how does a shield work ??

[RosenMcStern]

Everything you say is correct, except maybe the fact that you tend to use a hoplite shield to deflect rather than block a blow.. But the point is that you say that whether you parry with a sword or with a shield is not the most important factor, whereas the rules as written state that in melee this has no effect at all. Since weapon nature does have some effect, although highly inferior to skill, I think that if one wishes to sacrifice some degrees of simplicity for some extra realism, then an optional rule for shields in combat is useful.

[Nightshade]

Everything you say is correct, except maybe the fact that you tend to use a hoplite shield to deflect rather than block a blow.. But the point is that you say that whether you parry with a sword or with a shield is not the most important factor, whereas the rules as written state that in melee this has no effect at all. Since weapon nature does have some effect, although highly inferior to skill, I think that if one wishes to sacrifice some degrees of simplicity for some extra realism, then an optional rule for shields in combat is useful.

That's essentially the issue; a shield is, in the end, a weapon optimized for parrying rather than for doing damage. Currently other than the off-hand penalty (which I think is too severe, as it makes certain two-weapon techniques that legitimately exist essentially impossible to represent) there isn't.

[Dalmuti]

Everything you say is correct, except maybe the fact that you tend to use a hoplite shield to deflect rather than block a blow.. But the point is that you say that whether you parry with a sword or with a shield is not the most important factor, whereas the rules as written state that in melee this has no effect at all. Since weapon nature does have some effect, although highly inferior to skill, I think that if one wishes to sacrifice some degrees of simplicity for some extra realism, then an optional rule for shields in combat is useful.

I'm not convinced that you are actually getting any more realism. Your example of the Hoplon is a good one, you are correct that it is not used for deflecting blows as much as it is for blocking them. However, a Hoplon is terrible in single combat; it's just too heavy and unwieldy to move quick enough to block blows. Sure, it will block more of the blows damage when it does intercept than a small shield or sword block, but will intercept fewer of them. So unless your system addresses this kind of thing, all your doing is factoring in a plus without factoring in its minuses.

That's essentially the issue; a shield is, in the end, a weapon optimized for parrying rather than for doing damage. Currently other than the off-hand penalty (which I think is too severe, as it makes certain two-weapon techniques that legitimately exist essentially impossible to represent) there isn't.

This is a good observation, but not all shields would fall into the weapon like category. A Buckler (very small metal shield) would for sure but a large shield would not. The difference comes from both size and how the shield is held, if it is strapped to the forearm like a Hoplon, Roman Scutum (the big rectangle ones) or heavy medieval knights shield, it's more of a blocking shield used in formation like a wall or as added defense against arrows. These shields are heaver and are not optimized for single combat. If it's held in your fist in the middle so that it can be thrust about then it's more weapon like because it is intended more for single combat. These shields necessarily have to be smaller and lighter or you wouldn't be able to move them around for very long.

So like I said above a bigger heaver shield will stop more damage, but is too heavy to use quickly and less able to deflect effectively in single combat. Additionally, being strapped to the forearm limits it's range of motion. A smaller shield will stop less damage blocking but it's quicker and has a greater range of motion enabling it to more effectively deflect incoming blows. A second weapon or parrying with a single weapon works essentially the same as a buckler in that it deflects more than it blocks.

So how do you write a system for this? You can't just count the shield or weapons strength, because that skews the advantage to heaver shields, and you can't say lighter shields or parrying with a weapon doesn't protect as much because they actually deflect more often than they block making the strength less relevant.

So the BRP just averages this all together and leaves it to the players to decide if the blow was deflected or blocked, because the end result is the same. If you parry effectively (a equal or better result than the hit) you and your parring device don't take damage. If that device was a large shield maybe it blocked blow completely because of it's greater strength, if it was a small shield or weapon, you deflected the blow completely, it doesn't matter. If your parry was inferior you and your parring device take damage. Whether you took damage because you blocked with a small shield rather than deflected and was partially overcome, or that the blade took a chuck out of your massive Hoplon and smacked you in the face is up to you.

