Topic: Tuesday Topic - Shields

[Thom @ ICE]

So the topic for today is shields.
In D&D (up to 2nd ed) shields gave just a straight improvement to the AC.
In HARP you get a straight improvement, however the improvement is X unless you have "Shield Training" talent, in which case you get Y.  You can also do a shield bash
In RM you get a DB bonus, improved by your # of ranks.  You can also do a shield bash.


What all of these do is assume that just because you have a shield on your arm you gain roughly the same bonus.
Yes, HARP has 2 tiers for trained and untrained.  HARP even offers Weapon & Shield which allows weapon and shield both to attack.
Yes, Rolemaster has increases for every rank earned.


Why isn't the shield treated as a second weapon in your off hand?


Develop shield as you would any other weapon, whether it be weapon group, weapon class, specific weapon, etc.
Use the 2-weapon combo abilities the same way you use a long sword/dagger combination - use a long sword/shield combination.
Give the shield a bonus on it's parry use simply due to coverage.
Give the shield a penalty on it's attack use due to the design being generally defensive. 
For balance, make the coverage bonus the inverse of the shield attack penalty.
Buckler gets minimal bonus and minimal penalty.
Wall Shield has a great defensive bonus, but they would suffer huge penalties when used as a weapon in combat.


As a result, someone who has extensively trained and developed their use of a shield, both defensively and as a weapon, can do so.  (Images of the battle scenes from 300 come to mind)  At the same time, the kid who picks up a shield and hopes to use it defensively gets some benefit, but not much more than cover.  The low level soldier who has minimal shield training, but knows the basics can do so; while Captain America can use that shield with incredible skill.


No need for a new mechanic.... use what already exists.
Thoughts???

[pyrotech]

I kind of like this idea.  HARP is my game of choice here and I've always had a problem with how it treated the shield.  It was different than pretty much any other mechanic in the game and using a shield to bash was in general a total waste of effort.  This idea would rectify much of that.

I might even suggest lumping the shield in a category of other defensive weapons (Jitte, Sai, Main-gauche, etc.).  But that gets a bit murkier in the details.

Regards,

[Cory Magel]

Why isn't the shield treated as a second weapon in your off hand?

I actually do this using the combat specialization/styles I created for my setting.  You basically learn the two weapon combo skill along side a '1H Weapon/Shield' specialization track that provides improved benefits for the shield.  I need to dig up the newer file, but this was an earlier version of that...

1H Weapon/Shield Specialization
Rank   End   Description   
2        1        Quickdraw              Character may bring his or her weapon to bear without using an action.
5        2        Shield Quickdraw    Character may bring his or her shield to bear without using an action.
8        1/foe   Shield Barrier        Wielder may use his or her shield against anyone in their forward arc.
12       4        Iron Grip               Fumble Range is either halved or reduced by 2, whichever is higher.
16       5        Shield Bash          Character may perform a shield bash and still retain its defensive benefits this round.
20       None   Expertise            Gains +1 to OB per 1H Weapon rank developed from 20th level and up.
25       4        Shield Parry          Characters "Shield Bash Skill" can be used to Parry with instead of using the shields usual DB bonus.
30       None   Improved Shield   Character gains a +10 bonus to their shield DB
40       1        Armor Shield          So long as a shield is equipped the character is treated as if wearing one AT higher then it actually is.
50       5        Shield Master        Shield Bonus applies to all known attacks.

[jdale]

It's actually quite a big departure from how RM does it, not in treating the shield as a weapon per se but in allowing the character to parry different amounts with each weapon, and presumably also allowing the parry from each weapon to add (otherwise the idea doesn't work). Depending on how you handle the numbers (e.g. do you average/halve the parry from each?), these can be fairly substantial advantages and could overshadow two-handed weapons considerably. Even single weapon fighting, it's definitely fair to think that sword and shield or two-weapon have a big advantage against a single weapon, but this may be excessive.

[Thom @ ICE]

Agreed - I need to work out the numbers, but from a concept point of view I was curious about what people thought.

[Ynglaur]

I like it conceptually a lot.  I generally like the idea that a combat round represents multiple things happening over a short span of time (i.e. one roll of the dice).  Having a shield should allow for other things to happen, rather than merely being a modification to the dice roll.

[Cory Magel]

I know it sounds a bit silly, but when talking about a fantasy (beyond 'normal') setting, take a look at some of the fights Captain American has in the recent Marvel films.  That's what I want a melee expert with shield specialization to be doing... well, minus the shield flying around bits, I'm thinking only of the bits where it's in his hand - you can't tell me that's not a weapon!

[jdale]

The other thing a shield is good for -- that I don't know is well represented in gaming -- is for running into people and knocking them down or back. To an extent you can handle that with unbalancing criticals but to be really effective it's something that's going to be part of a charge maneuver. Conversely, you can use it to stop someone who is charging. The weight of the shield matters a lot here -- wall shields are ideal for this sort of thing.

