Combat Arm with an Expandable Shield?

[Yenaldlooshi]

If you have a combat arm which gives a shield benefit of +6 and you pickup an expandible shield which give +8 with that same arm, do these protections stack to +14?

If not, why not in RAW?

 

[Condottiere]

Someone would have had to have thought about the game mechanics of layering.

 

[MonsterX]

If you have a combat arm which gives a shield benefit of +6 and you pickup an expandible shield which give +8 with that same arm, do these protections stack to +14?

If not, why not in RAW?

The combat arm only gives the armour benefit if you hit the arm, right? Which you're not going to do intentionally if it has a shield on it.

RAW has very little to say about what happens when particular location are singled out for protection. Clearly, flak jackets are intended to give low protection values which reflect that the hit may be elsewhere (it is priced in to the armour factor and a called shot is need to avoid the armour). Anti-mine boots only protect the feet. The combat arm is like the later, not the former.

But if you have a shield, you will of course be doing your best to put the shield between you and the threat, meaning the combat arm as well. A combat arm could also be used to parry, and this seems like it would happen alot in melee if you have a combat arm but don't have a better parrying weapon - damage to parrying weapons is not covered and should be (what happens when you parry an arc blade?)

 

[MasterGwydion]

(what happens when you parry an arc blade?)

Best use a Beskar spear. lol

 

[Terry Mixon]

Why just an expandable shield? Go whole hog and get a personal energy shield.

 

[swordtart]

Cloth armour, Cloth trench coat and expandable shield. Cr3500 and Protection +22.

Shields (and combat arms) offer Cover (DM-2) but you only get the protection benefit if using the Hiding rule - i.e. not engaging back). Also any damage beyond the protection value must be assumed to penetrate.

Shields don't seem to have any damage maximum they can take before being destroyed, but combat arms do, any damage exceeding the protection value will go through and damage the combat arm before the person. Using one as a shield against high yield weaponry will get expensive quickly.

An expandable shield could be used to parry or provide cover, but not both at the same time. Whether you can transition quickly enough to parry as a reaction when it was being used as cover is a referee decision, I'd say a minor action to change configuration (and clearly you cannot use both modes against the same attack).

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

Cloth armour, Cloth trench coat and expandable shield. Cr3500 and Protection +22.

Shields (and combat arms) offer Cover (DM-2) but you only get the protection benefit if using the Hiding rule - i.e. not engaging back). Also any damage beyond the protection value must be assumed to penetrate.

Shields don't seem to have any damage maximum they can take before being destroyed, but combat arms do, any damage exceeding the protection value will go through and damage the combat arm before the person. Using one as a shield against high yield weaponry will get expensive quickly.

An expandable shield could be used to parry or provide cover, but not both at the same time. Whether you can transition quickly enough to parry as a reaction when it was being used as cover is a referee decision, I'd say a minor action to change configuration (and clearly you cannot use both modes against the same attack).

With just a few minor differences, I think you have helped me find the answer. I was not reading the RAW like I should have. Combat arm is treated as a shield, shield is treated as cover. Cover rules per CORE77:

you get the cover DM of -2 WHETHER YOU ARE HIDING OR NOT. If you are just using cover but not hiding, you don't get the protection value.

If hiding,you get the cover DM of -2, but if you are also hiding and not making an attack, then you get the protection value too.

If you have two types of cover, as in my example of Combat Arm and Exp shield, then you just use the higher value only. (My OP question answered)

I agree that one should not be able to Parry and Hide behind a shield at the same time. Effectively, if you are hiding behind a shield you have "dove for cover" which normally would take way all actions but that may be extreme since you are bring your cover in front of you, and also that is not RAW per shield rules.

Thanks!

 

[rinku]

In real world use, shields are parrying weapons (very effective ones) but can certainly be used as cover against missiles. Bullets and beams, not so much, but I'd rather have one of those happen to hit my shield than my arm or torso. But you pretty much have to be aware of the attack and actively position yourself.

The CRB rules are reasonable; shields get a +1 to parry, and the two weapon use rule only penalises attacking with both weapons - not attacking with one and using the other to parry with. Sword and Board works.

As far as using a shield as cover... the p77 text is this:



It doesn't say a Shield is cover as such... but I would certainly allow a shield to be used as cover in many situations. Assuming it's made of materials that can cope with whatever the ranged attack is, you can definitely cower behind it if your exposed profile is small enough.

As far as combining a shield and a Combat arm, I see no problem there. The shield provides a bonus to the Parry as usual, so the combat arm's parry bonus is one better (+3 for a basic one), providing protection against attacks it is used to parry (+2 protection for a basic one).