Dalmuti

Edited January 4, 2009 by Dalmuti

[SDLeary]

I'm not convinced that you are actually getting any more realism. Your example of the Hoplon is a good one, you are correct that it is not used for deflecting blows as much as it is for blocking them. However, a Hoplon is terrible in single combat; it's just too heavy and unwieldy to move quick enough to block blows. Sure, it will block more of the blows damage when it does intercept than a small shield or sword block, but will intercept fewer of them. So unless your system addresses this kind of thing, all your doing is factoring in a plus without factoring in its minuses.

In a way the RAW BRP system does. The larger the shield, the more strength is needed to use it properly. If the characters strength is below the threshold, they can still use it, but at a disadvantage. They also have a dexterity threshold. In RQ3, iirc (no book handy), each point under these thresholds imposed a 5% penalty. In BRP, under either threshold and the attempt is Difficult.

This is a good observation, but not all shields would fall into the weapon like category. A Buckler (very small metal shield) would for sure but a large shield would not. The difference comes from both size and how the shield is held, if it is strapped to the forearm like a Hoplon, Roman Scutum (the big rectangle ones) or heavy medieval knights shield, it's more of a blocking shield used in formation like a wall or as added defense against arrows. These shields are heaver and are not optimized for single combat. If it's held in your fist in the middle so that it can be thrust about then it's more weapon like because it is intended more for single combat. These shields necessarily have to be smaller and lighter or you wouldn't be able to move them around for very long.

Actually, the use and design of shields depends on tactics. The Hoplites Aspis (Hoplon) was strapped on because the goal was to impose a regimentation that discouraged individual combat. Strapped on it does an excellent job in a disciplined shield wall. Thus it is more of a piece of armor than proper shield. Scutii, Celtic, Germanic,Viking, and even early Kite type shields used a hand hold behind a central boss, and were used to push opponents away and punch them when the opportunity arose. This also means that they are much easier to use in single combat because they are much more nimble devices.

[pedantic]Oh, also, bucklers are not necessarily metal. The Iberians used small wood and leather shields with a metal boss, about the size of the buckler, as apparently did Roman Gladiators! [/pedantic]

So like I said above a bigger heaver shield will stop more damage, but is too heavy to use effectively in single combat.

See above

So how do you write a system for this? You can't just count the shield or weapons strength, because that skews the advantage to heaver shields, and you can't say lighter shields or parrying with a weapon doesn't protect as much because they actually deflect more often than they block making the strength less relevant.

This has been brought up before, while things were still in playtest IIRC.

IMO, a metal weapon like a sword should have fewer HP, or more precisely AP (Armour Points) like in RQ. A successful parry at the same level of success should still deflect all the damage of the attack, but if the rolled damage exceeds the AP of the weapon in a single blow, then it has been damaged and the AP should be reduced by one point.

If the level of success is one higher, then the parry would only stop the amount of damage equivalent to the AP of the weapon; if AP exceeded, then reduced by one. If two levels of success higher, as above, but AP reduced by half the value that makes it through. A critical attack vs. a fumbled parry results in the weapon breaking.

You will note that I said metal weapons. Hafted weapons, while they can parry, are not designed to. They should always take one point of damage if they successfully parry an equal attack, half the excess on an attack one level higher, and break if they parry an attack two higher.

Shields absorb more, but once damaged tend to degrade faster.

On a normal success, if the HP of the shield are exceeded in a single blow, then the shield takes half the excess damage directly to its HP. If one level of success higher, the shields HP are reduced by the full excess amount of of the blow. Two levels higher, twice the excess of the blow.

This is just off the top, and does complicate things quite a bit for what could be little "realism" in return.

