Shields in melee

[Nightshade]

Actually, I suspect they simplified the rule in MRQ (in origin it was: if you lack one of the two weapons that make up your style, you are at -20%) because I pointed out this fact. In truth, if you are trained in 1-hand weapon parry and you have a shield, it hampers you. Your training tells you to keep your weapon towards your enemy, but using the shield requires that you keep that towards your enemy. Can become messy. People who have not actually tried will not believe it, but in fact it works this way.

Oh, yeah. I expect similar problems apply to people used to two-weapon techniques.

[Atgxtg]

I always thought of the separate A% & P% in RQ3 as rather odd, as it would be incredibly difficult to become a master swordsman with 100% attack if you didn't have a similar level of parrying skill

Depending on the era, the reverse might be more difficult! Parrying with the sword was generally frowned upon in cultures that used shields. For one thing, it risked damaging the blade (and not all blades were made of the same quality; for another thing, using the shield gavea better chance of drawing the attacker's blade out of line, and making an opeing that you could exploit with your own sword.

[Atgxtg]

Indeed - in the MRQ2 weapons table, the Bastard Sword does a little more damage than a Broadsword, is a little cheaper, a little easier to use on the STR requirement, and in all other ways exactly the same. Well, it has 2 fewer Hit Points, but that's rarely relevant. In other words, anyone that chooses a Broadsword over a Bastard Sword is doing so purely for aesthetic or cultural reasons.

It is kinda the result of giving everything nice, easily comparible ratings. As well as what characterstics were deemed signficant enought to warrant a rating.

In game terms some weapons just have better stats than others despite not necessarility being superior in every way in the real world. A broadsword would probably be lighter, quicker, less fatiging, and probably a bit more durable, not one which are reflected in game stats.

[famouswolf]

It depends on the level of detail you want.

Stormbringer 1 rules had it so that attack and parry both had to be 90% to be a master. Simple.

I once created a weapon list for a SB1 based game that had the weapons balanced well enough so the players had a bit of trouble deciding on the best one.

[rodney418]

After trying to boost shields within the BGB framework in my "Savage North" game last year and being somewhat unsatisfied with the results I think my position now is that I'm simply going to re-instate something like the Elric! rules.

When success levels of Attack and Parry are tied, roll normal damage. If the damage is less than the hit points of a parrying sheidl or weapon (which is designed to be parried with), nothing happens (a weapon NOT designed to parry with loses that many hit points). If the damage exceeds the parrying objects hit points by 1 it breaks (if it's a weapon) or loses 1 hit point (if it's a shield). If the damage exceeds the parrying object s hit points by more than 1, it breaks (if a weapon) and the damage goes through to the target or reduces the parrying objects hit points by the excess (if the parrying object is a shield).

Cheers,

Nick

Yeah, it's the easiest way to make shields useful. If a weapon loses HP every time it is hit and a shield only loses HP every time the damage exceeds its Armor value, then shields suddenly become a lot more valuable.

For example if someone is hitting you with a Battle Axe and you are parrying with a Longsword it will only take about three or four blows before your sword is useless and you're left without any offense and defence except dodging and running away; whereas if you are using a shield to stop that axe chances are that the shield is still going to be absolutely fine at the end of the fight, and your sword will still be in pristine shape.

That swings the balance very much the other way, and means that if someone does want to use a 2 handed weapon they really will need all those extra skill points and have to play extremely offensively with it. And personally I always like it when weapons take damage during a campaign, it helps prevent the classic "I have the biggest most bad-ass +6 weapon of Doom-mongering and I'm going to use it ad nauseum" syndrome.

Edited June 8, 2011 by rodney418

[rodney418]

Actually you could finesse that and say that Impaling attacks don't normally cause damage to a parrying weapon, so parrying a spear or rapier attack would be completely fine; whereas Slashing or Crushing attacks would cause damage to parrying weapons. That still makes shields very useful and would be slightly more realistic I guess.

[Atgxtg]

It depends on the level of detail you want.

I once created a weapon list for a SB1 based game that had the weapons balanced well enough so the players had a bit of trouble deciding on the best one.

Yeah, you can do that. Especially if you tweak the stats and/or add some new ones. Daggers don't really suck, either. They just look like they suck in most RPGs!