[Thom @ ICE]

Shield bash would definitely remain as an action....

[Old Man]

Develop shield as you would any other weapon, whether it be weapon group, weapon class, specific weapon, etc.
Use the 2-weapon combo abilities the same way you use a long sword/dagger combination - use a long sword/shield combination.
Give the shield a bonus on it's parry use simply due to coverage.
Give the shield a penalty on it's attack use due to the design being generally defensive. 
For balance, make the coverage bonus the inverse of the shield attack penalty.
Buckler gets minimal bonus and minimal penalty.
Wall Shield has a great defensive bonus, but they would suffer huge penalties when used as a weapon in combat.

Back in our RM 2 days we pretty much did all of the above (see ROCO IV Shield bash). The large shield OB penalty was offset by STR bonus but that could be dropped. We probably even allowed you to parry different attacks/foes with the shield and other weapon (which for one character was another buckler ... a shield florentine of sorts with an un-PC nickname ... ).

Regards,
old Man

[Warl]

I know it sounds a bit silly, but when talking about a fantasy (beyond 'normal') setting, take a look at some of the fights Captain American has in the recent Marvel films.  That's what I want a melee expert with shield specialization to be doing... well, minus the shield flying around bits, I'm thinking only of the bits where it's in his hand - you can't tell me that's not a weapon!

Agreed, though my particular Representative movie would be the 300. That cinematic display of shield use is more in line of my thinking.

[Thom @ ICE]

Agreed, though my particular Representative movie would be the 300. That cinematic display of shield use is more in line of my thinking.

Actually my two primary images were Capt America and 300
After that would be the shield use shown in Roman legion movies/shows like - Last Legion, The Eagle and Rome.   
Also the shield use in Vikings.

[Warl]

Agreed, though my particular Representative movie would be the 300. That cinematic display of shield use is more in line of my thinking.

ya I Love those shows for that as well


Actually my two primary images were Capt America and 300
After that would be the shield use shown in Roman legion movies/shows like - Last Legion, The Eagle and Rome.   
Also the shield use in Vikings.

[Ynglaur]

Vikings goes a good job.  Troy did an excellent job as well.

[Thom @ ICE]

Troy was good, except the solo combats....  Those were a bit ridiculous.
Achilles vs Hector was not to my liking at all....

[Warl]

what didn't you like about it?

I actually liked that fight a lot. 2 Highly skilled spear & shield fighters attempting to gain the advantage over the other.

[Thom @ ICE]

Probably tainted for me because I can't stand Brad Pitt, but the general arrogance of it (like when he had the spear behind his neck but pointing forward) just came across as ridiculous and staged.  Maybe it is 100% authentic (as I have never seen spear/shield fighting from that time period), but it didn't impress me.


And the Orlando Bloom archery as the palace door was breached felt like it could have been a horde of orcs entering the burial chamber in Lord of the Rings with Legolas shooting (although he only shot once or twice instead of 10x).  It was so similar I had to laugh during it. Not bad... just funny.

[Ynglaur]

I liked the shield work in Troy, but definitely disliked their treatment of armor-as-costume.  I agree that many of the postures were intended to make Achilles Brad Pitt look good.

[VladD]

The WORST way of recreating combat-styles is by looking at movies. Everything in a movie is dictated by how it looks, not by if it works. Real fights make bad pictorials so directors do not use it.

Jdale has the right of it: using 2 weapons or a shield & weapon gives such a huge advantage that using a cloak as a shield/ weapon was preferable over wielding just one weapon.

The advantage lies in being able to control the opponent's weapon and getting out of the way to get in one's own strike.

Another factor in one's defense is training. In later periods, such as the late medieval period, martial arts had come a long way: Attacks, master strikes, counter strikes to that. Basically a musketeer would have a field day in ancient Rome: he would be able to deal with and have a deadly answer to anything a Roman sword master could come up with, due to tapping from a martial history that included the Roman traditions. Even a Norman knight would beat a Roman soldier and not because of equipment, but because the Roman tricks of the trade are the Norman's basics.

Seen as system in RM; I could allow martial traditions use parry more effectively than earlier counter parts. Whether this is a penalty or a fraction for the disadvantaged (such as a Roman's parry is just 50% effective against a Landsknecht attacks) or a bonus/ factor (The Spanish conquistador gets a +20 bonus on any parry when fighting an Inca Jaguar soldier) for the more advanced party.

[Cory Magel]

I'm pretty sure Roman dominance at the time was due to formation and organization, not individual skill in chaotic skirmishes.  They could be beat much more easily if someone could break their formations.  One on one they weren't so tough.