So the BRP just averages this all together and leaves it to the players to decide if the blow was deflected or blocked, because the end result is the same. If you parry effectively (a equal or better result than the hit) you and your parring device don't take damage. If that device was a large shield it blocked blow completely, if it was a small shield or weapon, you deflected, it doesn't matter. If your parry was inferior you and your parring device do take damage. Whether you took damage because you blocked with a small shield rather than deflected and was partially overcome, or that the blade took a chuck out of your massive Hoplon and smacked you in the face is up to you.

Dalmuti

Yes. In the eyes of many, a necessary level of abstraction to keep things moving. You CAN get bogged down by the realism.

And, just for reference, I do prefer the RQ III methods for figuring all this out.

SDLeary

[Nightshade]

This is a good observation, but not all shields would fall into the weapon like category. A Buckler (very small metal shield) would for sure but a large shield would not. The difference comes from both size and how the shield is held, if it is strapped to the forearm like a Hoplon, Roman Scutum (the big rectangle ones) or heavy medieval knights shield, it's more of a blocking shield used in

In the sense I'm using it, I'm afraid almost all of them land in it (I say almost, because you do have some shields that are really just big slabs of armor you plop down to guard archers and the like), as almost all, even the ones attached to an arm, were also used for rushing attacks and the like on occasion. They're just not very _good_ as weapons, which is the price of being optimized for defense.

[Dalmuti]

On a normal success, if the HP of the shield are exceeded in a single blow, then the shield takes half the excess damage directly to its HP. If one level of success higher, the shields HP are reduced by the full excess amount of of the blow. Two levels higher, twice the excess of the blow.

This is just off the top, and does complicate things quite a bit for what could be little "realism" in return.

Yes. In the eyes of many, a necessary level of abstraction to keep things moving. You CAN get bogged down by the realism.

I see what your doing here, it's in a way similar to RQ as I remember it, but how then do you factor in a deflecting parry? It's true that when you block a blow you are basically absorbing the force of it, which will cause damage the shield or weapon. When you deflect a blow you are really re-directing the blows force away. You often don't hit the edge of the weapon at all, or at least not at an angle that it will bite. This is why maces were so effective against plate armor, it was harder to deflect the force of the blow because it wasn't so concentrated at a cutting edge*. So my argument is that an effective (not just successful) parry with a shield or weapon is one that deflects the blow in a way that does no damage to it (or at least no relevant damage at the scale used in an RPG). When I said in my earlier post that it doesn't matter whether the player chose to say the blow was blocked or deflected depending how they wish to visualize it, I meant in the context of an RPG it doesn't matter. In real life it does.

Your system doesn't take this into account, every blow regardless of whether it was a deflection or a block, is treated like a block and damages the shield in a way that could lead to it's destruction. This just isn't the case. The BRP makes only Special and Critical success, or Fumbles for that matter, damage the parrying shield or weapon, as well as gives rolled damage to the defender. I think this is more accurate. Does it reflect the actual percentage of deflections over blocks or how much damage that particular shield really absorbed? Probably not, but it does a better job than if you don't take deflecting into account at all.

In the sense I'm using it, I'm afraid almost all of them land in it (I say almost, because you do have some shields that are really just big slabs of armor you plop down to guard archers and the like), as almost all, even the ones attached to an arm, were also used for rushing attacks and the like on occasion. They're just not very _good_ as weapons, which is the price of being optimized for defense.

What I meant by the difference between a heaver blocking type shield and a lighter, more weapon like, deflecting shield was in the context of defense. It wasn't that you don't use a shield as a weapon. Heavy, less mobile shields rely on their toughness to protect, and because of their size and weight are used in such a way that doesn't require a lot of swinging around. You can use any type of shield as a weapon in some way, only some are more "weapon like" in how they can be maneuvered.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the current BRP system better represents how parrying works in general, than a system that only takes into account the relative toughness of a weapon or shield.

Dalmuti

* This is reflected in the Crushing special success BTW

Edited January 4, 2009 by Dalmuti

[SDLeary]

I see what your doing here, it's in a way similar to RQ as I remember it, but how then do you factor in a deflecting parry? It's true that when you block a blow you are basically absorbing the force of it, which will cause damage the shield or weapon. When you deflect a blow you are really re-directing the blows force away. You often don't hit the edge of the weapon at all, or at least not at an angle that it will bite.

