"Are shields underrated? " Topic

Are shields underrated in most game systems?

It seems that a shield is one if not the most important piece of armor until the invention of gunpowder.

Many games systems only give the wearer a +1 modifier while Plate Mail would be rated much higher.

What do you think?

Probably, but it depends upon the To-Hit Rules, and damage.

In a D6 game, +1 is pretty significant. Obviously less so, if using other dice.

Granted, we need to take into account the possibility of missing, when using the shield in defense, or of it breaking.

However, it does seem to me that a shield could be used to parry a lot of blows, so should probably be rated better.

Fundamentally, presuming similar personal combat skills, as long as you have a shield, the other guy is going to have a hard time hurting you. A really hard time if it is a biggish shield, easier if it is small. That for person-to-person.

However, in mass combat, the shield can keep missiles off you (especially if it is big), but is of less use at keeping hand weapons away – basically because they come at you from all kinds of directions and often enough pretty rapidly. But still, even if you held it still, it covers a certain percentage of your body from being hit hard. When somebody hits you, even if it does not penetrate your armor, it will usually hurt…which is why plate (which is like wearing a mobile shield) has to be either crushed or penetrated.

On the other hand, shields do break, even without huge weapons or blows.

Many systems do not adequately represent their effect, which is generally to make troops less vulnerable to missile fire and last longer in melee combat. A Greek Hoplite, with greaves, a cuirass, and a solid helm, and covered by his hoplon (shield), usually being struck at with thrusts from spears, will take a LOT to hurt because all of his front is covered by the shield or plate armor except his face and one arm. Remove his shield and there are thighs, knees, the throat…and the at best moderate protection for the thorax from some less-than-metal cuirass.

Plus don't forget the morale issues of having your own wall.

Yes.
-Kle.

However, in mass combat, the shield can keep missiles off you (especially if it is big), but is of less use at keeping hand weapons away – basically because they come at you from all kinds of directions and often enough pretty rapidly.

If this is happening, you have bigger problems than your shield, as your unit cohesion must have gone to hell in a handbasket already.

Doug

It can also be used offensively.
Grelber

Oh – and to the original question, yes, they generally are underrated. They work grandly in a line, or you would not have had unarmored (or naked, for Ares' sake) hoplites.

Doug

Agreeing with Doug …

Herodotus makes it very clear that, in the close hand-to-hand fighting (othismos) that followed breaching the Persian shield barricade at Plataea, the Persian lack of shields was absolutely decisive…

If they had a pic of Zardoz on them…

I think they need more boobies.

And that they are underrated.

The shields, not the boobies.

The problem is less with the shield than with games than quantify troops by equipment carried, rather than troop function and perhaps an effectiveness index.

Such games are overrated.