Jump to content

Shields


BrentS

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Kloster said:

My personal solution is to go back to separate skills for attack and parry, avoiding the fact that a good attacker is automatically a good defender with his main weapon (this was my case with a foil. I would say around 80% attack and around 50% parry). Added to a higher base with shields (due to construction/design), the whole problem is solved.

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.

Edited by Akhôrahil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

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.  

I'd not be at all surprised to see a lot more information on shields and materials and so on in a later book. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

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.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant.

25 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

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.

On this, we agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Thaz said:

I'd not be at all surprised to see a lot more information on shields and materials and so on in a later book. 

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.)

Edited by Akhôrahil
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

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.

In fact, I plan to go back to the whole RQ3 combat chapter.

20 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

I'm not sure how much it makes sense to track a legionnaire's separate skills in sword and shield.

Because you can (as I was) be far better with one than with the other. I lost a championship because I was not having a good enough parry, even if my attack was high.

21 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

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 think RQ3 worked quite well on that point (and failed on other).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

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 (you can hand 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. 

It completely depends on the society you're living (or playing) in. Where I live, even carrying a sheated/holstered weapon brings an immediate SWAT equivalent intervention. My last RQ3's GM took great care of giving trouble to those that went in towns loaded for bear. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that, and a sheated sword and belted buckler brings far less attention tan a loaded arbalest or great axe.

9 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

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.)

Completely agree here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kloster said:

Because you can (as I was) be far better with one than with the other. I lost a championship because I was not having a good enough parry, even if my attack was high.

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

Edited by Akhôrahil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

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.

Ugh. No. (for my game anyway). Weapon styles makes zero sense for me and makes my teeth ache. Sword and Shield are totally different skills for me. I've pretty hot with a sword but mediocre at best with a shield, especially since both of mine are currently in a shed unloved and unpractised for years. I once placed in a tourney with that style but it was my shield work that let me down. I have multiple wins and national placings under my belt for single handed and 2 handed swords.   Also if I pick up a short sword or knife or similar I'm pretty effective with it, this is modeled in the rules fairly well but not in weapon styles without some extra crunch. Does your legionary suddenly become inept offensively if his shield breaks or he's surprised in camp without it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Thaz said:

Does your legionary suddenly become inept offensively if his shield breaks or he's surprised in camp without it? 

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.

Edited by Akhôrahil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

And your issues under this system would be that your fighting system did not involve a shield.

Except at the time I was well practised in sword and shield. I just suck (comparatively) with shields. Which is why I gave up on them and moved to 2 Handed Weapons. And medieval period and plate armour as opposed to Viking era fighting.  I just find it a very odd concept that someone who is greased death on wheels with a sword and shield suddenly cant hit for toffee without their shield. Oh sure they'd get hit more but then they just have to be fast.

It would suit a more narrative non combat focused game perfectly I'm sure. I hate those 😉 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

 

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.

 

This is true. Shields were the first and simplest form of body protection used by ancient people because they are easy to make and easiest for unskilled fighters to use. An increase in base skill is entirely logical from a simulation point of view.

The problem is that I don't think, even then, that it would translate to increased use in the game. Players are hugely incentivised to maximise their primary weapon skill at character generation, particularly as it includes their parry and that primary weapon invariably has equivalent HP to a medium shield. Even with a significant boost to shield base skills, weapon parry skills are going to be higher and get used in preference.

 

Brent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BrentS said:

This is true. Shields were the first and simplest form of body protection used by ancient people because they are easy to make and easiest for unskilled fighters to use. An increase in base skill is entirely logical from a simulation point of view.

The problem is that I don't think, even then, that it would translate to increased use in the game. Players are hugely incentivised to maximise their primary weapon skill at character generation, particularly as it includes their parry and that primary weapon invariably has equivalent HP to a medium shield. Even with a significant boost to shield base skills, weapon parry skills are going to be higher and get used in preference.

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.

Edited by Akhôrahil
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

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.

 

Phalanxes and shield walls are historically interesting and effective uses of shields but they are problematic when considering RQG (which I think is what you're saying?):

1. Again, they are battle formations, not a consideration for the open order skirmishing that characterises the type of fighting RQG characters will mostly be involved in.

2. In formation, their function is not skill based, it is static, passive protection, even for the skilled warriors in a Spartan phalanx. This does not align with a system of skill based shield use, such as we're presented with in RQG.

