Hey guys, just curious if anyone has made extensive use of this tactic in your games? I've been trying to think of ways to make the various armies of the Flanaess look and fight a bit differently for my game and I came across this intriguing wikpedia article.
It makes me wonder if any nations of the Flanaess have units of expert crossbowmen and if not, do you think the hogoblin armies of the Horned Society might be a good candidate for the tactic? For my part I've always considered the goblins/hobgoblins to be more technologically savvy than orcs, gnolls and ogres and to me, it just seems to fit. I also imagine them fielding units of of pikemen for some reason.
Anyway, the pavise doesn't quite seem to match up with the tower shield as it isn't "worn" so much as used as a mobile wall. It seems to have a spike and is planted in the ground, providing cover for the crossbowman while he reloads. A rank of these soldiers could plant them side-by-side, making a "pavisade", and they would then presumably stand as tall as they could and fire over when reeady.
Game mechanics wise, I daresay a pavise would be much the same as a tower shield. However, would it be fitting to remove the -2 penalty to attacks when it is planted or is this too overpowered? Opinions anyone?
Sure, I have actually designed a unit of soldiers that do this in my last Keoland campaign. I call them heavy crossbowmen, not to be mistaken with using heavy crossbows, rather, they are heavily armored.
I would treat them as cover not as an AC bonus as the user is not actively using it to defend themselves. But depending on how they were standing they would get anything from partial to full cover,
Game mechanics wise, I daresay a pavise would be much the same as a tower shield. However, would it be fitting to remove the -2 penalty to attacks when it is planted or is this too overpowered? Opinions anyone?
This is precisely what a Tower Shield was. A pavise wouldn't really be anythihng else ... and a tower shield was intended mostly to be lugged around, and set before an archer - crossbow or otherwise.
Apologies to all for only using a 3.5 perspective here. I'm using a 3.5 rule book and my earlier editions are about 800 km away unfortunately. Do 1st or 2nd edition shed any more light on the subject?
Maybe I'm just reading the rule a bit awkwardly.
I suppose it just seems odd to me to impose a penalty of -2 for shooting from behind a set tower shield. Does someone receive a -2 penalty for shooting over a 4 foot wall or from around a corner? I can understand if the penalty applies when someone is lugging around a 45 pound shield but I suppose it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to impose a penalty when the pavise is set up.
I suppose from a 3.5 perspective the spirit of what is written could be as Vonbek says- that when you are firing from behind you get partial cover of +4 AC and when you are hiding behind it to reload you have total cover from the folks in front of you. The -2 penalty in this case should probably be applied when having to fight while actually lugging it, not after it is placed.
So to draw the question back to the general discussion flavour, we have one Keoish heavy armoured crossbow soldier. Has anyone else explored the idea?
According to ItU:
The Northern Province has the Imperial Highlanders that use tower shields - The orc of the Bone March call them "wall fiends".
I think several other nations that fit the crossbow culture; I view the martial weapons more as a means to distinguish the nations. Crossbow and tower shields seem to fit with armies that are more formal and organized. I would have no problem with the hobgoblin armies using the shield as an elite unit.
Last edited by Crag on Sun May 02, 2010 3:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
Long time ago, first edition, I played a halfogre who used door size shield called a mantlet with a balista. Had to reforumlate shield rules. _________________ Plar of Poofy Pants
Apologies to all for only using a 3.5 perspective here. I'm using a 3.5 rule book and my earlier editions are about 800 km away unfortunately. Do 1st or 2nd edition shed any more light on the subject.
The pavisse is not even listed in 1e, even in the siege section of the DMG.
2e has the "body shield", a 15 lb. warboard that gives +1 AC, +2 vs missiles. It is also said to be heavy and encumbering, but no penalty is really given to carrying this monster around(other than its 15 lb. weight), and it is expected to be carried around oddly enough.
Then we have the 3.XE tower shield which weighs 45lbs. This is obviously a large and very thick shield, and its dimensions and massive weight serve to differentiate it from a large shield in a major way, as well as in the way that its rules work- it provides Cover rather than an AC bonus. A tower shield is best described as a pavisse and not something you are going to have strapped to your arm(some will no doubt do it though due to character Strength enhancements ), but is something you will either stake into the ground, prop up, have shield bearer hold, or simply hold it up yourself and hide behind it. If you do carry it around on one arm it will slow you down simply due to its encumberance, and that will limit your fighting capability against more lightly equipped opponents such as harassing skirmishers.
As to Greyhawk, this type of shield is going to be very rare and used almost exclusively by specialized missile troops. Historical examples mostly include crossbowmen, the Genoese being especially well known for producing such mercenary troops, but any similarly well provisioned city or nation in the Flanaess could field such troops. More established kingdoms and especially militaristic nations would be the most likely candidates for having units that make use of tower shields.
