How do shields work?

[fulk]

I do think it would be quite cool to alter the system such that one character has an advantage and the initiative.  While you 'hold' the initiative, you get to attack and your opponent can only parry.  Win the parry (using opposed resolution rules?) and take back the initiative.  You don't necessarily get to attack and parry each round.  I've always thought the 'everyone gets to attack' approach seems a bit unrealistic.

I'm not real clear on the RQ6/Mythras rules, but if I understand them correctly, this is actually kind of built in with the use of Action Points (AP).  Take two characters each with 2 AP.  Fighter 1 has a higher strike rank and attacks first.  If successful, in most cases, this will force Fighter 2 to parry.  As long as Fighter 1 successfully attacks (parried or not), Fighter 2 will run out of AP each round before being able to attack.  If Fighter 1 misses or Fighter 2 gets a special, Fighter 2 could then attack.  I could have this wrong though.

I used to play a bit of The Riddle of Steel, which sort of worked that way (maintaining the initiative until the defender beat you somehow). It meant that a truly superior swordsman could dominate a combat and mostly prevent an opponent from even getting off an attack.  There were some ways around that, which were quite deadly if not pulled off.  I died a lot...

F

[RosenMcStern]

1 hour ago, fulk said:

I do think it would be quite cool to alter the system such that one character has an advantage and the initiative.  While you 'hold' the initiative, you get to attack and your opponent can only parry.  Win the parry (using opposed resolution rules?) and take back the initiative.  You don't necessarily get to attack and parry each round.  I've always thought the 'everyone gets to attack' approach seems a bit unrealistic.

I'm not real clear on the RQ6/Mythras rules, but if I understand them correctly, this is actually kind of built in with the use of Action Points (AP).  Take two characters each with 2 AP.  Fighter 1 has a higher strike rank and attacks first.  If successful, in most cases, this will force Fighter 2 to parry.  As long as Fighter 1 successfully attacks (parried or not), Fighter 2 will run out of AP each round before being able to attack.  If Fighter 1 misses or Fighter 2 gets a special, Fighter 2 could then attack.  I could have this wrong though.

Yes, you have it wrong. In a normal Mythras fight, Fighter 2 still has at least 1 AP left when his turn comes. Only on an Overextend manoeuvre (which requires a critical vs. a successful parry) will fighter 1 keep the initiative by "sterilising" one of his opponent's Action Points.

However, this is exactly what does happen in Revolution. FIghter 1 erodes SR from fighter 2 as long as he wins all exchanges (rolls higher), so fighter 2's strike rank never comes. Only by winning an exchange (roll higher on a victorious parry) will fighter 2 steal the initiative from fighter 1 and get to make an attack. The SRD is now consolidated, so you can read the full story there.

[fulk]

Ah.  Thanks.  I will have to re-read this evening...been a while.
 F

[lawrence.whitaker]

In Mythras, a skilled fighter can maintain an advantage or seize one through judicious and tactical use of many different techniques and Special Effects - some offensive and some defensive. Use of weapon range can maintain an offensive advantage; Press Advantage forces a defender to remain defending; Overextend (which doesn't rely on a critical success, BTW, and is a defensive effect) can be used to seize the advantage from an attacker. There are many different ways to simulate what Fulk is describing, and while some do rely on Action Point attrition, some are reliant on forcing the opponent to simply behave in a certain way.

[fulk]

Thanks.  I've had RQ6/Mythras for a while, but have never really read deeply into it.  The more I read, however, the more I like it.

F

[Atgxtg]

7 hours ago, fulk said:

I do think it would be quite cool to alter the system such that one character has an advantage and the initiative.  While you 'hold' the initiative, you get to attack and your opponent can only parry.  Win the parry (using opposed resolution rules?) and take back the initiative.  You don't necessarily get to attack and parry each round.  I've always thought the 'everyone gets to attack' approach seems a bit unrealistic.

There was a fencing supplement for the Lord of Creation RPG, printed over a couple of issues of HEROES magazine that did just that. Each combatant had a number of points to spend on maneuvers each turn. You had six maneuvers a turn, and those with high skill could leave one or two blank and write them in as necessary. Each attack maneuver had a defense that stopped it, another that stopped it and gave the defender the advantage, and a third that also acted as a riposte/counter attack.

