Jump to content

Bonus for using a Shield to parry.


Recommended Posts

On 6/9/2022 at 9:56 PM, icebrand said:

My D&D experience is 95% with AD&D 2e and 5% 3/3.5ed.

Personally this is the 1st time i hear about DI in d&d, and realistically all those types of spells are for characters who are vastly more powerful than whatever RQ RAW can generate: raise dead (the most basic res spell) is a lv5 cleric spell, which means you need to be lv9(!) to cast it and as a lv9 cleric you should be more powerful than any RQ PC (or about the same with the most powerful players, but it's *much* easier to get there).

Wow, were are you located? I gamed in the Northeast U.S. and the DI houserule was as common to all the AD&D groups as the critical hit/natural 20 does does damage houserule. It was so prevelant that most people just assumed it existed unless told otherwise. 

 

On 6/9/2022 at 9:56 PM, icebrand said:

Because RQ and D&D are different genres! Imagine a runelord is what? Lv5? Sure, you have more HP and can't get 1hit by a mook, but many mooks can still take resources, while in RQ you parry way more attacks, negating all damage.

I'd think a Runelord is at least a Lvl 10-11 character based upon the relative combat skill. A Runlord needs a 90%+ weapon skill, and to have a 90% base chance to hit in D&D would require a fighter to be at least level 8. That ignore attribute modifiers, specialties and such, but it also ignores Armor Class. But basically if they are uspposed to be master swordsmen they must be highly skilled and thus high level. 

On 6/9/2022 at 9:56 PM, icebrand said:

Again, apples to oranges;

More like Macintosh to Golden Declicious. Both do the same thing, simulate heroic fantasy world combat, but they do so in different ways.

On 6/9/2022 at 9:56 PM, icebrand said:

 

D&D is attrition based, and RQ is more realistic, fights are either parry or take a wound that has a good chance to take you out.

I don't know if RQ is more "realistic", per say. I've never seen anyone cast fireblade, or have thier allied spirirt do so for them in real life. I get your point, but RQ isn't all that more "realistic" than D&D.   It's grittier and have a higher element of risk to them. 

 

On 6/9/2022 at 9:56 PM, icebrand said:

If a mook stabs you while you are down in current D&D you automatically fail your dead save; any damage does the same, it doesnt matter. Same thing with Coup de Grace in 3e!

Yeah, but for you to be dfown in the first place is the tough bit. 10th level fighter vs. 1HD monster is a foregone conclusion in D&D. It's mostly so in RQ/BRP but not quite. Pretty much anybody can fall to a single lucky critical and that is a game changer.

On 6/9/2022 at 9:56 PM, icebrand said:

In 2e if you are down a mook is super dangerous! You died at -10 as far as i can remember? So your con/level didnt matter at all!!!

You're still assuming that the guy is down, which is what probably wouldn't happen in D&D.

Additionally, being dead isn't quite as inconvenient in D&D that in RQ/BRP. D&D has a lot of magic to bring character from the dead, so even if the mook offs a PC the other PCs can bring them back easily enough. Even the Rurik situation of being killed before coming back would just mean that a cleric would be inconvenienced and have to raise Rurik again. 

 

In RQ such magic is much rarer and most other version of BRP don't even  have coming back from the dead as an option.

On 6/9/2022 at 9:56 PM, icebrand said:

It's a feature, not a bug. And it's an amazing feature, and i read about tons of people ignoring it!

Uh, it's a non feature. 

First off mook has to drop the  PC. This is the tough bit.

Secondly mook kills downed PC, easy bit.

Thirdly, non of the other PCs do anything about it.

 

Generally speaking, once you reach a certian level in D&D, unless you have a Total Party Kill, death is only an setback.

 

On 6/9/2022 at 9:56 PM, icebrand said:

I have no idea. It reads like Rurik died by a shade attack, then uses DI not to die, but he was on the ground or something and the trollkin criticalled on a leg, so he was damaged from before? 

Hmm, the guy used to post on this forum. Maybe he's still lurking and could post the details? But then, I haven't seen him around for over a decade.