I'm not sure the difference really matters; or to be more precise can be explained by the way parrying actually works in the game. Keep in mind that if you parry, the whole blow is knocked aside, deflected. The only time the parrying weapon is damaged is if the level of success is higher than that of the defender. When this occurs some damage is taken by the shield, absorbed. Now, this isn't ideal... the "absorbed" blows are still mostly deflected, adjusting the amount of damage done rather than absorbing them directly to the shield.

Now, what I have attempted to do with the Optional rule above is to accentuate the absorption type of parry (I will re-read later and see if it actually reads as I intended), and to better differentiate between weapons and shields. I might adjust the amount of damage taken by the shields, but I honestly think that a powerful blow (one that exceeds the HP of the shield) would do some damage to the item regardless of the blow being deflected or absorbed.

Now... someone earlier mentioned a metal buckler... something from the late medieval period or the renaissance (though there are a few earlier examples). Such an item I would use version of the rule for metal weapons.

This is why maces were so effective against plate armor, it was harder to deflect the force of the blow because it wasn't so concentrated at a cutting edge*. So my argument is that an effective (not just successful) parry with a shield or weapon is one that deflects the blow in a way that does no damage to it (or at least no relevant damage at the scale used in an RPG). When I said in my earlier post that it doesn't matter whether the player chose to say the blow was blocked or deflected depending how they wish to visualize it, I meant in the context of an RPG it doesn't matter. In real life it does.

Hmmm... ok. I misunderstood you then. It sounded like you were asking why the system didn't differentiate between the types of blows taken by differing parrying devices.

The system as written has all parries be deflection type. The only time damage is inflicted upon weapon or shield is when the level of success is higher, or when the amount of damage exceeds the HP of the parrying device in a single blow.

Your system doesn't take this into account, every blow regardless of whether it was a deflection or a block, is treated like a block and damages the shield in a way that could lead to it's destruction. This just isn't the case.

No... my method still maintains deflection parries, but only if the amount of damage is below the HP value of the parrying device in a single blow, or if the level of success of the parry is higher than that of the attack. What I have done is introduce damage to the parrying device if the blow is strong enough (exceeds devices HP in one blow). Also note that all damage talked about is TO THE DEVICE, not absorbed by the device with the remainder passed through to the defender.

The BRP makes only Special and Critical success, or Fumbles for that matter, damage the parrying shield or weapon, as well as gives rolled damage to the defender. I think this is more accurate. Does it reflect the actual percentage of deflections over blocks or how much damage that particular shield really absorbed? Probably not, but it does a better job than if you don't take deflecting into account at all.

WOW... OK.... looks like I misunderstood you totally then. It sounded like you were making the opposite argument; that it wasn't more accurate. I was just giving an option.

SDLeary

Edited January 5, 2009 by SDLeary

[Nightshade]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the current BRP system better represents how parrying works in general, than a system that only takes into account the relative toughness of a weapon or shield.

Dalmuti

* This is reflected in the Crushing special success BTW

That may be, but I don't think it does a particularly good job at demonstrating the degree of efficiency a shield has in that role over a weapon (other than the Difficult penalty for offhand weapon use which I think makes using an offhand weapon as, well, a weapon, too hard).

[Harvey Walters]

Dalmuti wrote:

> I see what your doing here, it's in a way similar to RQ as I remember it, but how then

> do you factor in a deflecting parry? It's true that when you block a blow you are

> basically absorbing the force of it, which will cause damage the shield or weapon.

> When you deflect a blow you are really re-directing the blows force away. You

> often don't hit the edge of the weapon at all, or at least not at an angle that it

> will bite. This is why maces were so effective against plate armor, it was harder to

> deflect the force of the blow because it wasn't so concentrated at a cutting edge*.

