NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Helldritch" data-source="post: 8180031" data-attributes="member: 6855114">Yep. Both ways though... This is why there were skirmishers, light infantry, heavy infantry and so on. One unit could counter the other which in turn could be countered by another up to a full circle.Agreed. D&D isn't a battlefield with armies. Which is why I brought this point.I never said immune. I said hard to do. There are ways to manoeuver a shield and with the right building techniques it would make it even less likely. This means that the more experienced the shield bearer is, the less likely the manoeuver would succeed and trying it against an experienced fighter with a shield and sword (or even spear) is a sure way to get yourself open as the thrust required to "impale" the shield would require two handed spear. Once the "long" spear out of the way, the long spearman would be dead meat. Long spears were typically used against cavalry. Light infantry against long spears and so on. There were rarely the perfect case however. Yet, the shield impaling technique could work at times. And when it worked, it could almost assure the death of the shield user.It is also good to note that the roman had both spears and short sword (pilum and gladius (yes, some pilum were more javelins, I know)) with slightly curved shield to be as polyvalent as possible. It is exactly why they were so hard to beat on the battlefield. Once numeric superiority had been achieved, they would start using the "shield impaling" technique against shield users on the other side with two legionaires working together (with one using the shield and the other dropping his shield and using the long pilum both hands) . But on one on one... the technique was a bit risky to try.</blockquote>

Verification