How do shields work?

[RosenMcStern]

9 minutes ago, fulk said:

One point they made was that if you thrust properly (with a spear or sword), the angle is such that it makes it hard for your opponent to strike back.  Your weapon is in his/her way.  I'm not sure how you'd do that in RQ.  Perhaps defense from RQ2.  Perhaps just parry.

Not all versions of BRP model this very well. It is indeed subsumed in the Parry skill in most versions. WIth a spear, parry is not just a matter of intercepting, it is rather a matter of keeping your foe at bay.

[styopa]

53 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

Perhaps you are looking for this, Styopa

What I am looking for is a system that - given a set of inputs - provides us with reasonably realistic choices that the players make (barring situations when they think that their characters would do something crazy because it matters, and this belongs to the realm of roleplaying, not realism).

And since we know what choices the historical fighters usually made, it is not so difficult to understant whether a rule achieves this result or not. SCA, HEMA and kendo experience helps, but ultimately the point is whether mastery of the rules encourages you to do exactly what historical heroes did. If it encourages you to do something else, then the rules - ooops - are wrong

I think we're basically saying the same thing, just at different points in the order of events.  To your point (highlighted above): what "choices" do players really get?  I'd argue that it falls into strategic (ie out-of-combat choices) and tactical.

Strategic:

- what weapon (or combination) to use

- what defensive approach to use 

(of course, these choices are not ordinal; either can come first, but usually one informs the other)

Tactical:

- attack (and how; to called-shot, etc)

- defend (and how)

(arguably, you could add "cast a spell" to the tactical options here, but we're talking about how the system parallels realism)

My point is that the conflux of these variables, plus a random factor, equals result.  You call them choices, I call them variables, really - they're the same.

Either way, we're both saying that the system should encourage players to realistically weight these (choices/variables).  For example, a system that encourages shield use is preferable, as across most cultures, shields were incredibly common.  In the cases/cultures where they weren't common, it might be useful then to distill as much as possible why, in order to mechanically incentivize a different weighting for players in similar circumstances.

[styopa]

1 hour ago, RosenMcStern said:

Not all versions of BRP model this very well. It is indeed subsumed in the Parry skill in most versions. WIth a spear, parry is not just a matter of intercepting, it is rather a matter of keeping your foe at bay.

One might almost be inclined to drag out the RQ2 original mechanic of "defense" as an intrinsic thing, in which case you could simply say having a shield adds X% to defense, and leave weapon skills at a simplified single number.  Certain weapons, like spears, might also add to defense against shorter weapons - a fairly 'clean' way to mechanically grant those weapons the advantages they had IRL, without bogging down the system with extra rolls.

 

I don't know that it's a good idea, but it's certainly a different approach.  Just brainstorming here.

[RosenMcStern]

I was just kidding, of course. The problem is that I have heard so many people conflate realism with results and then say that realism is impossible to achieve because you will always have a minimum of error in assessing the chance of the right result happening, that I automatically reject any definition based on result. If you say "choice", the "realism is a myth" crew has no arguments left.

[Mankcam]

3 hours ago, styopa said:

One might almost be inclined to drag out the RQ2 original mechanic of "defense" as an intrinsic thing, in which case you could simply say having a shield adds X% to defense, and leave weapon skills at a simplified single number.  Certain weapons, like spears, might also add to defense against shorter weapons - a fairly 'clean' way to mechanically grant those weapons the advantages they had IRL, without bogging down the system with extra rolls.

 

I don't know that it's a good idea, but it's certainly a different approach.  Just brainstorming here.

It's not as silly as it sounds. It's an easy solution, it kinda works the same as the Cover rules to an extent. 

[Yelm's Light]

6 hours ago, styopa said:

Ultimately, we're only looking for a system that - given a set of inputs (skill, armament, armor) - gives us what we feel to be reasonably realistic results.  Personally, as interesting as it may be, trying to model process too closely will just bog us down to something that may be technically accurate, but not entertainingly playable.

Really, how unplayable is looking down at a character sheet to find the parry for your weapon (assuming, having used it dozens of times or more, you don't already know it down to the smallest percent)?

