how does a shield work ??

[frogspawner]

It certainly is germane and I'm not laughing. I think I raised this very point a number of months ago - but it was said (by Mr Durrall himself, perhaps?) that the text is in error.

However, I prefer that "armour values for both shield and armour are subtracted" mechanism from good old RQ, and dislike the 'opposed roll' style of the new Attack/Defence Matrix (which is related, of course - and that you were asking about in another thread).

So I still use the traditional 'Independent Rolls' mechanic - and I'll bet I'm not the only one round here who does.

[Nightshade]

I think there are problems with both approaches, honestly. The old RQ method was intuitive, and produced the chopped-up-shield effect that seems to represent a lot of real battles, but depending on the version, either did it too much or too little; and it tended to say weapons were more frangible than shields in parries, which doesn't seem to actually match reality. That said, I'm not in love with the fact shields seem a substandard choice on the whole compared to two-weapon usage in then new BRP.

[TLS]

It certainly is germane and I'm not laughing. I think I raised this very point a number of months ago - but it was said (by Mr Durrall himself, perhaps?) that the text is in error.

However, I prefer that "armour values for both shield and armour are subtracted" mechanism from good old RQ, and dislike the 'opposed roll' style of the new Attack/Defence Matrix (which is related, of course - and that you were asking about in another thread).

So I still use the traditional 'Independent Rolls' mechanic - and I'll bet I'm not the only one round here who does.

Who is Mr. Durall?

The text is in error?

Is that just someone's opinion of bad game design on the part of Chaosium?

Or, is it meant that Chaosium really did not mean to put that rule in the book?

[RMS]

Who is Mr. Durall?

The text is in error?

Is that just someone's opinion of bad game design on the part of Chaosium?

Or, is it meant that Chaosium really did not mean to put that rule in the book?

Mr Durall is the author of BRP. I think what it means is that when compiling all the versions of BRP together something slipped through the cracks that he didn't mean to be there.

[Gheedon]

My take on shields is that they are easier to use than weapons, so I increase the base chance by 10 or 15%.

[Nightshade]

My take on shields is that they are easier to use than weapons, so I increase the base chance by 10 or 15%.

Problem with that is its only relevant at the start of play; the BRP advancement system washes it out pretty quickly, because the lower skill just advances more frequently because of probability. You'd have to essentially apply a bonus as a modifier (which then wouldn't effect advancement) to matter.

[Gheedon]

Problem with that is its only relevant at the start of play; the BRP advancement system washes it out pretty quickly, because the lower skill just advances more frequently because of probability. You'd have to essentially apply a bonus as a modifier (which then wouldn't effect advancement) to matter.

Yeah, I thought about doing it that way as an alternative; also, the bonus would apply to parry only, not to attack with a shield. But I guess, the overall question doesn't go away: why bother spend points on shield when you might as well just spend them on a weapon? (Apart from the protection against missiles, that is...)

[Nightshade]

Yeah, I thought about doing it that way as an alternative; also, the bonus would apply to parry only, not to attack with a shield. But I guess, the overall question doesn't go away: why bother spend points on shield when you might as well just spend them on a weapon? (Apart from the protection against missiles, that is...)

Well, the missiles isn't a trivial issue, but yeah, unless there's some advantage to the shield over a weapon as a parrying device, its unlikely to be selected by anyone but the die hards. Otherwise an off-hand weapon that you already were going to buy skill with is going to be more attractive.

[Arch0n]

We treat ability to use the shield as inherent in purchase of a one-handed weapon skill. It's assumed that you pick up training in the one with the other.

A one-liner in the ELRIC! rules on training made me think of this, but it works really well.

[Shiba Homer]

And lets you parry a halberd (average damage 13 with a 1d4 damage bonus) with a buckler (AP 15)

Bucklers never had 15 AP in RQ3. They had 8.

The major diffence in our games was that weapons took damage from parrying, shields didn't.

Weapon are designed to deal damage, shields to take/defect it.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Shiba Homer

[RosenMcStern]

Weapon are designed to deal damage, shields to take/defect it.

