So, I've been running some mock combats against myself. Not ideal, I know, since so much depends on that initial throw (I've just been assuming various permutations). Does anyone want to "spar" via AIM or something?
***
My rules question is: why would anyone choose a "heater" or "kite" shield over a round shield? To protect against arrows, perhaps? Because otherwise, the only advantage the two larger shields have is that their AV is better; the DTNs of all three are the same, and using the larger shields incurs much stiffer penalties. But the way the rules work, at least so I thought, the AV from your shield is pretty much never going to protect you from a melee attack. Your opponent will always choose a zone not covered by your shield. You can block, of course, but then it's the success or failure of your block which determines whether you got the shield in the way, not the size of the shield.
Matt
QuoteMy rules question is: why would anyone choose a "heater" or "kite" shield over a round shield?
In game mechanics I have no clue, in the real world. A kite and heater shields provide better leg protection. The kite shield was designed for use on horseback where is greater length would protect the entirety of the offside leg of a mounted man. The heater was a devolvement of the kite, which came about due to improvement in leg armour and shifts in fighting styles. While fighting on foot a heater is as protective as a round shield but allow for a calmer defense. You can block more easily without expending as much energy as you would with a round. Also the heaters point extends to cover the legs. The legs were a primary target in a melee. A shot to the knee or shin can often be blocked by pushing the heater down or rotating the point to intercept the blow. Not really the answer you were looking for, I'll got back under my rock now.
The common answer is, as you say, for protection against arrows & other passive defence. The larger shields cover a larger area - which means even if one is not blocking, the larger sheilds will reduce the number of places the attacker can hit.
Having played with shields for a bit, I would also be inclined to not give the attacker the bonus 2 CP for attacking the lower legs of someone with a kite shield. The sheild normally stretches from shoulder to knee, and it seems to me it wouldn't be that hard to shift it down just a little to guard the lower leg.
If you go through the threads in the sticky at the top, you'll find this question raised in there, along with a lot of basic things.
QuoteI would also be inclined to not give the attacker the bonus 2 CP for attacking the lower legs of someone with a kite shield.
I agree, though a +1 might be warranted as opposed to the +2.
Though the heater's leg protection was not much more than that from a larger round shield (talking about those around 36" in diameter, not something like Wallace's Scot's targes), so I'm not sure if the heater would get the +1 as a kite, or be treated on par with the round.
The heater evolved around the same time that mail chausses became pretty standard for a decently armoured horseman, be it knight or man-at-arms. Makes sense that the heater did not protect the legs as well, as they were not as much of a priority anymore.
I never did understand how using a shield makes your legs easier to hit. A consolation prize in game balance maybe, seeing as how they're one of the only targets available?
I would guess that it makes the legs a more tempting target cause they are not covered by the Shield. Also a shield blocks your view. Often you can hide behind your opponent shield blocking his view of your actions.
Quote from: CazI never did understand how using a shield makes your legs easier to hit. A consolation prize in game balance maybe, seeing as how they're one of the only targets available?
Shield fighters--both in modern reinactment that allows it and in archealogical finds--are always getting hit in the legs. The bonus is there to encourage emulation of the historical tendency. I'm always reminded (haunted?) by Wisby - something like 70% of the bodies had leg wounds visible on thier bones.
Jake
"Also a shield blocks your view."
Only if you don't know how to use it properly.
"The bonus is there to encourage emulation of the historical tendency."
I see. Encouragement sounds better than saying a shield makes your legs easier to hit ;) IRL often being the best available target without having to do anything fancy is encouragement enough apparently. Cool.
Makes me think tho, perhaps it would be better to give an activation cost for shield blocking below the knees, rather than a bonus for attacking there? I'm going to try that one out.
Quote from: CazMakes me think tho, perhaps it would be better to give an activation cost for shield blocking below the knees, rather than a bonus for attacking there? I'm going to try that one out.
Yeah, that would be a more accurate representation, I think. And not necesssarily less elegant.
