circumstance modifier.. you get the same thing for being blind or non-proficient), I would argue your shield is worthless. Some DM's might let you keep 1 ac tho, if it was 2 ac or more to begin with. Or maybe it can be used for blocking one attack, at which point it is automatically sundered. Or something. You will have to houserule effects, but there should be some.

And as mentioned before, wood burns. Non-magical fires have a chance to ignite hair, clothes, wooden items, paper, and all other flammable objects, which then take fire damage until they are put out or are destroyed.

Iron_Mouse
2007-02-08, 08:03 AM
Exactly. One-handed swords weighed from 1 to 2.5 pounds or so (and over 2 pounds is fairly heavy). Two-handed swords were mostly 3-6 lbs. There do exist examples of ceremonial two-handed swords that were over 5 feet in length and weighed as much as 8 (sometimes more!) pounds, but they weren't for actual combat use - just for show.
This is true, but the weight given for the weapons isn't just for the weapon itself. It probably includes scabbard, belt and all the other stuff that comes with it.
Or do you buy and list them seperately?

Closet_Skeleton
2007-02-08, 08:30 AM
This is true, but the weight given for the weapons isn't just for the weapon itself. It probably includes scabbard, belt and all the other stuff that comes with it.
Or do you buy and list them seperately?

I think you get them free unless you want to get a specifically fancy one. I personally doubt that the DnD writers realised that they would weigh anything. The weapon weight is supposed to represent just the weapon.

Yeah, you can make a 16 lb sword and swing it about a bit, but why would you want to? Swords aren't steam presses, the item's weight doesn't effect it's effectiveness. A decent sword needs to be sharp enough to deal damage to internal organs it doesn't need to be used as a paper weight.

A 16 lb sword is a modern replica that was never designed to be used to kill people.

That Lanky Bugger
2007-02-08, 08:46 AM
Wooden shields catch on fire. This is usually a bad thing.

Someone's been playing Twilight Princess.

Though wooden shields aren't effected by spells like Heat Metal, which can have some fairly dire consequences when you've got metal strapped all over your body.

Swordguy
2007-02-08, 09:54 AM
The idea of all-metal shields is pretty hilarious. Then again, so is the idea of 4-pound one-handed swords and 8-pound two-handed swords...

You mean like the large round bronze shields of the Mediterranian cultures (Greeks, Macedonians, etc.)? Those are hilarious? What about my jousting shield? It's very definitely all-metal. :smallconfused:

Truwar
2007-02-08, 10:35 AM
what rapiers are among the heaviest on that list? That just seems ...well... unbalanced.. heh. (This is turning into Real World Weapons and Armors, we should probably take it there).



The rapier in D&D is more of a foil. The historical rapier was so large that it was not even really used for parrying (that was what your dagger was for).


As far as metal vs. wooden shields, very few historical shields were made of solid metal (the buckler and some forms of the targe being an exception) but this is D&D NOT a historical re-enactment game. I mean come on, the 15 lb greatsword is on the same page as the orcish double axe and the spiked chain!

Swordguy
2007-02-08, 10:57 AM
As far as metal vs. wooden shields, very few historical medieval-era shields were made of solid metal (the buckler and some forms of the targe being an exception) but this is D&D NOT a historical re-enactment game.


Fixed that for you. :smallbiggrin:

Anyone else remember the 25lb 2-bladed sword in 3.0 that was just a pair of 3 lb short swords stuck end-to-end?

(I just substitute real masses for weapons and armor in my games, completely ignoring the BS that is the "item weight" column.)

Torger
2007-02-08, 10:59 AM
The rapier in D&D is more of a foil. The historical rapier was so large that it was not even really used for parrying (that was what your dagger was for).


As far as metal vs. wooden shields, very few historical shields were made of solid metal (the buckler and some forms of the targe being an exception) but this is D&D NOT a historical re-enactment game. I mean come on, the 15 lb greatsword is on the same page as the orcish double axe and the spiked chain!

QFT.

Thank you. This is not a "lets pick apart the abstractions and arbitrarily assigned numbers of the fantasy game" Thread. There is nothing realistic about a setting where Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, and Orcs hang out together, call down the tangible wrath of the almighty, and utilize psionic abilities for the purpose of extraplanar travel.

Wooden shields catch fire. Wooden are more vulnerable to the elements. Wooden shields are easily broken. That's all I can think of off-hand.

Subotei
2007-02-08, 11:00 AM
Wooden shields are useful because they:

float - might keep you from sinking - certainly they can keep gear out of the water
can be used vs a rust monster as mentioned above
burn - might keep you warm when you need it.

