Bonus for using a Shield to parry.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, g33k said:

Maybe combine this with the Mythras "Combat Style" idea:

If you're trained to sword&board (or spear&... or axe&... etc), parrying with the shield is an "EASY" roll, vs parrying with the weapon.

Yes, if you don't want to have a shield skill. Otherwise, I think the shield skill would work out just about the same.

[Atgxtg]

On 4/16/2022 at 2:07 PM, Mugen said:

It depends on how many parries your version of BRP allows without a shield 

Yes it does. Since Gold Book BRP allows for multiple parries  and combined attack and parry skills, shields aren't so good. Now in old RQ, where you usually get one defense, shields have other advantages (high AP, can stop missile weapons, avoids risking damage to the weapon,sperate attack and parry skills,  etc.) shields are alright.

On 4/16/2022 at 2:07 PM, Mugen said:

If you can only parry once without a shield, then a Shield will be helpful when you're fighting multiple enemies.

Yes, but I don't think it would be worth raising a second skill just so that you can hold out a little better when double or triple teamed. In those types of BRP games, getting ganged up on is to be avoided. It's like shark repellent. If you think you are going to need it, you probably shouldn't get your feet wet to begin with.

[Kloster]

1 minute ago, Atgxtg said:

Now in old RQ, where you usually get one defense, shields have other advantages (high AP, can stop missile weapons, avoids risking damage to the weapon,sperate attack and parry skills,  etc.) shields are alright.

Perfectly true.

2 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, but I don't think it would be worth raising a second skill just so that you can hold out a little better when double or triple teamed. In those types of BRP games, getting ganged up on is to be avoided. It's like shark repellent. If you think you are going to need it, you probably shouldn't get your feet wet to begin with.

Agreed, but it is still worth, just in case. Even if you avoid that situation like the plague, you are not always successful, and it is better to be prepared.

[Atgxtg]

11 minutes ago, Kloster said:

Agreed, but it is still worth, just in case. Even if you avoid that situation like the plague, you are not always successful, and it is better to be prepared.

I think it comes down to a case of trade offs. Time and money spent on the shield, ENC, etc. all come at the expense of something else. So instead of the shield the character could have gotten better with their main weapon (and maybe be able to split parries if over 100%), wear better armor, or learn a stronger protection spell. 

It really comes down to the combined attack & parry skills for weapons. 

Pendragon solves this by not tracking a shield skill and instead just getting the shield superior protection on a parry. This could work in BRP. In fact the shield skill could even be kept, and just say that the parry succeeds in under either skill. 

[Mugen]

11 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, but I don't think it would be worth raising a second skill just so that you can hold out a little better when double or triple teamed. In those types of BRP games, getting ganged up on is to be avoided. It's like shark repellent. If you think you are going to need it, you probably shouldn't get your feet wet to begin with.

I agree. My point was that in such case, you'd get a 15% to 25% parry chance instead of 0.

Is it a good alternative to 2 hand weapons, certainly not.

Even less so in games where you only roll for parry after a succesful attack, 

[g33k]

An idea I had, an extension of prior ideas... I find it a bit "fiddly" but it may be to others' tastes; also, this may be what was intended (it isn't how I originally understood prior proposals)...

Using a "subsequent parries at a penalty" rule (-20% or -30% to skill, depending on BRP-variant), simply giving an "extra" parry with a shield (not subject to the penalty) was an idea previously raised.

How about the idea of a shield always being at "one fewer" on the subsequent-parry penalties?

As per RAW, the 1st parry with a weapon has no penalty; but the next (2nd) parry has a penalty, next subsequent (3rd parry) has a double-penalty, next after that has a triple penalty, etc...

Shield parries under the RAW are just the same; it's an absolute number of parries, so the 3rd parry (whether weapon or shield) suffer the "subsequent parry" double-penalty (-40% or -60%).

My suggestion is that the shield always be treated as if there were 1 fewer iterations of parrying; that is, the 4th parry (for example) is treated as a "3rd" parry (2nd-subsequence, double penalty) if performed with a shield; vs. triple-penalty with a weapon.

[Atgxtg]

44 minutes ago, g33k said:

An idea I had, an extension of prior ideas... I find it a bit "fiddly" but it may be to others' tastes; also, this may be what was intended (it isn't how I originally understood prior proposals)...

Using a "subsequent parries at a penalty" rule (-20% or -30% to skill, depending on BRP-variant), simply giving an "extra" parry with a shield (not subject to the penalty) was an idea previously raised.

How about the idea of a shield always being at "one fewer" on the subsequent-parry penalties?

The problem with that,  in game terms, is that someone would need to have a second skill- or do you just mean that carry a shield gives someone an extra free parry at their normal weapon skill percentage?

