Question regarding shields

[LivingTriskele]

Page 191 says "Under most circumstances, your character can only parry missile weapons with a shield, at the shield's base chance..." while page 206 says "Against missile weapons, a half or small shield has a base 15% chance to block a missile, a full shield has a 30% chance to block a missile, and a large shield has a 60% chance."

This seems to be a contradiction as the base chances for shields listed on page 263 are no higher than 20% (for an energy shield).

[Shaira]

Check out "Shields and Missile Fire" on p231. Briefly:

- If you're using a shield in HTH combat, there's a chance your shield may block "a missile": 15%/30%/60%, depending on shield size. If you actively duck down behind your shield, the last two chances rise to 60% and 90% respectively. Only normal successes can be blocked in this way; specials and criticals get through. Note that this is *not* a parry - your shield is basically acting as a lump of armor you're carrying in one hand.

- Against a firearm or energy weapon, this won't work. You have to make a parry instead, and it's this parry that's at the shield's Base Chance.

That's the RAW, and I think it answers your question, although you may not agree with the answer! Personally, I would wonder why the "ducking behind shield" option wouldn't work against a firearm, but my conclusion that these two rules are not a simulationist solution but a practical differentiation between using a shield against "missiles" (which I understand to be thrown weapons, arrows, etc) and "firearms and energy weapons".

You could also use the "Parrying Missile Weapons" optional rules in the last paragraph of p198 if you prefer a more cinematic / heroic style.

My own preference is a combination. For shooting a bow at someone carrying a shield, I'd use either the hit location rules or block percentages to determine if the shield "accidentally" gets in the way. That's the shield being completely passive. Then, if the hero actually wanted to try a shield parry against a missile weapon, I'd use the rules on p198: standard parry vs SIZ 1 weapons, Difficult parry vs SIZ 0 weapons, and a Spot roll required to even attempt to parry a high-speed weapon (including Fireballs, etc). I play a swords and sorcery game, so heroic actions like this feel appropriate.

Hope that helps!

Cheers,

Sarah

[LivingTriskele]

Thanks Sarah, I guess I got confused by the text's use of the term 'base chance' on page 191. Most the base chances listed on page 263 aren't higher than 15%.

So for clarification, the 15%/30%/60% (or 60% and 90%) is passive protection? I thought shields only functioned as passive protection if they were slung.

Are these % chances modified at all by a character's skill level with a shield? For example if I've got 55% with a small shield and someone shoots an arrow at me, my chance of blocking it is still 15%?

The example on page 206 sounds like the use of a shield against an arrow is an active parry attempt. "For example, if your character tries to parry an arrow with a small shield, his or her chance is an unmodified default chance of 15%, rather than his or her normal skill rating." Can you tell me where in the text it discusses passive protection? Thanks, I appreciate your response!

Cheers,

Steve

[LivingTriskele]

I just re-read your reply-- is the 15%/30%/60% passive defense not used with the optional hit location rules?

Scratch that question...

Edited October 30, 2008 by LivingTriskele
I think I get it now...

[mhensley]

Another shield question-

I've been reading thru the brp rules and I'm not quite sure why using a shield is worthwhile. It seems like you should just take something big like a halberd and max your skill with that. You can attack and parry in the same round with a weapon, right? Instead of spending points on shield skill, you could put those points to dodge instead. Am I missing something here?

[rust]

I've been reading thru the brp rules and I'm not quite sure why using a shield is worthwhile.

Think of those pesky archers and crossbowmen. A halberd is a very nice weapon, but not

really a good protection against arrows and crossbow bolts. There are situations where a

shield comes handy, for example when trying to get close to an enemy position that is de-

fended by archers, like a castle or something similar.

[LivingTriskele]

I have the vague recollection that that shields confer a chance of automatic defense against missile weapons (the percentage chance depending upon the size of the shield in question). I could be mistaken.