Another use for tower shields is to create a strong point where there previously was none. This could be a wall of tower shields along a ridge top, or a square of them to form a defensible position on open ground, similar to a Roman night front. Any number of larger armies might employ tower shields to such a purpose. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
The WoG Guide speaks of "crossbowmen", which I would take to mean specialists armed with heavy crossbows, in relation to the Companion Guard of the Great Kingdom, Irongate, Perrenland, Ratik, Rel Astra, Duchy of Ulek, and the Yeomanry. Ket employs a large number of pikes and crossbows, so it's probably safe to assume these are specialized troops.
The pavisse is not even listed in 1e, even in the siege section of the DMG.
True, but if you consider a pavisse or mantlet as a "construction" rather than as "armor", the following section of the DMG might be helpful:
p. 64 Missile Fire Cover and Concealment Adjustments
"Adjust the armor class of the the target creature as follows if cover (hard substances which protect)...exists:
TARGET HAS ABOUT / ARMOR CLASS BONUS
25% cover / +2
50% cover / +4
75% cover / +7
90% cover / +10
25% is cover...to the knees, or part of the left side or right side of the body...it might also be a target which is seen for only three-quarters of a round. Men on a walled parapet would typically be 25% covered.
50% cover...equals protection...to the waist, half of one side of the body, or being seen for only half of the round...men on a castle wall with embrasures and merlons would be at least 50% covered.
Shuttered embrasures and narrow windows would provide 75% cover, while arrow slits offer 90% cover."
Given this, if someone had a high-rate-of-fire missile weapon, I would allow the pavisse to provide 50% cover (+4 AC to missiles). If someone had a slow-rate-of-fire missile weapon that could be loaded while completely covered but then discharged while partially exposed (for example, loading a heavy crossbow by cranking or lying prone with a belt hook) I would give them 75% cover (+7 AC) to include both the protection while seen and time spent unseen.
One of the characters in my own campaign has a ship defended in part by human shieldmen holding pavisses in front of dwarven heavy crossbowmen, both recruited from the region of Perrenland. As they are ship-board, the encumbrance of the pavisses doesn't matter much, and allows the individuals to be more lightly armored. _________________ My campaigns are multilayered tapestries upon which I texture themes and subject matter which, quite frankly, would simply be too strong for your hobbyist gamer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mp7Ikko8SI
Apologies to all for only using a 3.5 perspective here. Maybe I'm just reading the rule a bit awkwardly.
Another possibility (since the other stats have been provided above) is to use the Pathfinder option:
Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, p.153 wrote:
Shield, Tower: This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC [+4]. As a standard action, however, you can use a tower shield to grant you total cover until the beginning of your next turn. When using a tower shield in this way, you must choose one edge of your space. That edge is treated as a solid wall for attacks targeting you only. You gain total cover for attacks that pass through this edge and no cover for attacks that do not pass through this edge (see Chapter 8). The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.
When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance.
In this way, it is (technically possible to carry a tower shield [pavise, or manlet] though no soldier in his right mind would do it, because of the encumbrance involved. It weighs 45 lbs, and quite likely means that the PC using it isn't likely to be carrying a light load (though it is possible) when weapons and other armor is considered - thus there are additional penalties for carrying such a massive shield. Which, IMO, is basically why they had sheildmen to begin with - to carry the damnable things for you! _________________ Owner and Lead Admin: https://greyhawkonline.com<div>Editor-in-Chief of the Oerth Journal: https://greyhawkonline.com/oerthjournal</div><div>Visit my professional art gallery: https://wkristophnolen.daportfolio.com</div>
And now for some further ideas and complications (for the players).
So with a 3.5 tower shield, the person using it can take the standard action to achieve total cover. He therefore has a move action left to reload a light crossbow. And lets say the person with the tower shield is a slave of the hobgoblins - chained to the shield - whose role is to move it about for his hobgoblin master as well as helping reload the crossbows to keep up the rate of fire.
Now, what protection would the hobgoblin wielding the crossbow have if a pavise was only to be a tower shield? Not total cover, indeed would the hobgoblin have any cover?
As an idea, perhaps a "pavise" is different from a tower shield. Perhaps it can stand on its own - stakes built into the bottom, etc. - so that the person immediately behind it can take full round actions to reload those heavy crossbows. Additionally, perhaps it can provide cover (not total) to the second space behind it - for the shooter (perhaps the shooter needs to be kneeling). Such a contraption should be heavier though, and not useful as a shield on the arm. Its not a shield, but merely a portable section of wall.
Would hobgoblins use such a thing? I think so, with their lawful, organized nature, they could definitely see it as useful to have a slave moving portable cover around the battlefield, and then helping to reload crossbows. The hobgoblins might also dedicate enough resources to make sure their crossbowmen have multiple crossbows to keep the rate of fire up.
Oh, wait, did I mention I had this very thing done by some orcs (directed by the much more organized and tactically savvy mind flayers and related parasites who were controlling their leaders' pathetic minds)?
If you have them available, refer to the rules for volley fire in Heroes of Battle. These are the sort of things that makes a bunch of 1st level warrior cannon fodder dangerous to even mid-level characters - especially out of doors and at long ranges.