 

One easy fix would be to simply allow both shield and weapon parries, even against the same attack. That would give someone with a shield an additional layer of defense. It would slow down the combat's though.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Atgxtg

[Atgxtg]

16 hours ago, Mugen said:

I agree. My point was that in such case, you'd get a 15% to 25% parry chance instead of 0.

Is it a good alternative to 2 hand weapons, certainly not.

Even less so in games where you only roll for parry after a succesful attack, 

Yeah, it's not an easy fix, because it was such an easy break. In old RQ the benefits of shields were:

 

1) Separation of Attack & Parry skills made shield parry at least as viable as weapon parry.

2) Shields tended to stop more damage than most weapons.

3) Parry with a shield prevented your weapon from breaking while parrying.

4) Shields gave some sort of protection against missile attacks that weapons didn't.

 

But the Strombinger/BGB combat rules pretty much sidestep all of those benefits, making shields mostly redundant. 

 

 

 

[g33k]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

...

One easy fix would be to simply allow both shield and weapon parries, even against the same attack. That would give someone with a shield an additional layer of defense. It would slow down the combat's though.

Harder to justify denying that same extra parry to a dual-weapon fighter, though; and then it's back to "why a shield instead of..." ?

 

[g33k]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

The problem with that,  in game terms, is that someone would need to have a second skill- or do you just mean that carry a shield gives someone an extra free parry at their normal weapon skill percentage?

The prior suggestion -- AIUI -- was just that:  "an extra (the 2nd) parry at full skill".

But then, the 3rd parry (presumably) carries the full "3rd parry penalty" :  2 steps down the subsequent-parries table, double penalty.  At least, that's my understanding.

My suggestion, instead, is that (when parrying with a shield) you always treat "parry number N" as if it were "parry number (N-1)" for purposes of figuring the "subsequent parry" penalty.  In the trivial case -- yes, it's just an extra no-penalty parry as the 2nd parry.

But as long as you only use your shield, it progresses down the list the same way, always (after the first parry at full skill) 1 step better than the same-SR weapon-parry.

Why, then, EVER choose to weapon-parry?  Well... using your shield more heavily, maybe it got hacked to pieces.  But also:  if 2 attacks land on the same SR, and the attackers have the same DEX, they're functionally simultaneous; but the shield can only be in 1 place, so you probably need your weapon to cover the other attack (it's possible, if using Hit Locations, that a shield can actually cover 2+ simultaneous attacks; depending on locations-hit and size-of-shield).
 

[SDLeary]

2 hours ago, g33k said:

Harder to justify denying that same extra parry to a dual-weapon fighter, though; and then it's back to "why a shield instead of..." ?

 

How about... a person with a shield, gets the extra defense instance without a modifier; while a person dual wielding weapons gives a defensive penalty to the person they are facing? 

SDLeary

EDIT: upon reflection this could work, but would work better with combined rolls, as in Pendragon.

Edited April 20, 2022 by SDLeary
thinking.... thinking....

[Kloster]

7 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

1) Separation of Attack & Parry skills made shield parry at least as viable as weapon parry.

Even more because base percentage was higher.

[pansophy]

I think the big advantage of shields is that the Parry skill of it is independent from your Weapon skill. True, this only helps if you have a high Shield Parry skill and change weapons often, but it is an advantage. Most of the time people don't consider their environment when fighting, but if you ever try to swing a long sword in a normal room, you'll soon realise a mace or dagger or short sword might be the much better option. Combined with a shield you would have an enormous advantage for defense. But this is a different topic.

In any case, this is a game and not a simulation of the real world, so I would make two calls depending on situation: 1) make the Parry against an attacker Easy or 2) allow an additional Parry roll if being attacked multiple times. And why not giving this chance to the player, so he can choose his option.

You could also allow it to make it a Manoeuvre: use the Shield Parry to allow a counter attack; a successful Parry with a shield causes weapon damage to the attacker (maybe only when scoring a higher Level of Success). Of course this goes both ways ... shields suddenly become a deadly advantage!

[pansophy]

Just on this topic: 
If you get a special success with an impaling weapon, your weapon is still lodged inside the target - which makes you unable to defend yourself - except if you have a shield. Here's a good explanation at 3:57

 

[Atgxtg]

7 hours ago, Kloster said:

Even more because base percentage was higher.

Yeah, ptretty much.

[Atgxtg]

13 hours ago, g33k said:

Harder to justify denying that same extra parry to a dual-weapon fighter, though; and then it's back to "why a shield instead of..." ?

 

Yeah, somewhat. Shields lost most of their benefits they had in RQ in BGB. In RQ shields either didn't break (RQ2) or were on par with a good weapon, but a lot cheaper to replace, plus they helped against missile weapons. Without those benefits though they just become a liability. 

