Topic: Defensive Bonus

[Kiroushi]

Hey, I would like to ask if, as said in page 85 of the rulebook, there's no change in DB except for cover and special bonuses.

How is the positional use of the shield treated? Is there any penalty aside from that static -20? If this was supposed to break the shield bonus, it wouldn't when attacking a shield-trained fighter using a +40 DB shield :|

Also, when stunned you parry at 50%. Does this mean you MUST parry with your whole DB (including shield) plus half of your OB every time?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Hey, I would like to ask if, as said in page 85 of the rulebook, there's no change in DB except for cover and special bonuses.

Actually, what it says is that most won't change. This means that there is always a chance that a certain special circumstance could alter things.

This allows for pre-determining a character's "normal" DB for most encounters.

How is the positional use of the shield treated? Is there any penalty aside from that static -20? If this was supposed to break the shield bonus, it wouldn't when attacking a shield-trained fighter using a +40 DB shield :|

The first thing to realize is that in HARP, your character is considered to be moving at all times in combat, not standing there like a lump. What this means is that your character will almost always be working to make sure that his shield is between him and his foe. And if the character has Shield Training, then he is even better at it. That is one of the general premises.

Where are you getting that "static -20" number from? I cannot think, off the top of my head, what you are referring to there.

Also, when stunned you parry at 50%. Does this mean you MUST parry with your whole DB (including shield) plus half of your OB every time?

First off, Parrying refers to moving points from OB to DB. It does affect any where any other part of your DB comes from.

Secondly, unless it says "Must Parry", it means that you are ALLOWED to Parry if you want (even though you cannot make an attack, and parrying is usually considered to be part of the attack action) with a maximum of 50% of your OB. So, if your character had an OB of 60 normally, and he is stunned, he could move 30 points (50% of 60) to DB for the purpose of Parrying (being stunned, he isn't allowed to make any attack at all).

As for "whole DB (including shield)", the character receives his full DB against attacks in almost all circumstances (There will be occasional situations where some or all of a character's DB is negated, but that is the exception, not the rule). However, I do not see a reason why any character would not want to use his full DB - which is what this last question kinda implies.

[Kiroushi]

The first thing to realize is that in HARP, your character is considered to be moving at all times in combat, not standing there like a lump.  What this means is that your character will almost always be working to make sure that his shield is between him and his foe. And if the character has Shield Training, then he is even better at it. That is one of the general premises.

This is exactly what I meant: a character unable to shield block while being attacked from behind. However, considering the character to be moving at all times, it makes perfect sense to use the full DB (including shield).

Where are you getting that "static -20" number from? I cannot think, off the top of my head, what you are referring to there.

I made a poor point here, since it's not a -20 to the defender but a +20 to the attacker if he's striking from behind.

As for "whole DB (including shield)", the character receives his full DB against attacks in almost all circumstances (There will be occasional situations where some or all of a character's DB is negated, but that is the exception, not the rule). However, I do not see a reason why any character would not want to use his full DB - which is what this last question kinda implies.

Could you give me some example where the whole DB is negated?

And last question, concerning spells:

Are elemental attacks calculated against character DB? Or maybe against his magic RR?

Thank you very much :-)

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

This is exactly what I meant: a character unable to shield block while being attacked from behind. However, considering the character to be moving at all times, it makes perfect sense to use the full DB (including shield).

First of all, the rules can only really give general guidelines, since they cannot realistically cover every eventuality. So you will have to use a little common sense as well. 

The Shield modifier to DB only applies to attacks to the foe's front, not to his flank or his rear. So those positional mods don't have to overcome the Shield's DB mod, if those mods are in play, the defender normally isn't going to be receiving his DB modifier from his shield.

Having said that, getting Rear or Flank (and if you get Rear, you also get the Flank mod - the two combine) when a foe can change facing to confront his opponent head on will be difficult. The attacker will either need to sneak up on his foe, or have him in a situation where changing facing is going to be more problematic (i.e. you have him surrounded).

Could you give me some example where the whole DB is negated?

Actually, it would require a combination of factors - including either a weapon that ignores DB from armor, or the foe not wearing any armor. Given that, a restrained foe would have no DB. 

Are elemental attacks calculated against character DB? Or maybe against his magic RR?

HARP page 107 explains that elemental attacks are basically the equivalent of physical attacks, and thus follow the same rules (i.e. they are against a character's DB).

You will notice that the spell's description gives it as an attack spell and does NOT list an RR type. 