[NickMiddleton]

Page 204 onwards is the crucial section on Shields. Basically

Against missile weapons, a half or small shield has a base 15% chance to block a missile, a full shield has a 30% chance to block a missile, and a large shield has a 60% chance. If your character kneels behind it, a full shield has a 60% chance to block a missile, and a large shield offers a 90% chance.

.

So if you are (for example) marching up slope towards the battlements, better have a large shield, especially as Dodge is only any use agains the FIRST arrow and only then if the shooter is visible...

Cheers,

Nick

[SDLeary]

PSo if you are (for example) marching up slope towards the battlements, better have a large shield, especially as Dodge is only any use agains the FIRST arrow and only then if the shooter is visible...

Cheers,

Nick

In a way, that reinforces his point. You only have to be carrying the shield, no points put into it beyond base. Good in a siege, but no reason to really have on in melee, RAW. As historically, shields didn't really disappear from the battlefield until plate became common, this is somewhat counterintuitive.

SDLeary

[NickMiddleton]

Against every arrow in a round my large shield gives me 60% chance of blocking, and in general shields tend to have more hit points than melee weapons (not universally true, but a quick scan of the weapon tables suggests the basic generalisation is sound). I get a blanket 60% protection against all twenty archers on the walls PLUS I get to Parry some melee attacks with it each round (several, if I have a decent skill with it) and even if it takes damage it's likely to take longer to break it than my longsword - and if it DOES break, my longsword is still available for offensive use AND Parrying... And whilst the halberd is a mighty fearsome weapon, it's poorly suited to general skirmish combat (it has a long melee range, making it vulnerable to closing).

In Gold Edition BRP RAW as written I think there are reasonably grounds for preferring a shield over exclusively using a big two handed weapon or relying on dodge - mostly in circumstances where you expect to take missile fire. However it certainly doesn't bias things in favour of shields as much as previous iterations of BRP did (in RQIII Dodging was a fools game, RAW, for example and weapons were noticeably more fragile than they are in BRP), especially as it retains the rather beefy Elric!/SBV hit points for weapons.

Cheers,

Nick

Edited April 19, 2010 by NickMiddleton

[frogspawner]

Against every arrow in a round my large shield gives me 60% chance of blocking...

But the point here is it gives you that protection whether or not you're skilled with a shield. So why not concentrate on developing (whatever) weapon skill, and just pick up a shield when facing archers?

[SDLeary]

I'm not saying that they are useless... just not as effective as before in melee, which is somewhat counterintuitive based on history. Remember that many early Mediterranean societies had Heavy Infantry based on Tower Shields, helmets, and little armor. This says to me that the shield was better in most cases to a dodge or weapon parry, and not just in shield walls as this was true of the heroic periods too. We really only see a lack of shields in areas where heavy and/or stiff full body (or majority body) armor was developed. Currently, BRP (and Stormbringer before it, so its not just BRP), have ALMOST reduced the shield to mostly a missile defense item.

for example and weapons were noticeably more fragile than they are in BRP), especially as it retains the rather beefy Elric!/SBV hit points for weapons.

Cheers,

Nick

This might be true to some degree, but as the method of reduction in HP/AP was different, I would have to see further information on this. In RQ3, on a long, multi-year realtime campaign, I don't ever recall a weapon breaking. I do recall the adventurers having to seek a smith in order to repair damaged weapons, but that was pretty rare. The Medium and Large shields that were used in our group rarely needed repair as damage to them was relatively slow, and the average blow generally bounced. Even a powerful regular blow or a Special would only reduce a weapon or shield by 1 point.

SDLeary

SDLeary

[rust]

There are other advantages of a shield than just the protection against missile fire.

In a single combat or a melee the shield is a secondary weapon (that's why real world shields

had shield spikes and thelike), mostly used to unbalance an opponent and force him into a de-

fensive stance or into retreat.

In a formation combat the shield is part of an interlocking shield wall, a kind of mobile fortifica-

tion, that is very difficult to break. Ancient armies, for example the Roman legions, used diffe-

rent shield wall formations for devastating effect.

