fulk

I suppose, to some extent, it is a question of game design. I prefer to just tell PCs that if they carry around a shield in town it will cause trouble. Everything doesn't need to be built into the game rules. I'm not a fan of optimizing. I prefer a more 'realistic' approach. No one sat around in armor all the time. EG, in the Song of Roland there is even a scene of Roland's force putting on their hauberks when they realize a battle will happen. They weren't traveling all armored up. As for use or not use of shields, there are many reasons for NOT using them. In Western Europe, they fall out of use as plate armor becomes more effective. For one, you just don't need the shield as much to ward off missiles because longbows etc won't really penetrate later 15C plate. Second, most melee troops switch to 2H weapons because a 1H sword just won't hurt some one in plate armor. As an aside, for later 15C European plate the left shoulder and elbow pieces are often enhanced to essentially function as shields. In Japan, I'm not really clear why they disappeared or weren't heavily used. For one, I don't think samurai ever really used them. The samurai have their origins as horse archers and used the Japanese version of longbows extensively (unlike their western counterparts). Use a bow seems like a good reason to not focus on shield use and instead develop 2H sword play (at least when on foot). In relation to the above, social and comfort reasons are certainly important. However, there are certainly 'military' reasons to not use a shield. Mobility is one. However, use of 2H weapons for whatever reason is another. In some cases that might be for more damage (halberd) in others it might be for more reach (pike etc). In RQ terms, I might give up the defense of a shield to gain reach, lower my SR and do more damage. However, from a purely defensive point of view (my % to block), I think the shield should win out. I think it is also important to acknowledge that different societies have different traditions. All their choices may not be optimal or may be optimal for their social or physical environment. NT

Rapiers were most certainly NOT super weapons piercing through plate armor and driving it off the field. Rapiers were known to snap against plate. Side swords, rapiers and small swords were all civilian weapons, not intended for use on the battle field by or against heavily armed troops. Nobles and officers might still carry a rapier or lighter sword as a secondary or tertiary weapon, but in many cases the sword was more of a symbol of rank than a primary weapon. Certainly through the mid 1500, longswords (hand-and-a-half) were still one of the primary weapons carried by the upper classes. Infantry might carry a shorter sword (eg katzbalger) as a secondary weapon but their main weapons were either 2H or missiles. By the mid to end of the 15C (in Europe) plate armor gave good defense against longbows and crossbows. For example, it was common to 'proof' a breast plate against crossbows. A longbow might pierce plate at close range but not at long range. For example, at the Battle of Flodden Field, the Scotts front ranks were mostly nobles and knights in full plate. English longbows did little damage against them as they advanced. In close quarters the English Bill did the damage and the English won (pikes and halberds being the continental mainstay). Muskets and black powder were certainly important in driving heavy armor off the battle field. Regarding cavalry, the development of the wheellock pistol around 1540 seems to be the tipping point for a number of reasons. For one, at close range, they could penetrate lighter armor and certainly kill horses. Second, lighter cavalry required less expensive horses making it easier to recruit reiter-like cavalry than heavy lancers.

Shields will always be the best defensive 'weapon' (IMHO). That is their primary use. However, there are plenty of reasons for NOT carrying around a shield. These reasons do not necessarily have anything to do with actual combat but are "social" or related to some other aspect of combat. For one shields are big and heavy and if you are not expecting to go into battle...why bother. A rapier and dagger make you a dashing figure when wandering about town. A shield makes you an aggressive figure looking for trouble. People just didn't wander around town or court covered in armor and weapons. Eg, many European towns or cities had laws against carrying weapons within the city limits. Also, if you are an archer or use a musket, a big shield is a hindrance, although you might carry a buckler. So you might not use a shield even in a battle situation because you hope to avoid coming to close quarters and overall mobility is more important -- even if you'd like to have that shield if you did come to close quarters. In other cases, it might be better to dodge a really big weapon...or animal/monster--a slightly different situation. Personally, I'd make shields the best 'defensive' weapon both through passive and active blocks, but then apply different motivations for not carrying one. Higher Enc, social norms etc. F