(Edit: I didn't read far enough on p.77. Yeah, the protection bonus is only when actively using it as cover and not engaging in combat (which is only the -2 to be hit thing). Sorry about that!)

As an extension of the existing rules, I would allow a Shield to parry low velocity missiles, definitely thrown objects that the defender is aware of. But maybe the -2 to be hit is enough there?

 

[swordtart]

Thinking on this further, as you can use a weapon in a combat arm then it does offer an additional advantage with a shield if the shield is in the other hand. If fitted with a melee weapon it would gain the strength bonus to damage so it is a logical configuration.

Firstly you get the +2 cover bonus against ranged attacks at all times it is in boarding shield configuration.

If you do not attack you get to use the shield's protection rating. If a melee attack is made against you, you can still use the combat arm as a shield to gain the +1 to your melee skill when parrying as a reaction (which does not risk damaging the arm).

If you are attacking then the expandable shield would likely be used for the parry (as you can configure it as a large shield and get +2 to the parry).

Large shield normally requires STR 9 to wield effectively, but I am inclined to say that this is not the case with an expandable shield in large shield configuration (similarly to it not being Bulky when in boarding shield configuration).

You cannot use a shield in one hand and the combat arm in the other to gain greater protection from cover as you would need to be "hiding" behind both and that rule says you only get the best of two types of cover.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

In real world use, shields are parrying weapons (very effective ones) but can certainly be used as cover against missiles. Bullets and beams, not so much, but I'd rather have one of those happen to hit my shield than my arm or torso. But you pretty much have to be aware of the attack and actively position yourself.

The CRB rules are reasonable; shields get a +1 to parry, and the two weapon use rule only penalises attacking with both weapons - not attacking with one and using the other to parry with. Sword and Board works.

As far as using a shield as cover... the p77 text is this:

View attachment 6450

It doesn't say a Shield is cover as such... but I would certainly allow a shield to be used as cover in many situations. Assuming it's made of materials that can cope with whatever the ranged attack is, you can definitely cower behind it if your exposed profile is small enough.

As far as combining a shield and a Combat arm, I see no problem there. The shield provides a bonus to the Parry as usual, so the combat arm's parry bonus is one better (+3 for a basic one), providing protection against attacks it is used to parry (+2 protection for a basic one).

(Edit: I didn't read far enough on p.77. Yeah, the protection bonus is only when actively using it as cover and not engaging in combat (which is only the -2 to be hit thing). Sorry about that!)

As an extension of the existing rules, I would allow a Shield to parry low velocity missiles, definitely thrown objects that the defender is aware of. But maybe the -2 to be hit is enough there?

In the CSC page 140, it does not talk about shield=cover until you get to the first shield that has a protection value, the Boarding Shield, then it refers to CORE77. Then very next shield that has a protection value, the Expandable Shield, states it too is used as "cover". They don't use the word "cover" in the entry for the Riot Shields +1 protection, but as this is after the only other entries mentioning cover, at this point, I am thinking there is a defacto rule of shield protection values=cover for the shields that can give a protection value. Also, it appears this cover is ONLY vs ranged attacks. Bullets and Beams do work, but you have to be trying to hide and make yourself as smalls as you can behind it. George vs. the Dragon type hiding behind the shield.

Side question; Expandible Shield on this page states; "Using morphable materials, it expands on voice or electronic command to become
any size from a buckler to a boarding shield...". The Boarding Shield is 5kg and so is the Large Shield at 5kg. Could it be expanded to become effectively a "Large Shield" and the +2 to the Melee bonus that this has? I am inclined to say yes, but you don't get the protection value that it has as it cannot morph into that same thickness due to needing to be lightweight enough for such a parry bonus. What say you?

As for the parrying slow missiles.... meh. I like consistency and that exception would be hard to remember. -2 to hit is good enough. Also as far as realism, if someone is shooting an arrow at you, your melee skill is not really going to help you parry that arrow. You are either obscuring yourself with the shield (-2 to hit) or also using a larger shield with protection to hide behind. Karate training does not cover how to chop arrows out of the sky and even in ancient martial training how to use a shield, the training vs missiles was just put it up before the salvo blocking the sun makes landfall, not so much a parry. This is the realm of the dodge, which coupled with a shield would give -4 to hit total, right?

 

[MasterGwydion]

As for the parrying slow missiles.... meh. I like consistency and that exception would be hard to remember. -2 to hit is good enough. Also as far as realism, if someone is shooting an arrow at you, your melee skill is not really going to help you parry that arrow. You are either obscuring yourself with the shield (-2 to hit) or also using a larger shield with protection to hide behind. Karate training does not cover how to chop arrows out of the sky and even in ancient martial training how to use a shield, the training vs missiles was just put it up before the salvo blocking the sun makes landfall, not so much a parry. This is the realm of the dodge, which coupled with a shield would give -4 to hit total, right?