[Atgxtg]

Actually you could finesse that and say that Impaling attacks don't normally cause damage to a parrying weapon, so parrying a spear or rapier attack would be completely fine; whereas Slashing or Crushing attacks would cause damage to parrying weapons. That still makes shields very useful and would be slightly more realistic I guess.

Not such a great idea. Shields should be damaged by impaling weapons. Spears should poke some holes.

[Questbird]

After trying to boost shields within the BGB framework in my "Savage North" game last year and being somewhat unsatisfied with the results I think my position now is that I'm simply going to re-instate something like the Elric! rules.

When success levels of Attack and Parry are tied, roll normal damage. If the damage is less than the hit points of a parrying sheidl or weapon (which is designed to be parried with), nothing happens (a weapon NOT designed to parry with loses that many hit points). If the damage exceeds the parrying objects hit points by 1 it breaks (if it's a weapon) or loses 1 hit point (if it's a shield). If the damage exceeds the parrying object s hit points by more than 1, it breaks (if a weapon) and the damage goes through to the target or reduces the parrying objects hit points by the excess (if the parrying object is a shield).

Since there hasn't been much response to this angle in the thread (sorry, only just noticed your post Rodney418), I will agree. I also came at it from an Elric! point of view. I use a similar system.

With a successful (normal) parry vs. a critical attack I apply damage to the weapon (the parry was successful after all!) If the damage exceeds the weapon's hit points it breaks and any excess is applied to the defender. However if a shield is used to parry, only damage above the shield's hit points damage it.

Examples:

Critical hit does 22 points of damage

vs. normal parry with sword (18HP) -- sword broken and 4 points of damage to defender

same hit vs. normal success shield parry (shield 20HP) -- shield split, loses 2HP permanently, defender safe for now

This is similar to the effect of fighting with weapons not designed to parry; every hit damages them. For weapons made to parry, only criticals do.

This rule makes shields slightly better protection against criticals and more durable as a parrying device, without increasing a user's skill with them or otherwise messing with the -30% per parry/dodge rule.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Questbird

[AikiGhost]

Depending on the era, the reverse might be more difficult! Parrying with the sword was generally frowned upon in cultures that used shields. For one thing, it risked damaging the blade (and not all blades were made of the same quality; for another thing, using the shield gavea better chance of drawing the attacker's blade out of line, and making an opeing that you could exploit with your own sword.

Fair enough I'm not really interested in "realism" or historical accuracy though, I personally don't use separate A% and P% percentages as it creates another unnecessary bunch of skills on ones sheet and succeeds in making warriors less competent when they start. BRP is deadly enough without nerfing a warriors starting skills.

[rodney418]

Not such a great idea. Shields should be damaged by impaling weapons. Spears should poke some holes.

Maybe I wasn't being clear - I meant that slashing and crushing weapons should always do damage to parrying weapons i.e. that if you parry with your sword and you're being hit with a hammer, your sword would take damage from that (which I think is fair enough). But if you are being attacked with a spear or other impaling weapon and parry it with a sword, chances are that your sword won't take significant damage from that. Makes it slightly more realistic if that's what you are looking for.

With shields, all weapons should do the same damage regardless of type but only if the damage dealt is greater than the shield's armor value.

Make sense?

[rodney418]

Another option would be that if a PC is using a shield and gets a Special or Critical result for a parry vs a normal attack then he is allowed a free riposte attack with his main weapon that can't be parried, emulating him turning the opponent's weapon away and creating an opening for attack. That would help simulate a faster style of fighting against two handed weapons and also help get around the "tit-for-tat" style of combat that BRP often falls into. It would certainly make it very worthwhile putting extra points into Shield skill then.

Edited June 9, 2011 by rodney418

[Nightshade]

The only problem with that is that's somewhat true with any two-weapon style (given a shield is, in essence, a second weapon optimized for parrying); I've certainly seen other two weapon setups with the bring-out-of-line-then-follow-through-with-the-main. A shield isn't even necessarily the best at this; a second blade with a swordcatcher or equivalent might be.

[Atgxtg]

Fair enough I'm not really interested in "realism" or historical accuracy though, I personally don't use separate A% and P% percentages as it creates another unnecessary bunch of skills on ones sheet and succeeds in making warriors less competent when they start. BRP is deadly enough without nerfing a warriors starting skills.