Well, to take rathere than to deflect it. The original rule in BRP was that shields do not take damage when used to parry, weapons do. This is no longer the case. The old rule is incorrect: if you use a weapon to parry, you use it to deflect the blow, not to absorb it, so the weapon does not take damage. If you use a big shield to parry, you are often just placing it between you and the attack, so it is more likely to take some damage, although it may have more HPs than a weapon.

[Nightshade]

We treat ability to use the shield as inherent in purchase of a one-handed weapon skill. It's assumed that you pick up training in the one with the other.

A one-liner in the ELRIC! rules on training made me think of this, but it works really well.

It doesn't encourage use of shields though; because the offhand weapon still does the job as well, and if you need to use it as a weapon, its much better.

There really needs to be some general quantitative or qualitative benefit to parrying with a shield that really doesn't seem to be there in the rules as written.

[RMS]

It doesn't encourage use of shields though; because the offhand weapon still does the job as well, and if you need to use it as a weapon, its much better.

There really needs to be some general quantitative or qualitative benefit to parrying with a shield that really doesn't seem to be there in the rules as written.

One possibility would be to treat a weapon used in the off handed with negative modifiers that are always one, due to it being off hand. However, allow shields to be used at full skill off hand. For example, off hand weapons receive a flat -40% to skill. Thoughts?

[SDLeary]

One thing which I noticed is that there is a difference in the way are listed. Weapons are listed as having Hit Points. Shields as Armor Points/Hit Points. This tells me that at one point there was probably a difference in the way these two devices took damage.

Also, looking at the Attack and Parry Matrix in Stormbringer 5e (p113), it appears as if ONLY weapons took damage from differences in Level Of Success. Shields only took damage if their HP were exceeded in a single blow.

This makes Shields much more useful. I'm wondering if the way the HP and AP/HP things are listed in BRP means that this is the original intent of how Shields were supposed to work. In any event, this is how I'm going to interpret/use the rules.

SDLeary

[RosenMcStern]

Using a weapon in the off hand is already described as Difficult in the rules. This does not apply to shields.

The original BRP rules state that shields do not take damage when parrying. This is wrong: a wooden shield will take damage from an axe blow, while a sword will probably not (though if it does it will probably break). Still, shields should not be inferior to weapons in melee, but rather superior. This point is probably one of the few flaws in the current incarnation of the rules.

[SDLeary]

The original BRP rules state that shields do not take damage when parrying. This is wrong: a wooden shield will take damage from an axe blow, while a sword will probably not (though if it does it will probably break). Still, shields should not be inferior to weapons in melee, but rather superior. This point is probably one of the few flaws in the current incarnation of the rules.

Hence the above suggestion. Its not that they don't take damage, but take it in a different way or under different circumstances. As for Axes, perhaps a special effect, ala Pendragon...

On a Special result, half the damage rolled is automatically transfered to a Parrying, shield, if one is being used, or one quarter the damage if a weapon is being parried with.

SDLeary

[Arch0n]

It doesn't encourage use of shields though; because the offhand weapon still does the job as well, and if you need to use it as a weapon, its much better.

There really needs to be some general quantitative or qualitative benefit to parrying with a shield that really doesn't seem to be there in the rules as written.

Well, we're playing using ELRIC! rules (for the most part). In ELRIC! an attack that exceeds a weapon's hit points breaks a weapon, but not a shield, and critical attacks that are parried damage a weapon, but not a shield.

An average sword has about 19HP. An average character in my game does 1D8+1D4+5 in an attack (DB plus magic bonus). Parrying a critical hit would cause the weapon to take (2D8+1D4+5). It's well within a standard deviation that this would shatter the parrying weapon. Against a strong opponent with an enhanced two-handed sword (2D8+1D6+4), even a normal hit could break your weapon, and a critical hit (4D8+1D6+4) will almost certainly shatter it.

The result is that two-weapon fighters do well when up against lots of foes, or against fast, light enemies, but if you're up against someone who hits hard, you need a shield or a high dodge.