A minor version of this is the co-operation of two fighters, where one concentrates on the use

of the shield to protect both of them, while the other concentrates on his weapon to do dama-

ge. Such teamwork can give an important adventage over opponents who do not co-operate

with each other.

The problem is how to model this realistically. I think that BRP covers the the protection against

missiles well and the use as a secondary weapon at least somewhat, but not really the co-ope-

ration of fighters and the shield wall.

[mhensley]

Perhaps parrying with a shield should be an easy task or parrying with a weapon should be difficult. It seems to me that learning how to parry with a sword would be a whole lot harder than learning how to attack with it. I'm pretty sure that I (with no training) could hit someone with a sword, but I doubt I could parry anything (at least without loosing some fingers in the process).

[vagabond]

You could give shields stackable DR - added to the DR of armour. That way, even if the shield parry fails outright, there is still some deflection. This covers both combatants without armor but with a shield, and would be fairly easy to extrapolate the shield DR into formation based maneuvers, providing DR for cooperating combatants.

Ian

[NickMiddleton]

But the point here is it gives you that protection whether or not you're skilled with a shield. So why not concentrate on developing (whatever) weapon skill, and just pick up a shield when facing archers?

Because in the vast majority of real world combat situations, the archer's won't politely wait whilst you nip back and get your shield, and (huge generalisation coming up) "most" shields are too large to be carried casually "out of the way" - and if they are small enough to do so they are of negligible use for missile defence...

Nick

[threedeesix]

While it doesn't fix every point mentioned here, I have made some changes to shields in the revised version of Classic Fantasy that help to make them slightly more useful than just depending on parrying with your melee weapon.

Hiding Behind Your Shield: Classic Fantasy adds a new option to shields that makes it worth carrying the

extra weight over that of a second weapon, the ability to hide behind your shield. This is only affective against

ranged attacks, and area effects that originate in front of the shield user. You may not declare that you are hiding

behind your shield until your normal chance to act, or anytime after taking a delayed action. Once in effect,

you may declare one hit location shielded for each point of ENC possessed by the shield, in each case, the first

location chosen must be the shield arm. Therefore, a buckler (ENC 1) will only affect the shield arm, while a

hoplite shield (ENC 7) may be used to shield the entire body, all 7 locations. Any attack that strikes a shielded

location has it’s damage reduced by the hit points of the shield, with any remainder affecting the character as

normal, continuing on to the location rolled, and possibly being affected by additional armor.

Rod

[rust]

... and (huge generalisation coming up) "most" shields are too large to be carried casually "out of the way" ...

Many shields could be carried on one's back, for transport as well as protection during a hasty

retreat - some crossbowmen even used to turn around during reloading, with the shield on the

back towards the enemy to protect them from missiles while reloading.

However, to keep the shield on the back during a melee would require to have another weapon

for the off hand, because otherwise one would be at a serious disadvantage against an oppo-

nent with two weapons (e.g. sword and shield), and it would have to be more than a dagger,

because such a small weapon could not parry a sword or a shield.

This leads to a weight problem. More than a few battles were lost because the troops of one

side arrived at the battlefield exhausted because of their heavy gear (armour, weapons, etc.).

So, if one had to carry a shield because of the enemy archers or crossbowmen, one usually

used it as the secondary weapon in combat, instead of wasting energy by carrying yet another

weapon.

And if one had to use it, it was a good idea to have some skill with it ...

Edit.:

This is an illustration of a crossbowman with a shield on his back. For reloading he would

turn around and kneel down, fully protected against enemy missiles by the shield.

Edited April 20, 2010 by rust

[RosenMcStern]

The problem here is that the rules do not cover two-weapon combat very clearly. If you have a look at the Strike Rank optional rule, it clearly states that you cannot attack and parry with the same weapon on the same strike rank. This means that if you have only one weapon, and you suffer a counterattack on the same SR, then you cannot parry! Having a shield eliminates this problem. This rule is very realistic, we have playtested it in mock combat very often. Unfortunately, there is no equivalent to this rule if you use DEX ranks.