THat's fine. Each method has it's advatages and disadvantages. (Single skill causes some problems with shields and missile weapons, and a lot of warriors just didn't parry much with thier blades). I'm not keen on the use of "unecessary bunch of skills" though. Just what is "necessary"? A case could be made for simplfying the skill list even further, say down to melee and missle skills, so I think it is all what individual GMs and groups want. I seen a lot of good rules (Strike ranks, category modfiers, the resistance table, skill checks, hit locations, special successes) discarded by various people. True none of those things are necessary. The all have an impact on game play, though. There is a trend towards simplicity, but simplicity comes at a cost.

[Atgxtg]

Maybe I wasn't being clear - I meant that slashing and crushing weapons should always do damage to parrying weapons i.e. that if you parry with your sword and you're being hit with a hammer, your sword would take damage from that (which I think is fair enough). But if you are being attacked with a spear or other impaling weapon and parry it with a sword, chances are that your sword won't take significant damage from that. Makes it slightly more realistic if that's what you are looking for.

With shields, all weapons should do the same damage regardless of type but only if the damage dealt is greater than the shield's armor value.

Make sense?

Ah, yeah, that is a bit different!

But,,,and this is raising an old topic, a parry really shouldn't damage the parrying weapon. At least not if it is done correctly. But RQ/BRP/etc. has never differentiated between a block and a parry.

Another option would be that if a PC is using a shield and gets a Special or Critical result for a parry vs a normal attack then he is allowed a free riposte attack with his main weapon that can't be parried, emulating him turning the opponent's weapon away and creating an opening for attack. That would help simulate a faster style of fighting against two handed weapons and also help get around the "tit-for-tat" style of combat that BRP often falls into. It would certainly make it very worthwhile putting extra points into Shield skill then.

I like the general idea, but I think it could be expanded a bit. Perhaps each weapon could have a choice of a couple specials?

IMO the "can't be parrried" bit is just too powerful. Everybody will want to go with Sword & Shield for the special. I think it doesn't make sense if the opponent is also using two weapons. Just becuase you knock someone's main weapond out of line doesn't mean they can"t use thier secondary one. I think some sort of penalty with the weapon for the next action would be better.

[rodney418]

IMO the "can't be parrried" bit is just too powerful. Everybody will want to go with Sword & Shield for the special. I think it doesn't make sense if the opponent is also using two weapons. Just becuase you knock someone's main weapond out of line doesn't mean they can"t use thier secondary one. I think some sort of penalty with the weapon for the next action would be better.

Was just thinking the same thing. Lets try this: if the PC gets a parry with a shield or off-hand weapon that's one step higher than the attack (e.g. Special parry vs normal attack) that allows the PC a free riposte that can't be parried by the attacker's primary weapon, but can be parried if the attacker has a shield or off-hand weapon. And if it's a Critical shield parry vs. a normal attack then the riposte can't be parried or dodged at all. That still makes shield use quite powerful without unbalancing the game I think.

Also parries with shield should be at normal shield skill whereas parries with an off-hand weapon (main gauche instead of shield for example) should always be at -30% unless the wielder is ambidextrous, which in BRP means the PC must have DEX of 16 or higher I believe. That allows for a dexterity based duellist style (such as rogue with twin daggers) as well as a heavy STR long sword & shield combo.

I think I will test this solution out, it is a relatively simple extension to the rules as they stand and should make heroic fantasy combat a little more interesting and balanced.

[rust]

Also parries with shield should be at normal shield skill whereas parries with an off-hand weapon (main gauche instead of shield for example) should always be at -30% unless the wielder is ambidextrous ...

The ability to parry with the secondary weapon was an important, even vital,

part of the training in this kind of fighting style (e.g. rapier and dagger), and

a fighter who could do this at only -30% would not have survived his first real

fight.

Moreover, this would run into problems with the use of a buckler. While it is a

shield, at least the small version of it only covers the hand itself and actually

offers less protection than the elaborate guard of a a main gauche.

[Smoking Frog]

The ability to parry with the secondary weapon was an important, even vital,

part of the training in this kind of fighting style (e.g. rapier and dagger), and

a fighter who could do this at only -30% would not have survived his first real

fight.

