How do shields work?

[g33k]

11 hours ago, Zit said:

Does a multimissile spell apply to popcorns ?

I think "popcorn" is a special:  it automatically multimissile's when you apply heat...

[MJ Sadique]

Speaking about shields and multimissile, an idea pop out from a corner of my mind...

Giving extra popcorn  :

1. If you are between an archer and his target and throw vertically a shield to intercept a missile, the probability of success is low but what if you had use multimissile (5pts of POW, MP) on the shield an create five extra shields... does this count as cheating (a bit) ?
2. If in the new RQ 2.5 shields aren't separate skills we cannot use multimissile, bludgeon or speedart on them ? because this is pretty a good usage of shield, NO ?

[Mugen]

12 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

Speaking about shields and multimissile, an idea pop out from a corner of my mind...

Giving extra popcorn  :

1. If you are between an archer and his target and throw vertically a shield to intercept a missile, the probability of success is low but what if you had use multimissile (5pts of POW, MP) on the shield an create five extra shields... does this count as cheating (a bit) ?
2. If in the new RQ 2.5 shields aren't separate skills we cannot use multimissile, bludgeon or speedart on them ? because this is pretty a good usage of shield, NO ?

It greatly depends on the shield's size.

A kite shield is very good at protecting against arrows, but fly awfully bad.

A buckler is highly ineffective against arrows, but can make a so-so frisbee.

And between the two, there's Captain America's shield, which is good at both tasks, but... well, I think we can categorize it as a quasi-magical item.

As for your question on skills, there's none for shield use in melee, but throwing a shield is a completely separate thing, so I guess a different skill would be needed nonetheless, just like there are 2 different skills for daggers in melee and thrown daggers in many RPGs.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Mugen

[Atgxtg]

So we're not going to go fly a kite?

[Steve]

On 29/09/2016 at 2:18 AM, g33k said:

I believe that the LOTR weapons were actual quality pieces done by a skilled swordsmith; Peter Lyon, Lyonesse Armoury http://www.swords.co.nz/

The "hero" weapons for the close-up shots in those films were made by a swordsmith just like quality real swords, yes. But those weren't the ones used in simulated combat, the latter ones were case from urethane or similar.

[Questbird]

On 9/28/2016 at 8:45 AM, Mankcam said:

Over the years my Gloranthan fantasy game accumulated numerous BRP rules, being a mishmash of RQ2, RQ3, SB, BGB, and anything else that I was influenced by.

During the last decade the BGB has been the foundation, so in combat every subsequent defensive action (Dodge or Parry) after the first one incurred an accumulative -30% modifier until the defender was unable to attempt further defensive actions.

Within the context above, we ruled that Small Shields granted an additional Parry action which did not accrue the modifier; Medium Shields granted two actions, and Large Shields granted three.

I am unsure if I read this rule from one of the rule sets, or online from a digest/forum, but it stuck for us. It tended to justify why someone would lug around a shield as opposed to just parrying with a weapon. 

I really liked these rules, although I think RQ6 also did a good job with how shields work within the MRQ D100 SRD framework rather than with the classic BRP lineage framework.

This shield rule is great. I will use it too. It was sometimes hard to see why people would use shields with the BRP rules -- yet clearly shields were very useful in many historical cultures.

[MJ Sadique]

I don't like theses shields rules at all ! And you can parry 4 times a round ? even with malus it's monstrous !

It spoiled the >100% skills usefulness. You need more than 250% to do it with actual rule and keep your attack. Or use the 2 actions and have more than 100%.

And moreover, not a bit realist and enemies should over come this at the second try. Why second ? because I already tricks my players at this with a "I can parry twice with my zwei-hand" half-demon but the next round they just counter it with a "We do a pincer attack and strike simultaneously cause we have the same SR and are used to fight along ". dual-parry tactic dead after 1 round usage !

 

[Questbird]

2 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

I don't like theses shields rules at all ! And you can parry 4 times a round ? even with malus it's monstrous !

It spoiled the >100% skills usefulness. You need more than 250% to do it with actual rule and keep your attack. Or use the 2 actions and have more than 100%.

 

It is simple to remember and use though, which is what appeals to me. Perhaps 3 free parries for a large shield is a bit much.

An alternate approach might be to give shield parries only a 10% penalty instead of 30% penalty. That way shields are still beneficial but don't make you into a superhero.