I would say that parrying arrows and blocking arrows is the same thing.

You see the arrow coming in, you move your shield into its path. The arrow has been blocked from reaching its target because it was parried.

Also, the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) teaches you how to parry arrows with a shield when those arrows are fired individually and not part of a huge barrage.

Also, wouldn't Dodging mean not being hit? If the arrow hits your shield, you have not "dodged" you have parried.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

www.bing.com

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

I would say that parrying arrows and blocking arrows is the same thing.

You see the arrow coming in, you move your shield into its path. The arrow has been blocked from reaching its target because it was parried.

Also, the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) teaches you how to parry arrows with a shield when those arrows are fired individually and not part of a huge barrage.

Also, wouldn't Dodging mean not being hit? If the arrow hits your shield, you have not "dodged" you have parried.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

www.bing.com

Sure, I spose but to me these are all just semantics that may or may not playout in rules mechanics. Here's what I mean:
What is a parry? "well, according to websters.... blah blah"<-- don't care

A "parry" in Traveller is where you get to use your Melee skill to reduce the effectiveness of a Melee attack per RAW. That's it for Traveller.

So, why not house rule it works for a ranged attack?
1) Because a shield already reduces this by -2 if it has a protection value. This is game mechanics
2) Just. Not. Realistic. It unfairly gives full value of a melee skill in a way meant to remain more in the realm of melee. Sure, if you want Jedi blaster parries for cinematic effect in your TU, go for it.

The SCA arrow vs shield parry maybe something they call a "parry" but let that be reflected by the -2, because even an SCA fighter will not be able to shield parry an arrow with all their ability as a fighter to the same degree that they parry strikes and blows. (don't make me get an expert opinion on this 'cause I will! lol). If I have a skill of Melee(Blade)-4+1 due to sheild, I can parry a blade attack by reducing it by -4. An archer shooting me with an arrow and I somehow have the ability to ward off that arrow to the same degree I can ward off someone slinging a blade at me? Not logical. So reduce the parry down? Sure, why don't we just give it a flat -2... just like the rules as written already.

There is no RAW about if arrows hit shields, slightly obscure their targets to miss etc. If an attack fails, it fails. Where the arrow landed or stuck into the shield, that is referee narrative color to provide or not provide as the ref sees fit. That said, shoot an arrow at me while I am trying to use my shield to protect me, and then I see it lodges into my shield, I might heard to exclaim "Whew, dodged that one!"

 

[MasterGwydion]

Sure, I spose but to me these are all just semantics that may or may not playout in rules mechanics. Here's what I mean:
What is a parry? "well, according to websters.... blah blah"<-- don't care

A "parry" in Traveller is where you get to use your Melee skill to reduce the effectiveness of a Melee attack per RAW. That's it for Traveller.

So, why not house rule it works for a ranged attack?
1) Because a shield already reduces this by -2 if it has a protection value. This is game mechanics
2) Just. Not. Realistic. It unfairly gives full value of a melee skill in a way meant to remain more in the realm of melee. Sure, if you want Jedi blaster parries for cinematic effect in your TU, go for it.

The SCA arrow vs shield parry maybe something they call a "parry" but let that be reflected by the -2, because even an SCA fighter will not be able to shield parry an arrow with all their ability as a fighter to the same degree that they parry strikes and blows. (don't make me get an expert opinion on this 'cause I will! lol). If I have a skill of Melee(Blade)-4+1 due to sheild, I can parry a blade attack by reducing it by -4. An archer shooting me with an arrow and I somehow have the ability to ward off that arrow to the same degree I can ward off someone slinging a blade at me? Not logical. So reduce the parry down? Sure, why don't we just give it a flat -2... just like the rules as written already.

Why would you get your full Melee skill while using a shield? A Shield is not a blade, so you should only be using Melee/0 since there is not specialty for shield, same way there is no specialty for fixed mount weapons on a starship.

There is no RAW about if arrows hit shields, slightly obscure their targets to miss etc. If an attack fails, it fails. Where the arrow landed or stuck into the shield, that is referee narrative color to provide or not provide as the ref sees fit. That said, shoot an arrow at me while I am trying to use my shield to protect me, and then I see it lodges into my shield, I might heard to exclaim "Whew, dodged that one!"

 

[Gavain]

The arm has STR 12, grants Protection +2 to the arm if it is directly attacked or if used as a shield.

