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

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by 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.

Sure.

But that doesn't change the fact that the DR and HPs are unrealistically high for playbility/legacy reasons and that Low-Tech will provide more realistic numbers.

[David L Pulver]

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.

Were there any ancient or medieval armies in cultures that had metal weapons whose footsoldiers (or dismounted cavalry) principally used one-handed melee weapons (singly or in combination) without also carrying either shield, bow, or throwing weapon?

I can't think of any myself. Samurai carried bows and were tactically as much archers as they were swordsmen (and most of the infantry would have been non-samurai with naginata or yari anyway). It usually seems to be either weapon-and-shield, or two-handed weapon and auxiliary sword or dagger, with the two-handed weapon being a polearm, sword, axe, or bow.

Footmen (or dismounted knights) in the late medieval armies where plate had helped make the shield obsolete would mostly have, as said, heavy polearms, pikes, two-handed or hand-and-half swords (used more or less as a spear), or if cavalry forced to fight on foot, be using shortened lances as long spears.

[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.

[Ulzgoroth]

Looking at GURPS rather than real combat terms, the shield vs dagger conflict seems to be rooted in whether or not the dagger-user can force the engagement to close combat and keep it there long enough to win. In close combat, a shield loses its offensive utility and much of its defensive utility while hampering the user's offense.

On open terrain, the sword-and-board can always retreat. This lets them parry normally (even if their weapon doesn't have reach C). It's not entirely clear to me whether it lets them block, but retreating parry or dodge with full DB is probably their strongest defense anyway. Then they can strike and take another step back.

If they don't keep an open space between them and the two-weapon attacker, the attacker might be able to use a committed attack to step into close combat, attack, and then follow up their retreat so that the sword-and-board user starts their next round in close combat. At this point, they can step clear to attack freely, but the knife-user (if still alive) will be able to keep bringing them to close combat each round.

It doesn't look like the knife is doing much good unless there's something preventing the shield-user from giving ground. If the guy with the knife can get in close and the one with the shield can't keep backing away, things can suddenly get bad.

[Rune]

OK. I would like to get back to the actual topic as well - and the actual topic is NOT about whether or not shields were used a lot or just a little bit.

In one of the posts in the beginning it was said that in some other thread a more correct table of shield's DR and HP had been lined up.
I would like to read that thread (and I have searched for it - although only with +HP added to the search criteria of Ultraviolet, so I guess it is no surprise that I couldn't find it either).

Also, I find that sjard's post has some good points. Sloped armor was a simple but revolutionary invention for tanks during WW2, so of course sloping a shield (and armor) would also effectively improve its overall DR.
- However probably not 9 as a large shield has.
On the other hand it also ought add DR to iron shields. And they currently have 12 DR which corresponds to 1/4" thick iron. Is that a realistic thickness of an iron shield? Seems a bit thick IMO, as in my world that would make it quite heavy.

Anyway, the main reason for shield breaking faster in real life is probably found in the HP - since they are substantially fewer if using the tables on Basic Set p. 558.
And again, I would like to see a link to that other thread (if any can find it), since my own knowledge is limited, and I would rather just take the word of someone who has studied it.

[DanHoward]

Low Tech gives shields a DR of 4. Light variants have DR 2. Hit Points are calculated based on weight and the Objects Hit Points Table.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by David L Pulver

Were there any ancient or medieval armies in cultures that had metal weapons whose footsoldiers (or dismounted cavalry) principally used one-handed melee weapons (singly or in combination) without also carrying either shield, bow, or throwing weapon?

Interesting question. Two-handed swords or shortish polearms ended up being the primary weapons of professional warriors in most cases. In armies that focused on formations, shields were preferred in order to block missile fire and also because they were inexpensive and could perform a minimally useful function even in the hands of amateurs. It is also clear that for civilian defense, two weapon fighting has been as popular as anything else.