[Yelm's Light]

4 hours ago, styopa said:

One might almost be inclined to drag out the RQ2 original mechanic of "defense" as an intrinsic thing, in which case you could simply say having a shield adds X% to defense, and leave weapon skills at a simplified single number.  Certain weapons, like spears, might also add to defense against shorter weapons - a fairly 'clean' way to mechanically grant those weapons the advantages they had IRL, without bogging down the system with extra rolls.

 

I don't know that it's a good idea, but it's certainly a different approach.  Just brainstorming here.

In other words, eliminating damage absorption for anything but armor?  Yeah, not buying that.

[Atgxtg]

14 hours ago, fulk said:

Very true.

I also agree you can't really model everything. 

There are a lot of things that could be modeled, but aren't. For a variety of reasons.  

14 hours ago, fulk said:

In 'reality' many attacks with a single weapon also include a defense.  I saw a Renaissance martial arts demonstration recently.  One point they made was that if you thrust properly (with a spear or sword), the angle is such that it makes it hard for your opponent to strike back.  Your weapon is in his/her way.  I'm not sure how you'd do that in RQ.  Perhaps defense from RQ2.  Perhaps just parry. 

NT

There are some possibilities. One method would be that if the parry result got a higher degree of success that the parried attack, the parring character could switch SRs against that attacker. basically bumping in in the sequence of events next turn. 

 

[MJ Sadique]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

There are some possibilities. One method would be that if the parry result got a higher degree of success that the parried attack, the parring character could switch SRs against that attacker. basically bumping in in the sequence of events next turn.

You basically speaking of a counter like in Cthulhu v7 ? or give an upper hand for the next action like in RQ6 ? (i don't know well the rules, just remember the fighting sum-up)

[Al.]

22 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

More survivable than dual - wielding or more survivable than single-wielding?

In other words: did you fight with a weapon in both hands when you did not use a shield or not?

Good question

With I am afraid a poor answer

Both

Some weeks longer sword in one hand shorter in t'other

Some weeks two-handed (in both obviously!)

Some weeks one-handed in one

Shield and sword lead to me being hit far fewer times

(Except for that one time where I kept two big bad somethings* at bay and one of the refs decreed at the end of the fight that my shield had taken so much damage that it was now bust and I had to carry the darned thing around for the rest of the day but drop it for kinetic encounters)

* like I say decades ago, what exact rubber monster masks they were wearing escapes me

[Al.]

On 10/4/2016 at 1:26 AM, Nick J. said:

I just made it so large shields allow you to parry incoming arrows in Magic World. I couldn't care less about "realism", I just need it to be "sensible."

sactly

I don't have any experience of life or death face to face fighting with real live steel weapons so struggle to evaluate what is realistic and what is not

I just want rules which seem to model what is going on in a way which is not obviously bullshit and nonsense

[lawrence.whitaker]

Quote

 or give an upper hand for the next action like in RQ6 ?

Shields in RQ6/Mythras work in several ways and take into account the shield's size relative to the size of the weapon it's defending against. Usually a shield will stop half or all the damage a successful weapon strike delivers, with what remains passing onto a hit location where armour, if present, absorbs the rest. Shields can also be used to ward a particular location, or set to passively block several locations.

The system treats them as specialized weapons. You can attack with a shield just as with any other weapon. They have a low damage rating, but their sheer size makes them difficult to stop unless you have a correspondingly large weapon to counter with. Plus, shields can bash and stun which makes them particularly useful as both offensive and defensive weapons.

[TRose]

 If there one rule I would like to see added when it comes to shields,, I t would be one that enables a allies shield to protect those near then  like in a

Shieldwall/Phalanx.. For example you have four players defending a hallway and they decide to lock shields against the Trollkin horde coming at them. Im don't know of any rules that at present that allow that( I might be wrong) and would like to see that as an option

[MJ Sadique]

Simplest answer already given for phalanx formation (hide/cover) :

On 04/10/2016 at 1:43 PM, MJ Sadique said:

Against a rain of arrows (Like in 300, Spartan chit-chating about fate) : Use Hide rules (strange but effective since you hide without much moving behind your shield), no roll because attacker have a malus at hide percentile + situation modifier (size of shield, visibility, surrounding etc...). It's simple because hide at 70% + shield covert at +10%

Little add-up : Any movable object covering something protect at half AP. Any immovable (wall) protect at full AP.