How about making parrying (as opposed to blocking) a sort of difficult skill roll -- if the

defender's parry roll is 01 to 1/2 of skill, it is a true parry: attack deflected/fended, no

damage to parrying weapon/shield; on rolls over 1/2 of skill but still successes, the blow

is blocked, with damage to shield/weapon. Give weapons/shields an AP value which acts

like armor and is based on the weapons "toughness", and an HP value based on size. Use

separate attack and parry skills for weapons and shields, and give shields a higher base

chance for parrying -- e.g. large shield 5%/30% attack/parry.

Just my 2 cents,

Michael Hoxie

Oh, I forgot something. Maybe change the crushing/smashing special to allow it to bypass

half of the targets armor, to handle the mace vs. plate thingee.

Edited January 5, 2009 by Harvey Walters
forgot something

[RosenMcStern]

How about making parrying (as opposed to blocking) a sort of difficult skill roll

....

Just my 2 cents,

Well, this concept is correct. But this exists in the RAW, too: if you achieve one less level of success than the attack then you did not parry but block, and your weapon/shield takes damage. The various suggestions made so far just tend to add more details than the flat "2 point damage" or "4 point damage" in the rules (and to allow shield blocks to stop some damage).

Oh, I forgot something. Maybe change the crushing/smashing special to allow it to bypass

half of the targets armor, to handle the mace vs. plate thingee.

An optional rule in RQ3 stated that soft armor counted as half vs. maces. But plate is hard armor. Are we sure that maces were so effective vs. plate? Plate is designed to spread the impact, much much better than chainmail. I would say that maces are more effective vs. chainmail, not plate, if you wish to introduce this spot rule.

[SDLeary]

An optional rule in RQ3 stated that soft armor counted as half vs. maces. But plate is hard armor. Are we sure that maces were so effective vs. plate? Plate is designed to spread the impact, much much better than chainmail. I would say that maces are more effective vs. chainmail, not plate, if you wish to introduce this spot rule.

IIRC, plate actually became more common BECAUSE of maces. Then the ante was upped with war hammers and picks and estocs. What I can see happening with plate and maces is more of a knock back effect... more energy transfered to the plate rather than absorbed by the spongy mass of the body.

Also, if the head is hit inside a greathelm, I can see some issues from concussive effect rather than direct damage that might KO the occupant.

SDLeary

[RosenMcStern]

Then, IYRC, the old RQ3 rule of soft armor halved vs. maces can still be applied to BRP as an optional rule. Makes sense.

[SDLeary]

Then, IYRC, the old RQ3 rule of soft armor halved vs. maces can still be applied to BRP as an optional rule. Makes sense.

Of course. I remember when we playtested this, or to be more precise, when the change was sprung on us... because my character was in soft armor. And its not an optional rule. It was an addition through errata.

I was more answering your question about the effectiveness of maces vs. plate.

SDLeary

Edited January 6, 2009 by SDLeary

[Kloster]

I'm not convinced that you are actually getting any more realism. Your example of the Hoplon is a good one, you are correct that it is not used for deflecting blows as much as it is for blocking them. However, a Hoplon is terrible in single combat; it's just too heavy and unwieldy to move quick enough to block blows. Sure, it will block more of the blows damage when it does intercept than a small shield or sword block, but will intercept fewer of them. So unless your system addresses this kind of thing, all your doing is factoring in a plus without factoring in its minuses.

...

This is because the Hoplon was designed to be used in mass phalanx combat.

In the Macedonian phalanx, the shield was not maneuverable because it was fixed to the left arm AND to the shoulder, in order to leave the left hand help to hold the Sarissa (long pike). Any shield, whateve it's size, is unwieldy, but it is a matter of usage, not of shape nor weight.

The hoplitic phalanx was using the shield as an almost offensive weapon, with ranks pushing toward the ennemy to crush them an break their line, which means it does not need to be very maneuverable.

...

