|
Post by AxeMental on Jan 22, 2005 3:40:57 GMT -5
I remember in the past P&P had mentioned that a wooden shield was pretty tough and could withstand alot of abuse. Does anyone know how wooden shields differ from metal shields in AD&D based on life span and what will destroy it (for instance would a fire ball blast destroy my wooden shield but not destroy my metal shield...can one take more blows then the other before it breaks?).
An interesting aside, was reading accounts of Megellan, found out he died (speared to death) when he and 60 of his crew tried to forcibly convert a couple thousand Pacific Islanders to convert to Christianity. The interesting thing was that the usual musket mowe down of attacking indiginous folk with wooden shields that worked in the past (bullets passing through shields) didn't work because the Islanders were using bamboo shields and bamboo armor. So, bamboo shields were nothing to laugh at I guess (with some bullet proof qualities anyway).
|
|
|
Post by PapersAndPaychecks on Jan 22, 2005 14:25:15 GMT -5
A shield made entirely out of metal strikes me as a pretty silly idea, frankly. I mean, if you make it entirely out of metal, it's either so thin that it gets dented out of shape in a single fight, or else it's so heavy it gets hard to move into the way of an incoming blow. I think that most shields would be basically made out of half-inch to three-quarter-inch wooden planks, or out of several layers of thinner planks, held together with battens and edged and reinforced with rawhide. Read this link for more details on how historical shields were constructed and used. The way I always envisaged the AD&D shields is that a "wooden" shield meant one with no metal in it at all... in other words, no steel boss to protect the handgrip (presumably this would be made out of cuir bouilli or the shield would be strapped to the arm like a kite shield rather than held in a punch grip) and maybe no steel rivets or nails in it either.
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Jan 23, 2005 8:17:00 GMT -5
P&P: "The way I always envisaged the AD&D shields is that a "wooden" shield meant one with no metal in it at all... in other words, no steel boss to protect the handgrip"
This is a very logical explination, kind of a wooden door vs. a banded wooden door. However, I posed this question to Scotty G who made an interesting point, that the type of shield (wood or metal) was not so much an indication of the quality of the shield (or it's resiliance) but rather a way to determine the effects upone it by cast spells (warp wood or heat metal for instance). I think Scotty might say that a metal shield would not be effected by warp wood, I wonder what EGG was thinking (an all metal or mostly metal shield) or reinforced wooden shield. I think Scotty may be correct; that what EGG was thinking of was a shield that was all metal or mostly metal that would not be effected by warp wood.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Jan 23, 2005 19:00:33 GMT -5
I wonder what EGG was thinking (an all metal or mostly metal shield) or reinforced wooden shield. I think Scotty may be correct; that what EGG was thinking of was a shield that was all metal or mostly metal that would not be effected by warp wood. The DMG is pretty clear on this, actually: DMG p. 27 So all shields are made of wood, but a "wooden" shield doesn't have metal reinforcement or binding. How this affects in-game effectiveness is left up to DM discretion (having "wooden" shields use the item saving throw matrix for "wood or rope, thick" while "metal" shields use the matrix for "metal, hard" is pretty common, if perhaps not entirely accurate; having a wooden shield make a save against normal blow (or crushing blow, depending on circumstances) at the end of each combat to avoid splitting/sundering is also pretty common IME).
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Jan 23, 2005 22:04:10 GMT -5
I said: "that what EGG was thinking of was a shield that was all metal or mostly metal that would not be effected by warp wood. "
Thanks for the response Foster, that cleared it up I think. I suppose a metal shield wouldn't be effected by a warp wood spell as the metal bindings might hold the warping at bay.
|
|
|
Post by poppy on Jan 24, 2005 3:34:34 GMT -5
A metal shield is about as realistic as a St George killing a Dragon. St George - Englands patron saint and probably the worlds most famous Dragon slayer - was obviously a miss-understood archaeologist.
A metal shield simply cannot exist, you can make one - and you could look at it - but use it you could not. However...
There are numerous shortcomings in the D&D system, clearly derived from the Mr Gygax not actually being a medieval weapons specialist, this is no shame to any RPG and infact we have to ask if such a thing as a medieval weapons specialist would exist if it was not for Mr Gygax...?
However, clearly the D&D stated intention was for wood and metal to be clearly defined as different materials for the purposes of combat, with metal undoubtedly being considered the superior. With this in mind I have just one question...