We also play that heavy armor reduces your dodge score by as much as 20%, which further emphasizes the need for a parry if you're going to "tank".

[Nightshade]

One possibility would be to treat a weapon used in the off handed with negative modifiers that are always one, due to it being off hand. However, allow shields to be used at full skill off hand. For example, off hand weapons receive a flat -40% to skill. Thoughts?

As noted, the rules already do this, but it creates its own problems, such as precluding perfectly real world-world two weapon techniques.

That's the issue; two-weapon should be doable, but on a defensive level it should be somewhat inferior to weapon and shield; currently its either inferior across the board, no matter how you're trained (which isn't right) or its no worse than a shield defensively unless missile weapons come into play). (which also isn't right).

[Nightshade]

Well, we're playing using ELRIC! rules (for the most part). In ELRIC! an attack that exceeds a weapon's hit points breaks a weapon, but not a shield, and critical attacks that are parried damage a weapon, but not a shield.

That helps, but I think under routine situations not against very high damage foes, it'd be a bit invisible.

[RMS]

As noted, the rules already do this, but it creates its own problems, such as precluding perfectly real world-world two weapon techniques.

That's the issue; two-weapon should be doable, but on a defensive level it should be somewhat inferior to weapon and shield; currently its either inferior across the board, no matter how you're trained (which isn't right) or its no worse than a shield defensively unless missile weapons come into play). (which also isn't right).

It was just an idea. Personally, I'll probably stick with the RQIII interpretation for rules which always worked pretty well IMO. The idea of splitting AP and HP does appeal to me though. I like the concept of not having weapons (including shields) take damage constantly, but instead just block X amount of damage. Then you could have HP on top of that just to represent the shield being whittled away.

Of course with the RQIII variant, you have hit locations, and with passive shield coverage of locations shields have a natural advantage. I suppose you could represent that with an additional random armor bonus, like a helmet gets, if you use random armor and no hit locations. I can't think of how to do it with fixed armor and no hit locations.

[SDLeary]

As noted, the rules already do this, but it creates its own problems, such as precluding perfectly real world-world two weapon techniques.

That's the issue; two-weapon should be doable, but on a defensive level it should be somewhat inferior to weapon and shield; currently its either inferior across the board, no matter how you're trained (which isn't right) or its no worse than a shield defensively unless missile weapons come into play). (which also isn't right).

I don't see the issue. You have two skills. One for right hand, one for left hand. Two handed technique possible. Just as you have two skills for sword and shield, spear and shield, axe and shield, and so on.

Now, there is nothing precluding you from creating a new skill that is a two weapon technique... but this sounds a bit odd. Does your skill automatically halve when you loose one of the two weapons? When you loose your shield with "Sword and Shield Technique"? In fact these sound like skills (Skills or Aspects or Abilities) that you might have in SotC or HQ. BRP has always been much finer grained.

SDLeary

EDIT: SIGH... Never mind. Thats what I get when I reply before the coffee has taken effect.

Edited December 19, 2008 by SDLeary
SIGH

[Nightshade]

It was just an idea. Personally, I'll probably stick with the RQIII interpretation for rules which always worked pretty well IMO. The idea of splitting AP and HP does appeal to me though. I like the concept of not having weapons (including shields) take damage constantly, but instead just block X amount of damage. Then you could have HP on top of that just to represent the shield being whittled away.

Well, I think RosenMcStern has something to his point about the distinction between how parries are used with weapons as compared to with shields, but honestly, for all the fact you got some odd results with the RQ3 results, I can't help but think its less of an issue than the standard current BRP shield rules.

Of course with the RQIII variant, you have hit locations, and with passive shield coverage of locations shields have a natural advantage. I suppose you could represent that with an additional random armor bonus, like a helmet gets, if you use random armor and no hit locations. I can't think of how to do it with fixed armor and no hit locations.

Well, you could just abstract it and add an armor point or two; it doesn't sit well with what a shield does, but then, I don't think fixed armor is any less strange when you get down to it; both are pretty high order abstractions at that point.

