Community

rutrow424 wrote:

I will admit to having no actual shield experience, but the historical record and documentaries I have seen don't totally agree with you on the ineffectiveness of shield fighting. Bear in mind this relates to European history as opposed to Asia or others.

Shield fighting is incredibly effective...in small groups.

Outside of Hoplites, shields are terrible on a line. They're also not that good when you're in fairly decent armor as they just get in your way. The most obvious large military forces I can think of that used shields extensively were the Normans with kite shields and the Hoplites with hoplons. There are pygmies and African forces that use shields, of course, and there have been lots of individual fighters (like the Black Prince being shown with a heater shield), but the shield, by itself, isn't a great war tool.

It's more than a good idea for a standard D&D character, though.

rutrow424 wrote:

Shields were used throughout history as the most effective way to avoid being hit - that being the primary goal of most persons expecting to be fighting. That may be stating the obvious, but needs to be remembered - most combatants were looking for a way to balance offense with defense, with defense being more important. Until the heavy full plate armors were developed, the armor you wore on your body was unlikely to protect you from a direct hit, making the shield vital if you intended to survive a combat against most foes.

The best way to avoid being hit is to, well, avoid being hit. Parrying and dodging is much more effective than trying to block with either a sword or a shield (which is why the buckler is used the way that it is). When maille became the chief means of defense (Normans, First and Second Crusades, the mid to high Medieval period), shields were, largely, abandoned for longswords. Most knights still carried shields, but in most conflicts they weren't used. Shields are great in skirmishes, but not so much in large warfare (and nearly worse in a single duel of any kind). It's just cumbersome.

Unless, of course, you're fighting like a swashbuckler or a malmuke. That's different, though.

rutrow424 wrote:

Plate armors lessened (and eventually eliminated) the need/desire to have a shield for defense, allowing more usage of larger (ie 2 handed) weapons. Once firearms become prevalent, even armor becomes a waste of $, and what I consider the classic idea of fencing you seem to have discussed comes into play (sword/dagger or sword/buckler). I certainly would not want to count on my off-hand dagger to deflect an incoming axe swing, something most fencing schools would not have even considered a possibility, since axes were no longer common weapons.

Deflecting an axe swing is surprisingly easy. Since all the weight is in the head, a little bit of Aikido-like redirection isn't that difficult.

The shield, though, mostly fell out of use because of how awkward they are. It's pretty telling that the most memorable uses are by the Normans, using war swords in full maille, and their late Medieval/Early Dark ages progeny, the mounted competition knight. Generally, it's better to get out of the way than rely on a shield to absorbe a blow for you. Shields are, in that instance, best used against arrows rather than oponents in melee.

rutrow424 wrote:

As always, these are not hard rules - fighting styles (and equipment) varied widely based upon region, economics, and specific era.

As for the game, the balance does need to be improved to make shield use a competitive choice. With magic gear to be less important in 4e's balance, I hope they can do it.

Of course; I fully support the idea of shields being a better choice in-game. It's just not true that shields are an incredibly useful tool that everyone's forsaken for some reason. Shields are awkward, (comparitively) heavy, and don't offer the protection that a lot of people think they do.