 

It was a really cool supplement. You could pick a lot of attacks, but then could be rendered useless if the opponent got the advantage away from you, and then kept you on the defensive.It was even possible for combatants to take a bad mix of maneuvers and spend most of the round waiting for each other to attack.  We actually played with the fencing system a lot more that we played Lords of Creation. 

 

 

[MJ Sadique]

On 25/10/2016 at 5:56 PM, Atgxtg said:

1/ ... For example, in RQ if the parry was read an an opposed roll, then any time the parry won, the "upper hand" could shift. 

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

3/ 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...

1/ Giving +30% or 3 RA bonus, a bit like a surprise attack is good if you do a better parry than the attack quality... I like it (and almost in the game, it's a surprising effect)

2/ NOPE, I've read it and you MUST make a critical parry and then have a free attack with a weapon that was not used for parry ! ... a critical parry, I'm not this lucky. I do 1/2 critical a year -_-;;

3/ We've got already ducks in RuneQuest... pretty please spare me the rabbit. Rabbits must stay on moon ! I'm a fan of Sailormoon (RPG) but please not rabbiit ... pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaase XD

On 25/10/2016 at 8:28 PM, RosenMcStern said:

Yes, you have it wrong. In a normal Mythras fight, Fighter 2 still has at least 1 AP left when his turn comes. Only on an Overextend manoeuvre (which requires a critical vs. a successful parry) will fighter 1 keep the initiative by "sterilising" one of his opponent's Action Points.

However, this is exactly what does happen in Revolution. ... The SRD is now consolidated, so you can read the full story there.

Sharp as always, and thanks sharing us this knowledge.... I should really read this revolution stuff.

 

Just throwing a bait : I was thinking that weapon have special effects for attack; Why not special effect useful effect for parry ? Good idea, Bad Idea ? just give me your opinion, please !

[lawrence.whitaker]

Quote

Just throwing a bait : I was thinking that weapon have special effects for attack; Why not special effect useful effect for parry ? Good idea, Bad Idea ? just give me your opinion, please !

 

A good idea. Mythras has special effects that are specifically for parries and defensive actions.

[Atgxtg]

5 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

2/ NOPE, I've read it and you MUST make a critical parry and then have a free attack with a weapon that was not used for parry ! ... a critical parry, I'm not this lucky. I do 1/2 critical a year -_-;;

Well, considering that you needed a 90%+ skill to be able to riposte in Stormbringer, and that criticals were 1/10th of skill, you should have been getting oneriposte after about every ten parries. 

SB didn't have special successes either. So I could see adapting the rule to apply on a special success. That would make ripostes about twice as common as they were in SB. That means about 3 ripostes a year for you, and about 1 per 5 parries for the rest of us.

5 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

Just throwing a bait : I was thinking that weapon have special effects for attack; Why not special effect useful effect for parry ? Good idea, Bad Idea ? just give me your opinion, please !

Geat idea. In fact RQ did sort of have this worked into the parry rules already, with the degree of success affecting how much damage got through and what damage the parrying weapon suffered, but since they've opened up the special rules for attacking to allow for multiple types of specials, why not the parries too. I could see that as a way to really differentiate between weapon and shield, single weapon, or weapon and paired weapons. 

 

And despite your  Leporidaephobia the game mechanics in Usagi worked independent of long ears, cotton tails or fur. And quite a bit of it could adapt well to RQ. 

[Yelm's Light]

Here's my big issue:  it comes down to playability.  Sure, I could run individual combats or (small) mass melees as completely realistically as possible, or I could get in some roleplaying before the night is done.  Let's not go too far off the deep end here, folks.

[RosenMcStern]

10 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

Just throwing a bait : I was thinking that weapon have special effects for attack; Why not special effect useful effect for parry ? Good idea, Bad Idea ? just give me your opinion, please !

There is one important point to analyse here. Special effects are of two different kinds: damage (they improve or alter the amount, type, localisation, additional effects etc. of the harm you inflict with your weapon) and tactical (they give you a more favourable tactical situation for your next roll(s), up to the limit of having your enemy surrender). Now, in 99% of the cases a special effect for a parry cannot be a damage effect, whereas an attack can have both a damage and a tactical effect added.

