Showing all 34 replies.
>>
>>
That's a bow with a draw weight of maybe fifteen pounds. It's basically a child's toy, and deals slightly less damage than just picking up a rock and throwing it, and against any target more than fifty feet away will have its arrows stopped by even just a jacket.
In D&D terms, it would deal 1d2 damage, and would struggle to kill a rabbit.
>>
>>98156391
And the D&D damage mechanism wouldn't punish it enough, because it would ask the question "shouldn't a guy with Str 18/00 or Dex 20 be able to get a big +damage with it?"
And the answer is no. If you were trying to realistically import this into AD&D or D&D 3e you would do so with a block of text and it would not be a good weapon. In 5e there just isn't even room for it.
An area D&D has always been weaker at is modeling shields smaller than a buckler or larger than a kite shield. Small historical shields, especially those used with a bow, aren't anything nearly that substantial but obviously are better than having nothing. Some D&D games have a design space for a +1 AC shield and a +2 AC shield, but even then, these things should probably be something like +0.5 AC- too fiddly.
>>
>>98156424
>>98156391
Thats a buckler and a short bow, dumbasses. Both are already in AD&D and 3.5, and who knows why 5e doesn't have anything more than the generic Shield.
>>
>>98156479
I mean it's not a buckler by the definition of a buckler.
Anyway, the reason this shield isn't represented in any version of D&D is that there's just not room for it. This shield would give like half an AC point, and probably give a minus -0.5 to hit with the bow.
More broadly it's because they simplified the weapons table immensely, which had good and bad effects, and there's precious little space for weirdo semi-effective things like this in versions with huge weapons tables, and certainly nothing in D&D 5e.
>>
>>
>>
>>98156371
To try and break it down for OP, some /his/ or /k/ realism-fags got mad or tried baiting people that you can't wear a buckler and effectively loose arrows, and in true /tg/ fashion, multiple massive posts in support and opposition of the idea ensued, with due trolling and shitflinging we've always been infamous for.
The arguments that were well-constructed still only worked in the context of gritty realism/alternate history/historicals, and ignored any attempts to apply fantasy concepts, be they superhuman strength, multiple limbs, magical powers, etc as these weapons debates always do, in spite of fantasy being a huge part of the hobby.
The biggest takeaway is the majority of the arguments didn't even address games, which is also in line with /tg/'s style of argumentation, unfortunately.
It's a monumental waste of time and energy, overall.
>>
>>98156627
>you can't wear a buckler and effectively loose arrows
I mean you literally can't. A buckler is definitionally held in the hand in every case. You need both hands to shoot a bow.
Obviously the shields shown in OP did exist historically, but they wouldn't be modeled in D&D as something nearly as strong as "well a shield is +2 AC and you can enchant it and you get the full benefits of it all times while shooting a bow". It would be something way less than that.
>It's a monumental waste of time and energy, overall.
Yea anyone trying to bring in some edge historical case is usually trying to import something broken- either because they are a munchkin, or they are engaging in some shitty internet nihilism ("see, your version is either unbalanced or unrealistic, you should just give up now really"). There's not much good faith effort to port historical weapons, shields, and armor, into any version of D&D since 3.X, and really not since the oldest D&D versions have we seen good faith attempts to bring things in from history (even "studded leather" was based on real armor depictions and simply misunderstood).
I'd rather see someone try to bring 3.0's Mercurial Greatsword in. At least that thing was badass as a power fantasy concept.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>98157575
Read >>98156627 and you'll see all my arguments.
I brought up >>98157156 specifically because once again it's all about gritty realism and historicals with the faggots here, and never about potential applications for fantasy games, because it would be nice to talk about the fantasy game side of the hobby for once, instead of the gritty historical realism side of it.
I don't think I can be any more clear about the points I'm getting across.
>>
>>98156853
>mean you literally can't. A buckler is definitionally held in the hand in every case. You need both hands to shoot a bow.
Surprisingly few rules systems quite explicate that you can only have one thing in a given hand, and a remarkable amount of real-life archery techniques rely on exactly such leeway. Using a buckler to defend WHILE the same hand is holding the frame of the bow is going to be a pain, and there are significant ergonomic issues for the drawing hand, of course.
>Obviously the shields shown in OP did exist historically, but they wouldn't be modeled in D&D as something nearly as strong as "well a shield is +2 AC and you can enchant it and you get the full benefits of it all times while shooting a bow". It would be something way less than that.
Elvencraft bows and Animated Tower Shields look down upon you.
