DR of shields? Why so much higher than ordinary slab of wood?

[Ultraviolet]

The DR of shields range from 5 to 9, from the smallest to the largest.

I assume these are wooden shields (although leather or hide on a frame of wood or wicker seems an alternative.

But B558 lists wood (for doors and walls) to DR 1 per inch. and the "cover DR" table B559 lists even less, DR ½-1 per inch?

So why are shields that hardy? With the realtively low weights of sheilds, they're not made of *that* many inches of wood. I guess a metal band could add to the DR, but these stats are listen for TL0-1 and later, so I think no metals are involved?

And why does DR increase with size of sheild? Aren't they made the same way, of same materials, perhaps a bit sturdier construction to better stabilize the increased surface area, but still?
Sure HP increases with size, but DR?

Perhaps it's a game balance thing, for the optional rules for damage to shields?
Consider a longbow arrow? At thr+2 ST 11, thats 1d+1. On the best of days, that won't penetrate a Heavy Steel Corselet with DR 7. Nor will it get through (or even damage slightly) a Medium Shield, also DR7. Had the shield been steel, it'd have+3 Dr, for DR10, ouch!
Consider a ST 12 geezer with a Broadsword (Sw+1) that's 1d+3 damage, or a range of 4-9? He'll never, ever damage a Large Shield, and only a 2 in 6 chance of chipping a Medium Shield slightly. And forget about it if not using wooden shields. Not even deliberately, by hacking and hacking away at it!

That just seems a bit odd to me. IIRC the old viking tales (which *do* I know were told from one drunk guy to another again and again, untill someone pulled out a block of stone and chiseled down the runes...but still) tells about viking duels, where both parties had a set number of shields. Because shields could and did get destroyed. I believe this gag was used in "the 13th warrior".

But perhaps game testing had shown that using the DR1-2 range for shields, destroys them too quickly. Even though most blows blocked won't damage at all, just those rolls only made by the margin offered by the DB. Few fighters would deliberately go for smashing the enemy's shield.

Or did I miss something, about the DR only being for penetration purposes, to see if an attack blows through and hits the guy holding the shield, but the entire damage is subtracted from the shields HP?

[Crakkerjakk]

There have been a few threads about this. Search function should locate them easily if you're interested in a detailed analysis.

The upshot seems to be:

a) They're a holdover from older editions.
b) It's not as fun for "adventuring fiction" for shields to get destroyed every battle.
c) More detailed and realistic figures for shields will be in Low-Tech.

IIRC the other threads worked out what the actual DR and HP of various shields should be, so if you want an immediate fix, they're around somewhere.

[weby]

yup, all above except B. The current breaking rules are just unfair to cloak users who have "shields" with about realistic breakage..


(and ofcourse the large shields are fun as they stop assault rifle fire reliably if you hide behind them)

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by weby

yup, all above except B. The current breaking rules are just unfair to cloak users who have "shields" with about realistic breakage..


(and ofcourse the large shields are fun as they stop assault rifle fire reliably if you hide behind them)

I'm not saying that b is my reasoning. It was part of the given rationale from TPTB, IIRC.

[pawsplay]

Basically, because they're unrealistic. In reality, fighters often learned to punch and parry with the boss of a shield, since the shield itself tended to shatter. Further, shields were used more often in siege warfare than in personal combat. Historically, using two weapons or a heavy two-handed weapon or a pole weapon was more likely than using a shield for most times and places.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Basically, because they're unrealistic. In reality, fighters often learned to punch and parry with the boss of a shield, since the shield itself tended to shatter.

I believe viking shields in particular were of lighter construction than many other cultures, but my understanding was that a shield would generally last for a single battle, most of the time, but needed to be replaced after that.

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Further, shields were used more often in siege warfare than in personal combat. Historically, using two weapons or a heavy two-handed weapon or a pole weapon was more likely than using a shield for most times and places.

Really? Source? Because that's counter to what I have heard.

EDIT: Specifically, my understanding was that shields diminished in use as armor improved. This is partly because one could forfeit the defense of a shield when encased in heavy plate, but also because two hands were required to wield a weapon with sufficient force to penetrate the opponent's heavy plate.