I've been reading up about shield use. Apparently they virtually disappeared from use in the late medieval period as opponents became better armoured (ie. full plate), requiring the use of two-handed weapons (and therefore no shield) to defeat. More armoured foes needed shields less.

[TRose]

 I prefer the large metal shields.

 When you are not in combat you can use it with your cooking skill to bake a Pizza with.

[Nick J.]

44 minutes ago, Questbird said:

It is simple to remember and use though, which is what appeals to me. Perhaps 3 free parries for a large shield is a bit much.

An alternate approach might be to give shield parries only a 10% penalty instead of 30% penalty. That way shields are still beneficial but don't make you into a superhero.

I've been reading up about shield use. Apparently they virtually disappeared from use in the late medieval period as opponents became better armoured (ie. full plate), requiring the use of two-handed weapons (and therefore no shield) to defeat. More armoured foes needed shields less.

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."

[RosenMcStern]

10 hours ago, 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."

This solution is both. It is easy, sensible and realistic. Whereas "realistic" in my book means "it encourages you to use the same tactics you would use in the real world".

The historically favoured tactics were: shield as large as possible to defend against (non-firearm) missile fire on the battlefield, small shield or secondary weapon in one-on-one fights, unless you prefer a two-handed weapon.

In this sense, the rule that allows extra parries for large shields is counter-realistic. Rather than enhancing their anti-missile effect, it makes big shields more suitable to one-on-one melee fights than a dagger, cape or buckler. If the only disadvantage is that the shield is too big to carry around, the immediate result will be: "Come on, why can't I take my hoplon with me in the tavern, just in case of a brawl? I will certainly not entrust my survival to any sucky buckler that does not give me extra parries." Apart from the fact that extra parries means that you can swing your huge shield faster than a buckler or main gauche - I find it a little bit difficult to envision the scene

[MJ Sadique]

8 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

I will certainly not entrust my survival to any sucky buckler that does not give me extra parries." Apart from the fact that extra parries means that you can swing your huge shield faster than a buckler or main gauche - I find it a little bit difficult to envision the scene

I perfectly envision the scene but in Benny hills mode (or Mr bean)... but nothing realist come to me XD

 

There's plenty of way to deal with parry multiple assaults without much overpowered or complex skills (the later bother me most).

Against one melee enemy : Use dodge rules (1) , you can evade all attack from one person. one roll per attack. I recommand the lost of 2 actions, rules say one action.
Against one ranged enemy : Use grabing rules principles  (2) & dodge rules , you can evade all attack from one person. one roll per attack for protecting more localisations. I recommand the lost of 2 actions. Large shield cover 3loc, Special roll +3loc = 6/7 loc protected. A good compromise.

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% make a -80% malus, if the archers aren't at this level, you won't need to roll anything (as GM).

In others case, you just need over 100% skills... a big armor or magic (like some divine granting 30AP for 15MP).

(1) RQ, third edition. Personnaly I don't like this rule, a bit overpowered.
(2) a normal success affect 1 localisation, a special : 3 loc, a critical : All localisations.

[g33k]

How about this:

As a "parry-specialized weapon," all shields parry better than offensive weapons, at Base Skills.  Buckler +5% / Small +10% / Med +15% / Lg +20% (as compared to best-parrying melee weapon, whatever that is ... ).

Additionally:

• Small Shield - One extra parry, must be against a 2nd foe (no "extra" parries in 1:1 "dueling" situations).  Missile to-hit location:  if the shield-arm, a "parry" roll only fails on a fumble.
• Med. Shield - Parries against up to 3 foes, but no "extra" 1:1 parries.  Parries missiles (on all but a fumble) for shield-arm + wielder's choice of head or chest or abdomen.
• Lg. Shield - Can parry up to 4 foes, but no "extra" 1:1 parries. Parries missiles (on all but a fumble) for shield-arm + chest + wielder's choice of head or abdomen.

[RosenMcStern]

It still makes shields better than secondary weapons in melee. They are not. Their intended use is on the battlefield. Shields are good when you expect missile weapons aimed at you, not when you swordplay. Or at least they are not better than anything else when you swordplay. Of course, as your normal training as a soldier is with a shield, you will tend to prefer a shield to a main gauche out of familiarity. And a large shield is better if you are hit with a troll maul. But it is not a particularly better weapon when you dual wield.

