Shields

[Akhôrahil]

58 minutes ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

No different from RQ2, where attack and parry skills were tracked separately (and I still wish they were -- it would probably negate the whole "parry with main weapon vs parry with shield" topic). Having weapon parry skill match weapon attack skill smells to me like AD&D -- where getting an increase in class level granted increases in /everything/, even that dagger you never used in combat...

The whole thing about exchanges where you make an attack and the opponent makes a parry is a gross simplification - it's pretty much inconceivable that you could be an expert attacker but you don't know anything about defending. Things don't break into such neat chunks

RQ is probably overly granular even with attack and parry being the same skill, due to every weapon having its own skill. "Oh, I'm great with a short sword, but give me a kopis and I'm just crap." Skill transfer should probably realistically be something like 80%, not 50%, within a weapon class, and maybe 50% between weapon classes. Someone who's great with a sword isn't going to be useless with an axe - a fair amount of skill transfers.

What would help things was if shields were just easier or better to parry with. I have considered something like giving shields a base chance of 50%, but even this won't help when warrior PCs start at 90% anyway. 

[PhilHibbs]

On 11/2/2022 at 12:02 AM, Akhôrahil said:

What would help things was if shields were just easier or better to parry with. I have considered something like giving shields a base chance of 50%, but even this won't help when warrior PCs start at 90% anyway. 

I can't see how anyone can get to 90% with a shield, unless you have 25% Manipulation bonus.

[Shiningbrow]

12 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I can't see how anyone can get to 90% with a shield, unless you have 25% Manipulation bonus.

Base 15% + Culture 15% + Occupation (warrior) 25% + Cult (Humakt - "other weapon") +10% + (cult again) 20% + Free Skill Points 25% = 105%... no Manipulation bonus yet.

Sure, a Humakti is unlikely to choose that way, but you never know. Also, one might argue that the Humakti "other weapon" shouldn't be there, in which case, lose 30% (bringing it down to 75%, then add Manipulation bonus (only need 15% to get to 90%).

[Akhôrahil]

22 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I can't see how anyone can get to 90% with a shield, unless you have 25% Manipulation bonus.

My point was that since weapons are better than shields for parry, you would have to be better at shield to make it worthwhile, but fighter types cap out their weapon *anyway*. 
 

50% base for shields in RQ2 would have mattered a lot, on the other hand.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Akhôrahil

[PhilHibbs]

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

Base 15% + Culture 15% + Occupation (warrior) 25% + Cult (Humakt - "other weapon") +10% + (cult again) 20% + Free Skill Points 25% = 105%... no Manipulation bonus yet.

Sure, a Humakti is unlikely to choose that way, but you never know. Also, one might argue that the Humakti "other weapon" shouldn't be there, in which case, lose 30% (bringing it down to 75%, then add Manipulation bonus (only need 15% to get to 90%).

Ah, Humakti yes. I discounted that for the same reason you give, and you shouldn't have to be a Humakti to be a warrior.

[Arcadiagt5]

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

Base 15% + Culture 15% + Occupation (warrior) 25% + Cult (Humakt - "other weapon") +10% + (cult again) 20% + Free Skill Points 25% = 105%... no Manipulation bonus yet.

Sure, a Humakti is unlikely to choose that way, but you never know. Also, one might argue that the Humakti "other weapon" shouldn't be there, in which case, lose 30% (bringing it down to 75%, then add Manipulation bonus (only need 15% to get to 90%).

The only qualification I’ll make is that the +25/+10 personal interest bonuses aren’t allowed to take a skill past 100 including manipulation bonus.

[Kloster]

2 hours ago, Arcadiagt5 said:

The only qualification I’ll make is that the +25/+10 personal interest bonuses aren’t allowed to take a skill past 100 including manipulation bonus.

Correct.

3 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Ah, Humakti yes. I discounted that for the same reason you give, and you shouldn't have to be a Humakti to be a warrior.

No need: Base 15% + Culture 15% + Occupation (warrior) 25% + Free Skill Points 25% + Manipulation 15% = 95%

[Shiningbrow]

21 hours ago, Arcadiagt5 said:

The only qualification I’ll make is that the +25/+10 personal interest bonuses aren’t allowed to take a skill past 100 including manipulation bonus.

No no, I wasn't suggesting it would. Just pointing out that even without the Manipulation bonus, you can get the shield up to a high percentage!

[Shiningbrow]

23 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

My point was that since weapons are better than shields for parry, you would have to be better at shield to make it worthwhile, but fighter types cap out their weapon *anyway*. 

That's a negative, Houston!