You excluded the samurai as bow-wielders. I'm not sure why you felt using a bow would exclude a type of warrior from this discussion. Samurai clearly emphasized hand-to-hand combat as well. Daisho (katana and wakisazhi) is the most emblematic weaponry of the samurai. Many samurai used the daisho as weaponry, and Musashi in the Book of Five Rings felt the use of two katana was popular enough to point out the shortcomings of that style.

My readings suggest that the use of two hand weapons was common in the late Crusades era (second crusade and on), but I don't have any sources handy right now. It's definitely controvertible. It's definitely true that the tapsestries and such do not accurately represent the weaponry of the knights of the Crusades, but it's less clear what they were using. At the very least, we know art tends to depict longswords used one or two handed, some lances, some polaxes, and plenty of shields, but did not tend to show curved swords, axes, maces, picks, morningstars, crossbows, javelins, short lances, and numerous other weapons that we know were used. The mainstream opinion would probably suggest that the use of a shield was nonetheless common, but from what I've read, the experts suggest hand weapons were more common. That would certainly be consistent with later evolutions in fighting, which we do know a good deal more about.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Interesting question. Two-handed swords or shortish polearms ended up being the primary weapons of professional warriors in most cases. In armies that focused on formations, shields were preferred in order to block missile fire and also because they were inexpensive and could perform a minimally useful function even in the hands of amateurs. It is also clear that for civilian defense, two weapon fighting has been as popular as anything else.

As far as I can see it is by far in the minority in every culture and time period that I've looked at.

Samurai clearly emphasized hand-to-hand combat as well. Daisho (katana and wakisazhi) is the most emblematic weaponry of the samurai. Many samurai used the daisho as weaponry, and Musashi in the Book of Five Rings felt the use of two katana was popular enough to point out the shortcomings of that style.

None of which was ever practiced on the battlefield.

My readings suggest that the use of two hand weapons was common in the late Crusades era (second crusade and on), but I don't have any sources handy right now.

Complete Bollocks.

It's definitely controvertible.

I'd like to see even a single primary source suggesting that someone wielded two weapons in any crusade engagement on either side.

but did not tend to show curved swords, axes, maces, picks, morningstars, crossbows, javelins, short lances, and numerous other weapons that we know were used.

There are hundreds of illustrations showing all these weapons and more. Whenever a single-handed weapon is used the other hand is carrying a shield or is not wielding anything.

So-called two-handed styles are largely a fantasy except in some limited civilian circumstances in a handful of cultures in a few narrow time periods.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by David L Pulver

Footmen (or dismounted knights) in the late medieval armies where plate had helped make the shield obsolete would mostly have, as said, heavy polearms, pikes, two-handed or hand-and-half swords (used more or less as a spear), or if cavalry forced to fight on foot, be using shortened lances as long spears.

Pikes might be a special case to be removed from this discussion. Pikes are almost useless wielded by large blocs of men in formation. Pikemen were also not always heavily armored. This is true to a lesser degree of the heavy polearms. It's aprt of the reason Gurps has been having to invent "duelling polearms" that are shorter and lighter to cover many historical weapons.

Footmen also tended to be less heavily armored than cavalry as a general rule. It's matter of who's carrying the weight, you or the horse.

In my view shields had two primary uses. One was to provide cover from missile fire. The other was to be used to actively defend _instead_ of the main weapon.

Axes aren't very good for parrying, blunt weapons don't damage tissue as effectively as sharp ones and historically, until late TL3 or early TL4 swords were often (not always, but often) of limited quality metallurgically as well as being very expensive. So you defended yourself with (and racked up the nicks and dings on) the cheap shield rather than the expensive sword.

Because they were somewhat fragile and very expensive the techniques for one-handed defense with the sword did not see much development. Early swords often had little thought given to defense in the design of their hilts and crossguards.

It is notable that after armor caused arrows to disappear and made one-handed battlefield weapons of limited use, shields largely disappeared as well. Defense with the sword alone started to really develop as well.

[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.