Jake
Quote from: Jake NorwoodQuote from: CazI never did understand how using a shield makes your legs easier to hit. A consolation prize in game balance maybe, seeing as how they're one of the only targets available?
Shield fighters--both in modern reinactment that allows it and in archealogical finds--are always getting hit in the legs. The bonus is there to encourage emulation of the historical tendency. I'm always reminded (haunted?) by Wisby - something like 70% of the bodies had leg wounds visible on thier bones.
Jake
Thats because it's one oof the only places you can strike a guy with a large shield, but an experienced shield fighter knows this and will protect his legs (most of the Sweedish peasants who were defeated at Wisby were probably not well trained). Attacking a competent shield wielding opponent who is in a defensive posture is very difficult and dangerous, as you know. It's far better to wait until they expose themselves. Remember what I showed you during our few bouts at SK? You can strike when they strike, that is when they are most open for attack. Either way you have to be immediatley ready for their counter. If they are fighting aggressively and you don't have a shield you better have a lot of room to run.
Along these lines it's worth noting that the figure you quote from Wisby was not for all the bodies, it was the small percentage of the bodies who had signs of trauma to the bones. Most of the bodies (80%?) did not have noticable trauma to their bones, probably because they were killed from injuries to the soft tissues of their bodies, like their necks, thighs and bellies, probably often from thrusts.
One guy though apparently had both legs hacked off at the knees, apparently with one stroke! Also, those with injuries to their lower right legs often also had injuries to their heads and right arms, from the followup attacks. Must have been an ugly sight.
JR
This is another mass grave from the period.
http://www.bradford.ac.uk/acad/archsci/depart/report97/towton.htm
Where is this rule about the shield making the legs easier to hit?
Matt
In the section that lists optional modifiers for certain locations (its near the end of the book right before the damage tables, don't have my book handy). One of the modifiers is +2CP for attacks to the legs against an opponent using a shield.
Personally that isn't a rule I've ever understood. I can see some logic to the argument that it might be mroe difficult to lower a shield to cover ones legs, and also that having a shield might make it harder to see atacks coming from down low, but I never could see how it would make enough of a diference to justify +2CP.
We don't use this rule in my group, though we also have only one person who uses a shield in among the PCs and seldom have NPCs armed with them (I tend to arm my mooks with spears and my "boss mob" NPCs with 2 handers and armor).
QuoteWe don't use this rule in my group, though we also have only one person who uses a shield in among the PCs and seldom have NPCs armed with them
TROS makes the use of shields somewhat less effective than the really are IMO. I also believe this is intentional, as weapon/shield combos are more defensive and perhaps less interesting.
Quote from: Turin
TROS makes the use of shields somewhat less effective than the really are IMO. I also believe this is intentional, as weapon/shield combos are more defensive and perhaps less interesting.
This is true.
Jake
Of course, with the styles of sword-and-shield now being advocated by some people, with the shield outstretched and edge on to the opponent, distance makes the front leg much easier to defend, and actually turns the fighting into a much more dynamic event. I have fought against several people using shields of various sizes, and it is a bitch!
James
I have made rules that if the characters are in a rain of arrows, the bigger shields have a better % save against them, becouse as i see it, when arrows is raining, or you simply count on hiding behind a shield against one or more arrows, then its really only the size of the shield. ie a kind of % save who count. In our group we don't use that you can out dodge arrows in an effective manner really.
also we play with that the extra dice you get when you attack legs when the oppnent has shield, is cancelled with using large kite shield, actually you get -1 dice with using it the legs are the target in our house rules.
We also try to imploy the effectivness when using the kite shield for shield side leg protection when riding a horse. also we house rule that on horse shields are kinda non-active defence mechanism, its rather hard to move a shield on the non-shield side of the horse (ie the side where your weapon is), in a fast and effective manner.
Shields are kinda powerfull in our group, but actually there are manouvers to out-wit over-shield-use. it has worked fine until now, remeber to use the CP modifers for using shields, then you have no problems i think.