[Kiroushi]

The Shield modifier to DB only applies to attacks to the foe's front, not to his flank or his rear. So those positional mods don't have to overcome the Shield's DB mod, if those mods are in play, the defender normally isn't going to be receiving his DB modifier from his shield.

Having said that, getting Rear or Flank (and if you get Rear, you also get the Flank mod - the two combine) when a foe can change facing to confront his opponent head on will be difficult. The attacker will either need to sneak up on his foe, or have him in a situation where changing facing is going to be more problematic (i.e. you have him surrounded).

So... for a character sourrounded by two attackers, assuming a total DB of 60 where 20 come from the shield:

- A front attacker with 60 OB would be countered by a total 60 DB, with no positional bonus. Total attack = Roll + 0 (OB-DB).
- A rear attacker with 40 OB would be countered by a total 40 (-20 because defender cannot block with his shield). Total attack = Roll + 0 (OB-DB) + 20 (Rear) + 15 (Flank).

Is this calculation right?

Thank you again, you've been very helpful

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Pretty much yeah...

Though a smart player would ideally try to turn so that he had them more to front and sides than in front and behind him... 

[choc]

That brings me to the question:

what is the combat maneuver shield bypass for?

with minor you spend 20 ob (-10 ob + -10 for critical) to bypass up to 20 ob (double as major)

i don't really see any advantage to use this combat maneuver.

[jasonbrisbane]

Loose 10ob to negate up to 40 shield DB (with full shield?) Thus gaining +30 to ob...


Sounds good to me..

[choc]

loose 10ob and reduce critical size by one (= another -10) => loose 20ob to gain up to 20 (less db shield)
sounds stupid to me. but just my own humble opinion

[Kiroushi]

Good question.

This manuever comes from the Martian Law rulebook, doesn't it?

Any thoughts?

Edit: Checked it twice, and noticed that the major one results in a net bonus of +10 (-30 + 40).

[choc]

ok.
the greater one gives an advantage against tower shields. but isn't as deadly/hurting like a normal blow. and and advantage of 10ob with 40+ ranks is imho secondary.
probably, but only if you read it a little different, you can bypass a shield parry with it (ignore the shield completely)

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Shield Bypass is only usable with a limited number of weapons, so for those who swing sword, it will never be an issue. And basically, you lose 10 or 20 OB to negate up to twice that much of a foe's DB from his shield. Potential for a net gain overall.

The reduction in the size of the attack is a side effect from maneuver, and crit size adjustments never impact OB, so I think it is incorrect to try and treat it as equal to the  OB modification. (and there is a Typo in the Greater Shield Bypass (where it says Tiny is "Tiny -20" that should be "Tiny -10" since size caps are in 10 point increments.

[Kiroushi]

The reduction in the size of the attack is a side effect from maneuver, and crit size adjustments never impact OB, so I think it is incorrect to try and treat it as equal to the  OB modification.

But, in the end, a crit size reduction of 1 means a -10 bonus to the total attack number, doesn't it? 

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

The reduction in the size of the attack is a side effect from maneuver, and crit size adjustments never impact OB, so I think it is incorrect to try and treat it as equal to the  OB modification.

But, in the end, a crit size reduction of 1 means a -10 bonus to the total attack number, doesn't it? 

No, it is -10 when determining the damage, NOT to the attack itself. It is a modifier to the potential maximum amount of damage that can be done.

Theoretically, a person could use the RM critical tables with the 5 columns, A (Tiny) thru E (Huge), and the result is basically a column shift. Where a morning star might normally do C criticals with each attack, it would instead do B criticals. This has no impact on the attack itself only on the potential amount of damage that could be done.

The problem lies in it being a single column, and thus the adjustments for attack size are numerical rather than an actual column shift like would be used on an Arms Law type of critical table.

[Kiroushi]

No, it is -10 when determining the damage, NOT to the attack itself. It is a modifier to the potential maximum amount of damage that can be done.

Theoretically, a person could use the RM critical tables with the 5 columns, A (Tiny) thru E (Huge), and the result is basically a column shift. Where a morning star might normally do C criticals with each attack, it would instead do B criticals. This has no impact on the attack itself only on the potential amount of damage that could be done.

The problem lies in it being a single column, and thus the adjustments for attack size are numerical rather than an actual column shift like would be used on an Arms Law type of critical table.

Okay, so the only problem is the use of a numerical adjustment to the critical size instead of a individual column for every type.

Martial Law has this issue, whereas Hack and Slash doesn't.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

The use of the numerical adjustment is what causes a lot of confusion.  As a lot of folks tend to think of it in terms of "numerical adjustment == adjustment to OB" whether that might or might not be the actual case.