Shield Parries and the Issue of Armor Points

[atgxtg]

[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!)

I really like where you are coming from. Quite a few good points and ideas. You might just tempt me into looking at that GM's Guide.

Most accounts I've seen indicate that the parry didn't really develope unitl around the 15\16th centuries. THat was the time that the metalurgy had reached the point where it was practical to try to parry with a blade rather than risk destroying that very expensive sword. Natually, there were exceptions, for instance, those with superior quality weapons in any era could probably get away with it.

I saw something the other day where it was pointed out that most of the forms of Kenjutsu developed during or after the Sengoku era, just when the Katana had been made into a weapon capable of being used to parry and beat.

THe same is true of European fencing, it really developed once the quality of the swords was good enough to withstand a parry without shattering.

Curiously, this all coincides with the development of firearms, so it is quite possible that sword combat developed because of metallurgical improvements needed for firearms.


BTW, Are you working on a Roman supplement???

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!

You sound like the sort of person that several of us have wanted to see at Mongoose. I'm all for rules development, consistency, stability, and elegance.

Some of us have been playing RQ so long, we are used to working on alternate rules. We've been doing alternate stuff for MRQ since it came out. Getting us all to agree on the alternate rules is the tricky part. It hard to tell what will go over well with the majority and what won't. About the only thing that I did that wen't over well universally was the alternate armor table, and I was surprised that it was so popular.

Keep the history stuff coming. It is one of the best tools for developing these sort of rules.

 

[Rurik]

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.

But surely an attack that lands unopposed is going to be more effective than an attack that had to force aside a parrying weapon.

I agree that there are flaws in how AP are implemented (arbitrary values by weapon, no Str consideration), but I do not believe the system is bad, and it models combat with really big really strong foes pretty well.

But I suspect we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this. No hard feelings I hope.

 

[atgxtg]

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!

THere is some truth to the doing all three at once. Ideally, a combatant usually tries to parry, but something isn't fast enough, or angles the weapon/shield incorrecetly and ends up blocking. Other times, like when he is really desparate, he just goes for the block.

Likewise, movement is almost always part of an attack or defense. Stepping in toward the foe is common when attacking, and retreating is common when defending. In my experience, I almost never parried if I could srtep back and avoid the hit.


What we could try is:

1) Keep parry as the defence.

2) Treat a block as a parry with a bonus (say +10% for most weapons, +20% or more for shields and some 2H weapons), but the defender cannot get better than a success result. THe defender gives up the chance to crit for a better chance to block)

Or,

Just give the defender the option to turn a failed parry into a successful block, but the blocking weapon/shield suffers damage. This could even be extended to allow a success to become a crtical, but the blocking weapon suffers doubloe damage, or even allow someone to sacrifice a blcoking weapon to completely stop all damage for any one hit.


3) Allow someone to retreat (give ground), and have a retreat downgrade the damage result one step.


4) Allow sonmeone to step in (press) with an attack to kick up the damage result by one step.


That is probably realistic, but will lead to a lot more moving around in combat, and cautious fighter will spend more time dancing around each other.


Just some more wild thinking.

 

[atgxtg]

But surely an attack that lands unopposed is going to be more effective than an attack that had to force aside a parrying weapon.

Usually, but not always. The second best hit I ever scored against someone happened because he parried. I was slashing at his right shoulder (it would have missed, I was only trying to get him to move to his left), he did a circular parry, but he did so counterclockwise
, causing my blade to hit him on the left side of his head.

In game terms it was along the lines of failed Attack vs. a fumbled Parry.

Most of the force from the attack came from his parry rather than my swing.

 

[RosenMcStern]

But surely an attack that lands unopposed is going to be more effective than an attack that had to force aside a parrying weapon.

Usually, but not always.

"Usually" is enough to make the AP system realistic, albeit not perfect (STR is certainly a missing component here).

 

[AKAramis]

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.

Not failed, simply not been able to stop the blow.

When fencing (SCA Rapier), for example, an incoming head-shot diverted to an arm is not a failed parry, but a partial success, as I'm still in the fight.

Likewise, a parry which reduces the damage from deadly to merly a recoverable wound is not a "Failure", just not a total success.

Any parry reduces the impact energy, and/or redirects the strike.

In game terms, the whole issue is confounded with skill mechanics labels.

 

[Puck]

"STR is certainly a missing component"

One thing I was considering earlier was adding 1 or 2 AP to a weapon that was wielded with two hands. The added strength allowing the weapon to parry better. Originally it seemed as if 2 handed weapon users were getting cut to ribbons because of no sheild and no extra action. Never really implemented it to see how it worked though.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

BTW, Are you working on a Roman supplement???

Yes I am, a comprehensive Republican Rome supplement. But its for Chaosium though, not MRQ.

You sound like the sort of person that several of us have wanted to see at Mongoose. I'm all for rules development, consistency, stability, and elegance.

I truly wish I was working for Mongoose. They desperately need someone to maintain MRQ system consistency who has a deeper understanding of rules integrity, probability and game flow.

When you have a diverse team of writers and freelancers being edited by several different editors then you are bound to get the problems we've seen, since individual people have different perceptions of how to implement their ideas, and others have differing comprehension levels of system mechanics. Its been very frustrating to see a succession of silly flaws enter the MRQ books and supplements, when a single 'Rules Tzar' could have caught them.