I've run the soloquest a few times, both for myself alone, and as a GM for others. So, maybe about 7 or 8 times. In a few of those, someone's weapon was completely destroyed. In all of them weapons have taken damage.

p199 - Attacker rolls Crit, Defender normal parry - Attacker rolls special damage. Defender’s parrying weapon HP reduced by the damage rolled. Most larger melee weapons only have 10-12HP. A Med shield has 12, large shield 16. Which would you rather lose in the middle of a combat?

Sure, you could have a good couple of Repair spells, but do you want to be doing that in the middle of combat also?

[Akhôrahil]

18 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

That's a negative, Houston!

I've run the soloquest a few times, both for myself alone, and as a GM for others. So, maybe about 7 or 8 times. In a few of those, someone's weapon was completely destroyed. In all of them weapons have taken damage.

p199 - Attacker rolls Crit, Defender normal parry - Attacker rolls special damage. Defender’s parrying weapon HP reduced by the damage rolled. Most larger melee weapons only have 10-12HP. A Med shield has 12, large shield 16. Which would you rather lose in the middle of a combat?

Sure, you could have a good couple of Repair spells, but do you want to be doing that in the middle of combat also?

Reserve weapon solves this much more easily. Swords weigh a bunch, so you could easily just carry a reserve sword instead.

Further, since the whole group can have enchanted copper weapons for 1 POW according to the official ruling, it's super cheap to get all but invulnerable weapons.

The time when shield is great (apart from missile combat, where it's clearly good) is when you're fighting something huge, and you cast Earth Shield. But just skill-tanking is often better here anyway. 

Edited November 8, 2022 by Akhôrahil

[PhilHibbs]

21 hours ago, Kloster said:

Correct.

No need: Base 15% + Culture 15% + Occupation (warrior) 25% + Free Skill Points 25% + Manipulation 15% = 95%

Ah! Looks like there's a bug in my character creation sheet... base chance was missing from my calculation.

[Mugen]

On 11/2/2022 at 1:02 AM, Akhôrahil said:

RQ is probably overly granular even with attack and parry being the same skill, due to every weapon having its own skill. "Oh, I'm great with a short sword, but give me a kopis and I'm just crap." Skill transfer should probably realistically be something like 80%, not 50%, within a weapon class, and maybe 50% between weapon classes. Someone who's great with a sword isn't going to be useless with an axe - a fair amount of skill transfers.

Or just have broad base skills with specialties, like in Trudwang (but with just one specialization level, not two), or Revolution D100.

Skill Transfer has the problem to make learning multiple skills useless, which is IMHO not wanted.

[Kloster]

2 hours ago, Mugen said:

Or just have broad base skills with specialties, like in Trudwang (but with just one specialization level, not two), or Revolution D100.

Skill Transfer has the problem to make learning multiple skills useless, which is IMHO not wanted.

Or having same skill for categories, like in RQ3 (1H sword, 2H sword,...).

[Mugen]

17 minutes ago, Kloster said:

Or having same skill for categories, like in RQ3 (1H sword, 2H sword,...).

That's a first step, but it won't help a sword expert to use his overall combat experience with an axe, as suggested in the post I was anwering to.

[whitelaughter]

12 hours ago, Mugen said:

That's a first step, but it won't help a sword expert to use his overall combat experience with an axe, as suggested in the post I was anwering to.

Well, weapons can exist within more than one category (frex short spear as both 1H and 2H spear). An in-world solution would be to create a weapon that counts as both a sword and an axe; even if the weapon is completely impractical, your swordsman would have half skill with the 'swax' and then half his swax skill with an axe.

[PhilHibbs]

4 hours ago, whitelaughter said:

Well, weapons can exist within more than one category (frex short spear as both 1H and 2H spear).

Those are separate skills (just to be clear - I get that we are talking about potential changes). The rules are ambiguous as to which you get in character creation if it just says "Short Spear". My spreadsheet gives both, but as two separate entries in the skill tracker.

[whitelaughter]

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

Those are separate skills (just to be clear - I get that we are talking about potential changes). The rules are ambiguous as to which you get in character creation if it just says "Short Spear". My spreadsheet gives both, but as two separate entries in the skill tracker.

Yes indeed, and that's what I suggest using as a partial solution. Just as you can....

....hmmm, can you?

Does 1H Spear act as a default to 2H Spear? I assumed that, but is that the case?

[PhilHibbs]

28 minutes ago, whitelaughter said:

Yes indeed, and that's what I suggest using as a partial solution. Just as you can....

....hmmm, can you?

Does 1H Spear act as a default to 2H Spear? I assumed that, but is that the case?

Rules As Written, no it doesn't. It's in a different category. The fact that the physical item that you are holding is the same item is irrelevant. It's like throwing or stabbing with a javelin - same physical item, different skills. You wouldn't use your sling skill to strangle someone with the sling cord, or your Composite Bow skill to hit someone over the head with your bow.