On 6/9/2022 at 9:56 PM, icebrand said:

Is it really that secondary? It's actually the strength and beauty of RQ; there are no mooks, everyone is a person. I think this is why i dislike super stuff outside the rules, it breaks the contract.

Yes, it's seconday becuase it's not a featuee of RQ, but of game mechanics in general. Basically the more attempts you make the higher your chances of eventually failing. It gets pointed out a lot with action heroes, comic book characters and such. It's the infitinte monkeys/Hamet thing.

Mathematically speaking, if you shoot at James Bond or the Batman enough, you will eventually hit and kill them. But if that were to happen it would end the series, so it doesn't happen. Or it jet's retcooned or rebooted.

On 6/9/2022 at 9:56 PM, icebrand said:

And i say... Why not? You already are playing RuneQuest, why not play the strengths? Yes a random "mook" can totally take you out.

If the mooks kill off the PCs at too high a rate, you run out of PCs. Because it kills a campaign and causes players to stop playing. 

Now the trick is to provide enough of a risk that it could happen to keep the game existing, but not have it happen enough to disrupt the game.

It's the same reason why the NPCs doen't have skill scores assigned randomly. Realistically, a fledgling PC could run into a master swordsman in his first fight, but that doesn't happen in games because it makes for a bad game. 

 

 

 

On 6/9/2022 at 9:56 PM, icebrand said:

I mean, if as i player i find out my GM made the broo not impale me in the head for 27 points and i die, then what good is my runelordship? I'm don't really have the Mastery rune, i would not deserve my title any more than a random NPC the GM popped out of thin air; id rather die to a mook than have my adventuring career being... I don't know how to say it... Fake?

Oh, I agree. Let the dice fall where they may, and deal with the consequences, unless your group is using hero points or DI or something. 

I recall one infamous weekend when I rolled up and lost five characters. All due to the GM rolling a lucky critical hit in the first combat. It happens, and it did derail those games- just going through chargen five times will do that. I was fine with it though because without the risk of that happening the game wouldn't have been an exciting and my accomplishments would have felt empty since they would have been rigged. 

 

But most of the protection/screening comes is the adventure design, not in the gameplay. They are written such that they PCs have a better than average chance of success. The PCs rareley if over, are over matched in skil and ability. Becuase it bad storytelling and bad gaming to just beat down the heroes every time.  

 

On 6/9/2022 at 9:56 PM, icebrand said:

I think there are other systems that do that kind of game better -but of course they don't do glorantha at all, unless you play HQ- RQ on the other hand, is a magical game where anything can happen, for good and for bad. 

Not quite anything. In fact, a lot of what can and will happen is clearly spelled out. Much of what makes Glorantha interesting is stuff that is pre-written pre-ordianed, and involves heroes who overcome the odds and accomplish great things. That's what makes them appealing.

SO you have a narrative, a highly structured adventures, player characters with free will, along with some form of randomizers (usually dice), and they  don't always mix well. 

On 6/9/2022 at 9:56 PM, icebrand said:

Also a player death doesnt ruin the adventure, just derails it!

Player death can ruin an adventure, depending on where and when, and how much depended upon that player character. The more of a heroic campaign you are going for the more difficult such events can be.

If you are running a "generic" game where the PCs are adventueres who don't affect the big picture much, and everything can be allowed to play out however the dice fall, then yeah, PC death isn't that big a thing to the campaign. But if the game is story focused and a PC has a major role then death can ruin not only an adventure but a campaign.

 

On 6/9/2022 at 9:56 PM, icebrand said:

 

I fear a "weakness" of the game is that it has a long chargen; this doesnt synergize very well with all these super lethal situations the adventurers face all the time, but you can always make everyone roll a backup character (i have a stack of customizable pregens instead).

It's not long chargen, it's player investment. Once the character starts to develop, no matter when, they player gets invested and doesn't wan't to loose that character. But, conversely they want (and need) to be put at risk and overcome obstacles in order for the adventures to be exciting and satisfying. My last group was playing Tunnels & Trolls a game where chargen takes about ten minutes, yet players who got invested in thier characters didn't want to lose them.

 

 

On 6/9/2022 at 9:56 PM, icebrand said:

Well, thats because it's a George Lucas as GM. He values characters because it's a movie and stuff. 

