In addition, you may not actually be using the shield to do the parrying (arguably weapons parry, shields block). The rule is that it adds +1 to your regular Parry chance. You may be simply putting the shield somewhere which forces the opponent to change the line of their attack making it easier to parry with your weapon as you are now only needing to cover half your body.
Combat Arm with an Expandable Shield?
- Thread starter Yenaldlooshi
- Start date
Using shields to do damage is Melee(Bludgeon) CSC p140.
Yenaldlooshi
Cosmic Mongoose
First thing, I made a typo. I said parry gives -4 but really it would be -5 with the shield (Melee skill +1 is a negative to the attack being received)
Why would you get your full Melee skill while using a shield? Because that's how parries work per RAW. Core page 76 states:
"A Traveller in close combat may attempt to parry an
opponent’s melee attack as a Reaction. In so doing,
they will inflict their Melee skill as a negative DM to the
attacker’s attack roll."
It does not specify a specialty under Melee, it just says Melee. That and common sense would suggest that any of the specialties you have learned comes with a parry ability that could translate into defense moves that could parry any of type of melee attack. Being that as a ref I tend to err on the side of defense, I tell my players they can simply use their highest Melee skill. Though this does not contradict RAW, I admit they could have been clearer about it and stated as such.
Another ref might rule that you have to parry with the melee skill you are being attacked with, but then what melee skill would you use to parry a pistol attack when in close combat? The attacker uses their Gun Combat skill, but you are only supposed to parry using a melee skill yet this would not match the method of the attacker. Thus it is even more RAW to say they can use their highest Melee skill, and the shield would give a +1 to that skill.
Yenaldlooshi
Cosmic Mongoose
Agreed, but as a "Large Shield" you could get that sweet sweet +2 to your melee for a parry. The other shields only give you +1!
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
If you have Melee (swords)/3 but are using a club (Melee (bludgeon)), you would only be able to use Melee/0, not Melee/3 as you do not have any skillpoints in the Melee(bludgeon) specialty.
Who cares what skill is being used to attack you? All that matters is what skill is used with the melee weapon you are using. You don't need to know how to use a sword to know how to block strikes from one using a staff. You'd defend using Melee(bludgeon). They'd attack using Melee(sword). Make sense?
Indeed as I said at #9 above
The two weapon rules cover weapon and shield fine, Terry. You're only penalised for attacking with both weapons; fighting with a main weapon and parrying with the off hand one is normal, and shields get their parry bonus.
Also an SCA veteran. I am a little wary of saying outright that you can parry an arrow with a sheild, given that for safety purposes SCA combat arrows are low power and a bit slower because of the rubber tips, but as a general rule you only need a fraction of a second to react to an archer that you already are aware of and can see is getting ready to draw. If they are sufficiently far away, even with combat bows shooting pointy arrows, it is practical to get your shield where it needs to be. Call it a Block if you like, but it's an active defense, so using Melee to parry feels better than a flat -2 cover defense. If the missile is something thrown, it's even more reasonable; maybe apply both? But if you are not actively defending against a specific attacker, such as in a shield wall, it's definitely a Cover situation.
In game terms, shield parrying of arrows doesn't exist, so it's only an idea if you like that idea. I'm certainly not going to crusade for it. -2 cover mod works, and in a normal Traveller environment you rarely have shields defending against bows, so it's a minor edge case (riot shields vs thrown objects could well come up at some point).
Last edited:
Terry Mixon
Emperor Mongoose
Yeah, the arrow parrying was someone else. I agree with you.
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
No different than stepping out of the way of a baseball thrown by a major leaguer. Easy to step out of the way at 200 feet, not so much at 60 feet.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Direct fire, partial shield penetration, connects with armoured gauntlet.
Yenaldlooshi
Cosmic Mongoose
I see what you are saying, but the RAW only says;
"they will inflict their Melee skill as a negative DM to the attacker’s attack roll."
It it does not specify a specialty, it does state "Melee skill in the specialty they are currently armed with" or words to that effect. That is your assumption of the rules intent. And that is fine, because my version is also an assumption. You and I are left forced to make one assumption or the other because the RAW lacks clarity on this point.
