Shields in melee

[rodney418]

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.

That's why I said "except when the PC is ambidextrous" i.e. has a DEX of 16+. That way a player can make a duelist style light fighter but only if their stats allow it. Otherwise they need to be using a shield (which means putting skill points into it) or parry with their main weapon. I think that allows for relatively balanced gameplay without any alternative being overwhelmingly good or bad.

[Atgxtg]

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.

Yuk.

First off, I think any result that give an unparriable attack is bad. Very bad. Bad enough to get up and walk away from the gaming table bad. What this does is just make everybody carry a shield. Not only do shields get a special "undefenable" attack, but off hand weapons get screwed, too. Why bother learning to use an off hand weapon? Not only does it start off at a lower pencetage than anything else, but even when you do use it there is a -30% to parry.

So if someone isn't using a shield he gets screwed.

Yuk!

And as for the broad deatails, the reason why people used left-handed daggers was becuase they helped. All this rule does is put someone who isn't using a shield at a disadvantage.

I really don't like this idea.

[rust]

That's why I said "except when the PC is ambidextrous" i.e. has a DEX of 16+. That way a player can make a duelist style light fighter but only if their stats allow it. Otherwise they need to be using a shield (which means putting skill points into it) or parry with their main weapon. I think that allows for relatively balanced gameplay without any alternative being overwhelmingly good or bad.

Even if it would work from a game mechanics perspective, it would run contra-

ry to the historical example.

The secondary weapon was not there to parry occasionally when the primary

weapon was unavailable for a parry, it was the main weapon for a parry. De-

pending on the fighting style, up to 90 % of all parry maneuvers were made

with the secondary weapon, the primary weapon was used almost for attacks

only. To punish the secondary weapon with a -30% makes such a fighting style

either impossible or suicidal.

As for high Dex and ambidexterity, while they did certainly help to learn such a

fighting style, they were obviously not mandatory, because literally everyone

of high status or birth - except priests - was expected to learn such a fighting

style, otherwise he would have been unable to fight a duel and would have been

considered an honourless coward.

By the way, those with really high Dex and ambidexterity tended to use two ra-

piers instead of rapier and dagger.

And then there is the shield, which had come out of use long before this kind of

fighting style was developed. The only equivalent still in use was the buckler,

and I am convinced that it would be a bad idea to treat it like a normal shield.

Otherwise, except in very special and rare circumstances, a shield would be as

anachronistic as a blackpowder cavalry pistol in the Vietnam War.

All in all, while your rule might work for other periods and other periods' weapons,

it is really unacceptable for the "fencing age" of the 16th to 18th century.

Edited June 10, 2011 by rust

[Atgxtg]

You know, if we differentiated between parries and blocks, and gave shields a bonus to block, shields would be very useful.

[frogspawner]

...if we differentiated between parries and blocks...

OK - how?

[rust]

Since I have started the fencing nitpicking, I can as well continue with some

general ideas ...

A parry would be a maneuver to deflect the weapon of the opponent, and an es-

pecially successful parry should lead to a riposte, an additional chance for an at-

tack. A light weapon can parry a slightly heavier weapon, although not a truly

heavy one. A parry would almost never damage any of the weapons involved.

While it is theoretically possible to parry a missile weapon, it is practically almost

never a successful maneuver (in game terms, only a critical success should allow

this, if at all).

A block would be a maneuver to stop the movement of the weapon of the oppo-

nent completely, with the weapon or shield used for the block absorbing the im-

pact. A light weapon normally cannot block a heavier one, it is swept aside or

destroyed by the impact. A block can damage both the opponent's weapon and

the weapon or shield used for the block. A shield can block missile weapons, in

fact that was its main purpose (and the reason why it disappeared when it was

no longer able to protect from firearm projectiles).

While medieval swords and later cutting weapons like the sabre could be used

for a block, a pre-modern fencing weapon as a thrusting weapon was not desig-

ned for such a maneuver. Even a buckler was designed to parry, to deflect the

attack, not to block it.

[rodney418]

That's interesting. Then as an optional rule you could just add that only one handed weapons (and staves?) can be successfully parried with another weapon, and that two handed weapons can only be blocked by a shield? Would that make sense as a simple, fast solution that remains relatively realistic?

[rust]

That's interesting. Then as an optional rule you could just add that only one handed weapons (and staves?) can be successfully parried with another weapon, and that two handed weapons can only be blocked by a shield? Would that make sense as a simple, fast solution that remains relatively realistic?

I am not sure, I do not know enough about two handed weapons, for example

whether a greatsword can parry a greatsword, or whether a halberd can block

a halberd. What I have written above ^^ is entirely based upon my little expe-

rience with pre-modern fencing weapons, and even there it is rather general,

there always seems to be some rare exception (e.g. parry daggers designed to

catch and break a blade). The further I move away from rapier and dagger, the

less I know about melee weapons.