Yes, but that is because no one wants to see a movie where the main characters get killed off half way through, and the bad guys win. 

On 6/9/2022 at 9:56 PM, icebrand said:

But if you are playing han solo at my runequest, well... The storm trooper shoots you and you die, and thats why RQ aint very good for a starwars game. 

But by that logic it's not good for Glorantha either. Basically most of the heroes tend to do things that defy the odds. That's why they are heroes. And that's why we find thier stories compelling. Now they can do so because their stories were written and the authors made sure things went as desired for the story. But if thing were all done organically, it probably wound't have come out as well.

Same with PCs. Players play RPGs to play larger than life characters who can do things they can't, and who can beat the odds. But if they odds were really against the PCs they would be beaten pretty early on. So most games cheat and stack the deck in the PCs favor. 

Now you might thing that you don't stack the deck and run everything "fair" but adventures aren't written to be "fair", they are written so that the players have a good chance of succeeding. 

 

On 6/9/2022 at 9:56 PM, icebrand said:

Maybe chewbacca saves the party and they fly to bespin, and Lando takes over? Maybe han solos twin, dan solo comes to the rescue? 

What if the Empire blows up the Falcon before they make the jump to lightspeed?

 

That's the thing with a narrative/story type of advenure with heroic PCs wo are needed for something. If they fail then the universe fails with them. And the same thing can happen in RQ, if the PCs are that important to the course of events. Now if they aren't that important, that's fine, but they limits them to being minor players in the story. 

On 6/9/2022 at 9:56 PM, icebrand said:

For me the magic of runequest is that i don't know what's gonna happen. And if the dm doesnt know, you can bet the players don't either!!! And that, for me, makes for the ultimate adventure game.

But that isn't a feature of RuneQuest so much as you choice of GMing style. Which is fine, as long as you understand what it means, and also what that means with dice and multiple attempts. What it means with adventures design and so on. 

I'm not opposed to that style, in fact, I run fairly similar to that with a lot of games (the type of campaign/genre/setting influences the style of play). 

 

As far as the difference between RQ and D&D they are also fine, as long as people realize and accept them. Over the years I've seen a lot of D&D players, who tried some other RPG and then got very unhappy when the tactics they used in D&D didn't work in the game they were playing. Rather than realize this and change their tactics, they would get upset and blame the GM or game. I've wiped out scores of PCs who though a frontal change was the best tactic to use against missile troops. That tactics makes sense in AD&D where fighter have lots of hit points, archers only get off a couple of shots before being engaged, and arrows do 1d6. That tactic doesn't make as much sense in RQ where hit points are fixed, archers can get off several shots before the opponent can close, and missile weapons can impale. It makes even less sense when the archers are on battlements, and is just suicidal when the missile troops have assault rifles and an M2HB machine gun. And yes, I've seen D&Ders charge a fort and a machine gun in order RPGs and be surprised when they got mowed down. 

 

  • Like 1

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2022 at 1:23 PM, Atgxtg said:

Wow, were are you located? I gamed in the Northeast U.S. and the DI houserule was as common to all the AD&D groups as the critical hit/natural 20 does does damage houserule. It was so prevelant that most people just assumed it existed unless told otherwise. 

I'm in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Back then we played AD&D 2e with a photocopied book because there was nowhere to buy the thing unless you phisically went to the US or something!

Also heres the history of crítical hits for dungeons and dragons: 

https://songoftheblade.wordpress.com/2015/12/14/a-short-history-of-critical-hits-in-dd/

Ad&D 2e had several optional rules for crits, we used roll double weapon damage.

On 6/25/2022 at 1:23 PM, Atgxtg said:

I'd think a Runelord is at least a Lvl 10-11 character based upon the relative combat skill. A Runlord needs a 90%+ weapon skill, and to have a 90% base chance to hit in D&D would require a fighter to be at least level 8. That ignore attribute modifiers, specialties and such, but it also ignores Armor Class. But basically if they are uspposed to be master swordsmen they must be highly skilled and thus high level

Yeah but you just can't equate them like that. A level 11 caster can cast level 6 spells; thats way beyond any RQ skill. Oh, by the way, a level 11 Barbarian can drop from orbit and do a super hero landing  (without dying, because they are angry or smth).