[Barak Shathur]

I think this from the QA under “Shields as passive armor” is the best use one can have for a shield within the RQG rules:

• The adventurer will receive no benefit from the shield unless against melee or missile fire that happens to strike that or an adjacent hit location (see p219) AND comes from a direction that would reasonably have a chance of hitting (gamemaster discretion). In this case, the shield will protect for half its usual armor points (as per the rules for a slung shield on the back, p219). 

It would be nice if they could just write that “holding a shield in place without using it to parry actively provides half its AP to the locations covered against melee or missile attacks coming from the facing direction” or something. 

[Beoferret]

On 11/13/2022 at 4:31 AM, Barak Shathur said:

I think this from the QA under “Shields as passive armor” is the best use one can have for a shield within the RQG rules:

• The adventurer will receive no benefit from the shield unless against melee or missile fire that happens to strike that or an adjacent hit location (see p219) AND comes from a direction that would reasonably have a chance of hitting (gamemaster discretion). In this case, the shield will protect for half its usual armor points (as per the rules for a slung shield on the back, p219). 

It would be nice if they could just write that “holding a shield in place without using it to parry actively provides half its AP to the locations covered against melee or missile attacks coming from the facing direction” or something. 

Another idea working off of this one. If character is holding a shield in place as functionally passive protection, then give them the added benefit of allowing the standard opportunity to attack and parry with their weapon. Combine with a small bump in shield HP and shield use becomes much more attractive, whether as a passive or active defense. Directly attacking shields (say with your 2-handed axe or maul) also becomes a more reasonable option for weakening an opponent and opening them up to further strikes.

[Beoferret]

Different option for making shield use more attractive, without any modification of RAW. Use the two-weapon fighting rules, with the shield acting as one of the covered weapons. Set up that good old dynamic shield bash, then stab/smash/slice combo.

[Mugen]

8 minutes ago, Beoferret said:

Different option for making shield use more attractive, without any modification of RAW. Use the two-weapon fighting rules, with the shield acting as one of the covered weapons. Set up that good old dynamic shield bash, then stab/smash/slice combo.

What is the SR of Shields in RQG ?

If it's 3, most people won't be able to attack with them, as it would require them to wait SR 13 : SR 6 for main weapon + SR 7 for the shield.

Only people with DEX SR +SIZ SR < 4 will benefit from this.

[Barak Shathur]

53 minutes ago, Beoferret said:

Another idea working off of this one. If character is holding a shield in place as functionally passive protection, then give them the added benefit of allowing the standard opportunity to attack and parry with their weapon.

This is what I meant (if I read you correctly), and how the rules work as I understand it. Since in RQG it makes absolutely no difference to parrying whether you have a shield and weapon or just a single weapon, you might as well use the shield as passive armour while you parry (and attack) with your weapon. This is pretty much the only way using a shield in melee makes sense to me within RAW. Otherwise it's just dead weight as far as I can tell.

[Beoferret]

40 minutes ago, Mugen said:

What is the SR of Shields in RQG ?

If it's 3, most people won't be able to attack with them, as it would require them to wait SR 13 : SR 6 for main weapon + SR 7 for the shield.

Only people with DEX SR +SIZ SR < 4 will benefit from this.

D'oh! OK, you might have to tweak the rules a little bit to make this work. So assuming an average DX and SIZ person, playing completely by RAW, a shield and a short spear used in dual attack would be: shield at SR 7 (SIZ SR2 + DEX SR 2 + shield SR 3) and then spear thrust at SR 13 (7 + 2 + 2 + spear SR 2). Doesn't work for average person. If the character is DEX SR + SIZ SR < 4, then no problem (like you say), which does seem reasonable for most warrior types (or anyone who's had Mobility cast on them. OR one could tweak the rules and say that the first strike has to include the full SIZ + DEX SR, but the second is only uses the DEX SR. You're already in range, right? Then the combo would be: shield bash at SR 7, then spear thrust at SR 11. Maybe still worth doing?

[Beoferret]

16 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

This is what I meant (if I read you correctly), and how the rules work as I understand it. Since in RQG it makes absolutely no difference to parrying whether you have a shield and weapon or just a single weapon, you might as well use the shield as passive armour while you parry (and attack) with your weapon. This is pretty much the only way using a shield in melee makes sense to me within RAW. Otherwise it's just dead weight as far as I can tell.

And here I thought I was having an epiphany! Apologies for not fully understanding your point. I do think you can make an argument for using shields for active defense (e.g., not risking a damaged weapon), but enabling the option of using shields as passive defense in melee combat does make them more ... well ... useful.