Are metal shields wiedeable by Humans? If so, then I would argue that the "metal" is in fact the surface skin of the shield. This would allow the shield to be considered tougher, as it is not wood alone. This would allow the shield to be durable and only slightly heavier than wood alone.
This would also allow, DM permitting, the shield to be treated as a metal target when facing an attack in the front quarter, within the fabled "60 degree" of combat - the one basic principle of military engagement which has never, ever, changed.
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Jan 24, 2005 6:49:02 GMT -5
Well, another thing to keep in mind is that although AD&D is clearly based on historical realities, it still is a fantasy game. We can't expect everything to have an equal in a game that has magicians, giants, dwarves etc. running around. For instance, I see a battle axe as something that is one handed as I can hold a wood chopping axe with one hand and a shield with the other in "real life" (while a small hatchet for camping is about what I picture a hand axe looking like), yet a battle axe is historically (as others have pointed out) a two handed weapon. So, I think European/Mid east historical weapons need to take a back seat to fantasy at times. Now as for metal shields, although it may be an impossibility we see the orcs on LOTR movies running around with metal shields. I also could sware I have seen coats of arms going across metal shields. Still Fosters post clears up any missconceptions as to what EGG was thinking, though I think he would say something like "your the DM if you want there to be all metal shields in your game then do it). It didn't detract from LOTR movies, and it wouldn't from AD&D.
|
|
|
Post by poppy on Jan 24, 2005 8:42:09 GMT -5
Whereas on the one hand it is possible to argue that D&D is not part of our timeline, and has different laws of physics, it is also possible to argue that a few mistakes where made in it's inception.
For instance, in actual combat you'll find (should you attempt to participate in one of the many strange hand weapon sports/activities) that axes are defined in two different ways: One handed; Two handed.
A two handed axe is built very simply as a polarm for the purposes of adding pendulum weight to the hefty cutting blade. A polearm built in this way, of around 3-4ft in length with a reasonable head will easily cut through the head of horse and carry on to take out the armoured man behind it.
Alternatively there is the one handed axe, you could cut wood with a one handed axe, and flesh. However in the role of cutting flesh, and especially in the role of cutting through horses and then armoured men... It um, doesn't really cut it. Excuse the pun. There just isn't enough weight.
What a one handed axe is good for is hooking shields and weapons out of the way. In D&D terms, a one handed axe in the hands of a dextrous warrior can dissarm their opponent. The axes then considereably reduced damage doesnt matter.
Now the reason I mention this is because when we look at the way D&D and other RPG's treat the huge difference in these weapons what do we see on the weapon chart?
I dont have D&D rulebooks to hand, but if my recollection serves correct - the difference is simply that two handed axes role a bigger damage dice.
The moral of the story is?
D&D might have been the first, but it was built wrong and every clone since has failed to fix the framework and instead focused on the bodywork.
Therefore because there is no roleplaying system that is remotely plausable and yet also fantastical, it is better not to worry about these things and just listen to the GM's description of the world they have created.
In conclusion then, when somebody tells you some action you want to take isn't plausable, just tell them that shields aren't metal, and Dragons cant squeeze down to the 5th level of a narrow dungeon...
Does that meen I can say all those things, do all those actions, kick the monster in the back, grab the treasure, and leave the doorway in 5 seconds flat?
If the DM lets me, yes. Alas, for some reason they want to apply a level of "realism" into preceedings.
Where on Earth did they get the idea for that?
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Jan 24, 2005 9:24:45 GMT -5
Poppy: "D&D might have been the first, but it was built wrong"
Well, it was just a game, Gygax never clamed it to be accurate really, so it can't be built wrong. I don't think the point of the game was really the accuracy of the weapons and how they worked. After all what 12 year old in late 70s America would care about those details. What is important is that you get to be a guy running around like the ones you read in The Hobbit, or LOTR, etc. and fight monsters and dragons. Sure, a system could have been developed to take into consideration all the realities you mention of real world weapons combat, but it wouldn't have the open ended freedom or simplicity that you find in AD&D. Gygax was likely well aware of the different uses of weapons in combat and how they could be used most effectively, yet he chose to keep it simple which I think was a good idea. He didn't really want a war game he wanted a role playing game that worked well and that could fit everyones idea of what fantasy weapons might be like.
Remember the spirit of the game is what is most important, and detailed combat rules migh work against that free for all spirit.
|
|