Don't believe, i had to quote myself XD

[g33k]

On 10/6/2016 at 10:33 AM, TRose said:

 If there one rule I would like to see added when it comes to shields,, I t would be one that enables a allies shield to protect those near then  like in a

Shieldwall/Phalanx.. For example you have four players defending a hallway and they decide to lock shields against the Trollkin horde coming at them. Im don't know of any rules that at present that allow that( I might be wrong) and would like to see that as an option

Traditionally, the very-tight formation of "locked shields" was to face missile-weapons, not melee...  Having no mobility (because you have to keep your shield interlinked on both sides) means mobile foes can strike under/over the shieldwall...

I presume a "Trollkin horde" would just stab the PC's feet/shins and then rush in when the wall broke (and straight into their faces if the shieldwall knelt to put shields to the ground)...  Maybe a REALLY CLEVER trollkin would think of Troll-ball, and get a couple of his buddies to give him a running-jump boost up and over the shield-wall and attack from behind!  

That said:  I too hope that phalanx-type combat has some special representation in the rules!

[styopa]

18 hours ago, g33k said:

Traditionally, the very-tight formation of "locked shields" was to face missile-weapons, not melee...  

Someone should tell these guys?

(Actually, they only lost when they broke apart the shieldwall; until then they'd been basically impervious to Norman melee and cavalry...)

[g33k]

1 hour ago, styopa said:

Someone should tell these guys?

(Actually, they only lost when they broke apart the shieldwall; until then they'd been basically impervious to Norman melee and cavalry...)

I was over-generalizing; apologies!

The "shieldwall" is a more generic term, and includes a looser spear-and-shield formation.  A tiny gap to stick out a longspear and fend off a charge, room for the wielder to adjust, thrust, etc... those are HUGELY advantageous when facing that charge!  But that isn't "locked" shields.  There are indeed "locked shield" formations that still permit polearms to defend the formation, SOME defensive weaponry is necessary to resist a heavy charge.

But a "locked shields" formation does suffer hugely from mobility issues, and even slight gaps can allow arrows/missiles in, which quickly decimate such packed ranks; I was only thinking of the "weapons-withdrawn, tortoise'd up to resist missiles" version of locked shields...  

 

[SDLeary]

3 hours ago, g33k said:

The "shieldwall" is a more generic term, and includes a looser spear-and-shield formation.  A tiny gap to stick out a longspear and fend off a charge, room for the wielder to adjust, thrust, etc... those are HUGELY advantageous when facing that charge!  But that isn't "locked" shields.  There are indeed "locked shield" formations that still permit polearms to defend the formation, SOME defensive weaponry is necessary to resist a heavy charge.

But a "locked shields" formation does suffer hugely from mobility issues, and even slight gaps can allow arrows/missiles in, which quickly decimate such packed ranks; I was only thinking of the "weapons-withdrawn, tortoise'd up to resist missiles" version of locked shields...  

Gapping wasn't necessary to stick out a spear. Spears were generally used overhand (as shown by the defenders in the tapestry), as if you were going to throw it. Thus you are stabbing down over your own shields, and hopefully those of your opponent. The only times I can see a gap being necessary is if you are using 1-h spears, and setting against a charge, then a gap might be necessary depending upon the shape of the shields. The other being Republican and Principate Legionaries, when using the Gladius.

Mobility suffers, yes, but the Greeks and Macedonians seemed to get it to work for years, and the latter were somewhat more encumbered than those that came in following centuries. 

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

On 10/5/2016 at 10:46 AM, MJ Sadique said:

You basically speaking of a counter like in Cthulhu v7 ? or give an upper hand for the next action like in RQ6 ? (i don't know well the rules, just remember the fighting sum-up)

In real swordplay, when someone parries an attack they knock the attacking weapon "out of line". This causes a slight delay as the opponent must correct the problem. This creates an opening for the one who parried, allowing him to make an attack. In fencing, it is just such a parry that sets up a riposte. The same sort of thing can be applied to a "hard" block, including a shield block where the defender uses the parrying weapon to push the attacking weapon aside,

 

The idea is that when the parries is performed successfully, the defender will gain the advantage and be able to attack before the original attacker can do so again. 

