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

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Not to mention that few people in history have the necessary coordination and skill to attack with two weapons at the same time. The reason for carrying two weapons is usually* to attack with one of them and defend with the other. In that case, a dedicated defensive weapon like the shield is much more useful than just another blade or bludgeon.

*Fiction and legend would have us believe otherwise, but in real life, it doesn't appear to happen all that much. Turns out that most people can't repeat the fancy tricks with two blades they learned in a dojo once the fight turns real.

I gather you are unfamiliar with the historical traditions of fighting with rapier and main gauche as well as the martial art Escrima, which is used in fights to the death in this very age. I would really like to know where you came up with this idea, as it seems utterly unsupported by even the most cursory review of the fighting arts.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

I gather you are unfamiliar with the historical traditions of fighting with rapier and main gauche as well as the martial art Escrima, which is used in fights to the death in this very age. I would really like to know where you came up with this idea, as it seems utterly unsupported by even the most cursory review of the fighting arts.

Rapier and main-gauche, as used by most people, is the very definition of what I'm talking about.

The weapons aren't used independently, both of them making different attacks at the same time. Instead, they are often used alternatively or with one held at the defensive while the other is used to attack.

The point is that normal people can't usually focus on making different complex motions with both hands at the same time.

In GURPS, this is reflected by making Dual-Weapon Attack a cinematic technique that can only be trained by taking a Special Exercises Perk that usually demands that the weapons be similar in design and used to attack the same target. And in real world, the facility to do that well enough to make it a valid combat tactic is excessively rare.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Rapier and main-gauche, as used by most people, is the very definition of what I'm talking about.

The weapons aren't used independently, both of them making different attacks at the same time. Instead, they are often used alternatively or with one held at the defensive while the other is used to attack.

Let's imagine the most basic combo, then. Jack is wielding a rapier and main-gauche, and Jerry is wielding a rapier and buckler. Jerry attacks, Jack parries. Jack might Bind their weapons and stab Jerry in the armpit. Alternatively, he might simply step and use Close Combat as soon as he parries. In either case, the situation is now main-gauche versus buckler. The buckler may hurt, but it's not going to kill, and it's not going to be any better for defense than the dagger (assuming both are righties).

This is a very basic skill which can be taught to almost anyone. I've personally trained a half dozen people, in the course of part of an afternoon, to perform this maneuver credibly with boffer weapons. Keeping in mind that boffer combat is at least as fast, usually faster, and as complex as real combat. People with no martial or tactical ability will suck, but they will suck just as reliably with a shield, or a two-handed sword, or whatever. Simply using the shield to block mobily is at least as challenging.

Yet you are arguing that sword-and-dagger is teachable only to the few, while shield sword-and-shield is teachable to the masses. You have already stated that the shield requires as much concentration. When not properly wielded, it is nothing more than a barrier, one which can be used almost equally by either combatant. Using it to bash and block puts it in exactly the same level of complexity as using sword and dagger.

The fact that you do not usually make a simulaneous stab with both weapons does not mean they cannot both be employed simultaneously in an offensive manner. And it's a huge simplification to suppose the only purpose of two weapons is to either stab with both or to stab with one while using the other to deflect. Two weapons fundamentally give you more tactical options.

[SuedodeuS]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Let's imagine the most basic combo, then. Jack is wielding a rapier and main-gauche, and Jerry is wielding a rapier and buckler. Jerry attacks, Jack parries. Jack might Bind their weapons and stab Jerry in the armpit. Alternatively, he might simply step and use Close Combat as soon as he parries. In either case, the situation is now main-gauche versus buckler. The buckler may hurt, but it's not going to kill, and it's not going to be any better for defense than the dagger (assuming both are righties).

That's one reason why rapier and main-gauche was rather popular for dueling - not only was it more stylish, it was rather effective. Of course, that main-gauche - or even the rapier, if using the main-gauche for binding - isn't going to be able to readily parry the buckler, and the decreased mobility from binding means a decent chance of the sword-and-board guy bashing in the other's face. This won't kill him, certainly, but it may be enough to stun him long enough to either unbind the rapier or send a knee into his groin (after which point you'd likely have time to unbind the rapier and run him through to boot). Rapier and main-gauche isn't better, it's just different.