If you look at the various options that appear in rpgs (and in real life combat) you will see that the majority of tactical effects are related to stance (riposte, change distance, etc.) while effects pertaining to weapons are damage-type effects like Bleed, Impale, Choose Location ect.. Thus, when you defend you tend to have available mainly tactical effects which are ingrained in the combat engine but not really "weapon" effects.

One notable exception is Entangle, which is often used to grab an opponent's parrying weapon, or to block an opponent's weapons with a sword-catcher. Some researcher think that viking shields used the fragility of their edges in the same way. Revolution D100 adds one more weapon-related effect to parries with Keep Distance, but in fact it is more an "enhanced" version of the effect for spears, as you can keep a foe at bay with anything that is longer than his own weapon. But one-two effects are nothing compared to the variety of special damaging features that weapons have when they attack.

So, basically, for defensive manoeuvres you should really concentrate on what the combat model allows you, rather than weapons. Adding special defensive rules for weapons would not model combat in a very realistic way, and would improve clunkiness more than it improves fun.

[RosenMcStern]

11 minutes ago, Yelm's Light said:

Here's my big issue:  it comes down to playability.  Sure, I could run individual combats or (small) mass melees as completely realistically as possible, or I could get in some roleplaying before the night is done.  Let's not go too far off the deep end here, folks.

You are assuming that implementing realism and detail slows down play. But it doesn't - not necessarily.

Since we started using the new RD100 advanced combat - which goes as far as taking into account the length of weapons in decimetres - we have experience a sharp drop, at least 50%, in the duration of combat encounters, with simple fights taking one hour at most and end-of-campaign boss fights no more than three hours - checked with three different GMs. The equation "more realism = longer combats" was definitely not true in this case.

[MJ Sadique]

10 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

Here's my big issue:  it comes down to playability.  Sure, I could run individual combats or (small) mass melees as completely realistically as possible, or I could get in some roleplaying before the night is done.  Let's not go too far off the deep end here, folks.

Speaking about shields of extra special effects you can do in a lot of (bad...the worst) ways :
-You can do it in RP : you spend 3 minutes to speak, the master take 2 others to choose modifiers and effects. Your dice make a fail an you lose 5' for nothing.
-...with special tactics effects : You roll your dice, you make a critical and spend 5 minutes to choose effects. The master tell you in 1 second none effect apply : you lose 5' for nothing.
-...with different type of parry actions : The master take 1' to choose type of action and the special effect, you spend 2' to choose the action, and the master take 2' to evaluate how the opposing effects acts. Your dice make a fail an you lose 5' for nothing.

Or you just do like thing that already exist in RQ III.
-...with special skills effects : You just have one or two skills, make the choice at creations and ended with tons of skills like RQ sorcery or "Land of ninja". Very effective, a bit time and skills consuming.
-...with special weapons effects : You just have one or two effects, make the choice easily and just roll the dice and apply effects. (Like a Double AP for special)

I didn't tell my choice it's because it take time to find a good answer. But it's no because it seems hard to find that we can't try do it !

Edited October 27, 2016 by MJ Sadique
Big fingers Auto-post

[Atgxtg]

On 10/27/2016 at 5:07 AM, Yelm's Light said:

Here's my big issue:  it comes down to playability.  Sure, I could run individual combats or (small) mass melees as completely realistically as possible, or I could get in some roleplaying before the night is done.  Let's not go too far off the deep end here, folks.

Yeah, but the realism vs. playability thing is something of a sliding scale and not everybody agrees to where to place the slider. For example, back in the 80s a lot of people who played D&D thought that RQ sacrificed too much playability for realism. 

 

And, as Rosen noted, more realism doesn't necessarily slow the game down. In fact it can often speed things up. Generally I've found that familirity with the rules, whatever they might be, tends to speed things up more that just about anything else. 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

On 27 September 2016 at 5:25 AM, Moes1980 said:

This seems to make shields sound like a bad idea, so I think I must be missing something here. Can anyone help me out with this? Thanks!