Moreover, this would run into problems with the use of a buckler. While it is a

shield, at least the small version of it only covers the hand itself and actually

offers less protection than the elaborate guard of a a main gauche.

There seems to be an important point here. We can worry too much about the particular details of how to model some aspect of combat rather than asking the question of whether the game system produces results that at least broadly correspond to what we know happened historically (or in terms of the genre if we aren't using a historical setting). However realistic an idea might sound, if the result in game terms is, for example, that people who fight with rapier and dagger are at a big disadvantage or someone who uses a buckler is unstoppable, we know it is not reflecting "reality." And if players can never kill a dragon, something has gone wrong, because everyone knows dragons can be killed.

I think the details of actual weapon fighting are very complex and you'll never be able to model them "realistically" in a game, if by that you mean a one-for-one correspondence of what real fighters would do and what the game characters do. Since we're playing a game, it seems to me that the biggest challenge is to make sure that the broad requirements of the the historical period or the particular genre are satisfied. So 17th century sword fights in the game should be something like historical 17th century sword fights while pulp heroes should be roughly as effective as their literary predecessors. When you adjust one part of the system, it changes other things, and we should be most concerned with how the final system works as a whole rather than the various details.

[rust]

So 17th century sword fights in the game should be something like historical 17th century sword fights ...

Indeed. Sometimes it helps to visualize the "real thing". For example, this is a ra-

ther realistic example of a rapier and dagger fighting style, and watching it makes

it easy to recognize that a -30% in one of the two weapons would be a death

sentence for the fighter in question:

[icebrand]

Indeed. Sometimes it helps to visualize the "real thing". For example, this is a ra-

ther realistic example of a rapier and dagger fighting style, and watching it makes

it easy to recognize that a -30% in one of the two weapons would be a death

sentence for the fighter in question:

How good are those people? (they seem preety good to me, at least from my martial arts background; no glaring mistakes while moving, and very good timing)

I always thought that armed combat involved way more parrying and less getting hit; that video looks exactly like unarmed combat, where unless theres a huge difference in skill levels, you get hit no matter what.

[Smoking Frog]

Indeed. Sometimes it helps to visualize the "real thing". For example, this is a ra-

ther realistic example of a rapier and dagger fighting style, and watching it makes

it easy to recognize that a -30% in one of the two weapons would be a death

sentence for the fighter in question:

I love watching people who really know what they are doing with their weapons. When you see how dynamic and fluid this is, you understand that there really is no such thing as "I swing, you parry. Now you swing, I parry." There's so much going on all at once, including the amount of movement they do. Look at how much space they cover. How could you try to model all of the individual elements? It also shows why I think a 12 combat round is a long time: there is almost constant probing, deflecting, and moving.

thanks for posting. That was a treat.

[Smoking Frog]

Indeed. Sometimes it helps to visualize the "real thing". For example, this is a ra-

ther realistic example of a rapier and dagger fighting style, and watching it makes

it easy to recognize that a -30% in one of the two weapons would be a death

sentence for the fighter in question:

I love watching people who really know what they are doing with their weapons. When you see how dynamic and fluid this is, you understand that there really is no such thing as "I swing, you parry. Now you swing, I parry." There's so much going on all at once, including the amount of movement they do. Look at how much space they cover. How could you try to model all of the individual elements? It also shows why I think a 12 combat round is a long time: there is almost constant probing, deflecting, and moving.

thanks for posting. That was a treat.

[rust]

How good are those people? (they seem preety good to me, at least from my martial arts background; no glaring mistakes while moving, and very good timing)

They are indeed pretty good, significantly above average.

I always thought that armed combat involved way more parrying and less getting hit; that video looks exactly like unarmed combat, where unless theres a huge difference in skill levels, you get hit no matter what.

A rapier and dagger fight usually consists of a long period of "judging" the oppo-

nent and maneuvering for an advantageous position, and a short period of ac-

tual fighting, which very often ends with the first serious attack, there rarely is

a prolongued exchange of attack and parry.

I think this video shows quite well what it looks like:

[seneschal]

When I think of shields, I think of Captain America swatting aside goons, or knocking several of them about with a dynamic discus toss. Or Zandor (The Herculoids ) using his shield as a mini-glider.

Game mechanics?

[icebrand]

I liked this one too...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAGX3pdVPTA