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.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

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.

China has a large portion of the world's population and experienced centuries of feudal warfare. How often have you seen an illustration of a Chinese shield? How different do you think that would be from the situation in Europe?

Shields are disproportionately represented in Western art of the Crusades for a number of reasons. Off-handedly, it was a large war of territory, during which sieges and mass troop movements were more common than usual. Second, shields were used extensively in conjunction with the lance, a favored tactic of that time and place. Third, you can paint a cross on it. Fourth, it was used in heraldry. Swords, especially cruciform swords, were also over-represented in art. All that affects the iconography people are familiar with now. In reality, a knight armed with sword and shield was not necessarily the dominant armament. Two-handed longswords, maces, picks, and the like were all common implements.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

China has a large portion of the world's population and experienced centuries of feudal warfare. How often have you seen an illustration of a Chinese shield? How different do you think that would be from the situation in Europe?

Shields are disproportionately represented in Western art of the Crusades for a number of reasons. Off-handedly, it was a large war of territory, during which sieges and mass troop movements were more common than usual. Second, shields were used extensively in conjunction with the lance, a favored tactic of that time and place. Third, you can paint a cross on it. Fourth, it was used in heraldry. Swords, especially cruciform swords, were also over-represented in art. All that affects the iconography people are familiar with now. In reality, a knight armed with sword and shield was not necessarily the dominant armament. Two-handed longswords, maces, picks, and the like were all common implements.

The chinese used shields for both calvary and infantry, according to wiki. Many used polearms, but in mass-warfare that has frequently been the case because polearms are a good weapon for tightly packed formations. Concentration of force is greater with polearms than any other weapon, they're cheap, they keep the enemy away, etc.

As to other cultures, there's the Romans and the Greeks who used shields extensively, pretty sure the Egyptians used shields, as did the Persians. Your analysis seems to concentrate waaaaay too exclusively on a single era and culture, no offense.

Again, have any source for your info?

[pawsplay]

This link hems and haws on #8, but this looks pretty good:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

The chinese used shields for both calvary and infantry, according to wiki.

Of course they used them. I never said otherwise. Shields were obviously quite popular and useful all over the world. It's just a misconception to think warriors were always walking around in the Middle Ages with a sword and shield, when the reality is that two-handed longsword or axe-and-mace or whatnot was probably more reasonable.