 

This is why I suggested something like allowing the parring character to swap Strike Ranks. 

[Atgxtg]

On 10/8/2016 at 6:07 PM, SDLeary said:

Gapping wasn't necessary to stick out a spear. Spears were generally used overhand (as shown by the defenders in the tapestry), as if you were going to throw it. Thus you are stabbing down over your own shields, and hopefully those of your opponent. The only times I can see a gap being necessary is if you are using 1-h spears, and setting against a charge, then a gap might be necessary depending upon the shape of the shields. The other being Republican and Principate Legionaries, when using the Gladius.

Mobility suffers, yes, but the Greeks and Macedonians seemed to get it to work for years, and the latter were somewhat more encumbered than those that came in following centuries. 

SDLeary

But the Greeks were using long pikes not shot 1H spears. Their shield walls were mostly for use against ground troops, especially calvary. Against missiles, pikemen could stand their pikes straight up. This created a loose "fence" that could screen out or at least slow down missile weapons.  Typically archers weren't shooting at the front ranks of a phalanx, but doing volley fire at the  mass.

The mobility thing wasn't an issue at first, mostly because  formations that were more mobile than the phalanx usually weren't all that effective against the phalanx. It was the Romans who really figured out how to defeat the phalanx with a more mobile formation. 

As for the Romans, their scutum shields were curved to cover the body, and the gladius was a thrusting sword, so the legionaries didn't expose much of a target area. Just part of of an arm.

 

[SDLeary]

10 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

But the Greeks were using long pikes not shot 1H spears. Their shield walls were mostly for use against ground troops, especially calvary. Against missiles, pikemen could stand their pikes straight up. This created a loose "fence" that could screen out or at least slow down missile weapons.  Typically archers weren't shooting at the front ranks of a phalanx, but doing volley fire at the  mass.

Greeks tended to use a spear that was roughly 8ft in length called a Dory. It is believed that it was held in a single hand with the shield in the off hand. The Sarissa (pike) didn't come into play really until the Macedonians begin to dominate. The Sarissa is believed to be double or more the length of the Dory, thus no Aspis (hoplite shield) as it couldn't be held effectively. The Macedonians used something smaller that would approximate an RQ3 target shield. 

Thus, the Greeks before the Macedonians were not much different from the Shield Wall of the Late Imperial and Early Medieval periods; though the Greeks had a bit more/better armor early on, at least in the front ranks.

10 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

The mobility thing wasn't an issue at first, mostly because  formations that were more mobile than the phalanx usually weren't all that effective against the phalanx. It was the Romans who really figured out how to defeat the phalanx with a more mobile formation. 

Mobility was probably a thing early on, but it faded as the Greeks adopted the Macedonian tactics... but you do have to be able to actually reach your opponent with the pointy end of your spear. If your spear is shorter, then you can't do that. 

The Roman Manipular formations were certainly more mobile, but more importantly more elemental. The possibility of one line holding you firm at the front while the second line flanks you, with a third in reserve was simply more than the Macedonians could handle. Especially as the front line and the flanking line were lobbing Pila at you, and stripping away shields and opening things up for the reserve archers. 

10 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

As for the Romans, their scutum shields were curved to cover the body, and the gladius was a thrusting sword, so the legionaries didn't expose much of a target area. Just part of of an arm.

More of your body is exposed than you think. In order to get a good thrust with decent reach, you have to rotate around your central axis, thus drawing your shield back onto your body. You end up exposing about a quarter to third of your right torso and all your arm in the endeavor. Better than flat shields, but it was still a good thing that they were wearing armor. And for real power, I think that you would actually have to take a step with your right foot, exposing your leg too. 