Really, shields already have their intended advantages when in a field battle (covered locations). An incentive to use shields where appropriate is already there. All of this debate is aimed at providing a bonus to shields in every possible situation. This is wrong: there is no weapon that is always the best in any situation.

[fulk]

13 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

Really, shields already have their intended advantages when in a field battle (covered locations). An incentive to use shields where appropriate is already there. All of this debate is aimed at providing a bonus to shields in every possible situation. This is wrong: there is no weapon that is always the best in any situation.

Shields will always be the best defensive 'weapon' (IMHO).  That is their primary use.  However, there are plenty of reasons for NOT carrying around a shield.  These reasons do not necessarily have anything to do with actual combat but are "social" or related to some other aspect of combat.  For one shields are big and heavy and if you are not expecting to go into battle...why bother.  A rapier and dagger make you a dashing figure when wandering about town.  A shield makes you an aggressive figure looking for trouble.  People just didn't wander around town or court covered in armor and weapons.  Eg, many European towns or cities had laws against carrying weapons within the city limits.  Also, if you are an archer or use a musket, a big shield is a hindrance, although you might carry a buckler. So you might not use a shield even in a battle situation because you hope to avoid coming to close quarters and overall mobility is more important -- even if you'd like to have that shield if you did come to close quarters.  In other cases, it might be better to dodge a really big weapon...or animal/monster--a slightly different situation. 

Personally, I'd make shields the best 'defensive' weapon both through passive and active blocks, but then apply different motivations for not carrying one.  Higher Enc, social norms etc. 

 

F

 

Edited October 4, 2016 by fulk

[Yelm's Light]

5 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

I perfectly envision the scene but in Benny hills mode (or Mr bean)... but nothing realist come to me XD

I'll never look at melee in the same way again... 

[RosenMcStern]

1 minute ago, fulk said:

Shields will always be the best defensive 'weapon' (IMHO).  That is their primary use.  However, there are plenty of reasons for NOT carrying around a shield.  These reasons do not necessarily have anything to do with actual combat but are "social" or related to some other aspect of combat.  For one shields are big and heavy and if you are not expecting to go into battle...why bother.  A rapier and dagger make you a dashing figure when wandering about town.  A shield makes you an aggressive figure looking for trouble.  People just didn't wander around town or court covered in armor and weapons.  Eg, many European towns or cities had laws against carrying weapons within the city limits.  Also, if you are an archer or use a musket, a big shield is a hindrance, although you might carry a buckler. So you might not use a shield even in a battle situation because you hope to avoid coming to close quarters and overall mobility is more important -- even if you'd like to have that shield if you did come to close quarters.

Personally, I'd make shields the best 'defensive' weapon both through passive and active blocks, but then apply different motivations for not carrying one.  Higher Enc, social norms etc.

All of these considerations might be correct, but the final result will be a player/GM struggle in a lot of cases.

If you use a ruleset that says "shileds parry X% more effectively than a left hand weapon", then a fair share of players will never cease to try and find a good justification why they should have a shield in any unappropriate situations when there could be trouble. "Why bother" and "you can have a dashing figure with a main gauche" are not an issue for optimizers. And the GM will have to spend time and effort persuading the player instead of playing.

All this for the sake of giving shields an every-situation advantage that is at least questionable. Shields disappeared around 1600 in Europe, much earlier in Japan. Note that in Japan they disappeared before the introduction of gunpowder, thus while the most important ranged weapon was still the longbow. Are we so sure that shields are so superior and there are only "social" and "comfort" reasons to choose another weapon?

 

[Al.]

My LARP experience was a ) long ago and b ) with rubber 'boffa' weapons rather than steel so take all of the following with a pinch of salt:

When I started to use a homemade and frankly huge wooden shield (with pipe lagging to make the edges safe!) I found fights (which were far more skirmish than formal shield walls) much more survivable. Whether I was Parrying (well Blocking really since that RQ term is a bit wrong) in an RQ sense or not I am unsure. However in terms of game effect the 'reduced penalty for multiple parries' rule seems like it models my experience quite well

[RosenMcStern]

2 minutes ago, Al. said:

My LARP experience was a ) long ago and b ) with rubber 'boffa' weapons rather than steel so take all of the following with a pinch of salt:

When I started to use a homemade and frankly huge wooden shield (with pipe lagging to make the edges safe!) I found fights (which were far more skirmish than formal shield walls) much more survivable. Whether I was Parrying (well Blocking really since that RQ term is a bit wrong) in an RQ sense or not I am unsure. However in terms of game effect the 'reduced penalty for multiple parries' rule seems like it models my experience quite well

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?