[RosenMcStern]

I have added a new page on the wiki, which summarizes several proposals that were made about Dodge, shield use and two weapon use. It resulted in a nice collection of optional rules with which one can modify the flavor of combat. The rule that prevents multiple parries on the same DEX rank is specially recommended, because it is already in effect if you use the Strike Rank option.

[Trifletraxor]

I have added a new page on the wiki, which summarizes several proposals that were made about Dodge, shield use and two weapon use.

Nice! :thumb:

:beetle:

[Dalmuti]

Using a weapon in the off hand is already described as Difficult in the rules. This does not apply to shields.

The original BRP rules state that shields do not take damage when parrying. This is wrong: a wooden shield will take damage from an axe blow, while a sword will probably not (though if it does it will probably break). Still, shields should not be inferior to weapons in melee, but rather superior. This point is probably one of the few flaws in the current incarnation of the rules.

As mentioned earlier by Shaira, shields, and weapons, do take damage, and damage does get through parries. Only in the BRP a shield/weapon only takes damage on a Critical or Special success if that success is not parried by a equal or better success. The rules are saying that if you parry a hit with an equal success, you deflect/block the hit in such a way that neither the parrying shield/weapon or defender is damaged. Keep in mind the although the technique for parrying with a shield is different than with a weapon, but both aim to deflect rather than block, minimizing damage to the shield/weapon as well as themselves. If your parry is inferior to the hit, such as a normal parry to a Special success, both the parrying shield/weapon is damaged as well as is the defender (in this case 2 pts to the shield/weapon and a normal roll to the meat holding it). The BRP is, and rightly in my opinion, ruling that how skillfully you defend is the important thing, not how strong the defending item is. Additionally it simplifies the exchange by eliminating the extra math of damage vs shield/weapon HPs.

The BRP is basically saying that in a melee it is the skill of the defender that is the deciding factor, and that whether they defend with a sword or a shield is not. Remember an attacker is trying to hit their opponent, not their shield/weapon. The larger size of a shield is also not as a deciding factor in single combat as one might think because size equals weight, and the heaver the weight the slower the user can react with it, effectively balancing its usefulness out and bringing us back to the skill of the defender.

But shields do have some advantages over weapons which are adequately covered in the BRP. Those advantages include being cheaper, easer to repair, more HPs, and most significantly being able to defend against missile attacks. Whether or not it should have a higher base skill is debatable, but for the most part the BRP reflects the differences just fine. As to what is better, having a sword and shield or just a sword? Well along with the ability to defend against missile attacks, I'd say not having to fall back on the dagger you put only a token amount of skill points in when your sword breaks... :shocked:

Shields, and welding a second weapon, can have an offensive advantage as they can be used to create openings for the weapon hand not being used to defend, but the discussion here is about defense. I would be open for something that could adequately represent this, but there are too many variables to deal with. Adding a bonus for attacking would be the simplest but that wouldn't take into account the real level of skill required, which would likely be a penalty, effectively making it a wash.

Shields were the very first man made defense developed in part because early weapons were too fragile or to unwealdly (spears) to defend with. But they were really made to defend against missile weapons and spears. In mass combat they were essential because you can't dodge in a phalanx, but in single combat they are not more effective than a dodge or parry with a weapon that can take a hit without breaking right away. In the bronze age weapons were just too fragile and expensive to use to parry, in the iron age the problem was similar, when steel came along you begin to see the shift to parrying with weapons and the slow abandoning of shields in personal combat.

Just to set the record strait. Swords do take damage every time they strike something hard enough, especially when parrying another metal weapon. That damage are nicks, blunting and bending of the blade, and possibly fractures and breaking. After each battle a sword is "repaired" by sharpening, straitening, and if necessary re-forging cracks. Fighting blades are tempered to bend rather than break in combat, where as replica blades are tempered for hardness and shine. The BRP, as with most (dare I say all) RPGs, tend to overlook this kind of damage because in this context it really only matters if the weapon actually breaks.

Dalmuti

Edited January 3, 2009 by Dalmuti