On 6/25/2022 at 1:23 PM, Atgxtg said:

More like Macintosh to Golden Declicious. Both do the same thing, simulate heroic fantasy world combat, but they do so in different ways

More like oranges and lemons maybe. I think D&D and RQ are different fantasy subgenres; the story you get by the rules will be wildly different in both systems.

On 6/25/2022 at 1:23 PM, Atgxtg said:

don't know if RQ is more "realistic", per say. I've never seen anyone cast fireblade, or have thier allied spirirt do so for them in real life. I get your point, but RQ isn't all that more "realistic" than D&D.   It's grittier and have a higher element of risk to them

RQ is "grittier" if you want? I think runequest rules are closer to my perception of reality than D&D's, and it's not even close. You may disagree of course, but everyone knows i'm always right 😂

On 6/25/2022 at 1:23 PM, Atgxtg said:

Yeah, but for you to be dfown in the first place is the tough bit. 10th level fighter vs. 1HD monster is a foregone conclusion in D&D. It's mostly so in RQ/BRP but not quite. Pretty much anybody can fall to a single lucky critical and that is a game changer

But a level 10 is not a basic runelord; a level 10 is a runelord that would have a very high skill and be able to fight a lot of trollkin at once.

A runelord that drops a trollkin to 5% attack and parry is actually less threatened by it than a level 10 fighter fighting a 1hd creature; the trollkin has under 1% of actually hitting, and even then it may do no damage due to armor or get their hit healed. Worst case scenario the runelord needs to ID, but thats around the same chance of the 1hd creature critting you 2x while you miss everything (in this extreme D&D is less punsishing through, which takes us to my 100% true and uncontestable fact that RQ is more realistic 🤪).

The "lucky crítical hit" really does need to be lucky.

1st your mook needs to crit. Crit chances are already low, and when fighting high level rune masters, it's probably no greater than 1-2%.

After you hit, you also need the runemaster not to parry you. Even critting for 14pts with your trollkin spear will quickly become nothing if parried, which happens 19/20 times.

So, lets say the 1% crit chance trollkin makes it, and the runelord 96-00s... Ok, now theres 70% you hit a non vital area, which will be healed, but now the trollkin is putting the runelord against the ropes, so they are likely to see rune magic retaliation (gg).

But, lets say you hit vitals! This is actually a 0,015% chance. It's 1 and a half in 10 thousand... Ok, so now the runelord DIs, and depending on the cult and player predisposition the poor cursed uz is looking at best at a horrible, gruesome, exceedingly cruel death, because players reaaaaaly hate losing POW and if the culprit is a friggin trollkin i can easily imagine them straight up torturing the thing.

And no matter if it's a single trollkin, or two or five... How many times are you gonna roll 0,015% back to back? (The answer is one... At best).

On 6/25/2022 at 1:23 PM, Atgxtg said:

, it's a non feature. 

First off mook has to drop the  PC. This is the tough bit.

Secondly mook kills downed PC, easy bit.

Thirdly, non of the other PCs do anything about it.

The mook didnt drop Rurik, the shade did. For comparison, a large elemental is CR5. Thats not a mook, thats a monster for 4 level 5 players, AND there were other mooks.

Thirdly, there was another single PC, maybe they couldnt help or something.

On 6/25/2022 at 1:23 PM, Atgxtg said:

Mathematically speaking, if you shoot at James Bond or the Batman enough, you will eventually hit and kill them. But if that were to happen it would end the series, so it doesn't happen. Or it jet's retcooned or rebooted.

Mathematically speaking, if you play the lottery enough times, you will eventually hit the jackpot... Only we both know this isnt how it works?

If you hit Batman or Bond long enough you hit them and wound them. Death wasnt a possibility because of the medium. Death IS a possibility in RPGs.

This is about plot armor, not game mechanics!

 

On 6/25/2022 at 1:23 PM, Atgxtg said:

I agree. Let the dice fall where they may, and deal with the consequences, unless your group is using hero points or DI or something. 

