tog
Level 4 Theurgist
Detect Meal & What Kind
Posts: 148
|
Post by tog on Jul 1, 2014 6:39:17 GMT -6
Also, found this detailing the various types of helmets and their evolution. Thought it was interesting. View AttachmentThat's nifty - it's gone into my D&D folder with the chart I found showing the evolution of swords. You can puncture a shield with a dagger, let alone what a battle axe will do. Yes they will sometimes stop arrows from full penetration, and sometimes not. (Hurstwic has some information posted on this topic I believe) Ironically a heavy wood shield would do better versus arrows than a fancy metal one, if you think about it. On-topic, I think I prefer helmets as part of AC, and I like the idea of 2-handed swords getting sweep attacks - reminds me of the sweep attack rule from Melee in which a successful attack with a big sword does damage to every figure in your front arc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 10:50:44 GMT -6
If anybody really gives a crap about the way Dave and Gary actually played it, all armor except plate had head covering of equivalent type included, and protective helmets of any kind were not subject to being broken. That provision only applied to such things as the 'Helm of Telepathy' to make it a difficult choice to wear it all the time. This is the way I have always played it except that all armor was required to have an equivalent helmet to be complete so a player purchasing armor always had to purchase a helmet and "protective helmets of any kind were not subject to being broken". And "That provision only applied to such things as the 'Helm of Telepathy' to make it a difficult choice to wear it all the time."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 11:04:13 GMT -6
Well, the real problem is that folks of this day and age simply don't understand what a "shield" is - a misperception exacerbated by SCA and Larp boffer fighting styles. One handed Shields are not and never were miniature hand held walls. Shields are great big weapons used to pummel, smack, bang and bash your opponent while obscuring yourself (cover). They also work to deflect/parry attacks if used properly, but certainly will NOT stop a direct frontal hit with any amount of effort put behind it. You can puncture a shield with a dagger, let alone what a battle axe will do. Yes they will sometimes stop arrows from full penetration, and sometimes not. (Hurstwic has some information posted on this topic I believe) Emphasis added. Do you have any links to information about this? It would seem that a shield that could be penetrated by a dagger would be less than useless. My brother a couple of years ago was trying to build a homemade shield just for fun. IIRC it was fairly easy to build a shield that would only take scratches from a dagger; however, it was a completely different ball game trying to stop an arrow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 12:55:14 GMT -6
Emphasis added. Do you have any links to information about this? It would seem that a shield that could be penetrated by a dagger would be less than useless. My brother a couple of years ago was trying to build a homemade shield just for fun. IIRC it was fairly easy to build a shield that would only take scratches from a dagger; however, it was a completely different ball game trying to stop an arrow. I have problems with more of this then the idea that daggers can puncture shields. I'm bothered by the whole idea of shifting a shield from a defensive item to a secondary weapon. I have no doubt that shields were used to push, slam, and buffet an enemy. But, I must take exception to the idea that this was their primary purpose while at the same time deminishing their true defensive qualities. It's odd, if this were the case, why a jousting knight would carry a shield at all. I would also have to question why there exists historical practices such as shield walls. I understand that the use of pikes (a two handed weapon) often replaced shields in this manner over time. This actually suggests to me that pikes have a more defensive role, not that shields have a more offensive one. Seperately, I do like the idea of making helmets more vital as protective gear. Here is the site that aldarron references. I think his point is somewhat over stated considering the web page is devoted solely to the Viking age and technology. There is also plenty of information sited on it's primary defensive use by the Viking's. www.hurstwic.com/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_shields.htmHere's a quote from the site. It re-enforces the idea of a shield being defensive in nature and, interestingly, supports the importance of wearing a helm (possibly greaves too). "The Viking shield is a very effective defense. It is worth noting that a shield does not absorb the shock of the blow. Rather, it redistributes the shock over a larger area, making it possible for the human body to absorb the force of the blow with reduced risk of injury. Additionally, the shield can be used to push an attack off-line, so that the attack is no longer a direct threat. The shield blocks many lines of attack simultaneously. In a neutral, relaxed position, the shield protects from neck to knees (left). The head and the lower legs are exposed and unprotected. Thus, the head and lower leg were likely targets. While the shield can be moved rapidly to ward off blows coming in from a variety of directions, studies of skeletal remains show that many battle injuries occurred to the head and legs." I see now that the referenced site is talking about wooden shields, and not metal plated over wood.
|
|