If you're worried about druids pack a metal one as well.

Matthew
2007-02-08, 01:15 PM
Not "too much to handle," but "too much to be realistic."

73 inches is pretty immense, but even then 16 pounds is amazingly heavy. How long do you think you'd be able to fight with that? (And do you think you'd actually be able to move between stances and attack quick enough to be effective?)

Good article on sword weights. (http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html) 69 swords, and the heaviest is 13 pounds, at 78 inches length. That's staggeringly big.

Most well-balanced one-handed swords aren't going to weigh much more than 2 pounds (rapiers actually being among the heaviest, often being over 2 pounds) - although the balancing (distribution of weight) will play a significant role in their handling.


As for warp wood and wooden shields... unless all the wooden components warp exactly the same way, it's probably going to pull the shield apart or otherwise break it. I'd definitely rule it'd ruin a wooden shield. (It should ruin a "metal" shield too, strictly speaking, since those shields would probably have a wooden "back"...)

Actually, the 4 lb / 8 lb thing is not too way off, if we consider them to be the upper limits, rather than the average.

Shield weights are also not too bad, as Roman Legionary Shields and Greek Hoplite Shields seem to have fallen into a range of 10-20 lbs. 10 lbs for a large Medieval Wooden Shield is probably not too far off. The Tower Shield, on the other hand, and a number of other items are probably too heavy.

barawn
2007-02-08, 01:42 PM
float - might keep you from sinking - certainly they can keep gear out of the water


Not ... really. A shield without significant curvature (i.e. not shaped like a boat) made out of wood will be able to hold about 5 or 6 pounds before it starts sinking. Basically, their own weight, and that's about it.

Thomas
2007-02-08, 10:20 PM
what rapiers are among the heaviest on that list? That just seems ...well... unbalanced.. heh. (This is turning into Real World Weapons and Armors, we should probably take it there).

Not that list. That list had two-handed swords. But rapiers are among the heaviest one-handed swords. 2, 2.5 pounds a lot of the time. They're HUGE, you know; commonly 4-5 feet long (compared to the 3-4 feet of sideswords and arming swords), with an exceedingly heavy hilt (and a point of balance very close to the hilt because of this). In fact, almost all the weight is in the hilt and the elaborate, complicated guards; this gives well-made rapiers amazing handling - the point will move inches with just a twitch of the hand.


This is true, but the weight given for the weapons isn't just for the weapon itself. It probably includes scabbard, belt and all the other stuff that comes with it.
Or do you buy and list them seperately?

*smacks forehead* Someone's pointed this out before. Yes, if you include scabbards (which could cause problems in certain calculations), it's more or less realistic (except for overweight weapons that wouldn't reasonably have scabbards). I'm quite used to games where you do list scabbards and sheaths separately.


Actually, the 4 lb / 8 lb thing is not too way off, if we consider them to be the upper limits, rather than the average.

Another viable approach, I guess; considering them maximum weights isn't a bad interpretation.


The rapier in D&D is more of a foil. The historical rapier was so large that it was not even really used for parrying (that was what your dagger was for).

Yeah. Most people think of foils when someone says "rapier" - this is largely the fault of 50 years of Hollywood showing us "rapier fights" where flexible swords are flicked around like feathers, used double-time (rapiers were single-time weapons), and so on. A rapier could parry, but that wouldn't be smart; you couldn't riposte with it because of the handling. A big part of the fencing was gaining control of your opponents sword so that their attack is misdirected without an action on your side, and then making your own strike when their weapon is out of the way. Only a silly person would use a rapier without something (another rapier, a parrying dagger, or at least a cloak; bucklers were more commonly used with sideswords) in the other hand, for parrying.

Rebonack
2007-02-08, 11:27 PM
From the little I've read the Roman Scutum, from which the Tower Shield is based on, weighed in between about twelve and twenty pounds. I think sixteen would be reasonable for an in game item.

Forty five is insane.

I'm also baffled by the 'no bashing' rule. They usually had a large bronze protrusion in the middle for the express purpose of smashing people in the gut with.

Thomas
2007-02-08, 11:30 PM
The D&D tower shield is actually a pavise, I think; a "mobile wall" for crossbowmen to crouch behind while loading.

Rebonack
2007-02-09, 12:09 AM
If it's just being used as a shield wall then shouldn't the to hit penalty only count against melee attacks? Or give the user the ability to shoot from behind it then take cover again?

I dunno. It seems like the sort of thing that isn't readily resolvable. I just think Roman style shields when I hear 'Tower Shield'.