💪💪💪💪

On 6/25/2022 at 1:23 PM, Atgxtg said:

 I was fine with it though because without the risk of that happening the game wouldn't have been an exciting and my accomplishments would have felt empty since they would have been rigged

This. This a thousand times.

What good are the players exploits if it was actually the GM making them succeed?

On 6/25/2022 at 1:23 PM, Atgxtg said:

But most of the protection/screening comes is the adventure design, not in the gameplay. They are written such that they PCs have a better than average chance of success. The PCs rareley if over, are over matched in skil and ability. Becuase it bad storytelling and bad gaming to just beat down the heroes every time

Yes, thats why the players have like..  70-90% (made up %) chance, but thing is... What happens the other 30-10% of the time?

I'm a firm believer in failing forward (so, those times you lose face / limbs / die).

Other people just "fudge it". At our table, we call that cheating; we are ok with changing a rule, or introducing mechanics. We are not ok with the GM (or anyone) messing with the dice. If You don't like the result you don't roll; we have agreed on rules -which may or may not be raw- so we play by them. 

Ours is not "the GM story we are part of" but everyones story. The dice guide us better since they don't have any bias!

(Continuing on next post because this is too long and the editor is going crazy in my phone)

 

"It seems I'm destined not to move ahead in time faster than my usual rate of one second per second"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2022 at 6:23 PM, Atgxtg said:

I'd think a Runelord is at least a Lvl 10-11 character based upon the relative combat skill. A Runlord needs a 90%+ weapon skill, and to have a 90% base chance to hit in D&D would require a fighter to be at least level 8. That ignore attribute modifiers, specialties and such, but it also ignores Armor Class. But basically if they are uspposed to be master swordsmen they must be highly skilled and thus high level.

 

Plus, you need high HP in D&D to have an equivalent of the high parry skill that a RuneLord is required to have.

AC may be partly based on Dex bonus, only a few characters have AC that significantly increases with level.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2022 at 1:23 PM, Atgxtg said:

If the mooks kill off the PCs at too high a rate, you run out of PCs. Because it kills a campaign and causes players to stop playing. 

Now the trick is to provide enough of a risk that it could happen to keep the game existing, but not have it happen enough to disrupt the game.

It's the same reason why the NPCs doen't have skill scores assigned randomly. Realistically, a fledgling PC could run into a master swordsman in his first fight, but that doesn't happen in games because it makes for a bad game

If the mooks kill off the PCs then the PCs misplayed and it's 100% on them!

To be honest i used to "do the trick" (or try to). Nowadays? Nah!

If you take the risk, fail, and it doesnt "disrupt" the game, then it wasnt a risk at all!!!

My NPCs dont come randomized because it's a lot of work; but why not? Why can't your fledgling hero stumble around a swordsmaster? 

I mean noone FORCES you to fight them, and if you do and (most likely) lose, thats on you;  you can do whatever you like, but your actions have consequences.

I remember i was DMing for a level 6 group in D&D and they found out the great power that could help them defeat the invading orc army was a Lich. They didnt like it and decided to get vocal about it. The Lich warned them in a friendly manner, and the Barbarian decided to reply by raging (which triggered a contigency and then i had the pleasure of TPKing before any player could roll a single die)... Was the adventure disrupted? Probably. Did the players learn something? Well, i'm not sure but at least now they know theres no such thing as a CR6 Lich 😂

On 6/25/2022 at 1:23 PM, Atgxtg said:

Not quite anything. In fact, a lot of what can and will happen is clearly spelled out. Much of what makes Glorantha interesting is stuff that is pre-written pre-ordianed, and involves heroes who overcome the odds and accomplish great things. That's what makes them appealing

... FOR YOU.

Like, seriously, this "does it" for you, and thats awesome, but it means nothing to me; when i want pre-written pre-ordained i just read a book.

On 6/25/2022 at 1:23 PM, Atgxtg said:

Player death can ruin an adventure, depending on where and when, and how much depended upon that player character. The more of a heroic campaign you are going for the more difficult such events can be.

