Topic: Shield skill

[yammahoper]

Using TWC, allow the shield to provide its DB bonus.  Since the shield delivers a medium bash attack, the gained DB would offset the fairly weak attack.

[pastaav]

I'm not looking for a minor bonus to the DB, the thing I'm hoping to address is the small role a shield has in RM combat. This is, historically and in SCA battles, not correct. the Lyst of Combat is dominated by sword/ shield fighters and that has a variety of reasons: Swords are fast, agile and accurate fighting tools and shields are handy and effective defensive tools. While RM captures the killing potential of a long/ broad sword strikingly, the defensive powers of a shield are sorely underrated.

You average newbie get about the double OB+DB from using a large shield. IMHO it seems to map pretty well with your SCA experience of sword and shield users.

Looking the master swordsman you can object to that he get the same benefit, but on the other hand diminishing returns mean that more and more ranks are needed to compensate for lack of an shield. If two skilled swordsmen face each other the number of levels need to compensate for one of them using a shield is rather massive.

Personally I would most certainly agree that the core rules give too little reasons of using the smaller shields, but I fail to see the benefit from having both a weapon skill and shield skill to realize the potential of the shield and sword user.

Parrying is also handled beautifully, I really have no objections there, but IMO a trained shield user should benefit from having a movable defensive cover on hand. a shield skill where a fully committed fighter would have (5th lvl 40 more, 10th lvl 60 more, 15th lvl 70 more and 20th lvl 75 more) DB than in the CORE rules.

Are you aware that such bonus sounds like a DB boost comparable with adrenal defense,  yet without the downsides of that skill?

One of the reasons I am bringing it up is that a typical fighter, using talents, training packages and a few well made rolls for equipment can have 120+ OB at lvl 5, in RMFRP and, if he wears heavy armor like AT15, 16, 18, 19 ,20 he can have no more DB than his friggin wall shield, or 30...which basically means: who wins Initiative (and doesn't fumble) will attain a high crit 60% of the time, killing opponent 56% of the time, amounting to a 1/3 chance the winner of initiative will slay or incapacitate the other guy in one blow: this is pretty harsh IMO. For higher lvls this is even more of a problem when facing off with critical resistant monsters. Fighters will almost ALWAYS get fatally wounded, or stunned and unable to parry for too many rounds (1 or more ) before the critter is pacified.

You mean that he will not parry? At least that is the only way I can make your mathematics fit. If that is how you means it is IMHO flawed reasoning.

The combat mechanics of RM builds on you making heavy use of parry. By core rules the shield increases your overall OB and DB since it boost your DB. A bit of detail may be lost due to no requirement of you training with a shield to get the benefit, but how large problem is this for realism in your game?

The shield skill will probably even this out, and provide better ways to spend extra DP, than learning how to use that 5th or 6th weapon type for fighters.

Maybe your fighters should start consider learning tactics and similar if they have DP to spare instead of going for redundant weapons.

It is great if your game can be improved by adding a trainable Shield skill...but maybe you need to run some combats when the characters does parry more before you make your final evaluation?

[VladD]

@pastaav,

You raised some good issues, thanks for that.

Looking the master swordsman you can object to that he get the same benefit, but on the other hand diminishing returns mean that more and more ranks are needed to compensate for lack of an shield. If two skilled swordsmen face each other the number of levels need to compensate for one of them using a shield is rather massive.

That is actually my main problem: that swordsmen already at low level will have compensated for their opponents using a shield. In my game fighters know it is a bad thing to rely on armor and most of them get incredible Qu scores to beat the system and will capitalize on any and all Qu items and bonus DB armor pieces in the no armor category (or soft leather, but it is inferior to even AT 1), to accumulate any and all DB that will be applicable to all attacks. This can get high pretty quickly. The result is that simple NPC fighters, those with decent, but restrictive armor and a simple shield, are at a distinct disadvantage that they need to parry too much to avoid attacks from the player's character, while he is left with plenty of OB to kill them fast. There is NOTHING in the rules to counter that, except Adrenal Defense.
While most of you would say: tough luck, or congratulate the smart players, when you've seen this happen in too many  campaigns, I'm reasoning that it should be fixed. Not by a +10 DB combat style, or making all NPC fighters waste DPs on Adrenal defense and all give them high QU  bonuses, but by fixing that one nagging inadequacy of the RM system: the shield.