Disagree. #1. Yes. I was thinking of a western context. I will admit to less knowledge of eastern warfare. Nevertheless, the context is important. All you have done is suggested a different context, which is fine. What works in a different culture, works in that culture because the best offense depends on your opponent's defense and vice versa--context. Tradition also matters. Samurai had their origins as horse archers, so it would make sense that they wouldn't use shields. Western cavalry liked to close to HtH, so heavier armor and shields were more relevant. If one fights in a shield wall, where maintaining the integrity of the wall is important, mobility is somewhat of a bad thing. The last thing you want is the wall to disintegrate with people moving around. Using a shield is the way to go. There will, of course, always be individual exceptions like Anglo-Saxon housecarls (really a Danish term) who fought with 2H axes out in front of the line, but they were the elite, not the mass, and their tactical role is different. A lot of Western European infantry (archers aside) used shields because their main role was to hold the line or at advance in mass. Eastern traditions of warfare are different, so different techniques are effective. In more open formations, different tactics and weapons will be appropriate. Even in the west, different troop types used different tactics (obviously) and had different roles in a battle. Skirmishers like peltasts fought differently than heavy infantry like hoplites. Their arms and armor are different based on the context in which they use them. I'm not sure what you mean by a martial artist. However, fighting as an individual is not the same thing as being a soldier in a massed unit and is a lot more like being a civilian fencer. What works in a large group on a battle field, may not be the same thing that works in a 1-on-1 fight. If you're not running around in armor, mobility is obviously a good thing whether you are using a rapier and main gauche or Krabi-Krabong techniques. #2. I assume this is a joke. #3. I'm not sure what you mean by not logical or # 3. Plate armor certainly provides significantly more protection than mail. 15C ranged weapons could easily penetrate mail, but not plate. I just think the bump up in AP should emphasize, 1) needing to use crushing weapons to achieve knock downs, or 2) 2H weapons do do more damage. A one point increase (for plate) doesn't seem high enough for me. YRQMV. I think the main point is that the arms and armor fighters use have a cultural/military context, and that context changes through time (and in space). Fighting/defensive style evolve as a result. F

It is worthwhile placing dual wielding and shield use in context. Historically dual wielding was really used for dueling in a civilian context not on the battle field. Rapier and dagger is great when you're walking around Florence and then get into a fight. Who wants to carry a kite shield around town? However, on the battle field a shield is a better defensive weapon, especially when you are boxed up in a shield wall and can't dodge around. It also is great against the enemy's arrow barrage and is much cheaper than good armor. On the battle field soldiers switch from spear and shield or sword and shield to two handed weapons (eg pike, halberd occasional 2h sword) as plate armor becomes more effective. For one, a shield is less necessary if you are covered in plate armor. Second, against plate a simple sword won't do it anymore, so use a 2H weapon (eg English billmen). Similarly as firearms (and to some extent crossbows) become more powerful, shield become more or less useless and are dropped (as is armor). There are some obvious historical exceptions to the above re 2H weapons vs shield (Alexander's infantry, housecarls with 2H axes) but as a general trend it holds pretty well. Personally from RQnew and BRP in general, I'd like to see a bigger jump in armor points from chain to plate, and some rules that make blocking/parrying with a shield easier than blocking/parrying with a sword or sword and dagger. Fulk

I agree this is a major RQ3 advantage, and one that is often overlooked both intentionally and unintentionally. For years I played a character with a low SR and was always thrilled to strike first...until I realized that in some situations, waiting was much more effective. Longer 2H weapons do ok because your SR will often be one point lower, so you can attack before the sword and shield character, but against a 1H only fighter, it can be deadly.

Hey. Been a while. I love the WHFRP world, and while I like careers, I also find them somewhat restricting. I've often thought of using BRP instead. As noted above, much of the rules could be transferred easily (d100 rolls). For Magic, it depends on the version of WHFRP magic that you like. For 2nd edition, where you can roll more dice as you get more powerful, you could just link that to Power, adjust the damage to BRP levels and use the v2 rules mostly intact. Pow 16 = 1 die, Pow 17 = 2 dice, etc. You could use Arcane Lore as a skill indicating magical proficiency. You wouldn't actually roll vs the skill in most cases, but instead use it to determine the number of spells you have ( I think Classic Fantasy did something like this, no?). I forget the details of v2 magical progression off hand, but 50% might give you the basic starting list for your College. Every 5 or 10% increase would allow you to add a new spell. Something like that.

I have a better idea.....Knight vs. Samurai...discuss....

You just made my summer...1

You might also try the Pendragon combat system. It is a lot of fun and could be adapted for BRP. It is currently in Book of Battle. NT

Ah...cool. I'm looking forward to RQ6....ciao.

