Re: on shields

From: Wulf Corbett <wulfc_at_...>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 19:48:49 +0100


On Tue, 5 Sep 2000 21:38:41 +0300 (EET DST), Mikko Rintasaari <mikrin_at_utu.fi> wrote:

>I know the effect you are thinking about Wulf, but live game and
>reenactment shields tend to differ a lot from real shields, namely they
>don't weigh nearly as much.

LRP shields certainly, but reenactment shields are usually heavier than the real ones, as they're built to last (viking shields were usually replaced every battle). Nonetheless, I agree, the real thing can be encumbering. But, as I said, any handicap caused by them must be already factored into the Close Combat skill - that is your skill, after any problems have been factored. Likewise, any bonus should also be in there already, leaving only the Edge.

>Large shields are good for shieldwalls, and defending agains missile
>weapons. An aggressive fighter in a free melee would want nothing bigger
>than a target shield.

Yes, I agree, but that's a situational modifier, not a permanent skill limit. "sword & shield" assumes a suitable shield, so does "shieldwall". Use the wrong type of shield, and the Narrator is justified in penalising you.

>A large shield gives you good coverage, but is slow to move about and
>your opponent can use the blind zone it creates for you.

No shield creates a blind spot unless you're dumb enough to hold it too high, or too far away from you. I've tried most sizes...

Wulf

Powered by hypermail