Are you aware that such bonus sounds like a DB boost comparable with adrenal defense,  yet without the downsides of that skill?

Of course, but I can't change reality, when I want to capture it in a game system. And it has plenty of downsides, except its the skill that specifically makes you use a medium, or large object in your hands. The downsides are almost the same as Adrenal defense: use requires activity%, be aware of attack and you have to face the right way to be able to bring it to bear.
If adrenal defense is allowed for monks and DP wasters than the fighter, rogue and such should be able to use a shield to maximum advantage, at least that is the way I look at it.

You mean that he will not parry? At least that is the only way I can make your mathematics fit. If that is how you means it is IMHO flawed reasoning.

Here you have a point; it was my math that forgot to point out that it was the difference in OB vs DB of foe that was the problem. In my game the fighters (I've seen in plenty of campaigns), when he wins initiative the first round, will charge in with everything he got to attempt to take out the opponent in a single stroke: 30% chance (and getting higher EVERY lvl and bonus item) that he succeeds. If his foe parries all he got then the attack will flounder, BUT so will the 0 (zero) OB attack of the opponent...
Seriously I've seen too many fights where the fighter types will all go in parrying all, with the spell casters behind them fixing the fight. IMO this is not how battles were conducted, or should be conducted. The initial charge is meant to connect, unless you have like a defensive weapon such as spear, or other reach weapon.

So with my own games as a reference I thought that other people were like-minded. It was when I did plenty of research in the matter that I came across many references about shields and their use that I began thinking about a shield skill.

Certainly many will continue to disregard a shield skill, but it is my hope that plenty will see the benefit to their games.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Using TWC, allow the shield to provide its DB bonus.  Since the shield delivers a medium bash attack, the gained DB would offset the fairly weak attack.

Technically, under the rules, if the shield is used as a weapon, it does not receive its modifier to DB if it is used to make any sort of attack. This is stated somewhere near the shield table where it is explained that if a "weapon" is not used to attack it receives the bonus form the shield table. (i.e. where 1 handed weapons give a +5 to DB if not used to attack).

And don't forget that Parrying IS PART OF an attack. Thus, if the shield is used to parry, then it is also being used to attack (even a +0 attack), which would mean no receiving the shield bonus to DB.

Just wanted to point that out... 

[Cormac Doyle]

Since a combatant must declare their OB/DB split PRIOR to rolling for Initiative, what you are suggesting is not possible

(Or technically, the can declare a 50/50% split, and then do a "change of mind", taking a -20 to their action to allow them to adjust the OB/DB split once initiative has been determined ...)

The general idea is that a character either "does a berserker" and charges in with a 100% attack in the first couple of rounds (WITHOUT knowing the enemy's abilities or initiative) or starts more cautiously (high parry %) until they work out what sort of opponent they are up against.

[markc]

 One thing you may be forgetting is that the NPC tables do not have any talents figured into them. NPC's can also have talents just like PC's.


 I am interested in how the shield skill works in your game but I do not think it will for my game.


MDC

[VladD]

@ cormac Doyle: rereading the initiative section I must agree, but in my game the OB/ DB split is declared and change occurs at the attack phase, as chosen by the player. So they can choose to do a berzerker (funny bit is that most of those kind of fighters have learned frenzy) when they win initiative.

@ markc: the thing with  talents in my campaign is that they are random, since I believe that no one can choose their destiny or their talents. So not every NPC gets to choose survival instinct and instinctive defense as their talents just to crank up their DB, but then again, also the PCs do not get to choose.

I'll wait a little more for reactions then I'll make a final write up. Ow one thing that people on the board should keep in mind is that the shield skill is affected by penalties to activity, so it will be diminished during stun rounds and after some wounds. Also after a "shield destroyed" crit result, or a "left/ shield arm broken or useless" crit result, the shield skill is invalid.

Game on!

[Sinfullyvannila]

Lots of big posts here so I don't know if this was covered.