RE Defaults: One game I've played a bit of recently is The Riddle of Steel--quite a cool game but out of print and business. Among other things it had a system of defaults for weapon skills (proficiencies in the game). So you might have "Cut and Thrust" proficiency for using 1-h swords in a cut and thrust style either alone or along with daggers, bucklers or cloaks. Other fighting skills like sword and shield or axe and shield defaulted from C&T at some level depending upon how similar the fighting styles were. In d100 terms you might have Cut & Thrust skill at 75%, which would default to sword and shield at 65% and axe and shield at 55% or something like that. RE Shields. There are certainly bonuses to using a shield in BRP but they don't seem particularly strong, but I didn't have any particular ideas about how to make them more effective. GURPS and some other games have shields decrease your opponents chances to hit in addition to being useful for a rolled parry. In GURPS shields are easier to learn to use and reduce attack percentages. In The Riddle of Steel shields don't have separate skill values but are easier with which to parry (lower target numbers in a dice pool type game). But really..I don't know. I was just curious about RQ6. I'm really looking forward to a new edition. I never really bought the Mongoose stuff. I still have most of my 2nd and 3rd ed stuff and recently bought BRP. Just daydreaming really...Fulk

Two topics seem to come up a lot in reference to BRP derived games: shields and weapon defaults. I was curious to know if RQ6 would be making any attempts to make shields more useful or add in weapon defaults in some way. Also, I always loved hit locations and partial armor of RQ, but I'd also love to see some method for dealing with partial limb armor like hauberks that cover upper arms and thighs or greaves that cover only knee to foot. Just a few thoughts in my copious free time... Fulk

I prefer actual costs. Just me. NT

I'd say NAY. You already have variable weapon damage...which can represent whether or not you strike armor...or need a special or critical to get past it...YMMV F

As a long-time Pendragon fan...I say it's totally cool--especially if there are rules for economics etc like building and running estates....It definitely changes your perspective on a game when you start worrying your children and extended family and enhancing your and your family's power and prestige beyond just your current skill in 'sword'... F NT

It isn't 'unequal' true, since all characters are in the same boat. BUT, if the point buy system was designed without EDU, adding a characteristic means lower attributes across the board since the player must spread them across more attributes. Mechanistically it makes sense to raise the points available to maintain the same averages for the characteristics. F

It seem perfectly reasonable that if you increase the number of characteristics, you would increase the points used to buy characteristics. Just don't abuse the Knowledge rolls. F

For most campaigns, I think it is boring. However, if it is an important plot element, then it is worthwhile. I played a lot of Twilight2000 and some Twilight2013, which have a strong survivalist bent. Keeping your armored personnel carrier running was a constant chore and often the motivator for adventure. I've also played fantasy games where food and water became important. One involved chasing an enemy group through the wilderness to recover something. How quickly you traveled was important, so not taking too much was a good idea. Of course if you didn't take enough, you had to stop to hunt etc. Catching the bad guys involved as much resource management as tracking and fighting skill. For a dungeon crawl...no one cares...as far as I can tell. NT

That would be called Pendragon (possibly my favorite RPG of all time). In Pendragon, each combatant rolls a d20. Whoever rolls highest, but under his skill level, wins and does damage to the other combatant. If you 'lose' (rolled lower than your opponent) but were successful (rolled under your skill level), you get to block some damage with your shield. No initiative. Very fast combat. There are various modifiers for speficic weapons.

True. I forgot about that. Wizards did the 3rd edition, no? One of the things I like about the latter incarnations of Talislanta is the non-variable weapon damage. A successful hit always does a certain amount of damage based on the weapon type. However, you can be half-successful or critically successful, so you weapon damage is tied to your skill with the weapon. For combat, Palladium also uses basically the same approach. You roll, I roll, whoever rolls higher with bonuses is successful.... Fulk A lot of ways to achieve, more or less, the same result.

Talislanta has been using that type of mechanic for years: Roll d20, add your skill, subtract your opponents skill...11 or greater is a hit...... The question of using the resistance table is, I think, one of flavor. With the current % approach, you can get long drawn-out combats with lots of parrying etc.....the resistance table (or even the Pendragon approach) compresses the time. With highly skilled opponents, I think it is important to integrate fatigue rules (like the RQ3 ones) to reduce skill levels overtime..... I think the idea for using the resistance table for combat is an excellent one for NPC vs NPC, especially if you added in modifiers for armor and weapons. Then you could rapidly resolve group combats among followers.

I'd definitely like to see these two... I'm mostly familiar with RQ2 and RQ3. As I remember it, in RQ3 Int and Dex were primary attributes. Thus the mouser would have a better chance to hit, higher special success rate and higher critical rate than a brawn fighter. Since Dex is used in initiative, you might also let high dex characters lower their initiative to 'target'. I believe in RQ3 you could lower your SR to target. In a system w/o hit locations, you might sacrifice dex for initiative to lower the opponents AP. Either way, I'd certainly like some system that made dextrous but not super strong figthters more fun....