If you are running a "generic" game where the PCs are adventueres who don't affect the big picture much, and everything can be allowed to play out however the dice fall, then yeah, PC death isn't that big a thing to the campaign. But if the game is story focused and a PC has a major role then death can ruin not only an adventure but a campaign

Why would a player death ruin a campaign? Change it? Sure... End it?? Maybe? But end... Idk man maybe it's all that pre-ordained thing i don't do.

On 6/25/2022 at 1:23 PM, Atgxtg said:

It's not long chargen, it's player investment. Once the character starts to develop, no matter when, they player gets invested and doesn't wan't to loose that character. But, conversely they want (and need) to be put at risk and overcome obstacles in order for the adventures to be exciting and satisfying. My last group was playing Tunnels & Trolls a game where chargen takes about ten minutes, yet players who got invested in thier characters didn't want to lose them

If they don't want to lose their characters then they better play well, be lucky and/or bribe me well enough 😂.

I love that they are invested in their characters, heck, im usually invested in their characters as well... Shame the universe is a cold, uncaring place and if the die say you die you better believe you meeting daka fal!

On 6/25/2022 at 1:23 PM, Atgxtg said:

that is because no one wants to see a movie where the main characters get killed off half way through, and the bad guys win. 

The place beyond the pines, psycho, burn after reading, cain, contagion, the blob, life, executive decision (that one is baaad lol), deadproof, live and die in la, la confidential, cabin in the woods, hostel, the Transformers one when optimus prime dies 5 minutes in (irredeemable!!!), Alien, the thin red line, the boys from brazil, gi Joe retaliation...

I can go on but on all those the protagonist dies midway and is replaced by someone else.

As for movies where Bad guys win...

Starwars 3 & 5, Chinatown, No country for old men, seven, brightburn, Jason X (best movie in the franchise btw), most romero zombie movies, 300, gladiator, again i could keep going (this one has many more examples than the former).

 

On 6/25/2022 at 1:23 PM, Atgxtg said:

What if the Empire blows up the Falcon before they make the jump to lightspeed?

They werent actually firing at them, just pretending; you see, they had a tracking device and it was just the exact same plan Vader used earlier in the kenobi series, because Vader doesnt just fail, he fails again and again trying the same thing (man that series was super disappointing).

Lets say a good GM saw an inevitable TPK and came up with an alternative.

On 6/25/2022 at 1:23 PM, Atgxtg said:

the thing with a narrative/story type of advenure with heroic PCs wo are needed for something. If they fail then the universe fails with them. And the same thing can happen in RQ, if the PCs are that important to the course of events. 

Why should the universe not fail? If the stakes of the conflict are the universe exploding... Well, congrats for running a super awesome campaign? Then the PCs die and you know what? You *SHOULD* blow up the universe!!! That will teach them!!

Like... Consider it, you have nothing to lose!

On 6/25/2022 at 1:23 PM, Atgxtg said:

that isn't a feature of RuneQuest so much as you choice of GMing style. Which is fine, as long as you understand what it means, and also what that means with dice and multiple attempts. What it means with adventures design and so on. 

Lets say BRP enables that kind of playstyle. And yeah, i try to avoid making people roll the same thing over and over because i have a vague idea of how maths work 🙂

"It seems I'm destined not to move ahead in time faster than my usual rate of one second per second"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Sorry to bring this back on-topic, but after re-reading the paragraph "Slung shields", where it says,

"Usually shields are worn slung over the arm/shoulder or
back when not being used actively in combat. If the
gamemaster is using hit locations, you can add 1/2 the
armor protection of a slung shield (round up) to any hit
location struck by a weapon, in addition to any armor
points already in that location."

... I've come to the conclusion that it is quite possible under rules-as-written to use the shield passively as extra armor while using your weapon to parry with, and that this is the only meaningful reason to use a shield in melee in BRB (again, if you want to play RAW which is my ambition right now). Given that shields have around 20 HP, half of that means that the covered locations become invulnerable to most attacks except from two-handed weapons and large monsters.

Incidentally, this is clearly stated as possible in RQ IV/AiG, which is from where they probably got this rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd focus on the "arm/shoulder or back" and restrict incidental protection to just those locations (though most of the games don't specify the back as a location -- you get arm, or chest). If the shield is a large tapering shield I'd maybe allow a "slung on back" to cover chest& abdomen. Bit more problematic if dangling over the arm -- technically that would cover a /side/ attack. It's also a less secure position and might shift depending upon what that side arm is doing -- so... upper arm coverage, lower arm probably exposed.