So revisiting the RQ2 rules. ( this is helping me too) Advantages of shield use are:

• Shield doesn't take damage & won't break like a valued weapon can when used for parrying.
• Possible GM ruling that shield provides passive protection to at least 1 hit location (depending of size of shield)
• Effectively a second weapon, which follows the 2 weapon use, and therefore gives the possibility either of 2 parries , 2 attacks, or standard 1 attack & 1 parry. In contrast a single weapon user can only make 1 attack and 1 parry in a melee round.
• An impaling attack will impale a shield - bad for the use of shield whose effective use is diminished if weapon is above a certain encumbrance. But good for taking out opponents weapon as it becomes stuck in the shield.
• Parrying an attack with a shield which takes place on the same Strike rank as your own attack, has the advantage of still allowing you to make an attack with your weapon in the other hand. If you had parried the attack with with the weapon instead of the shield you would lose your weapon attack. This is because of the ruling that you can't both attack and parry with the same weapon on the same Strike Rank.

and for fun

• A well polished bronze shield can be used as a mirror, good for looking at Basilisk/medusa indirectly 
• Throw it like frisbee for a surprise attack 

The cost of training up the use of a shield is well worth it, and maybe something to aim for.  You could quickly raise up your shield parry to a decent level. Good objective for your starting character.

 

[Yelm's Light]

8 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

• Effectively a second weapon, which follows the 2 weapon use, and therefore gives the possibility either of 2 parries , 2 attacks, or standard 1 attack & 1 parry. In contrast a single weapon user can only make 1 attack and 1 parry in a melee round.

Well, sort of.  It's an Optional Rule (found in the Appendices) in RQ2.  However, nowhere is there any mention of the amount of damage done by a bash attack.  Since it's primarily meant to displace and imbalance an opponent, in my game I assign it 1D4 damage and the chance of a short-range 'throw' (similar to the result of a successful grappling attack).  And if a player came back and said, "Well, I saw Brad Pitt do it in Troy!", first I'd say "You're not Achilles," and then he/she would get a diatribe on how a warrior jumping around like Pitt does would soon end up on the business end of a pike or spear.

[styopa]

8 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

So revisiting the RQ2 rules. ( this is helping me too) Advantages of shield use are:

• Shield doesn't take damage & won't break like a valued weapon can when used for parrying.
• Possible GM ruling that shield provides passive protection to at least 1 hit location (depending of size of shield)
• Effectively a second weapon, which follows the 2 weapon use, and therefore gives the possibility either of 2 parries , 2 attacks, or standard 1 attack & 1 parry. In contrast a single weapon user can only make 1 attack and 1 parry in a melee round.
• An impaling attack will impale a shield - bad for the use of shield whose effective use is diminished if weapon is above a certain encumbrance. But good for taking out opponents weapon as it becomes stuck in the shield.
• Parrying an attack with a shield which takes place on the same Strike rank as your own attack, has the advantage of still allowing you to make an attack with your weapon in the other hand. If you had parried the attack with with the weapon instead of the shield you would lose your weapon attack. This is because of the ruling that you can't both attack and parry with the same weapon on the same Strike Rank.

and for fun

• A well polished bronze shield can be used as a mirror, good for looking at Basilisk/medusa indirectly 
• Throw it like frisbee for a surprise attack 

The cost of training up the use of a shield is well worth it, and maybe something to aim for.  You could quickly raise up your shield parry to a decent level. Good objective for your starting character.

 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

14 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

However, nowhere is there any mention of the amount of damage done by a bash

Good point about attacks with a shield. Though the 2 parry option remains a good defensive option for weapon & shield users. 

 

14 hours ago, styopa said:

Ha ha - inspired. This has to be used in a game... Dex x 2?  

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

One other advantage regarding using a shield in conjunction with a weapon: The shield doesn't have a min requirement of dex x 1.5 to use in the off hand, as a second weapon would using the 2 weapon rules

[styopa]

5 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Ha ha - inspired. This has to be used in a game... Dex x 2?  

Unless you've a skill in it of course.

There are certainly whole Mostali legions of heavily-armored Nidan Mountain Hobilars equipped with glaives (essentially: axes that can serve as spears) and *particularly* smooth-faced, razor-edged shields, trained to execute perfectly-timed and synchronized surprise charges using the steep snowy slopes.  

They are famed for the 'Soren Slaughter' when 20-30 elite NMH soldiers routed a force of Halikiv Uz nearly ten times their size (discounting trollkin, of course) with no casualties of their own. The Halikiv regiment had been able to (they believed) 'trap' the Nidan expeditionary force deep in the Rockwoods, in the high approaches to Mount Soren.  Not widely discussed by either side (Uz didn't want to admit it, and the Mostali are always secretive about their tactics), a wedge-charge of a half-dozen NMH veterans shattered the ascending Uz formation/mob and threw it into bloody confusion, while a following pincer assault by thrice that number trapped & killed the Uz leaders, turning it into a rout - easy pickings for the remounted Mostali to cut down as the trolls floundered clumsily in the deep snowpack.