[frogspawner]

Perhaps parrying with a shield should be an easy task or parrying with a weapon should be difficult.

That sounds a good idea (for those of us who don't use separate attack/parry skills, anyway).

Because in the vast majority of real world combat situations, the archer's won't politely wait whilst you nip back and get your shield...

Well, in your example (twenty archers on a wall) they will!

... I have made some changes to shields in the revised version of Classic Fantasy that help to make them slightly more useful than just depending on parrying with your melee weapon.

That looks good too. (In fact it's hard to argue against the shield-arm being protected like that in any case). Bit tricky of not using Hit Locations though. And it's validated by Rust's...

...illustration of a crossbowman with a shield on his back. For reloading he would turn around and kneel down, fully protected against enemy missiles by the shield.

Unfortunately, there is no equivalent to this rule if you use DEX ranks.

For Dex Ranks, wouldn't the equivalent rule simply be to forbid weapon-parrying of simultaneous attacks, i.e. those on the same Dex rank?

[Nightshade]

For Dex Ranks, wouldn't the equivalent rule simply be to forbid weapon-parrying of simultaneous attacks, i.e. those on the same Dex rank?

Probably wouldn't mean as much; weapon attacks in the strike rank system tend to pile up on a few strike ranks (since most characters, PC or not, will land in the 11-16 range of both size and dexterity, and medium weapons are the same), so this is likely to come up quite a bit there.

Of course the real issue is that this doesn't favor a shield per se; it just favors having something to parry with offhand, but if anything the current rules tend to favor that being another weapon, not a shield.

[frogspawner]

...most characters, PC or not, will land in the 11-16 range of ...dexterity...

In which case, this effect would occur about 1 per 6 blows under the Dex Rank system - often enough to mean something!

Of course the real issue is that this doesn't favor a shield per se; it just favors having something to parry with offhand, but if anything the current rules tend to favor that being another weapon, not a shield.

I'd suggest using the other pro-Shield rules as well. But even on it's own, this rule is a good dis-incentive to using two-handed weapons (such as the halberd example given).

[RosenMcStern]

Some quick considerations:

When you use the "A weapon cannot attack and parry on the same DEX/Strike Rank" rule, do not forget that a cunning two-weapon user can wait until his opponent's DEX rank in order to exploit this effect. It is a tactic you would use in a real combat.

The real drawback of 2-handed weapons is that they are in fact unfit for anything other than mass combat. A guard or soldier can use a halberd, but there is no way an adventurer could practically walk around with one. It simply cannot be sheathed. And you don't enter a tavern with one. So the idea is that your adventurers walk around with swords or short axes/maces. Long weapons and shields are used only in the wildernes or in battle. Note that this is true of a large shield, too.

That said, the fact that the rules incentive using two weapons, rather than weapon and shield, is not a flaw. Using two weapons is a good technique. On a battlefield, you would certainly prefer weapon and shield, while in a one on one duel a dagger can be almost as effective.

[rust]

On a battlefield, you would certainly prefer weapon and shield, while in a one on one duel a dagger can be almost as effective.

Yep, based on real world data my choice for "everyday adventuring" and duels would most pro-

bably be a rapier (fast, precise, good reach) and a main-gauche (for parrying and disarming).

[Nightshade]

In which case, this effect would occur about 1 per 6 blows under the Dex Rank system - often enough to mean something!

Not really, depending on the character involved; a character with a 15 Dex would rarely have it come up.

I'd suggest using the other pro-Shield rules as well. But even on it's own, this rule is a good dis-incentive to using two-handed weapons (such as the halberd example given).

I still think that's not a feature, but a bug, and even moreso with light one handed weapons. While rapier and dagger techniques are functional, this would make them overwhelmingly attractive in comparison to rapier alone, and historical information doesn't suggest this was the case (sword and cloak is a weird case, but in some ways a cloak as a parrying object is more like a shield, given the lightness of the attacking weapons, than another weapon).