Raistlin1040
2007-02-09, 12:14 AM
I'd say that fire spells (Fireball, Firestorm, Burning Hands ect.) would burn a wooden sheild and do extra dmg. to the weilder. Maybe adding 1D6 damage and burning the sheild would give the cheap players the incentive to invest in metal.

Rebonack
2007-02-09, 12:22 AM
Wouldn't metal just superheat and burn them as well?

Thomas
2007-02-09, 12:24 AM
Wood's not that easily flammable, though. If you try to start a fire in your fireplace with big bits of firewood and nothing else, you won't even get charred wood. You have to use kindling, paper, and several minutes of your time. A brief exposure to something like fireball would probably blacken a wooden shield, but probably would not cause it to catch on fire (especially since there's no bark on it) or burn to ashes.

As Rebonack points out, a fully metal shield would be more dangerous, since it almost certainly would conduct the heat and burn the skin off the arm holding the shield...

Besides, there's no issue of investing; the price differences are absolutely nonexistent past levels 2-3.


Rebonack: It's D&D, one of the main proliferators of incorrect information about weapons and armor for 33 years now. It's never going to be accurate or remotely realistic...

oriong
2007-02-09, 12:24 AM
Yeah the whole 'wooden shields burn' thing isn't too likely. Solid planks of wood are tough as heck to light on fire without a prolonged heat. Try lighting a fire without tinder, heck splash a blowtorch across a piece of solid wood for a couple of seconds and see if the wood really catches on fire.

Rebonack
2007-02-09, 12:25 AM
Doesn't stop us from putting out reasonable figures for people to house rule with =P

As per setting shields on fire, remember that one round of exposure to non-magical fire deals 1d6 damage. A nice Fireball deals ten times that. I can see it getting torched on a failed save (since there are rules and stuff for that) but not otherwise.

Thomas
2007-02-09, 12:27 AM
True. I'd say the tower shield works fine as a pavise if:
1. You allow it to be "stuck in the ground" and still function as cover; Move action to stick and unstick it.
2. Allow two people to crouch behind it and gain the cover (shieldman and crossbowman).

Raistlin1040
2007-02-09, 12:29 AM
Yeah it's hard to light a chunk of wood with a lighter or two sticks. But we're talking like a flamethrower level heat and flame. Like in a fireball or burning hands. It'd burn the shield.

oriong
2007-02-09, 12:33 AM
Yeah it's hard to light a chunk of wood with a lighter or two sticks. But we're talking like a flamethrower level heat and flame. Like in a fireball or burning hands. It'd burn the shield.

Yes, it would burn a sheild, but it won't catch it on fire. A flamethrower would because a flamethrower typically spews burning gasoline or napalm over whatever it hits, it's designed to catch things on fire.

Fireball is a one or two second wash of intense heat: scorching but no igniting. there's a difference between burning something (i.e. inflicting fire damage on it) and actually igniting it.

Raistlin1040
2007-02-09, 12:46 AM
Which makes me wonder if you cast fire sheild on yourself... would your wooden shield burn then?

Adygias
2007-02-09, 12:51 AM
I know next to nothing about D&D, but I do know that in ancient near east cultures in the early Bronze age, the cultures that could equip their armies with bronze shields had a big advantage over the wooden shield ones because even though bronze is far heavier than wood, it still allowed for greater battlefield manueverability because the best weapons against sword and spear infantry were arrows and javelins. Even if they hit the shield, it would reduce the soldiers' effectiveness by weighing down the shield until they couldn't use it. But if they put a layer of bronze on it, you had to totally change your tactics and meet them with well-equipped infantry or cavalry. I can hardly think of a way you could use that in a D&D campaign, but that always struck me as pretty fascinating.

As for the D&D tower shield, it sounds like it could be based on the ancient near east version. In the post-bronze era, they used bucklers for most normal combat--from what I know, they never developed an equivalent of the phalanx until Alexander rolled through--and used tower shields in storming a heavily fortified city. I wouldn't be surprised if it was used throughout the ancient world, at least for sieges and such. The ANE version was more or less head-to-toe, wrapped around the soldier's body, and designed to hold off nearly unbroken volleys of arrows and sling stones and whatever else the defenders could think the hurl at them. It was basically useless for personal combat because it was so heavy, but then, I guess most ANE soldiers never topped level 5 or so. For them, if you were using a tower shield, you were probably marching into certain horrific death. It's used in Psalm 3:3 as a metaphor which is, when you look at it from their point of view, pretty shocking.

Olethros
2007-02-09, 01:06 AM
The advantage to a metal shield in my mind is:

A) You can make a metal shield out of rare or unique metals, for the various benifits they convey.