If I am a sword master with a blade skill of 6, but am caught unarmed, that does not negate the fact that I have a Melee skill at level 6. I have a Melee skill, it is at level 6. The sheer syntax of the rule as written means it become a negative DM to the attackers roll. It also follows as good game mechanics and it also does not violate realism to do it this way.
In your interpretation, if I have unarmed at level 6, and no other Melee specialty, can I not always apply my Unarmed skill 6 as a parry even if I have a sword in my hand, or does the fact that I am armed, mean by your definition my parry is at 0? Afterall, I can do other things while armed with my full unarmed Melee skill such as grapples. (that is canon)
Gavain
Cosmic Mongoose
Shield bash is explicitly stated as using Melee (bludgeon) skill.
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
You are correct if you ignore that fact that the rules state that if you are attacking with your fists you use Melee (unarmed), not Melee(sword), What you are currently armed with, not what your opponent is currently armed with. Everywhere else says this. Go ahead and ask @MongooseMatt what their intent was. How many errors and rule violations has Mongoose accidentally published in their books? Please for the love of the gods fix the errors in the books before writing more books!
If you are a master swordsman and have Melee(sword)/6 and you get in a fist fight against a guy with a sword, you use Melee(unarmed), not any of the other Melee specialties. Doesn't matter if you are a master swordsman if you don't have a sword.
If you are wielding a staff, should you use your Melee(unarmed)/2 or your Melee(bludgeon)/4? You defend, which is now the appropriate skill to use? If you defend with your barehands, you'd use Melee(unarmed). If you defend with the staff, you'd use Melee(bludgeon). It is so simple.
There is a difference between asked to make a skill check in a specialism that you do not have vs something that provides a bonus to a general skill.
There are other examples of this:
Complex Cranial Processing Unit gives DM+1 to all complex Science checks. By your your logic it would not work with an specialism, a "Science" check can only be Science-0.
Skill Augmentation for Pilot provides a +1DM for Pilot checks. By your logic it would be pretty useless as it can only be used with Pilot-0.
High end cameras can provide DM+2 to relevant Art checks. Since Art(Holography) and ART(Visual Media) could both use cameras they should both gain the DM+2. Under your interpretation they could could only benefit someone with Art-0.
Why would shields be worded "A Traveller using a standard shield increases their effective Melee skill by +1 when parrying.". If the intent was that any Melee skill was always reduced to the non specialised level 0 then it might as well have said that shields allow a parry at Melee-1 (or Melee-0 if unskilled) far fewer words and scope for misinterpretation.
So I think in this case "effective Melee skill" means "effective Melee(Any) skill".
Last edited:
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
If you use a holographic camera for visual media instead of holography, why would you get a bonus?
and toolkits give bonuses to Profession, but only if it is the right toolkit for the specialty.
They count as Melee/0 using a shield to parry if they have no Melee skill.
So, just so I am clear, your belief is that in the below scenario, the highest Melee should be used regardless of what weapon is actually being used to defend?
Swordsman with a sword, Melee(sword)/4 attacks an unarmed guy with a shield who has Melee(sword)/4. Should the unarmed guy use his Melee(sword)/4 to parry even though he has no weapon? Or in this case "effective Melee Skill" is Melee(unarmed) since he doesn't have a weapon or possibly Melee(bludgeon) if he uses his shield offensively. It should never be based on a skill with a weapon that you are not using.
Last edited:
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
Agreed, but defending with a shield should default to whichever Melee specialty that you are using in the combat. If you have a shield in one hand and the other is empty, you should defend with Melee(unarmed)+1. If you have a shield in one hand and a sword in the other hand, you should defend with Melee(sword)+1
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
Awesome! Happy that I understand correctly.
Terry Mixon
Emperor Mongoose
A shield isn’t typically used unarmed, so I would say only melee (blade) or (bludgeon) depending on if trained using it with a sword or mace. It is trained with an accompanying weapon and the techniques are different.