Edited October 4, 2016 by RosenMcStern

[fulk]

I suppose, to some extent, it is a question of game design.  I prefer to just tell PCs that if they carry around a shield in town it will cause trouble.  Everything doesn't need to be built into the game rules.  I'm not a fan of optimizing.  I prefer a more 'realistic' approach.   No one sat around in armor all the time.  EG, in the Song of Roland there is even a scene of Roland's force putting on their hauberks when they realize a battle will happen.  They weren't traveling all armored up.

As for use or not use of shields, there are many reasons for NOT using them.  In Western Europe, they fall out of use as plate armor becomes more effective.  For one, you just don't need the shield as much to ward off missiles because longbows etc won't really penetrate later 15C plate.   Second, most melee troops switch to 2H weapons because a 1H sword just won't hurt some one in plate armor.  As an aside, for later 15C European plate the left shoulder and elbow pieces are often enhanced to essentially function as shields. 

In Japan, I'm not really clear why they disappeared or weren't heavily used.  For one, I don't think samurai ever really used them.  The samurai have their origins as horse archers and used the Japanese version of longbows extensively (unlike their western counterparts).  Use a bow seems like a good reason to not focus on shield use and instead develop 2H sword play (at least when on foot).

In relation to the above, social and comfort reasons are certainly important.  However, there are certainly 'military' reasons to not use a shield.  Mobility is one.  However, use of 2H weapons for whatever reason is another.  In some cases that might be for more damage (halberd) in others it might be for more reach (pike etc).  In RQ terms, I might give up the defense of a shield to gain reach, lower my SR and do more damage. However, from a purely defensive point of view (my % to block), I think the shield should win out. 

I think it is also important to acknowledge that different societies have different traditions.  All their choices may not be optimal or may be optimal for their social or physical environment. 

 

NT

 

 

 

[Yelm's Light]

The thing is, we're talking about (at best) early-to-mid Iron Age in Glorantha, which is a millennium (actually, more) before the times you're dealing with.  So as far as realism is concerned, shields were used far more than dual weapons.  Also, regarding LARPing, you're never going to be able to effectively model missile fire because of safety considerations.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Yelm's Light

[Zit]

20 hours ago, TRose said:

 I prefer the large metal shields.

 When you are not in combat you can use it with your cooking skill to bake a Pizza with.

Or a socca. But I'm sure that nobody else than me on this forum knows what I'm here talking about.

[styopa]

1 hour ago, Yelm's Light said:

The thing is, we're talking about (at best) early-to-mid Iron Age in Glorantha, which is a millennium (actually, more) before the times you're dealing with.  So as far as realism is concerned, shields were used far more than dual weapons.  Also, regarding LARPing, you're never going to be able to effectively model missile fire because of safety considerations.

As much as I love RQ's fundamental connection to reality - I'm not even sure I've *ever* seen an extended discussion on D&D reddit boards in which martial realism (however we perceive that to be) has been meaningfully referenced - I hope we can all recognize that there are some very substantial and core elements to martial combat that are utterly missing in LARP/SCA "play".  Thus, the experiences drawn from such activities is useful, but only to a point.

Hell, even the reasonably-full-contact HMBIA/IMCF is closer, but I suspect still miles away from the martial reality of men actually trying to kill each other.  It doesn't take much watching to see that, even as a spectator.  Is combat in a UFC ring much like *actually* using martial arts to fight for your life?  Ask a soldier who's actually been in modern combat (there are some here) how much "fact" can be drawn from a game of Call of Duty, paintball, or even MILES simulation?

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.

[fulk]

16 minutes ago, styopa said:

As much as I love RQ's fundamental connection to reality - I'm not even sure I've *ever* seen an extended discussion on D&D reddit boards in which martial realism

 

Very true.

I also agree you can't really model everything. 

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

[RosenMcStern]

21 minutes 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.

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