 

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

On 8/16/2022 at 3:39 AM, Baron Wulfraed said:

Personally, I'd focus on the "arm/shoulder or back" and restrict incidental protection to just those locations (though most of the games don't specify the back as a location -- you get arm, or chest). If the shield is a large tapering shield I'd maybe allow a "slung on back" to cover chest& abdomen. Bit more problematic if dangling over the arm -- technically that would cover a /side/ attack. It's also a less secure position and might shift depending upon what that side arm is doing -- so... upper arm coverage, lower arm probably exposed.

 

So in BGB, all shields have the hit locations covered specified. Buckler has arm,  round shield has arm & chest, hoplite covers everything except the legs etc. I see using the shield passively in this way as corresponding to holding the shield in place and denying access to those areas, while parrying actively with your hand weapon. 
 

Incidentally, this is a common method in SCA fighting. 

Edited by Barak Shathur
corrected coverage for hoplite shield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might be an interpretation matter... To me "slung" means it is just hanging from a strap (similar to a single-strap backpack/sling-pack) and one is not gripping it at all with the offside hand -- ie; there is nothing bracing the shield to even keep it in place. Anything hitting it is going to move it around (and if it is "dangling" over the arm, rather than stowed across the back, that means it could be moved into interference with the weapon arm).

Actually holding the shield, even if not actively moving it to parry/block, is a different matter -- one of bearer's choice of which hand to use for parrying. One has essentially chosen to cover an area, regardless of where attacks are coming in from vs choosing to cover attacks themselves.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

Might be an interpretation matter... To me "slung" means it is just hanging from a strap (similar to a single-strap backpack/sling-pack) and one is not gripping it at all with the offside hand -- ie; there is nothing bracing the shield to even keep it in place. Anything hitting it is going to move it around (and if it is "dangling" over the arm, rather than stowed across the back, that means it could be moved into interference with the weapon arm).

This conversation really makes me think about some of the larger versions of the "sode" from the samurai armor. They really make me think of shields strapped on your shoulders.

Obviously, they're not as easy to use to deflect attacks, but they look very good as passive shields against arrows.

Spoiler

27600160a73143a795979ccf86dd838704jpg.jp

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

Might be an interpretation matter... To me "slung" means it is just hanging from a strap (similar to a single-strap backpack/sling-pack) and one is not gripping it at all with the offside hand -- ie; there is nothing bracing the shield to even keep it in place. Anything hitting it is going to move it around (and if it is "dangling" over the arm, rather than stowed across the back, that means it could be moved into interference with the weapon arm).

Yeah, it's a bit of a stretch but to me it seems like a logical interpretation. By 'slung' they obviously mean shields that are hanging on a strap, basically kept in storage on your back or shoulder. But I don't really see the practical difference between a shield that is hanging on a strap,  blocking attacks by just being in the way, and one that you're holding in place with your hand or arm, as long as you're not moving it around to parry with. So I think it should be doable within the rules system as written. 

16 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

Actually holding the shield, even if not actively moving it to parry/block, is a different matter -- one of bearer's choice of which hand to use for parrying. One has essentially chosen to cover an area, regardless of where attacks are coming in from vs choosing to cover attacks themselves.

This is what I'm talking about. Since BRP makes no distinction between parrying with a weapon you're also attacking with, and parrying with a dedicated parrying weapon such as a shield or a second weapon, one could see shields being useful basically as extra armour that also intercepts missiles and that can be used to parry with if so desired. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ok, mulling this over I have come down on this side regarding shields: the 'slung shield' function can be used in combat if the user simply holds it in place, providing half AP to the locations covered, as long as it is not used to parry actively with (you can still parry with your hand weapon). If used for parrying, you in essence have two parrying weapons: your shield and your hand weapon, providing an extra unpenalised parry if you use both for parrying. I think this can be extrapolated from the rules as written without stretching them too much, and makes shields a meaningful choice.

  • Like 1
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...