B) Difficulty to damage (as noted previously)

C) Personal Style

Of corse you can make a very similar list for wooden shields, so I'd say it all comes down to prefference and small vagaries in situation.

Norsesmithy
2007-02-09, 01:16 AM
Not to be picky, but the one real sword I own is 16 lbs and much to my own dismay I can use it fairly comfortably in 2 hands and less comfortably but still manageable in 1 hand. At 73 inches long that's alot of torque to deal with too, but nothing impossible. And going off the max load charts I have like 10 strength at best. You underestimate the potential of someone with 15 strength who's profession in life is "Fighter" if you think an 8 lb sword is too much...
:smalleek:

What sort of charlatan dared to tell you that a 16 lb sword was "Real"?

There do exist original 68-73 inch swords, that were intended, and were used, for and in battle, during the renaissance, and they generally weigh between 5.5 and 7 lbs.

Whoever sold you that ill-begotten monstrosity of a wall hanger (AND CLAMED IT WAS REAL!:smallfurious: ) should be put to the torch.

Rebonack
2007-02-09, 01:19 AM
Quick! Gather the peasant mob! We'll use the over weighted Tower Shields as fire wood!

Norsesmithy
2007-02-09, 01:28 AM
Well if you have the wood and linen, I can get the pine tar.

oriong
2007-02-09, 01:30 AM
Now, now, to be fair he should be allowed to defend himself. He can be given a 16 pound sword to fight off the mob.

Beleriphon
2007-02-09, 02:20 AM
Keep in mind that the weight of most D&D equipment also takes into account the bulk of the item. So that lovely ruck sack that you bought that carries X poundage also has limited amount of interal space. So you can pack it to the brim of tiny, normally weighted items, or you can jam it full of a few large but too heavy items.

At any rate wooden shields are affected by spells that affect wood, like say entangle. :smallbiggrin:

Matthew
2007-02-09, 07:18 AM
True. I'd say the tower shield works fine as a pavise if:
1. You allow it to be "stuck in the ground" and still function as cover; Move action to stick and unstick it.
2. Allow two people to crouch behind it and gain the cover (shieldman and crossbowman).

That sounds about right.

I would want to make it a Two Handed item as well and rename it Great Shield...


I know next to nothing about D&D, but I do know that in ancient near east cultures in the early Bronze age, the cultures that could equip their armies with bronze shields had a big advantage over the wooden shield ones because even though bronze is far heavier than wood, it still allowed for greater battlefield manueverability because the best weapons against sword and spear infantry were arrows and javelins. Even if they hit the shield, it would reduce the soldiers' effectiveness by weighing down the shield until they couldn't use it. But if they put a layer of bronze on it, you had to totally change your tactics and meet them with well-equipped infantry or cavalry. I can hardly think of a way you could use that in a D&D campaign, but that always struck me as pretty fascinating.

As for the D&D tower shield, it sounds like it could be based on the ancient near east version. In the post-bronze era, they used bucklers for most normal combat--from what I know, they never developed an equivalent of the phalanx until Alexander rolled through--and used tower shields in storming a heavily fortified city. I wouldn't be surprised if it was used throughout the ancient world, at least for sieges and such. The ANE version was more or less head-to-toe, wrapped around the soldier's body, and designed to hold off nearly unbroken volleys of arrows and sling stones and whatever else the defenders could think the hurl at them. It was basically useless for personal combat because it was so heavy, but then, I guess most ANE soldiers never topped level 5 or so. For them, if you were using a tower shield, you were probably marching into certain horrific death. It's used in Psalm 3:3 as a metaphor which is, when you look at it from their point of view, pretty shocking.

Interesting. Would you mind discussing your sources in the Real Life Weapons and Armour Thread?

Adygias
2007-02-09, 07:21 PM
Interesting. Would you mind discussing your sources in the Real Life Weapons and Armour Thread?

Well, for the metal shields part, it's been a long time since I read about those, so I kinda doubt I'll find the original sources. But I can probably point you to some good circumstantial evidence to support it.

Same for the ANE tower shields. I think I heard about that first from a Tanakh genius who visited my town, but I heard it again recently from a Christian pastor. I don't think I've ever seen it in print, though.

Sorry, I don't have a History of Awesome Ancient Warfare book on my shelf or anything. I'll ask my Tanakh/military history peeps, and if I find it, I'll post it in the appropriate thread. And now you see why I will never become remotely tenured or indeed even finish a thesis: I stink at keeping up with sources. I guess there's always journalism.

Matthew
2007-02-09, 07:37 PM
Not to worry; though, that does sound like a cool book. I wonder if it's too late to change the title of my thesis...