SDLeary

[MJ Sadique]

19 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

1/ In real swordplay, when someone parries an attack they knock the attacking weapon "out of line". This causes a slight delay as the opponent must correct the problem. This creates an opening for the one who parried, allowing him to make an attack. In fencing, it is just such a parry that sets up a riposte. The same sort of thing can be applied to a "hard" block, including a shield block where the defender uses the parrying weapon to push the attacking weapon aside,

2/ The idea is that when the parries is performed successfully, the defender will gain the advantage and be able to attack before the original attacker can do so again. This is why I suggested something like allowing the parring character to swap Strike Ranks. 

thanks for the clarification !

I'll start with 2 first : This already exist since Warhammer (original); It was a winning pass/losing pass and it was a simple thing, as long as you have the upper hand, you strike first whatever your speed / reach / skill where. Apart form escrima or same weapons fights this become Bullshit because the stronger, slower will never have upper hand but will still cut the enemy in half. Good idea but always ended bad in a "large variety of weapon" game .

The 1 : The riposte style is great idea but you'll need 2 separate action to do it, a parry with choose malus -X% (you take a measured risk) and a attack with an advantage (+X% or +2X%). I already tested it and a lot others variant, not very sexy. Cthulhu v7 Counter attack hold the same meaning but a more elegant rule (just have a strictly greater quality of success telling you are better or faster or stronger in the exchange) solved in a simple one roll.

[MJ Sadique]

I'm a bit crazy but I think I'll add some Popcorn in the Atgxtg vs SDLeary.

For those who don't understand a bit what they are talking about : check My Armoury https://myarmoury.com/feature_shield.html, it's a great and easy to read sump up about shields through history. You'll lear a bit more about The Greek Shield, Roman Shield, Celtic Shield, Anglo-Saxon/Viking Shield, Medievals Shields, Renaissance Shield and The Scottish Targe.

I'll go back to the original thread : how-do-shields-work ? By interfering with the incoming attack ! (All and nothing is said !)

1/ First, let's make a brief and solid sum up about runic properties and qualities of shields.
The main properties will be Coverture (Stasis) and mobility (Movement) and qualities are which are better, faster and stronger. Coverture mean how much of your body it can hide, my calculation give a ideal of +50% more coverture between having the shield stick to your body or hand-held at two cubit of your body. a long range, no change. In close combat, all can fully covert your enemy line of sight (if you face punch it with your shield).

SHIELD_type : Diameter Coverture Mobility Quality : reason of the quality

• Short shield ~a cubit Little Great Faster : Hand-held buckler a far faster to move, a ideal escrima shield. 
• Medium shield 2 cubit Medium Medium Better : Hand-held with umbos shields are more versatile they can use in any situation (duel, vs arrow, charge...)
• Large Shield 5 cubit length Great Bad Stronger : Roman and Medieval Pavisse are the stronger and most solid

Greek, Celtic and Viking shield are more medium type. Roman and medieval pavis Large one. (nothing new)

2/ Second, in which "general situation" they will shine more ?. Usually three situations arise : Duel, Guerilla and Mass Battle.

• Duel : Speed was the key to victory in most of case. Killing or incapacitate the enemy mean victory. If a shield is the key to victory short shield are better.
• Guerrilla : Speciality of Celtics against roman : quick attack and quick retreat. Medium Shield and it's versatility have the upper hand.
• Mass Battle : The less men to die determine the winner. May it be on flat field or siege, a direct mass opposition give upper hand to larger shield.

I won't speak about Greek vs Roman, it's not the same warfare, nor era nor tactics... Greek was soldiers only, Roman was legionary : half soldier, half engineer. Without preparation, the first will win; In Siege, with defence and their full armament, the second cannot lose because of centuries of development. It's like Spartan vs Bushi : a millennia of evolution, tactics, martials arts and weaponry sophistication change everything.

I don't prefer any type of shield or civilization linked to them, I may be more impartial XD : I'm sure that none of the three one are the best; like the C.I.A logic (cavalry, infantry, artillery) They are different and none should overcome one. Which let one question : what rules ?

3/ The forgotten answer : How can we make it happen in game ?
Some others system have the situation like in Kuro, Keltia/Yggdrasill you can choose a different characteristic from the standard dexterity to attack faster, or stronger.  let see if we can adapt it in RuneQuest.

