Shields

[Barak Shathur]

12 hours ago, Beoferret said:

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. 

No problem. And yes, parrying with the shield prevents your weapon being damaged, which however is pretty rare in my experience. Against high damage attacks like great weapons and large monsters it makes more sense to parry with the shield though. 

Edited November 18, 2022 by Barak Shathur
Typo

[French Desperate WindChild]

thinking about that, I would say that a big shield should reduce the attack% of weapon. probably a % depending weapon size (imagine the moves you must do to hit with your dagger if you have in front of you 80% of the body covered by a shield...) 

 

or more detailed: if the opponent don't care what to hit (shield, fighter ...) no penalty but if she wants to hit the body to wound / kill yes more movement are needed so penalties. Of course depending of the weapon, maul, spear... the shield should get more or less damage (can a spear break a shield ?)

 

however, just an idea i would probably never follow:  adding too much rules (and maybe 2-3 matrix to modelize everything) to have in mind during a fight is not my taste

[Shiningbrow]

22 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

thinking about that, I would say that a big shield should reduce the attack% of weapon. probably a % depending weapon size (imagine the moves you must do to hit with your dagger if you have in front of you 80% of the body covered by a shield...) 

 

or more detailed: if the opponent don't care what to hit (shield, fighter ...) no penalty but if she wants to hit the body to wound / kill yes more movement are needed so penalties. Of course depending of the weapon, maul, spear... the shield should get more or less damage (can a spear break a shield ?)

 

however, just an idea i would probably never follow:  adding too much rules (and maybe 2-3 matrix to modelize everything) to have in mind during a fight is not my taste

If you think a shield is going to cover 80% of someone passively, then you should also expect that they won't be able to attack very well with their weapon as well! Basically only a simple thrust or basic overhead chop. This should greatly reduce the attack %.

[French Desperate WindChild]

1 minute ago, Shiningbrow said:

If you think a shield is going to cover 80% of someone passively, then you should also expect that they won't be able to attack very well with their weapon as well! Basically only a simple thrust or basic overhead chop. This should greatly reduce the attack %.

I agree

[Joerg]

12 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

If you think a shield is going to cover 80% of someone passively, then you should also expect that they won't be able to attack very well with their weapon as well! Basically only a simple thrust or basic overhead chop. This should greatly reduce the attack %.

That's where those cescent or 8-shaped  shields come in handy.

[Mugen]

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

If you think a shield is going to cover 80% of someone passively, then you should also expect that they won't be able to attack very well with their weapon as well! Basically only a simple thrust or basic overhead chop. This should greatly reduce the attack %.

As for myself, I think having some sort of "defensive stance", like in Pendragon, would help simulating this aspect of shields.

When focusing on defense, you'd put yourself behind your shield, thus gaining a bonus to parry, but your attack attempts would also receive a malus. The bigger your shield, the bigger your parry bonus - and perhaps also the bigger your attack malus...

A "reckless attack" stance could be possible, where you put your weapon forward to have a better reach, making parries difficult for a bonus to attack skill.

[Akhôrahil]

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

If you think a shield is going to cover 80% of someone passively, then you should also expect that they won't be able to attack very well with their weapon as well! Basically only a simple thrust or basic overhead chop. This should greatly reduce the attack %.

To a point, but you have the advantage of being able to move your arm around behind the shield, especially if your weapon isn’t unwieldy. When both you and your opponent do it, and especially in a shield wall, attacking would become hard.

Edited November 19, 2022 by Akhôrahil

[Shiningbrow]

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

A "reckless attack" stance could be possible, where you put your weapon forward to have a better reach, making parries difficult for a bonus to attack skill.

This should lend itself to increasing the likelihood of hitting that weapon arm...

[smiorgan]

On 11/17/2022 at 10:46 PM, 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.

RAW you can only use shields as passive defense in 2 situations:

1) against missile weapons

2) in phalanx formation (of at least 6 people) where you are covered by the guy on you right

 

 

 

 

[Barak Shathur]

3 hours ago, smiorgan said:

RAW you can only use shields as passive defense in 2 situations:

1) against missile weapons

2) in phalanx formation (of at least 6 people) where you are covered by the guy on you right

 

 

 

 

But

"Shields as passive armor

Can you bear a shield with, let’s say, a Great Axe or a Bow, although you can not parry, in order to get some kind of “passive defense” against missiles, or, otherwise,  what is the meaning of the expression “A shield may not be ready for use when the adventurer is using a two-handed weapon” in p. 219

Here’s where we get into some crunch, based on how realistic you want to go. In the real world, shields usually require a hand to hold onto an interior strap or handle so they don’t get in the way or slip around. Part of a shield’s virtue is being mobile enough that it doesn’t take hits directly, angling them away from the defender when possible. 

These straps not like Captain America’s magical shield that has grips tight enough for him to wield it like a weapon AND then slip over his shoulder with backpack like straps. (Comics version Captain America, in the movie he has some sort of magnetic harness.) That’s not super-fun, though, and fantasy art and fiction is full of characters with a shield slung over one arm loosely while using a two-handed weapon like a bow or great axe. 

So if as a GM you want to allow it, we suggest using this ruling: 

• 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). 

For example, an adventurer is using a bow, holding it with their left hand and drawing the string with the right hand. The shield is affixed to the back of the left arm. An attack comes from the adventurer’s left and rolls the left arm hit location. The shield, being between the attacker and the arm in question, protects for half its normal value. Later in the same combat, an attack comes from the right/front or back and rolls the left arm hit location. The gamemaster decides that the arm is exposed and that the shield isn’t between the attack and the arm, so the shield is useless."