Shield Parries and the Issue of Armor Points

[atgxtg]

[
Actually I'd disagree with you on this one. There is a great difference in how easy it is to parry depending on the type and size of the shield in question. Big shields are heavier and thus slower to move. Historical examples (at least the ones which survive more than a single battle) weigh much more than an average sword. That's why many sword+shield combat styles use the sword for upper body defence, or to bind the opponent's weapon before following up.

I think that our point of departure is in a shield designed to last more than a single battle. Historically, most shields were of the disposable defense variety. If a shield is heavy, then yeah it is slower to move. But a light, large shield is great to defend with. Something like the wicker and hide shield the Zulus used is ideal in helping one survive a battle, although at the expense of the shield.

Of course the lighter shields don't have a lot of APs.

Using the sword for upper defense sounds like a fairly late development, since it requires a blade that can actually withstand being hit.


BTW, Aren't you one of the people who worked up a bunch of alternate rules for the GM's Guide?

 

[atgxtg]

Not with a large shield, as Pete Nash confirmed. In fact I was tempted to give them both a bonus to block and a penalty to parry, but the situation is already balanced with the penalty. Consider also a 100% shield user: what use is his +20% if skill over 100% is lost in an unopposed contest?

Sorry, I'm not totally up to speed with the Player's Update. I though that with the opposed rules the guy at 120% added 20% to his parry (or in our case block) rolls with his shield.

Optional rule: Damage that passes the block APs is applied to both the weapon and the wielder. Blocking with a shortspear results in a broken spear. Fine.

How about either weapon first, so you have to kill the foe's shield before you kill him. Or maybe an "odd/even" sort of thing, allowing someone to glance off the blocking weapon and hit the foe, or just cleave that shield.

In general my idea is that when the defender rolls better than the attacker the reaction is not used up, and so the defender has a reaction to use for the riposte. In the case of a critical parry vs. a failed or fumbled attack, the reaction originally intended for the parry is instead used for the riposte :twisted:

First the alternate combat tables with the new retreat option and now the "improved" parry doesn't use a CA/defense. You haven't been reading Iron Claw, Usagi Yojimbo, or Jade Claw? A lot of similarities there. About the only thing missing is a counter attack action.

 

[Rurik]

About the only thing missing is a counter attack action.

Well there is the 'free' riposte...

 

[RosenMcStern]

Not with a large shield, as Pete Nash confirmed. In fact I was tempted to give them both a bonus to block and a penalty to parry, but the situation is already balanced with the penalty. Consider also a 100% shield user: what use is his +20% if skill over 100% is lost in an unopposed contest?

Sorry, I'm not totally up to speed with the Player's Update. I though that with the opposed rules the guy at 120% added 20% to his parry (or in our case block) rolls with his shield.

Read my suggestion carefully. If you Block, there is no opposed roll, so skill over 100% is just wasted. In my idea, Block is for not-so-skilled fighters.

First the alternate combat tables with the new retreat option and now the "improved" parry doesn't use a CA/defense. You haven't been reading Iron Claw, Usagi Yojimbo, or Jade Claw? A lot of similarities there. About the only thing missing is a counter attack action.

Alas no, I do not have the time to read everything interesting that is around.

 

[atgxtg]

About the only thing missing is a counter attack action.

Well there is the 'free' riposte...

Nah, not quite what I was referring to. Rather than defend, riposte, the idea is to launch an attack instead of a defense and try to beat the opponent to the strike.

I mentioned it as Rosen's alternate combat chart works sort of similar to the one in Usagi Yojimbo. The Samurai setting makes counter attack the preferred defense. It also has some rules for how actions are used, and it is possible that a very good result will prevent an action from being used.

 

[RosenMcStern]

I have updated the tables on the other thread. They start looking cluttered somehow, but now it makes more sense to me.

We still have to decide whether there is a penalty to parry for shields or a bonus to block (or both). I vote for a penalty, and maybe for a block bonus, but I am not sure about the latter. Opinons?

 

[atgxtg]

Read my suggestion carefully. If you Block, there is no opposed roll, so skill over 100% is just wasted. In my idea, Block is for not-so-skilled fighters.

Hmm, I'm not sure if I like that. I'll have to look over the combat chart, but it does seem to imply that a high skilled character will almost never block.

In that case maybe it would be better to keep blocking as part of parrying, and just use the degree of success to determine if the result is a block or a parry. Just change fail/fail to fail/hit blocking weapon/shield.

Alas no, I do not have the time to read everything interesting that is around.

You might like UY, it has some similarities to what you did with the chart. It's different, Sanguines games use an opposed skill resolution, and gifts (think feats, but more open an easily obtained), but you have some similar concepts. For instance you use giving ground as an option to save reactions. Usagi does something similar with retreats (giving ground to avoid certain unpleasant effects, like getting run through), and with with crticcals (sometimes a really good attack, parry or counterattack doesn't use up an action).

 

[RosenMcStern]

I'll have to look over the combat chart, but it does seem to imply that a high skilled character will almost never block.