This event is commemorated by a treasured mosaic on the south wall of the 14th Grand Hall, 2nd Drift, Nida.  Particularly noteworthy is the initial charge, the Mostali warriors audaciously standing on their shields as they carve great arcs through the Uz ranks, the snow spray represented in tiny, glittering diamonds while a deep blue lapis Mount Soren looms in the background.

Edited January 24, 2017 by styopa

[Jusmak]

One more question about shields. 

I was building a character and throwing parents occupations from Glorantha Box. From there I got Seshnela noble. What got into my eye was cultural points for weapons, shields and WEAPON ARM SHIELD. What is that? All I could find about shield, not in emptyhand, was lunar and yelmalio phalanxes, where large shield is hanging from leftside shoulder, while equipped with two handed spear. Any ideas, what weaponarm shield could mean, same as that phalanx style, but used with lance? Or is it just poorly done translation work in publishing. It is not easy to imagine somebody would like any hinderance and weight into arm holding a weapon. On stylish option came into mind, if person is using small buckler in left hand and bastard sword. Could use bastard sword in two hands, or sword and a shield style...

[MJ Sadique]

3 hours ago, Jusmak said:

One more question about shields. 

...What got into my eye was cultural points for weapons, shields and WEAPON ARM SHIELD. What is that?

Translation problem... one of my specialities. I always get in them, which is casual since I'm a french player

Weapon arm shield may refer to a Retiarius arm guard (wear on left arm only) : Light armored fighter oftenly have a heavy manica (sleeve) sometimes made of chainmail with curved and overlapping metal segments (plates). This solid protection may be use as shield without losing you left hand to hold a shield. With this you can use two hand weapon and still be able to parry an attack with your left hand as if you have a shield.

[Jusmak]

1 hour ago, MJ Sadique said:

Translation problem... one of my specialities. I always get in them, which is casual since I'm a french player

Weapon arm shield may refer to a Retiarius arm guard (wear on left arm only) : Light armored fighter oftenly have a heavy manica (sleeve) sometimes made of chainmail with curved and overlapping metal segments (plates). This solid protection may be use as shield without losing you left hand to hold a shield. With this you can use two hand weapon and still be able to parry an attack with your left hand as if you have a shield.

One more question about shields. 

THANKS! Very helpful, and stylish thing, makes sense.

 I played RQIII as a teenager and coming back to play (myself old sologames by Alan Lavergne at this point). And I have found some ridiculous translation errors and typing errors in old editions, which we did not even doubt at the time. For example Slark's weapon damage was typed 1d8+12 with battleaxe (instead of 1d8+2).

[Jusmak]

Can somebody check in english version of "Glorantha: Genertela, Crucible of the Hero Wars" about cultural weapons and shields of seshnela nobles, what do it say there?

To me it seems, that shields are military weapons. Retiarus arm guard sounds more like sport or entertainment purpose. Thou stylish, but maybe belongs more into gladiator arenas, which I doubt are found in Seshnela. Tournaments with galloping horses and lances sounds culturally more like it. "Weapon arm shield" is a bit hard to place there. Is there other explanations, for more feodal knight style? Where heavy armors are common.

[Mankcam]

I'm not sure if the cultural background material in RQ3 Glorantha box will be all that relevant now, especially when it comes to Malkioni. 

In RQ3 the Malkioni were inferred to be a feudal culture similar to western europe in the medieval period. The current depictions of Malkioni paint them much more like an ancient era culture, perhaps like early era Byzantine Empire with Etruscan and Vedic trappings etc. It's unclear at this stage, but there are limited analogies with medieval fuedalism anymore, so the RQ3 material is definately obsolete in this respect regarding Malkioni culture.

I guess the skill lists may still be valid, but the trappings will be very different to the RQ3 portrayal.

Not to say that they don't have tournaments with mounted warriors (knights/cataphracts), but it will likely be something quite different from the stereotypical medieval tournaments of western europe. 

Edited February 13, 2017 by Mankcam