Regarding shields...

[Winged One]

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]

Sunder attempts are pretty much the only reason.

[Saph]

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]

Most shields, apart from very small bucklers, are made mostly of wood.

[OOTS_Rules.]

Wood will burn easier than steel.

[Winged One]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[SpiderBrigade]

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]

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]

Thanks for your answers.

[Arceliar]

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]

Wooden shields catch on fire. This is usually a bad thing.

[Gerrtt]

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]

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]

Now wood shape, that would screw up your sheild. I would probably turn it into masterwork manacles.

[Thomas]

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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Truwar]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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]

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.