[Ultraviolet]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

There have been a few threads about this. Search function should locate them easily if you're interested in a detailed analysis.

The upshot seems to be:

a) They're a holdover from older editions.
b) It's not as fun for "adventuring fiction" for shields to get destroyed every battle.
c) More detailed and realistic figures for shields will be in Low-Tech.

IIRC the other threads worked out what the actual DR and HP of various shields should be, so if you want an immediate fix, they're around somewhere.

Hmmm serching "shields + DR" yields me only one relevant thread, and I'm none the wiser for that one.

I see the point of the shield having *some* advantage over a slab of wood, seeing as it's not held nicely in place - like a door - making it easier to destroy.

Flipping through my old 3rd ed book, I see a lot of the same numbers for shields (7/40 for medium 9/60 for large). But they mean other things here!

Unless I've completely misunderstood 4th ed, 7/40 means each blow delivered to the shield it reduced by 7 before subtracting from the 40 HP.

In 3rd ed, the 7 is the number to be exceeded by the damage done, in order to penetrate. Subtracting a further 3 for the DR of the wooden shield, if anything remaind - impaling damage only - it will hit the wielder. All damage done to shield is subtracted from the 40 HP, and at 0 it's destroyed.

So in conclusion, the 3rd ed medium shield needs more then 10 points of impaling damage to hit the wielder. But the shield is destroyed a lot faster, since only the aforementioned DR3 helps, not the 7.

The 4th ed rules are a lot clearer and easier. But I just don't like the high DR. And why is the Cover DR higher for larger shields? If DR is for thickness, HP is for area/mass.

The idea I have is for shields to sometimes become smashed during large epic battles. If not for other reasons, then just because it's more dramatic.

[hige]

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

The 4th ed rules are a lot clearer and easier. But I just don't like the high DR. And why is the Cover DR higher for larger shields? If DR is for thickness, HP is for area/mass.

I almost agree with you.
If DR is for thickness, Cover DR (not HP) is also for thickness (and mass/area).

Please imagine the cube each length is L.
Weight is proportional to the volume -- the third power of L.
Therefore, HP is proportional to L -- thickness.

Usually, it is appropriate that thickness (and stubbornness) is calculated from HP.
(It equals "it is appropriate Cover DR is calculated from HP")

But, for the object that shape not three-dimensional -- e.g. door and shield -- , it is not appropriate that thickness is calculated from HP.
Naturally, it is not appropriate Cover DR is calculated from HP.

To calculate Cover DR...
Normally, you already know the thickness such as doors and shields.
I suggest as follows.

Cover DR = normal DR + [thickness(cm) multiplied by the third power root of density(g/cm3)]/2.

..an increase from normal DR..

• Wood (about 0.6 g/cm3), about 0.4 DR per centimeter -- 1 DR per inch.
• Meat (about 1 g/cm3), about 0.5 DR per centimeter -- 1.2 DR per inch.
  Meat of thickness of 1 ft -- as if human -- provide 15 DR.
• Iron (about 7.2 g/cm3), about 1 DR per centimeter -- 2.5 DR per inch.

Please compare it with the value calculated from HP.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by hige

I almost agree with you.
If DR is for thickness, Cover DR (not HP) is also for thickness (and mass/area).

DR also includes PD. Armour is specifically shaped to help deflect blows. Its DR is higher than a flat plate of similar material. Only the rare fluke shot that hits at 90 degrees would impart its full energy into the armour. These flukes should not be used to justify an artificially low DR but can be subsumed into critical hits.

[Ultraviolet]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

DR also includes PD. Armour is specifically shaped to help deflect blows. Its DR is higher than a flat plate of similar material. Only the rare fluke shot that hits at 90 degrees would impart its full energy into the armour. These flukes should not be used to justify an artificially low DR but can be subsumed into critical hits.

That makes sense. I only wish the DR/HP tables for materials listed some modifier for shape/geometry. Like "Non-flat surface (like body armour plates) DR x 1,5" or x2 or whatever.