[Nightshade]

They are indeed pretty good, significantly above average.

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.

Well, truth to tell, that's a description of an awful lot of even vaguely serious combat styles. As far as I can tell, shield techniques are an exception here because they're defense tilted.

[rust]

Well, truth to tell, that's a description of an awful lot of even vaguely serious combat styles.

True, but it is almost the exact opposite of what such fights usually look like in

stage combat or movies. Just think of all the musketeer and pirate movies with

their ridiculously drawn out duels where both combattants obviously follow an

oath never to try to hit the other one ...

[Al.]

In the (rather underated) PS2 game Kengo Master of Bushido

'Block' blocks foe's blade (although sadly the graphics don't show the duellists catching the attack on the nice soft tough spine of katana to avoid chipping the cutting edge). I favour giving a chap with a shield a 'free' Block rather a skill bonus.

'Parry' is harder to pull off (as in timing when to hit the button) but leads to you sliding past foe in an AiKiDo-styley. Parrying as a word really ought to include Dodging and/or Defense (sic) in d100 rules. Which leads neatly to the (almost) universal RQIII houserule of downgrading an Attack according to the level of Parry. I'd keep it purely as a matter of skill but I suspect that one could modify Parry skill according to weapon used by and used against.

Agree fully with the proposition that movie swordfights do consist of attacking the blade rather than foe. But a realistic representation wouldn't leave time for witty repartee now would it?

[rust]

Agree fully with the proposition that movie swordfights do consist of attacking the blade rather than foe. But a realistic representation wouldn't leave time for witty repartee now would it?

No, not really ...

This video shows a demonstration of the actual historical rapier style of the ear-

ly age of the musketeers:

It was a very fast and very brutal attempt at "one thrust, one kill", without any

cinematic swordplay at all.

[Smoking Frog]

No, not really ...

This video shows a demonstration of the actual historical rapier style of the ear-

ly age of the musketeers:

It was a very fast and very brutal attempt at "one thrust, one kill", without any

cinematic swordplay at all.

One aspect of this video that I especially enjoyed was the number of times a technique involved letting the opponent commit to an attack, then move off line to avoid being hit, and counter-attack the opponent while he is in the process of executing his attack against the space you just moved out of. While I don't have a big problem with breaking up attack, parry, and dodge, if I were building a rules system from "scratch," I think I would wrap all the movement of the body and weapon, both offensive and defensive, into the weapon skill. Mastering the weapon includes mastering the footwork and body movements that go along with it.

[SDLeary]

One aspect of this video that I especially enjoyed was the number of times a technique involved letting the opponent commit to an attack, then move off line to avoid being hit, and counter-attack the opponent while he is in the process of executing his attack against the space you just moved out of. While I don't have a big problem with breaking up attack, parry, and dodge, if I were building a rules system from "scratch," I think I would wrap all the movement of the body and weapon, both offensive and defensive, into the weapon skill. Mastering the weapon includes mastering the footwork and body movements that go along with it.

You could abstract the combat a little further to get this, and eliminate the separate parry if you wanted to. Pendragon does this.

Success and higher than your opponenet = you get to roll damage against opponent

Success but lower than your opponent = they roll damage against you, but you get to parry (weapon or shield blocks some damage)

Failure, but opponent succeeds = they roll damage, but you do not get to parry

and on. Does almost require blackjack rolling method, and that can cause its own issues with specials and criticals.

SDLeary

[rust]

While I don't have a big problem with breaking up attack, parry, and dodge, if I were building a rules system from "scratch," I think I would wrap all the movement of the body and weapon, both offensive and defensive, into the weapon skill. Mastering the weapon includes mastering the footwork and body movements that go along with it.

Yes, at least with the comparatively light thrusting fencing weapons most styles

were of the "single time" kind, where dodge, parry and attack were a single ma-

neuver, a body move which avoided the opponents's blade and led to an advan-

tageous position for an attack combined with a blade move which deflected the

opponents blade and hit the opponent, all at the same time.

However, there have also been some "two times" styles which clearly separated

dodge/parry and attack into two maneuvers. This was somewhat rare for the

thrusting fencing weapons, but quite common for heavier weapons and for cut-

ting fencing weapons like the sabre. These "two times" styles are more like the

kind of fighting the BRP rules seem to model.

[Atgxtg]

That isn"t syrprising, since SCA combat was the primary model for RQ.BRP.

One possiblity for blocks would be to give the a bonus. MAybew even maing them easy. It really isn't that tough to interpose a shield between you and an incoming weapon. Youir shield will get banged up, but better it than you.