Oh wait, the rules for volley fire could be summarized as:
(summarized because its not part of the SRD)
Ten or more archers, with one identified as leader for targeting purposes, taking a full round action to launch a single missile. The attack roll is done by the leader against AC 15 (who must have line of sight to target area). In the event of a hit, the arrows land in a number of five foot squares identical in number and shape as the five foot squares occupied by the archers. Creatures in the target area must save Ref DC 15 or take damage as if hit by one missile. The DC is increased by one for each enhancement bonus applicable to the missiles. The DC is reduced by 2 for each range increment beyond the first. The DC is also reduced by 2 if more than half the archers do not have line of sight to the target area.
Variation is concentrated volley - leader for aiming purposes makes attack v. AC 20. Upon hit, volley goes into one 5' square. Creature/s in that square takes damage from one fifth of the missiles launched, Ref DC 15 for half damage. DC modified as for regular volley.
Volleys don't really miss - use grenade like missile scatter diagram to determine where they land, p 158 Player's Handbook.
Lets just say I appreciate your view that the pavise might make your players think twice about crossbowmen.
David Friedman wrote a book called “Harald”, a non-magic fantasy setting. His characters make many uses of pavises. Baen.com has the e-book for free, very good reading, with a bit about how the pavises are deployed/used. My take is the things are sturdy, yet light enough to be deployed via horseback (the units that used them extensively were mounted light infantry). And not so resource intensive/expensive that there are any issues of staying to “protect” the things if your position starts to get overrun- just leave them and run like Hades.
David Friedman wrote a book called “Harald”, a non-magic fantasy setting. His characters make many uses of pavises. Baen.com has the e-book for free, very good reading, with a bit about how the pavises are deployed/used.
Thanks! I was trying to remember the name of that book just a couple of weeks ago.
David Friedman wrote a book called “Harald”, a non-magic fantasy setting. His characters make many uses of pavises. Baen.com has the e-book for free, very good reading, with a bit about how the pavises are deployed/used. My take is the things are sturdy, yet light enough to be deployed via horseback (the units that used them extensively were mounted light infantry). And not so resource intensive/expensive that there are any issues of staying to “protect” the things if your position starts to get overrun- just leave them and run like Hades.
I met Friedman about 15 years ago, but didn't realize who he was at the time. He's well-known in medieval-reenactment circles, and is also the son of economist Milton Friedman.
In regards to the 2.e. Body Shield, my interpretation is that it represents somethign akin to the Normal kite shield, the Roman scutum, or Greek hoplon. In other words, a shield that covers a good portio of the body, but is not necessarily thicker than another shield. Probably not the adventurer's primary choice for crawling in dungeons, but a good defensive tool for heavy infantry who form a shield wall with it (or tetsudo). The pavise, and other shields under discussion are basically portable cover, since they are not actually worn by the character.
In 2e; the noman kite shield would be considered a medium shield as would the others. The body shield aka tower shield according to A&E Guide is much heavier.
The character using it can not perform another function but hold it upright. It is used as defensive cover primarily for crossbowmen. The guide has a nice picture of the shield which shows it is not easy to maneuver. Though interesting much like masses of polearms which are good for armies are not suited for adventurers.
Good catch on the kite shield. I still treat something like a Pavise as cover, and a body shield as a distinct item. Basically, it somes down to thickness and support for me. A pavise is set up on a stand or has a fellow holding it up on his own, whereas a body shield is a larger version of a medium shiedl. Of course , it is all up to rules interpretation. The good folks at WOTC and TSR before them made a great game, but they are not always experts in medieval arms and armor I have found.
The pavise is a movable wall, not a shield to be carried at all. The best type of wooden pavise would have two wheels and a couple of bars to lean it back on when it was moved into position. It was wide enough for two archers (crossbowmen) to stand behind to reload and be completely out of line of sight from enemy bowmen. It stood taller than the archers. It had two cross-shaped arrow slits side-by-side for the two archers behind it to fire from after loading each shot. If it needed to be moved, the archers weapons and ammunition could be hooked onto the back, the bars lifted by the two archers, and then wheeled into a new position - all the while, the two archers would be behind their moving wall (unless they turned at a right angle to the enemy ).
In game terms, this would provide 90% cover converting to a +10 bonus to AC for the archers behind the pavise. It could be protected from fire similarly to efforts used to protect siege towers.
A tower shield, in my mind, is more like a large kite shield - large enough to be carried by a strong warrior, but a bit of a hindrance in a close combat melee. Thus, in real life, such shields were carried into battle by champions (or their shield-bearers) for protection against enemy archers, but were discarded once the hand-to-hand melee began.
For an interesting example of the above, read the Bible's description of David's encounter with Goliath.
I smell a...stale odor. Be mindful of the year of posts, not just the month(I am betting the month got you), and reply with that in mind. Just sayin'. It happens to the best of us. That being said, very few threads are ever declared truly dead on Canonfire!, and this surely isn't one of them. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises