Let me ask a couple questions.

[Speaker-to-Dreamworlds]

Is there a thematic reason why a medium level Barbarian shouldn't be using a shield in Melee?

Is there a good mechanical reason why you shouldn't get your shield bonus if you are dodging in Melee?

(Not being argumentative, by the way, just want to know.)

 

[GhostWolf69]

Is there a thematic reason why a medium level Barbarian shouldn't be using a shield in Melee?

Is there a good mechanical reason why you shouldn't get your shield bonus if you are dodging in Melee?

(Not being argumentative, by the way, just want to know.)

1. Not really, if you ask me.
2. Well I guess they just add to Parry since that is what you try to do when you take advantage of your shield. But I see your point. My guess is that there is a thin line here somewhere and the game-makers thought it should't be crossed. Come to think of it... they probably only ad to Dodge DV for incomming missiles cause they ruled earlier that you cannot ever parry missiles... otherwise the shield DV bonus would probably ad to Parry for missiles as well.

I don't know... it feels ok, in my book.

/wolf

 

[argo]

Is there a thematic reason why a medium level Barbarian shouldn't be using a shield in Melee?

Is there a good mechanical reason why you shouldn't get your shield bonus if you are dodging in Melee?

(Not being argumentative, by the way, just want to know.)

1) The parry style of defense (particularly when you are using a shiled) is practiced, trained, methodical, and steadfast. You stay within reach of your enemies' weapon and use skill to "set aside" the enemies attack. The dodge style of defense is fast, wild, aggresive, and instinctual. You bounce in and out of the enemies' reach, duck, and sidestep. These are the general descriptions, there are exceptions, but they describe the basic approach to each style. Now, you tell me which sounds more barbarian-like.

2) a mechanical reason? Oh yes, very much so, a very good reason. Parry, as a defense option, has two big gaping flaws in that it can't be used against ranged attacks and it can't be used against touch attacks. It's advantage is that it is possible to achieve a higher total Parry DV than it is a Dodge DV. And one of the major reasons is because shields give a parry, and not a dodge, bonus. Right now a parry-centric soldier with a large shield and the right selection of feats will have the highest DV in the game. If shields gave their bonus to meele dodge as well as parry then ask yourself, why would anyone ever want to design a character who was a parrymaster instead of a dodgemaster?

 

[Speaker-to-Dreamworlds]

1) so, while he's dancing in and out and running around, is there any reason why he shouldn't be carrying a shield? (Since it's not like a shield prevents him from doing that.)

A Swashbuckling fencer - sure. A thief - no question. A quarterstaffman - duh. A barbarian?

2) Dodging doesn't work well in tight spaces, and a Soldier (who can spare the feats for a large non-class Dodge bonus) has a final Parry DV that's five points higher than his Dodge DV. Soldiers are also known for fighting in formation, where they take a Dodge penalty. Finally, I see no reason why you coudn't or shouldn't design Feats that made you better at Parrying, if that's a concern. You could lift one straight from Slaine with little fuss.

(I might note that Slaine's Tribesmen, and the Celtic warriors on which Slaine is based, were definitely Barbarians, and very definite and enthusiastic shield users. Not that that's an overwhelming reason, but ....)

 

[GhostWolf69]

1) so, while he's dancing in and out and running around, is there any reason why he shouldn't be carrying a shield? (Since it's not like a shield prevents him from doing that.)

I have a theory here... thinking about Darkest Africa, and massais and zulu warriors, I'd say they were probably barbarians the whole lot. And they all had Shield and Spear.... BUT!

I seem to recall reading an essay on their fighting techniques in a war game magazine, and apparently they only used those shields to hide/protect themselves "on the way in", to deflect stones and spears thrown by the enemy at a distance. They also used them to scare their enemy, with scary paintings of angry spirits and such. (Sort of like the pirate flag, you know; "Here I come! Be affraid!" to demoralise them.

The point made here was that once melee was ensued, the shield served little or no purpous at all.

Just a reflection.

/wolf

 

[Anonymous]

1) A high level barbarian could have a shield. Zulus were already mentioned, another classic example is the Vikings.

2) Tell ya what, you show me how a shield strapped to your arm will help you Dodge my touch attack and I"ll let you do it. Just remember if I touch anything you are holding or wearing with my attack, your heart pops into my hand... :twisted:

Think of it this way for the mechanics of the shield, at range it is providing a cover bonus to your dodge. In melee it it is used just like a weapon to parry blows. Most the time (buckler gives perfect description) by deflecting the blow. With the ambigous hp system, a hit could be one that the full impact was taken to the shield, thus jarring the shoulder. (think 13th warrior when the lil fella kept taking those blows, even though he won he was still a lil tuckered at the end) So it is not providing cover in melee, you are using it to parry.

 

[Speaker-to-Dreamworlds]

Dodgeing a touch attack: I don't think touching the shield counts. Touching you sure, or your clothes, or you armor. But not your cloak. Or your sword. Makes too many ambiguities.

So a shield obscures the rest of you, fluxing up the other guy's attempt. Part of a dodge vs. a melee attack could be threatening wiith a weapon, anyway; a shield can knock a hand away just as well. Or, you could just say that touch attacks ignore all equipment bonuses to DV, just as easily. (What page is Touch Attack on, in the rulebook, anyway? I'm lazy at the moment.)

 

[GhostWolf69]

(What page is Touch Attack on, in the rulebook, anyway? I'm lazy at the moment.)

Page 160:

"Touch attacks can only be dodged, rather than parried, as a touch which connects with a weapon or shield will deliver the attack. Thus a character's dodge Defence Value is always used against a touch attack."

/wolf

 

[Ian Sturrock]

(Zulus)

I seem to recall reading an essay on their fighting techniques in a war game magazine, and apparently they only used those shields to hide/protect themselves "on the way in", to deflect stones and spears thrown by the enemy at a distance. They also used them to scare their enemy, with scary paintings of angry spirits and such. (Sort of like the pirate flag, you know; "Here I come! Be affraid!" to demoralise them.

The point made here was that once melee was ensued, the shield served little or no purpous at all.

Yeah, that's very characteristic of primitive warfare, though in primitive warfare very little melee combat happens anyway; most of it is ritualized, so you get hurled missile weapons from just outside of effective range, and warriors showing off by dodging them... serious injuries are rare. Melee combat tends to only happen when you've really pissed somebody off, and is more likely to be a raid on the village than an open battle.

For me the main design decision regarding shields was that in the Howard stories, they tend to only ever be used by either town guard types, or soldiers in open warfare. (I'd be inclined to count the kind of Aesir/Vanir who get involved in mass combat, e.g. in "The Frost Giant's Daughter", as multiclassed barbarian/soldiers.) Conan usually goes for sword and dirk (or a similar combination) when "adventuring" i.e. expecting to move fast enough to avoid combat, or if need be face plenty of low-level foes (which is what two-weapon fighting is best at), but uses a two-handed weapon in open warfare when King (because most of the enemies he's likely to go up against are armoured up). Shield can be good for a defensive boost at low levels, or in open combat, but it didn't (to me) seem that appropriate for a mid to high-level barbarian. That's not to say you can't make such a character... but it didn't seem as thematically appropriate as TWF or 2H-weapons.

Slaine is a different matter, as there isn't really any other armour to speak of...

 

[Johannixx]

Personally, I hate shields in melee combat, as I'd rather be able to kill with my off-hand as well as defend. The only time I use a shield is in a huge mass-melee in tight quarters where I'll expect multiple attacks from different angles with little room to dodge, or when I'm expecting to encounter arrow fire (which isn't that often, considering my reenactment group doesn't allow archery since we can't make it both realistic and safe).

I think the Conan shield rules are just fine.

 

[argo]

and a Soldier (who can spare the feats for a large non-class Dodge bonus) has a final Parry DV that's five points higher than his Dodge DV.

Not trying to be insulting here but I think that you have rather missed the point. The purpose of having a shield only provide its bonus to parry and not meele dodge in not to ensure that a shield-parry Soldier has a higher DV than a shield-dodge Soldier. It is to ensure that he has a higher DV than a shield-dodge Barbarian.

Thought experiment. A shield-parry Soldier with the right selection of feats can get a DV about 8 points higher than a dodge Barbarian. But he has spent more resources than the Barb to get that, for the purpose of this example I want both guys to expend an equal ammount of resources so that means that the Soldier herre wont' take those feats, so his only advantage is the shield putting him up by 4 points, thats no small advantage!

Now imagine that you allow shields to give their bonus to meele dodge. Now the Soldier and the Barbarian have an equal DV for an equal expenditure of resources. But wait! The Barbarian's dodge defense works equally well against all attacks meaning he gets the full benefit of his resources all the time. The Soldier's parry defense doesn't work against ranged or touch attacks meaning he gets the benefit of his resources only some of the time.

Thats balance. A character has a decision to make, do I go vor a lower overall DV that will be there for me all the time or do I play for broke and risk getting screwed? In my not so humble opinion having shields provide a parry bonus is one of the central, definning mechanics of the game and I strongly advise against changing it.

Of course that's me. In your game you have the power do do whatever you want. Good luck.

 

[Yokiboy]

Of course that's me. In your game you have the power do do whatever you want. Good luck.

Hey Argo, remind me not to pick a rules argument with you.

Very well put, and you show a mastery of the logic behind game balance.

TTFN,

Yokiboy