3.1 The best change in shield vs sword parry is to use the same answer of Crossbow vs Longbow. The First is easier to use and the second is more powerful in the hand of an elite or master class fighter. You also cannot deny that a sword cost more and is made of a higher quality material.

• Then like Crossbow, shield must start at a higher percentile (40%)
• Sword should have a greater characteristic : Damage and Protection : RQIII escu have 12 AP, it passively protect at 6AP the arm.and should also only block 6PA with a success parry and not the full 12PA.

3.2 To me Parry works in three possible way : To Block the attack (SIZ), to deviate by force (FOR) and to receive it and let it slide on your shield (DEX).

I don't have the perfect answer but it seems to me that taking in account such thing can make a better RQ rules. A lot of recent of games use 3 types of attacks, and three types of defence (passive defence, dodge, parry). I don't have the best answer in mind so i'll let it for another day !

 

[Atgxtg]

On 10/22/2016 at 10:56 PM, SDLeary said:

The Sarissa is believed to be double or more the length of the Dory, thus no Aspis (hoplite shield) as it couldn't be held effectively.  The Macedonians used something smaller that would approximate an RQ3 target shield. 

Yeah, but RQ tends to downplay the effect of reach. It's hard to close in on a group of guys who are pointing a bunch of long, overlapping spears at you. At least not without getting skewered. Of course,it was just such a set up that killed the formations mobility. 

On 10/22/2016 at 10:56 PM, SDLeary said:

More of your body is exposed than you think. In order to get a good thrust with decent reach, you have to rotate around your central axis, thus drawing your shield back onto your body. You end up exposing about a quarter to third of your right torso and all your arm in the endeavor.

Expect they didn't need the reach. The idea was for the front rank to advance in a solid line. If the opposing army is in formation, then there isn't much they can do to keep out of reach without breaking up the formation. If the opposing army isn't in formation, then the Roman auxiliary cavalry and missile troops will probably tear them apart. 

 

[Atgxtg]

On 10/23/2016 at 7:58 AM, MJ Sadique said:

thanks for the clarification !

I'll start with 2 first : This already exist since Warhammer (original); It was a winning pass/losing pass and it was a simple thing, as long as you have the upper hand, you strike first whatever your speed / reach / skill where. Apart form escrima or same weapons fights this become Bullshit because the stronger, slower will never have upper hand but will still cut the enemy in half. Good idea but always ended bad in a "large variety of weapon" game .

That might be how Warhammer handled it, but isn't the only or best way to do so. Frankly I don't consider Warhammer to have done a good job of anything other than pushing lead. In a real swordfight the "advantage" usually tends to shift between combatants. So while "as long as you have the upper hand" might be true, actually keeping the upper hand isn't so easy to do. For example, in RQ if the parry was read an an opposed roll, then any time the parry won, the "upper hand" could shift. 

 

On 10/23/2016 at 7:58 AM, MJ Sadique said:

The 1 : The riposte style is great idea but you'll need 2 separate action to do it, a parry with choose malus -X% (you take a measured risk) and a attack with an advantage (+X% or +2X%). I already tested it and a lot others variant, not very sexy. Cthulhu v7 Counter attack hold the same meaning but a more elegant rule (just have a strictly greater quality of success telling you are better or faster or stronger in the exchange) solved in a simple one roll.

You might not like it, but a riposte system has worked very well in Stormbringer.

There are also other ways to handle ripostes and counter attacks. For example, in the Usagi Yojimbo RPG they have a neat way of handling counter attacks. Basically, you do a counter attack instead of a parry. If you beat the attacker's roll, your counter goes off first. but if you don't score a good enough hit to prevent the attacker from swinging, you then get hit. So it's a bit risky. Of, and on a tie, BOTH hit at the same time.  You were also limited to one counter-attack per round, but some weapons were able to keep their counter-attack when you scored a special success. 

In UY a riposte is something a character can do to sort of "upgrade" his parry, to a counter attack.  after the rolls are made. There were limitations on how often you could do it. Either or both of these ideas could be adapted to RQ.