This is a good observation, but not all shields would fall into the weapon like category. A Buckler (very small metal shield) would for sure but a large shield would not. The difference comes from both size and how the shield is held, if it is strapped to the forearm like a Hoplon, Roman Scutum (the big rectangle ones) or heavy medieval knights shield, it's more of a blocking shield used in formation like a wall or as added defense against arrows. These shields are heaver and are not optimized for single combat. If it's held in your fist in the middle so that it can be thrust about then it's more weapon like because it is intended more for single combat. These shields necessarily have to be smaller and lighter or you wouldn't be able to move them around for very long.

...

IIRC, the scutum, wether oval or rectangular, has never been strapped, but was held in the left hand by an horizontal handle, placed at the middle height of the semi-circular shield, just behind the metal boss. It was not very heavy, although large, and quite easy to maneuver.

It was used both in mass combat (by the legions) and in individual combat (by some gladiators), offensively and defensively, to block ant to parry (and also to protect versus ranged weapons).

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

Edited January 12, 2009 by Kloster

[Kloster]

In a way the RAW BRP system does. The larger the shield, the more strength is needed to use it properly. If the characters strength is below the threshold, they can still use it, but at a disadvantage. They also have a dexterity threshold. In RQ3, iirc (no book handy), each point under these thresholds imposed a 5% penalty. In BRP, under either threshold and the attempt is Difficult.

...

You're correct in your RQ memories.

...

Actually, the use and design of shields depends on tactics. The Hoplites Aspis (Hoplon) was strapped on because the goal was to impose a regimentation that discouraged individual combat. Strapped on it does an excellent job in a disciplined shield wall. Thus it is more of a piece of armor than proper shield. Scutii, Celtic, Germanic,Viking, and even early Kite type shields used a hand hold behind a central boss, and were used to push opponents away and punch them when the opportunity arose. This also means that they are much easier to use in single combat because they are much more nimble devices.

[pedantic]Oh, also, bucklers are not necessarily metal. The Iberians used small wood and leather shields with a metal boss, about the size of the buckler, as apparently did Roman Gladiators! [/pedantic]

...

Your correct in your historical memories, although the hand held kite were quite rare because of weight of the metal used to reinforce the perimeter.

...

IMO, a metal weapon like a sword should have fewer HP, or more precisely AP (Armour Points) like in RQ. A successful parry at the same level of success should still deflect all the damage of the attack, but if the rolled damage exceeds the AP of the weapon in a single blow, then it has been damaged and the AP should be reduced by one point.

If the level of success is one higher, then the parry would only stop the amount of damage equivalent to the AP of the weapon; if AP exceeded, then reduced by one. If two levels of success higher, as above, but AP reduced by half the value that makes it through. A critical attack vs. a fumbled parry results in the weapon breaking.

You will note that I said metal weapons. Hafted weapons, while they can parry, are not designed to. They should always take one point of damage if they successfully parry an equal attack, half the excess on an attack one level higher, and break if they parry an attack two higher.

Shields absorb more, but once damaged tend to degrade faster.

On a normal success, if the HP of the shield are exceeded in a single blow, then the shield takes half the excess damage directly to its HP. If one level of success higher, the shields HP are reduced by the full excess amount of of the blow. Two levels higher, twice the excess of the blow.

This is just off the top, and does complicate things quite a bit for what could be little "realism" in return.

...

I like your ideas, but would add (in my mind) too much complexity for the realism gain.

...

And, just for reference, I do prefer the RQ III methods for figuring all this out.

SDLeary

Same for me. More intuitive, no table/matrix. As simple in it's resolution.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Kloster]

IIRC, plate actually became more common BECAUSE of maces. Then the ante was upped with war hammers and picks and estocs. What I can see happening with plate and maces is more of a knock back effect... more energy transfered to the plate rather than absorbed by the spongy mass of the body.

Also, if the head is hit inside a greathelm, I can see some issues from concussive effect rather than direct damage that might KO the occupant.

SDLeary

Correct on both points.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster