Akhôrahil

I was thinking of that one, yes. 🙂

I'd easily go to 16, maybe even more - a buckler (or what we might probably use, something like an Indian Dhal) is really sturdy, and while it might not stop your arm from getting broken, the shield itself is all but unbreakable (you might want to go with different values for the shield's own sturdiness and how much damage it absorbs). Swords break a lot more easily than a sturdy disc of metal - that fairly small shield weighs over 2 kg! Also, bucklers are used a bit differently than regular shields - used to cut off angles of attack rather than being used for blocking. Also, I wouldn't go the typical RPG way for bucklers, where you're allowed to have a weapon in the same hand - yes, there's that buckler&dirk, but it's really not the default way of fighting. Best of all, bronze is one historical material for Dhals, so it provably works.

Maybe, but my idea would be that you had a skill like "Legionnaire", which would be a fighting skill, the skill for drills, and even involving the non-combat basics of the job (like maintaining your stuff). You would have no need for a separate Battle skill in this case, for instance (although probably still the need for a Command skill).

If you write up rules like these for combat styles, you will probably want some kind of flowchart or mindmap with different skill inheritances. You will also have to decide whether, say, "Legionnaire soldier" includes javelins, or whether that's a separate skill.

Some of a combat style will also involve fighting in the correct formation (unless it's some pure duelling style) and its maneuvers. You can probably re-use fair amounts of the drill itself.

I like it when games have a Cool or Sharpness stat, and use it for firing rather than Dex. But anyway, back to shields...

One of the most interesting modellings of combat I have seen involved a stat called "combat experience", which was super important but could only be raised through experience of being in combat (it started either at zero or just a few points, depending on your background). It included all kinds of things like your stress reactions, reflexes, situational awareness, and so on. If you put someone with sky-high weapon skill but no combat experience up against a theoretically less-skilled but grizzled fighter, it tended to be murder, and a high combat experience meant you could do a lot with most weapons even with little to no formal training. Basically, being an olympic shooter doesn't help you all that much in a firefight...

In that case, "composite shield" might make sense as an option.

Our archer broke her bow in her first fight. I think it was the second shot in her (in-game) career.

One has to wonder why anyone would use a wooden shield when a hide shield is cheaper and lighter and just as good in all other aspects...

I’m not saying it’s trivial, but doing these things are included in the presumably very widespread woodworking skill. Should a large wooden shield really be worth two cows, more than a bronze shortsword (containing a pound or more of expensive bronze) or half a year’s income for a free man? This is super expensive, especially for something that is basically expected to last for just one battle.

Planks, handle, glue, buckle (probably what costs, but will usually get reused), leather covering (a plank shield that is merely glued kinda works but quickly breaks apart), possibly metal rim (usually not in Glorantha, though?). Apart from the buckle, not really all that demanding, and you can make them at home at the stead.

Also, they are really good for stuff like resisting shock, keeping your morale up, and things like that, which are ”soft effects” that the rules don’t care about. Actual shield wall tactics - trying to break the wall with a wedge, ”pushing” it open, stabbing your opponent while your shields are locked against each other, and so on, don’t really get modelled. (There’s a great re-enactment on YouTube showing how you need two lines, or the shield wall just isn’t sturdy enough and breaks up on contact.)

Weirdly, one of the best uses for a shield under the rules is to passively hold it to passively protect arm/chest/head from missile fire, while doing all the work with your main weapon. This doesn't even require any skill in it. I would also like some rule that doesn't make a large shield the obvious no-brainer choice and the smaller ones strictly worse. How credible is a large shield from horseback, for instance (depends on just how large and the exact shape, I guess)? Good shield magic would also help. Parry is awful compared to Bladesharp (a good house-rule would be that each point of Parry adds one HP, so that it's symmetrical with Bladesharp). Earthshield is fantastic against massive opponents, for instance, but most people don't have access.

I would give him a moderate penalty. I imagine you need to fight in a fairly different way with and without a shield. Or possibly the shield provides a bonus that gets removed here. And your issues under this system would be that your fighting system did not involve a shield.

Are you sure you didn’t just have bad rolls? 😉

Some things that RQG doesn't exactly go into but the GM might have concerns about, are: a) Is your weapons set-up something that works in society, or that makes you seem as though you're armed for bear? A sword and a buckler is perfectly fine to lug around in most settings (you can hang your buckler from your belt), while your greatsword or battleaxe+large shield or arbalest will raise eyebrows and possibly attract the authorities. It's the difference between carrying a handgun and a scoped anti-materiel rifle on a U.S. street. b) How are you carrying it all? A shield can be slung on the back and a one-handed sword sheathed, but a bow or longspear has to be held in the hands. There probably isn't any practical way to carry both a longsword and a large bow. (Note that the Landsknecht typically packed their huge swords on a wagon, wrapped in fabric, and had a normal sword for everyday use - the two-handed swords were broken out for battles, for their extremely specialist use.)

If I would do the work, I would go fully the other way, to Weapon Style skills instead, with advantages and disadvantages depending on equipment composition. I'm not sure how much it makes sense to track a legionnaire's separate skills in sword and shield. RQ combat has always been a little too concrete - it tries to simulate in detail, and it doesn't quite work. Going up a level of abstraction might help.

I meant under the RQG rules, not in reality. In reality, a shield wall (whether it's hoplites, legionnaires or fyrdmen) is awesome, and anyone who tries to charge it wielding longswords will have a bad day. RQG gives you auto-parry to certain hit locations, and no parry otherwise. This means that a shield wall is great if you suck and worse than not having one if you're good (which, to be fair, explains why Orlanthi farmers stand in the fyrd while the weaponthanes are mostly outside it). Yelmalio with pikes alter this, though.

I am, though! So onwards! I basically agree. Apart from projectile weapon protection (and the economy of getting to discard broken shields), a big two-handed weapon is just better in every way (I removed Greatsword partly from historical reasons, but mostly as a balance problem - it's just so good). Shields aren't as good as they should be, and bucklers are just sorry. Even shield-walls are only really productive for less competent fighters (so smart move for the fyrd, less impressive for Solar Phalanxes). Bucklers are good, not utter garbage as in RQG. And don't even get me started on how silly shields are for Humakti under the current rules! That takes the issues and squares them! I'm not sure this is what I would go with - rather, I would implement a house-rule that makes shields just better. It's so much easier to block with a shield than a weapon (example: spear versus sword is a massacre due to reach, while spear+shield vs. sword+shield is a balanced fight). In the Icelandic sagas, it's mentioned how sword and shield versus just sword is a truly giant advantage, and that the shieldless guy is usually doomed. Not sure exactly how to do it, though. Giving a shield a huge base chance (like 50%) would be a small-scale move. Or you could say that each parry and each attack subtracts 20% from the Sword skill. You didn't bring up something I thought you would - how the shield materials table fails when it comes to balance and interest. As all large shields are the same, it's a no-brainer to pick the lighter. My solution is to make shield size decide what areas it covers, while shield material provides the shield hit points. It should be patently obvious that a large wicker shield will break a lot easier than a small metal buckler. So you could have a large wicker shield that covers your body well but only has 8 HP - still good against most missile weapons, but will get chopped up badly in close combat. And as a final point, shields are ridiculously expensive in the RQG rules. A wooden shield is a basic carpentry item, and you basically expect to have to make a new one after a fight. In a viking duel, you get three of them, for one fight! It shouldn't cost a large part of a farmer's yearly income!

I think the current format is fine. It reminds you that these are really old, and that you have to set your expectations right. They would probably suffer from being modernized, unless there’s a complete overhaul to make them fit into modern expectations, and at that point, I would rather have new material instead.

Getting killed is always an option.

I have this theory that aside from focusing on how your breath is also the breath of the cosmos, part of Orlanthi mysticism is repeating "No-one can make you do anything" like a mantra, with different intonations. "No-one can make you do anything" "No-one can make you do anything" "No-one can make you do anything" "No-one can make you do anything" "No-one can make you do anything" "No-one can make you do anything" "No-one can make you do anything" (and so on)

The Windstop/Great Winter was over the line, I believe we can all agree, but no worse (much less bad in fact, if we look at casualties) than Argrath's climate change campaign. Stopping the Lunars by being Argrath is cutting off your head to cure a headache.

It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I'm enlightened, you're an Illuminate, he/she is Occluded. Put it like this: was Arkat Occluded? You will get different answers depending on which Illuminate you ask. So at the very least, it has a strong subjective element.