Chracter Law Aug 1999 ed. entry 10.4(pg 110):

"A character may use his shield as a weapon. Such an attack is called a "Shield Bash" and is treated as a "Small Bash" attack-use RMFRP Attack Table A-10.9.8 or AL Attack Table 3.10. Skill used for this "attack" is developed as if it were a One-Handed Concussion weapon. All of the Two-Weapon Fighting sill rules apply(See RMFRP, p. 113). The -20 modification for non-dominant hand use applies if shield is used on the non-dominant arm.
If using this rule, a shield may still be used for it's normal defense function as outlined in RMFRP (p212 and 216)."

[Ravenheart]

In our game shield bonus is a penalty percentage for an attacker or bonus to DB whichever gives a better result.

Normal Shield bonus (+20 vs melee) is -20% for an attacker. +50 fighter gets normal -20 from opponents shield, +100OB fighter goes down to +80. +200 OB fighter would go down to +160. So skill bonus scales according to opponent's skill because it diminishes the amount of acute tactics & styles that the experienced fighter has.

If the shield has any bonuses, those are not counted ever as percentages, but as a normal penalty. This is because the shield size is the measure of coverage it provides, hence the percentage.

Works for us. Everyone 1h weapon user in our group now has some kind of shield, whereas at some point there was none. Shield's weight was too big compared to good it gave

We play high-power, where +350 OB, through not very commonplace, is not very rare either.

[Cory Magel]

Here you have a point; it was my math that forgot to point out that it was the difference in OB vs DB of foe that was the problem. In my game the fighters (I've seen in plenty of campaigns), when he wins initiative the first round, will charge in with everything he got to attempt to take out the opponent in a single stroke: 30% chance (and getting higher EVERY lvl and bonus item) that he succeeds. If his foe parries all he got then the attack will flounder, BUT so will the 0 (zero) OB attack of the opponent...
Seriously I've seen too many fights where the fighter types will all go in parrying all, with the spell casters behind them fixing the fight. IMO this is not how battles were conducted, or should be conducted. The initial charge is meant to connect, unless you have like a defensive weapon such as spear, or other reach weapon.

Firstly, in response to this part in particular... what is good for the PC's is good for the NPC's.  Especially if they are 'known' people, either widely known in the local area, if not world, or the NPC's going up against them (say, mercenaries hired to kill them).  If they are known then their tactics should be also and you should do things specifically to counter those tactics.  And treat NPC's as PC's in terms of talents/flaws.  If the majority of your players make characters that max out Qu then they cannot complain when the majority of your NPC's do also.

I agree that shields pretty much suck the way they are setup in RM.  I do not agree at all with them only being applied to a single target.  We apply the shield bonus to anyone in your forward arc and any known incoming ranged attacks (i.e. if the player knows he is the one being targeted then he can apply his shield bonus to it - missile attacks, directed spells where you get shield DB, etc).  You can choose to make players start using their Combat Awareness in this situation if you want to... some attacks will be obvious, but others they may have no idea are coming (an attacker out of line of sight, or an attacker in sight that has just switched targets from someone next to them TO them, etc).

In attacking with a shield I would simply treat it as a weapon and pick an appropriate attack chart for it.  This means it must be developed as a two weapon combo or receive penalties for being a secondary or off-hand weapon.  I forget exactly what we had used for this, but I believe we used something like the "Club" attack table and the "Bash" critical table.

For the attack it can depend on how your game and players work.

If you want it to have more of an advantage you could say they must develop the "Shield" weapon skill with normal progression and that they always get the intrinsic shield bonus and can make an attack with their skill, minus that intrinsic bonus, without having to declare any "Parry".  I'd be careful about that one as you don't want to pick out too favorable of an attack table.  If you want to have less of an advantage could set the progression at a more restricted level such as 1/1/.5/.5/0.

[Kristen Mork]

To make shields more useful, we have the following house rules:

• Using a shield requires 5% activity (but this doesn't count against the limit of 3 actions per round), so you can use your shield as many times as you like.
• You can learn a shield skill that improves the efficacy of a shield by 0/1/1/0.5/0

We also allow parrying any opponent that doesn't receive a position modifier (15% activity for a half-parry or 30% for a full parry).  The end result is that most characters avail themselves of shields (most Semis rely on the Shield spell), and most parry.  Until your weapon skill is huge, shields offer more bang-for-the-buck: 5% activity for +25 DB vs. 15% activity for 1/2 of skill.  The break-even point would be +150 weapon skill.  Of course, most people use shields and parry because that maximizes DB!