>>98156345
I dont get it, can you rephrase your bait to know what to be enraged about?

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.

>>98156345
>HOW U GONNA USE THE BOW WHEN UR SHOOTING
How are you going to NOT use the bow when shooting?

>>98156345
Rules say you can't, and more importantly, I - the GM - say you can't.

>>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.

>>98156345
Can you give a link to the thread or posts in archive or otherwise about this broken tg you are talking about? I really doubt this gibberish spam thinking of itself as a bait was posted before.

>>98156853
...to once again say nothing about the potential for fantastical/supernatural aspects that would make for fun heroic gameplay, because /his/fags and /k/fags can't into fantasy.

>>98156345
who are you pretending to be quoting?

>>98157156
Are you arguing that you should be able to use a buckler while shooting a bow, even though that would require three arms? I'm not really clear on what you're saying here.

>>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.

>>98156562
rules also say you're a major faggot

also you sound like you don't allow fighters to do anyhring but suck caster dicks

>>98164433
Autistic argument over nothing of significance is the most traditional game of all.

>>98162994
Fuck off, 2etard

File: FB_IMG_1665243584108.jpg (256 KB, 1080x1620)

256 KB JPG

>>98156391
1. Get better bait
2.

File: FB_IMG_1665243581985.jpg (290 KB, 1080x1620)

290 KB JPG

>>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?)

>>98156853
>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.

It was just a BotNS rerefence, really.

>>98164507
shouldn't arrow be on the left side of the bow?

>>98167188
It should be. I think the dude posed for the photo like that. Bowstring is only partially drawn back

>>98156627
>Can you use a buckler?
Yes
>Are you blocking shit with the buckler while shooting?
No

The issue isn't the shield the issue is a dex fighter with a longbow or crossbow wanting to get +2 AC for a shield while plinking arrows at long range as though one hand is holding a shield in front of them while the other is firing arrows. I think any reasonable person would be fine with a guy having a shield on his off hand that will be of use when he's actively fighting in melee without needing to pull a shield off his back.

>>98167188
>shouldn't arrow be on the left side of the bow?
He appears to be using a thumb ring (note the grip) so the bowstring is rotating the arrowhead toward the bow arm rather than away. He could also be using a pinch grip which wouldn't rotate it at all.

>>98167289
>Bowstring is only partially drawn back
It appears fully drawn back (note the horizontal limbs and position of the arrow tip, though the latter isn't definitive obviously) but sized to historical examples so it's slightly too small for him and so his bow arm is bent.

>>98156853
https://adnd2e.fandom.com/wiki/Shields_(AEG)

>>98156627
The shield in OP image is not a buckler. As Anon says, bucklers are definitionally center-gripped. What the archer is wearing is simply a metal shield. If it had been western it would have been called a rotella. If you're going to argue about this at least learn the basics.

>>98167188
only in modern faggy sport archery.

>>98164705
>But that's way less common than D&D's approach, I think.
Actually stop and think about where D&D editions say you can only use one thing per hand. I'm pretty sure the strongest rule to that effect in 3.X is shields themselves distinguishing between Light shields letting you use another thing in that hand with a penalty while Heavy shields do not.

Because TTRPGs are run by humans instead of innately-strictly adherent machines, there's a whole lot of awkwardness that can emerge from unstated assumptions.

>>98156345
Just houserule that it's only possible with +1 shields and you don't get the AC benefit until the start of your next turn. There, solved for D&D.

Easy workarounds can also be made for pretty much any system. Temporarily removing the defense bonus, giving a malus to the shot, limited by bow type, etc.

>>98156424
>a guy with Str 18/00

That's already in the rules. You need a special type of bow to benefit from exceptional strength.

>>98156479
>>98156391
/thread

>>98156345
As always, GURPS already solved this issue.
See the Shield Up supplement, page 21, which explains in detail about Shield Grip.
OP pic is clearly a shield held by "Enarmes" also called Arm Straps, which allow a shield to be used in the "Strapped" grip, which allows you to is hand while still having the shield ready. Specifically, this is a
>Archer’s Round. This round shield is worn strapped to the forearm, but without the grip in hand. The archer can use a bow while holding it. It is a Light, Balanced small shield with straps.