 

Brent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BrentS said:

The problem is that I don't think, even then, that it would translate to increased use in the game. Players are hugely incentivised to maximise their primary weapon skill at character generation, particularly as it includes their parry and that primary weapon invariably has equivalent HP to a medium shield. Even with a significant boost to shield base skills, weapon parry skills are going to be higher and get used in preference.

Thus my proposal to go back to separate skills for attack and parry.

6 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

How credible is a large shield from horseback, for instance (depends on just how large and the exact shape, I guess)?

On that, RQ3 was also better because the larger shields could only be used to parry on the side it is held. You could not swing it from one side to the other.

6 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

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).

Good idea. Consider it stolen.

6 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Earthshield is fantastic against massive opponents, for instance, but most people don't have access.

Agreed here.

Edited by Kloster
typing mistake
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

And as a final point, shields are ridiculously expensive in the RQG rules. A wooden shield is a basic carpentry item

Wooden shields were quite complex historically.  I'd point out you can get a large hide shield for less than the price of a set of boots or a night drinking Barley wine....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BrentS said:

Phalanxes and shield walls are historically interesting and effective uses of shields but they are problematic when considering RQG (which I think is what you're saying?):

1. Again, they are battle formations, not a consideration for the open order skirmishing that characterises the type of fighting RQG characters will mostly be involved in.

2. In formation, their function is not skill based, it is static, passive protection, even for the skilled warriors in a Spartan phalanx. This does not align with a system of skill based shield use, such as we're presented with in RQG.

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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Thaz said:

Wooden shields were quite complex historically.

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.

Edited by Akhôrahil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

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.

Um not so much no.   Planks? How medieval. As there are no cross grain saws so your splitting lengths from trees and then using an axe or adze to shape.  Shields were mostly curved. This is quite complex. You need to steam your wood or find it the right shape to start. Glue  involves boiling down the bones etc. Leather working is a entire seperate craft. I have made shields with medieval tools and it's quite tricky, and making them useable both light enough to carry and use but resistant to damage. Harder than making a knife for example and involves many more crafts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

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.)

The othismos, about which litres of academic ink has been spilled. This is straying away from Glorantha and discussion of shield rules and into my obsession with ancient history and warfare, but for those interested in the academic debate surrounding how a Classical Greek phalanx worked, there is an excellent article on the subject by Paul Bardunias in the Ancient Warfare Magazine special issue on Marathon. This whole special issue is actually excellent for those interested in this battle and while previously hard to come by, has just been released in downloadable pdf format, available here:

https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/ancient-warfare/aw-shop/awspecials/the-battle-of-marathon-special-pdf.html

 

Brent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Thaz said:

Um not so much no.   Planks? How medieval. As there are no cross grain saws so your splitting lengths from trees and then using an axe or adze to shape.  Shields were mostly curved. This is quite complex. You need to steam your wood or find it the right shape to start. Glue  involves boiling down the bones etc. Leather working is a entire seperate craft. I have made shields with medieval tools and it's quite tricky, and making them useable both light enough to carry and use but resistant to damage. Harder than making a knife for example and involves many more crafts.

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.

Edited by Akhôrahil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kloster said:

Thus my proposal to go back to separate skills for attack and parry.

 

I like the rolling of attack and parry skills into one unifying weapon skill. Not only is it simple but it just seems to make sense that professional weapon training would include skill with all facets of that weapon's use.

I have to say, despite some great feedback and discussion here (thanks all), I'm still leaning toward a simple modification that's at the situational discretion of the player......commit to attacking with the sword this round, lose some of your capacity to use it to parry at full effect.....and therefore rely more heavily on a dedicated parrying tool, your shield.

 

Brent.

Edited by BrentS
Typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

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.

I think it indicates that they aren't much used in Dragon pass. Wooden Ones that is. Given your talking about a handful of copper for a Large Hide one.  Regional variations of cost, availability and type of shields and indeed armour (and maybe weapons) is something I'm thinking about

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Thaz said:

I think it indicates that they aren't much used in Dragon pass. Wooden Ones that is. Given your talking about a handful of copper for a Large Hide one.  Regional variations of cost, availability and type of shields and indeed armour (and maybe weapons) is something I'm thinking about

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...

Edited by Akhôrahil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

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...

Exactly. I don't think they do locally. And Locally means Dragon Pass. You CAN do some really fancy stuff with the right wood and tech with shields (linden wood, viking edge catching weapons etc) or if you get into metal and early medieval (which some god or other might have handed to our bronze age folks) . But I really dont think that's what we're talking about. I need to go read Martin's books and think about shields now

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...