Originally Posted by pawsplay

This is a very basic skill which can be taught to almost anyone. I've personally trained a half dozen people, in the course of part of an afternoon, to perform this maneuver credibly with boffer weapons. Keeping in mind that boffer combat is at least as fast, usually faster, and as complex as real combat. People with no martial or tactical ability will suck, but they will suck just as reliably with a shield, or a two-handed sword, or whatever. Simply using the shield to block mobily is at least as challenging.

I'm not certain what superhumans you train with, but I know from experience that trying to attack with two weapons at the same time is exceedingly difficult, and I'm not too shabby using a single weapon myself.

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Yet you are arguing that sword-and-dagger is teachable only to the few, while shield sword-and-shield is teachable to the masses. You have already stated that the shield requires as much concentration. When not properly wielded, it is nothing more than a barrier, one which can be used almost equally by either combatant. Using it to bash and block puts it in exactly the same level of complexity as using sword and dagger.

Sword-and-dagger of the variety used in films is teachable only to a few. Using one on the defensive and one offensively, or switching between the two weapons, isn't too difficult, and is the way they were historically used.

Originally Posted by pawsplay

The fact that you do not usually make a simulaneous stab with both weapons does not mean they cannot both be employed simultaneously in an offensive manner. And it's a huge simplification to suppose the only purpose of two weapons is to either stab with both or to stab with one while using the other to deflect. Two weapons fundamentally give you more tactical options.

Two weapons give you a few more tactical options, certainly, but you have to be extremely coordinated to attack with both at the same time in different manners. Realistically, a two-sword style is going to consist of having one weapon on the defensive at all times, although those who are well-coordinated enough (with Ambidexterity or Off-hand Weapon Training) can switch which is on offense/defense rather readily. This does give more options, but at the end of the day an axe and mace is just two weapons, which essentially only one can be used at a time. A sword and shield consists of a weapon and a big piece of portable cover that prevents the enemy from hitting you above and beyond what a second weapon does. It can also be used for a different sort of attack than a second weapon (which basically does the same sort of attack as the primary, but maybe with some slightly different attributes), meaning it is arguably more versatile than using two weapons.


I'll also note that using Musashi as an example for why using two swords at once isn't difficult and is a legitimate battlefield choice is flawed. Musashi was one of the single greatest warriors in history, fighting a huge number of duels and never losing a single one of them. That's like saying fitting into a small box is easy because contortionists can do it.
Also, of the styles you have noted, how frequently do they actually teach attacking with both weapons at the same time? As I've noted, from what I've seen most two-weapon styles use one weapon for offense and the other for defense.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Let's imagine the most basic combo, then. Jack is wielding a rapier and main-gauche, and Jerry is wielding a rapier and buckler. Jerry attacks, Jack parries. Jack might Bind their weapons and stab Jerry in the armpit. Alternatively, he might simply step and use Close Combat as soon as he parries. In either case, the situation is now main-gauche versus buckler. The buckler may hurt, but it's not going to kill, and it's not going to be any better for defense than the dagger (assuming both are righties).

Aside from the fact that a small buckler of the sort I assume you're referring to is markedly inferior to larger shields used in warfare, I don't get where you get the assertion that the dagger and buckler are equally effective for defence.

That seems counter-intuitive to me and doesn't match my experience. Without much in the way of actual weapon skill, I can interpose a large block of wood between myself and someone else. I can't, however, parry a sword with a dagger for very long. And what I'd do if someone tried bashing a heavy metal boss at me I have no idea. I somehow doubt that a dagger would stop a much heavier shield.

And what does it matter whether or not the buckler kills? It can break bones or knock you out and in either case, the fight is probably over. Surely, most people don't care whether their enemies are dead or just too injured to continue fighting.

Some tedious assault and battery laws prevent me from reality-testing the theory, but I suspect that if I punched someone in the face with a metal Hut, that person would likely lose consciousness. If I was involved in a battle at the time, would it matter all that much that they might eventually wake up and be taken prisoner?

Originally Posted by pawsplay

This is a very basic skill which can be taught to almost anyone. I've personally trained a half dozen people, in the course of part of an afternoon, to perform this maneuver credibly with boffer weapons. Keeping in mind that boffer combat is at least as fast, usually faster, and as complex as real combat. People with no martial or tactical ability will suck, but they will suck just as reliably with a shield, or a two-handed sword, or whatever. Simply using the shield to block mobily is at least as challenging.