What if shields just gave a bonus to parry? Then they would always be a defensive advantage to carrying one. You'd think that is would easier to defend against an attack with sword & shield than it would be with just the sword.

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by Atgxtg

[Barak Shathur]

It's frustrating, to say the least, that the developers chose the current model for parrying when there were better alternatives to choose from. For me, again, the simplest solution is to interpret the first line under "Parrying" on page 191 as meaning just what it says, "A character armed with a parrying weapon or shield can block the damage from an attack", i.e. a "parrying weapon" means a weapon designated for parrying. The wording implies a difference between a "parrying weapon" and a weapon not used as such. I would extrapolate that any weapon can be used for parrying, naturally, but not for both that and attacking in the same round. 

Would love to hear input from the devs.

[Baron Wulfraed]

Unfortunately -- I'd interpret "parrying weapon" to mean "a weapon capable of being used to parry"... One isn't going to parry using a bow, sling, or pretty much any missile weapon. Well, at least not more than once...

I'm also of the world where "parry" means "deflect", not "block". In formal fencing, a parry often translates into a counter-attack (riposte) -- one has to move the opponent's attacking blade out of line, and then makes one's own attack.

 

[pansophy]

5 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

I'm also of the world where "parry" means "deflect", not "block". In formal fencing, a parry often translates into a counter-attack (riposte) -- one has to move the opponent's attacking blade out of line, and then makes one's own attack.

What I'm saying: if using a shield to parry and score a higher Level of Success - you deal Weapon Damage against the Attacker.

This option is not available when Parrying with a weapon.

Fixed.

[Mugen]

6 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

I'm also of the world where "parry" means "deflect", not "block". In formal fencing, a parry often translates into a counter-attack (riposte) -- one has to move the opponent's attacking blade out of line, and then makes one's own attack.

Japanese game Tenra Bansho Zero has a rule that exactly matches this. It you parry and get a better success than your opponent, he's hit.

There's also a defensive option, but I don't remember its benefits.

It's not very different from Pendragon, though...

[Mugen]

1 hour ago, pansophy said:

What I'm saying: if using a shield to parry and score a higher Level of Success - you deal Weapon Damage against the Attacker.

This option is not available when Parrying with a weapon.

Fixed.

But with such a rule, the counter-attack would not be available to "fencing" combat styles, which usually don't use shields, and parry with daggers or rapiers.

[pansophy]

2 hours ago, Mugen said:

But with such a rule, the counter-attack would not be available to "fencing" combat styles, which usually don't use shields, and parry with daggers or rapiers.

just allow the same rule for these weapons, too. Don't forget that fencing weapons (e.g. rapiers & parrying dagger ) have not been used in the same era as shields and swords. 

Fantasy games tend to mix up different weapons and eras and put them all together. I would love to see the weapons table separated into different time eras to make a clear statement when adventurers can use which weapon.

[Barak Shathur]

8 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

Unfortunately -- I'd interpret "parrying weapon" to mean "a weapon capable of being used to parry"... One isn't going to parry using a bow, sling, or pretty much any missile weapon. Well, at least not more than once...

I'm also of the world where "parry" means "deflect", not "block". In formal fencing, a parry often translates into a counter-attack (riposte) -- one has to move the opponent's attacking blade out of line, and then makes one's own attack.

 

In that case I think the simplest option, that still stays close to the rules as written, is to count an attack with a weapon as one of the actions that adds a cumulative -30% to subsequent actions with that weapon. So first attack and then parry at -30%, or parry first and then attack at -30%.

[Atgxtg]

On 4/21/2022 at 4:16 AM, Barak Shathur said:

It's frustrating, to say the least, that the developers chose the current model for parrying when there were better alternatives to choose from.

To be fair, "better" in this context is highly subjective. Lots of people prefer the method used in Stormbringer or BRP to the one used in RQ2 or RQ3. So it comes down to preferences and trade offs. That's why there are so many threads with so many alternate ways of doing things. I suspect the whole BRP parry mechanic came about because the traditional one used in RQ2 wouldn't have worked in Strombringer, due the the insane damage that demon weapons did in first edition. 

 

[Mugen]

15 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

 I suspect the whole BRP parry mechanic came about because the traditional one used in RQ2 wouldn't have worked in Strombringer, due the the insane damage that demon weapons did in first edition.

My guess is that it was just simpler than RQ, just like most of StormBringer rules.

The drawback being that a fight could become extremely boring between 2 seasoned characters, as you'd had to wait for a crit versus normal success for a weapon to break.

As a matter of fact, I remember that in a 1987 FAQ for the french edition of SB2, the answer to the question : "why use a shield when you can parry with a 2 handed weapon ?" was exactly that : "because if your weapon breaks after a crit, you're doomed".