CSC pg 55
Allows the use of the combat arm as a shield, and the way I read the CRB is that when parrying you interpose the shield and reduce their ability to hit you. However, as a special benefit for the combat arm you get the +2/+4/+6 protection in addition to the parry effect. The expandable shield only provides the +8 protection when using it as cover.

 

[Gavain]

Why would you get your full Melee skill while using a shield? A Shield is not a blade, so you should only be using Melee/0 since there is not specialty for shield, same way there is no specialty for fixed mount weapons on a starship

I have no problem with this, because, if you have a shield you will be practicing with your blade and shield together so that you can operate at full capability. I would perhaps exclude Melee (unarmed) and Melee (natural) from being usable with a shield.

 

[Terry Mixon]

As someone who has fought in the SCA, one thing that you can do with a shield is block an attack and then promptly swing your own weapon in a counter attack. I’m not sure the rules specifically cover something like that, but it’s almost like an immediate reaction to an attack.

 

[Terry Mixon]

I have no problem with this, because, if you have a shield you will be practicing with your blade and shield together so that you can operate at full capability. I would perhaps exclude Melee (unarmed) and Melee (natural) from being usable with a shield.

What about a shield bash? You can unbalance an opponent or even cause real damage. Would that not be melee (unarmed)? Or would it be something else? Now that I think about it, that’s probably melee (bludgeon).

 

[swordtart]

In the CSC page 140, it does not talk about shield=cover until you get to the first shield that has a protection value, the Boarding Shield, then it refers to CORE77. Then very next shield that has a protection value, the Expandable Shield, states it too is used as "cover". They don't use the word "cover" in the entry for the Riot Shields +1 protection, but as this is after the only other entries mentioning cover, at this point, I am thinking there is a defacto rule of shield protection values=cover for the shields that can give a protection value. Also, it appears this cover is ONLY vs ranged attacks. Bullets and Beams do work, but you have to be trying to hide and make yourself as smalls as you can behind it. George vs. the Dragon type hiding behind the shield.

That seems a reasonable assumption since without the cover rule you cannot exercise the protection anyway.

Side question; Expandible Shield on this page states; "Using morphable materials, it expands on voice or electronic command to become
any size from a buckler to a boarding shield...". The Boarding Shield is 5kg and so is the Large Shield at 5kg. Could it be expanded to become effectively a "Large Shield" and the +2 to the Melee bonus that this has? I am inclined to say yes, but you don't get the protection value that it has as it cannot morph into that same thickness due to needing to be lightweight enough for such a parry bonus. What say you?

Large shield doesn't provide any protection bonus so neither would an expandable shield in that configuration.

As for the parrying slow missiles.... meh. I like consistency and that exception would be hard to remember. -2 to hit is good enough. Also as far as realism, if someone is shooting an arrow at you, your melee skill is not really going to help you parry that arrow. You are either obscuring yourself with the shield (-2 to hit) or also using a larger shield with protection to hide behind. Karate training does not cover how to chop arrows out of the sky and even in ancient martial training how to use a shield, the training vs missiles was just put it up before the salvo blocking the sun makes landfall, not so much a parry. This is the realm of the dodge, which coupled with a shield would give -4 to hit total, right?

Shields are more effective against slow moving missiles because they tend to do less damage. If you hide behind your shield you get cover and the protection. Dodging imposes DM-1 on your actions. It imposes a negative DM on opponents equal to your DEX modifier or Athletics (DEX) not a flat -2.

Tajima the arrow cutter is reputed to have cut down arrows by whirling his naginata, and avoided by ducking and jumping. This may not be wholly credible.

 

[swordtart]

I would say that parrying arrows and blocking arrows is the same thing.

You see the arrow coming in, you move your shield into its path. The arrow has been blocked from reaching its target because it was parried.

Also, the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) teaches you how to parry arrows with a shield when those arrows are fired individually and not part of a huge barrage.

In SCA the bows are not full power and ammunition has intentionally large heads to prevent penetration which slows down the arrow. I am not sure the ability to deflect these arrows can necessarily be read across to arrows designed for actual lethal combat.

Also, wouldn't Dodging mean not being hit? If the arrow hits your shield, you have not "dodged" you have parried.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

www.bing.com

 

[swordtart]

As someone who has fought in the SCA, one thing that you can do with a shield is block an attack and then promptly swing your own weapon in a counter attack. I’m not sure the rules specifically cover something like that, but it’s almost like an immediate reaction to an attack.

That would be parry in your opponents turn and then counter attack in your turn as your action. Real combat doesn't happen in 6 second segments so direct comparison is never going to work. For example in single sword fighting we have a parry that turns into a cut. The whole thing happens in about 1/10th of a second.

Most RPG combat isn't like that because it all take too long to work out. En-guard had a good stab at it (if you will excuse the pun).