This manouvre, in fact, is not an example of a GURPS Dual-Weapon Attack and not an example of how a man with a mace and an axe somehow has twice the attack capability of a man with a sword and shield.

I am aware that having two weapons allows for a wide range of options. I am not aware, however, that knives or maces as secondary weapons are significantly better than shields. In fact, the opposite seems to be the truth, as properly equipped soldiers on a battlefield would choose a shield over other secondary weapons. Using other weapons in the off hand was mostly popular among duellists, who for a variety of reasons rarely use cumbersome military weapons anyway.

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Yet you are arguing that sword-and-dagger is teachable only to the few, while shield sword-and-shield is teachable to the masses. You have already stated that the shield requires as much concentration. When not properly wielded, it is nothing more than a barrier, one which can be used almost equally by either combatant. Using it to bash and block puts it in exactly the same level of complexity as using sword and dagger.

The same level of complexity, sure, but a shield of any sort will have a larger parrying surface than a knife.

Without significant expertise in hand-to-hand fighting, I can at least say that I find it much easier to block with a shield than with a knife. I suspect other people have the same experience.

Originally Posted by pawsplay

The fact that you do not usually make a simulaneous stab with both weapons does not mean they cannot both be employed simultaneously in an offensive manner. And it's a huge simplification to suppose the only purpose of two weapons is to either stab with both or to stab with one while using the other to deflect. Two weapons fundamentally give you more tactical options.

A person with a sword and shield has two weapons, just as much as someone with a sword and dagger does. It's just that one of his weapons happens to be exceptionally good at blocking attacks, which I reckon is nice when you're as little fond of pain as I am.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I am aware that having two weapons allows for a wide range of options. I am not aware, however, that knives or maces as secondary weapons are significantly better than shields. In fact, the opposite seems to be the truth, as properly equipped soldiers on a battlefield would choose a shield over other secondary weapons.

A "properly equipped" soldier would likely carry a sword, a shield, and a dagger, or a longsword and a dagger, at the very least. The shield is optional equipment, but the dagger really isn't.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

A "properly equipped" soldier would likely carry a sword, a shield, and a dagger, or a longsword and a dagger, at the very least. The shield is optional equipment, but the dagger really isn't.

Sure, he'd carry a lot of things. But the dagger would still be carried as a tool more than a secondary weapon.

In any event, a two-handed weapon might be better still and often was used historically. But you just don't see that many soldiers who carried a sword and dagger into battle in preference to using a shield.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Sure, he'd carry a lot of things. But the dagger would still be carried as a tool more than a secondary weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misericorde_(weapon)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tant%C5%8D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondel_(dagger)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugio

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misericorde_(weapon)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tant%C5%8D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondel_(dagger)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugio

Half of these don't work, but I'm familar with the weapons in question.

And?

Of course daggers and knives of all sorts have been used as auxiliary weapons. People with more adequate primary and secondary weapons still like to have a tertiary weapon. This goes for many examples of misericordes or rondels, where the knight might have sword and shield as primary and secondary weapons, and it certainly went for tantos, where the samurai would carry a spear as a primary weapon and a katana as a secondary one. Legionaries, having a shield as a primary weapon and both pila and gladius as secondaries, would be even better equipped.

Even so, the pugio was a utility knife of the times, not something legionaries regularly used instead of a shield.

[sjard]

As to the OP, I think a big part of the DR increase is that a shield is an actively used item where a wooden door or wall just sits there.

A very slight movement of the shield can change the amount of resistance an incoming attack meets while slowing it down without taking as much damage.

Think of a shield not as something that you just hold there to soak up damage, but something that is constantly moving and used to displace attacks (you parry with a shield more than just interpose it in the attacks path).

Motion, properly applied (in this case via the shield skill) will almost always reduce the amount of damage taken, or in GURPS terms translates as a higher DR. Some of it will also be due to the geometry of the shield and the materials used to make it. The Scutum was an iron reinforced, curved (important aspect there) plywood type shield. This makes it considerably stronger than would even a flat sheet of plywood let alone a flat board of a single piece of wood.

Note: these are just my own observations from testing and building shields. There is far more to a shield than the materials involved.