Most posters who have combat experience seemed to suggest so. I have just modified your proposal to suit this.

 

[Rurik]

Actually, thinking about it, under the unnoposed block system, if your skill is high enough with a sheild I would choose a block in most cases. Why risk an opposed roll against someone if I can take a straight up block at 80%+? (assuming my opponent is of similiar skill) 8-10 AP shield plus whatever you are wearing for armor (4-6 points) plus the point or two of protection magic likely at these skill levels and the straight roll block is a very enticing option over the all or nothing opposed roll parry.

Just a thought - needs play of course to see how it really falls out.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Actually, thinking about it, under the unnoposed block system, if your skill is high enough with a sheild I would choose a block in most cases.

This was exactly my intention. Make block viable for shields, and parry for swords. If it works, it solves many issues.

 

[Sadric 86th]

Hmm....

I'm not completely concerned with 'realism.' I'm more concerned with making the selection of a shield, and the use of a shield, a viable option despite having a lower skill percentage in the shield skill.

In Stormbringer, 5th edition, this matter was handled by allowing the character to use his or her higher skill percentage of his weapon or shield and still declare that the shield is bearing the brunt of the blow. Thus, a character was not penalized for having a lower skill percentage in the shield skill. Subsequent parries were at -30% in that combat round. It worked fine. The MRQ system while genetically linked to the old Basic Role-playing system used in Stormbringer, 5th edition, is clearly a breed apart. I do not believe the old BRP system easily ports over to MRQ.

In MRQ, what makes a shield a decent defensive option is the higher AP. The conundrum is bringing the higher AP into consideration if one stays true to the current player's update. I should add, I like the player's update having play-tested it, I found it moves fast and does give a skilled warrior a distinct advantage. My one concern is the shield issue.

Thus, rather than adding a new mechanism for defending (The Block). I was hoping to stick with the existing two defense options of parry and dodge. The concept of the block is more precise than the term 'parry' but I was content to use the terms "parry" and "block" interchangeably within the game.

Otherwise, to truly introduce "The Block" requires the introduction of a third combat table. One for "Dodge", one for "Parry" and the new table for "Block." Now, this brings me back to my original question, it may be, to truly accomplish what I'm looking for does require the introduction of a third table. Perhaps a table based on one of the older parry tables which better integrated AP into the equation?

Conceptually, you have the "dodge" getting out of the way of the attack. "parry" deflecting the attack away with a weapon and the "block" bearing the brunt of an attack with a shield.

Thoughts?

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I think that our point of departure is in a shield designed to last more than a single battle. Historically, most shields were of the disposable defense variety. If a shield is heavy, then yeah it is slower to move. But a light, large shield is great to defend with. Something like the wicker and hide shield the Zulus used is ideal in helping one survive a battle, although at the expense of the shield.

Of course the lighter shields don't have a lot of APs.

Yes indeed. I was coming at this from the classical and European cultural perspective where shields are primarily designed to be used in toe-to-toe melee combat, often as part of formations. The ancient Greek aspis weighed about 14 pounds, the Roman scutum between 12 and 15 pounds and Viking round shields between 11 and 15 pounds in weight (possibly even heavier). By contrast, your average single handed sword only weighs about 1.5 - 3 lbs.

Weight is an important factor in melee designed shields, since the heavier the shield the more energy of the incoming blow it absorbs during a block.

Zulu shields work more for the fact that they are parrying thrusting weapons (easier to do than against swung weapons), and that most African tribal fighting was open-order or skirmish formation, giving them room to maneuver as part of the parry (rather than standing in line like a lemon and being forced to block!). If used against swords or axes they wouldn't stop as much damage and would break pretty quickly - as you suggested with the lower APs!

Using the sword for upper defense sounds like a fairly late development, since it requires a blade that can actually withstand being hit.

Another good point. Weapon metallurgy has to be advanced enough to be able to make reliable weapons. But it is also a question of body armour too. As armour improved in the middle ages, the size of shields diminished until they were abandoned altogether and weapons like the daneaxe, greatsword, and poleaxe became king.

Its very difficult to say exactly when the weapon started being used as a major part of defence rather than just relying on the shield. The earliest surviving European fighting manual we have, dates from the late thirteenth century and concerns sword and buckler combat (which requires parrying with the weapon). There may be examples of weapon parries in the Viking sagas too, but I don't have them to hand at the moment (My desk is buried up to my eyes in ancient Rome research material!)

BTW, Aren't you one of the people who worked up a bunch of alternate rules for the GM's Guide?

Yep, that's me. I also co-developed with Loz the new magic system for Elric of Melnibone. So if you read that and go "arrck!" in horror, then its probably my fault, not his...

I'm always grinding away at rules development - seeking consistency, stability and elegance... but unfortunately there can be many months between initial conception, forwarding my ideas to Loz and severe playtesting, before they might see final publication. I have many ideas in the pipeline, but you guys seem to be working well on developing your own alternative rules suggestions!

Anyway, I best shut up now. I seem to be talking more about history than useful rules ideas!

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Conceptually, you have the "dodge" getting out of the way of the attack. "parry" deflecting the attack away with a weapon and the "block" bearing the brunt of an attack with a shield.

Thoughts?

That is a neat and elegant, summation. Not wholly realistic of course, but sometimes simplicity is better for game flow.

Now you just have to decide which rules to use for each concept!

 

[kintire]

In that case maybe it would be better to keep blocking as part of parrying, and just use the degree of success to determine if the result is a block or a parry. Just change fail/fail to fail/hit blocking weapon/shield

I like this idea. Its elegant and realistic at the same time! I don't really see any reason to seperate "parry" and "block". In fact, in pure realism terms there's no reason to seperate dodge, either, since generally you do all three. However I think rolling dodge in might be a step too far, as it comes in handy for missiles, collpasing statues and other hazards, as well as providing a measure for unarmed defense.

On the subject of missiles, I think that may be a balancing factor of the extra shield skill. You can parry missiles with a shield in a way you really can't with a sword!

 

[AKAramis]

RosenMcStern:

Several issues:

1: You can parry a poleaxe with a dagger... I've seen it done. I've parried a glaive with a gladius... you don't have to overcome the rotation, just convert some of it via slanted blade into up/down-ward motion, much easier than it sounds. The longer the parrying weapon, the easier it is to redirect by forced ride of the blade.

2: Shields, even tower shields, can be used to parry; again, angling reduces the damage to the shield, and converts rotational moment into vertical.

Atgxtg:

Most shields were expendable, but few were single combat... having done a little, and seen more, live steel work, a targe is QUITE capable of surviving multiple dozen hours of use.

Most steel blades can take parrying quite well.

Of course, Glorantha is bronze age...

 

[Rurik]

Obviously there is some disagreement on the Poleaxe vs. Dagger front but all of this has been in the context of normal humans fighting.

What if the Poleaxe is weilded by a Great Troll - can you parry a tree trunk swung by a giant with a dagger? And what about a Dragon?

The AP system works better for those situations than the all or nothing system, as the parrying the giant with a really big stick with your dagger is not really good option.

The AP system has problems, agreed. One being the STR of the defender is not takin into account, and another being that weapons have very low AP. But the Parry avoids all damage doesn't hold up in all cases either.

Also, I have been working out the math behind the All or Nothing Opposed combat and the results are a bit surprising - I'll post the formulas and some results a bit later.

 

[kintire]

The AP system has problems, agreed. One being the STR of the defender is not takin into account, and another being that weapons have very low AP. But the Parry avoids all damage doesn't hold up in all cases either.

I still have serious trouble with the idea that an attack breaks through the weapon without breaking the weapon. I'm sorry, I hold no favour for the APs system unless you are actually attacking the weapon, the damage that gets through goes off the weapons hit points, and harms the wielder if, and only if, the weapon breaks. If you have an extreme case like a giant or a dragon, you can just rule it can't be parried at all.

 

[RosenMcStern]

The AP system has problems, agreed. One being the STR of the defender is not takin into account, and another being that weapons have very low AP. But the Parry avoids all damage doesn't hold up in all cases either.

I still have serious trouble with the idea that an attack breaks through the weapon without breaking the weapon. I'm sorry, I hold no favour for the APs system unless you are actually attacking the weapon, the damage that gets through goes off the weapons hit points, and harms the wielder if, and only if, the weapon breaks. If you have an extreme case like a giant or a dragon, you can just rule it can't be parried at all.

Quoting your post from yesterday's debate:

Either the incoming blow is stopped, or the defending weapon is forced aside, or the defending weapon breaks.

The case in which the APs are subtracted but the weapon does not take damage is the second case you mention: the defending weapon is forced aside. If you are parrying my axe with your bastard sword, the act of forcing the parrying weapon aside decreases the impact, though I can still deal some nontrivial damage.

 

[Rurik]

The AP system has problems, agreed. One being the STR of the defender is not takin into account, and another being that weapons have very low AP. But the Parry avoids all damage doesn't hold up in all cases either.

I still have serious trouble with the idea that an attack breaks through the weapon without breaking the weapon. I'm sorry, I hold no favour for the APs system unless you are actually attacking the weapon, the damage that gets through goes off the weapons hit points, and harms the wielder if, and only if, the weapon breaks. If you have an extreme case like a giant or a dragon, you can just rule it can't be parried at all.

As I mentioned the AP doesn't have to represent interpenetration of the weapons involved, but force of the blow deflected or absorbed. If the parry AP equals or exceeds the damage the blow is deflected. If the AP of the parry is less than the damage rolled you managed to deflect or block some of the blow but it still lands, but with reduced effect.

 

[kintire]

The case in which the APs are subtracted but the weapon does not take damage is the second case you mention: the defending weapon is forced aside.

As I mentioned the AP doesn't have to represent interpenetration of the weapons involved, but force of the blow deflected or absorbed

If the defending weapon is forced aside the parry has failed. In any case, I see no reason at all why this should vary with weapon as opposed to skill and strength of wielder. Your skill and strength are included in your parry percentage: the APs system is irrelevant.