[rust]

Youir shield will get banged up, but better it than you.

Yep, and in many periods the shield was made of cheap materials and considered

disposable anyway. For example, some medieval duelling protocols mention the

number of shields each combattant is allowed to "use up" during the duel, and a

fighter taking a new shield because the original had been "spent" is mentioned

quite often in medieval descriptions of a combat.

[Smoking Frog]

Yep, and in many periods the shield was made of cheap materials and considered

disposable anyway. For example, some medieval duelling protocols mention the

number of shields each combattant is allowed to "use up" during the duel, and a

fighter taking a new shield because the original had been "spent" is mentioned

quite often in medieval descriptions of a combat.

Your mentioning the cheap materials for shields reminded me of an Icelandic saga I read (in translation, of course) way back in my university days. As I recall, the saga indicated that two men having a duel would sometimes have to stop to unbend their swords, which I assume was a reflection of them being much more flexible than brittle. And it seems that the dueling ethic required you to hold off and give him a chance to unbend or get a new sword if it was unusable. The saga also indicated that if you had a shield made of a soft wood, your opponent's sword might go into the edge and get stuck, which is obviously bad news for him. I assume this is not just literary license, so maybe one option for a critically successful shield block, or a fumbled sword attack might be "sword stuck in shield," rather than the usual disarm of the weapon being knocked away or dropped.

[rust]

As I recall, the saga indicated that two men having a duel would sometimes have to stop to unbend their swords, which I assume was a reflection of them being much more flexible than brittle.

Indeed. Early swords were often rolled up () and put into an urn as a burial gift for the dead warrior.

http://www.justfoodnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Bent-sword-of-Ambiorix-King-of-the-Eburon.jpg

I assume this is not just literary license, so maybe one option for a critically successful shield block, or a fumbled sword attack might be "sword stuck in shield," rather than the usual disarm of the weapon being knocked away or dropped.

A good idea - consider it as stolen.

Edited June 13, 2011 by rust

[RosenMcStern]

Yep, and in many periods the shield was made of cheap materials and considered

disposable anyway. For example, some medieval duelling protocols mention the

number of shields each combattant is allowed to "use up" during the duel, and a

fighter taking a new shield because the original had been "spent" is mentioned

quite often in medieval descriptions of a combat.

Note that this totally contradicts the rules given in some versions of BRP, where a shield is never damaged or broken by a parry, whereas a weapon is. But I think this interpretation is correct, at leasta AFA wooden shields are concerned. This means that, basically, a shield is used to soak off damage that would otherwise go to the weapon.

The Viking Round shield had the ability to "catch" weapons in RQ3 on a special parry.

[rust]

The Viking Round shield had the ability to "catch" weapons in RQ3 on a special parry.

From what I did read I got the impression that this happened rather often with

battle axes (the kind of two handed axe the Anglo-Saxons used), and that there

might even have been a special defensive maneuver designed to use a shield to

disarm an opponent who used a battle axe.

[SDLeary]

From what I did read I got the impression that this happened rather often with

battle axes (the kind of two handed axe the Anglo-Saxons used), and that there

might even have been a special defensive maneuver designed to use a shield to

disarm an opponent who used a battle axe.

Axes have generally been shown to do more damage to shields than swords with a blade hit. As the Viking shield that could "catch" blades seem to have been un-rimmed and un-surfaced (that is bare wood planks and a boss: modern reconstructions at least), I don't think it would stand up to axe hits very well with a rim hit.

SDLeary

[rust]

Axes have generally been shown to do more damage to shields than swords with a blade hit. As the Viking shield that could "catch" blades seem to have been un-rimmed and un-surfaced (that is bare wood planks and a boss: modern reconstructions at least), I don't think it would stand up to axe hits very well with a rim hit.

Yes, indeed. What I had in mind was a maneuver where the shield was "sacrifi-

ced" by being discarded when the opponent's axe "got stuck" in the shield after

a defensive maneuver aimed at making this happen. The opponent would then

either need a moment to "free" his axe from the shield or have to discard his

axe, too - both resulting in a free attack option for the defender.

However, this is more or less pure speculation based upon a small number of des-

criptions of fights.

[Smoking Frog]

Yes, indeed. What I had in mind was a maneuver where the shield was "sacrifi-

ced" by being discarded when the opponent's axe "got stuck" in the shield after

a defensive maneuver aimed at making this happen. The opponent would then

either need a moment to "free" his axe from the shield or have to discard his

axe, too - both resulting in a free attack option for the defender.

"Sacrifice" indeed. Not much of a sacrifice to trade your shield for his weapon!

[PhilHibbs]

"Sacrifice" indeed. Not much of a sacrifice to trade your shield for his weapon!

Unless the weapon was a pilum thrown specifically to disable your shield.