>There's not much good faith effort to port historical weapons, shields, and armor, into any version of D&D since 3.X, and really not since the oldest D&D versions have we seen good faith attempts to bring things in from history (even "studded leather" was based on real armor depictions and simply misunderstood).
And then there's the section of Book of Exalted Deeds page 11 titled "Being Ahead of Your Time" injecting Whig history into a prescriptive ontology the cosmology's earliest recognizable prehistory is built around.
>I'd rather see someone try to bring 3.0's Mercurial Greatsword in. At least that thing was badass as a power fantasy concept.
I've had some thoughts about breadth-wise offshoots of the channel for fluid-hammer effect and Specific Magic Weapon versions using the Frostburn special material ices and Heat Metal. Though I tend to get dragged into far more convoluted mechanical energy subsystem thoughts with unreasonably modular crossbows.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: FB_IMG_1665243584108.jpg (255.8 KB)
>>98156391
1. Get better bait
2.
>>
File: FB_IMG_1665243581985.jpg (289.7 KB)
>>98164504
>>
>>98156853
>I mean you literally can't. A buckler is definitionally held in the hand in every case. You need both hands to shoot a bow.
Yes, because your tiny manlet hands prohibit you from both gripping the buckler handle and the bow, but that's a (you) issue.
You can use full shields with arm straps with a bow, as shown by >>98164504 and >>98164507 not to mention there were fucking full cover (tower in DnD terms) shields in use by archers and crossbowmen.
Naturally, in a crunchy enough system (though I'd definitely allow for it even in narrative driven systems), you SHOULD be able to counter such an archer's shield by readying your attacks to attack/hit him at the exact moment he tries to shoot his bow, but dismissing the possibility of shield wielding archers entirely comes way too close to simple and biased balance niggery.
And with that said, I've yet to see anyone complain about or advocate for two handed weapon users also wearing (large and/or tower) shields, which is absolutely possible (by wearing them over the non-dominant shoulder), especially with polearms.
>>
>>98159503
>Surprisingly few rules systems quite explicate that you can only have one thing in a given hand
I think this is just incorrect, at least as far as systems that try to model what you're doing. Like if you're playing a game where "melee attack" is a thing you can do as long as you have something that's a melee weapon somewhere, then the action economy is going to be the limiter and the game isn't going to care what specific weapon you have in general. But that's way less common than D&D's approach, I think.
>Yes, because your tiny manlet hands prohibit you from both gripping the buckler handle and the bow, but that's a (you) issue.
Nah, your homosexual fantasy buff guy has the problem too. See, the way it works is, you literally can't do what you describe, and it's fucking retarded to think otherwise. Other things- such as a shield being lightly positioned correctly, or strapped to a back (which had some benefit in AD&D at least), all do things that are way less impressive than what a shield would normally do when wielded directly. A game that doesn't model this isn't exactly failing, it probably is choosing to not model the smaller modifiers that these things imply.
>>
>>98164600
>time your attacks to attack/hit him at the exact moment he tries to shoot his bow
With the round shield and buckler, the protection offered by the shield is marginal tbqh. Powerful bows and crossbows might still have power to penetrate the shield beyond close range, and into your back/side. Plus, you're not gonna be constantly twisting with a bow as you draw and loose, as they don't offer frontal protection.
Obviously, it'd make sense with a pavise.
>>
I don't understand why people are mad you can wear (key word) a shield and use a bow. All it does is allow you to carry a shield you can switch to for close combat, and for some shields, to quickly grip it. You're not gonna be using it to defend yourself from enemy archers, unless you're turning around with the shield on your back (do we know if it was actually done in practice?)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
(�/�c)g�h�� 3 �����[l⥋���|!��v�Y#[[��]t�S_���K<�)���2�J�EO�5��x�+�q �a��_&ul��������;�h�%�iZ�{�����Q�@XL?*.�q��Z�% ��S��lh�pjft-�'��w��I\njf/T̻Ke5�jy���,�h����Ct���X=�� yԋ�+"g�I[|m�&�\���k�0����" z� M"%V� P����.���OO�ne�
>>
>>
>>
>>
(�/�c)g�he ӄ N� m�j�9�>��b��:2c���GKK����o��Ff�#�d[�s�7�'�=�d&̌D� yʵ�9 Թ C���32�4au� ���k�B��#p����� �{B�=e���;�=ٶ�<.�����Rw�BD"�bZ[�kh38%���&��Dg*ByÆ.o� �� �~U�����>��*M bY�gE�s��"� ��e�ɹ�M�=�am=��ZYJ"ۋ��=+��V� "Ϊ