Although I'd dearly love to help them out in this position, I am not very eligible for employment by Mongoose since I now live in Sweden and they have a non-telecommuting policy. From their perspective its also a question of the added expense of another employee, and yet another production step which increases the time before final printing. You have to draw the line somewhere!

But in the unlikely situation that Mongoose does find that sales are being adversely hindered by a reputation for poor mechanics, I hope they'll keep my name in mind. :wink:

Keep the history stuff coming. It is one of the best tools for developing these sort of rules.

Sometimes... but I occasionally feel that I'm sounding like a boring old fart! And besides which, elegance and playability are far more important than stringent historical accuracy.

 

[atgxtg]

But surely an attack that lands unopposed is going to be more effective than an attack that had to force aside a parrying weapon.

Usually, but not always.

"Usually" is enough to make the AP system realistic, albeit not perfect (STR is certainly a missing component here).

How about something like:

Crtiical Success- Parried (No Damage)
Success Partial Parry- get Weapon AP+damage bonus
Failure= Block (get weapon AP only)
Fumble= no AP

Now just shift the result by the attacker'S result

CS* Shift Down 1
Success:No Change
Fail: Shift up 1
Fumble: Shift Up 2

If we expand the results to 7 steps in stead of 5, we could condense the attack matrix to one column.


Something like

CS+2, Parried (NO Damage, Keep reaction, riposte)
CS+1, Parried (No Damage, keep reaction)
Crtiical Success- Parried (No Damage)
Success Partial Parry- get Weapon AP+damage bonus
Failure= Block (get weapon AP only)
Fumble= no AP
F-1= No AP, Critical Hit

Note the above is quick and dirty. Something similar could be worked up for dodges.

 

[atgxtg]

BTW, Are you working on a Roman supplement???

Yes I am, a comprehensive Republican Rome supplement. But its for Chaosium though, not MRQ.

Yippe!! Does that mean BRP might actually be ready for mass consumption? IS Chaosium actually going to go back to printing RPG stuff besides CoC?

They desperately need someone to maintain MRQ system consistency who has a deeper understanding of rules integrity, probability and game flow.

When you have a diverse team of writers and freelancers being edited by several different editors then you are bound to get the problems we've seen, since individual people have different perceptions of how to implement their ideas, and others have differing comprehension levels of system mechanics. Its been very frustrating to see a succession of silly flaws enter the MRQ books and supplements, when a single 'Rules Tzar' could have caught them.

I agree, but some think that attention to rules detracts from the stroytelling or simplicity of the game.

Keep the history stuff coming. It is one of the best tools for developing these sort of rules.

Sometimes... but I occasionally feel that I'm sounding like a boring old fart! And besides which, elegance and playability are far more important than stringent historical accuracy.

You probably are sounding like a boring old fart. But boring old farts do buy and play RPGs too. As for what is important, that depends on just what someone is trying to run. It7s all a tradeoff between what sort of things we want to do with a game vs. simplicity. WE all end up deciding what trade offs we are willing to make and where to draw the line.

BEsides, I've seen a lot of problems or stpuid stuff in RPGs because people didn't understand the historical base for a setting. For instance, one very popluar RPG used to have an econic system where the gold to buy armor weighted a lot more that the actual armor. To the point where a person couldn't carry enough weight to buy plate armor. The trcikle down logistics effects were actually quite staggering. At a certain point it cost more to transport the gold to buy something that it did to pay for the item.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Yippe!! Does that mean BRP might actually be ready for mass consumption? IS Chaosium actually going to go back to printing RPG stuff besides CoC?

Since I have a pre-edited copy of BRP and I'm writing a full supplement for them using that system, I believe things are on the way.

I have no idea as to when BRP will actually be published though.

 

[Rurik]

Well BRP Rome definately sounds tasty.

I've been eagerly awaiting the new BRP for a while now - it is great to know there are already supplements in the works.

What time period is it set in if you don't mind my asking?

 

[atgxtg]

Yippe!! Does that mean BRP might actually be ready for mass consumption? IS Chaosium actually going to go back to printing RPG stuff besides CoC?

Since I have a pre-edited copy of BRP and I'm writing a full supplement for them using that system, I believe things are on the way.

I have no idea as to when BRP will actually be published though.

Any hints you can reveal to the eager masses or are you under an NDA Gesa?

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Well BRP Rome definitely sounds tasty.

I've been eagerly awaiting the new BRP for a while now - it is great to know there are already supplements in the works.

What time period is it set in if you don't mind my asking?

It technically covers the mythic period from the foundation of Rome, through to the end of the Republic. However, since there is little recorded information about the early days of the city, it'll concentrate on the latter. The late Republic is my favourite Roman period since its wonderfully dynamic - with civil wars, political backstabbing (sometimes literally), urban unrest, social mobility, etc. Perfect for adventurers... :twisted:

Any hints you can reveal to the eager masses or are you under an NDA Gesa?

I can't give out specific material of course (another gesa I'm afraid!), although answering a few general questions would be fine. But we're thread-jacking and should move this somewhere else.

 

[atgxtg]

I can't give out specific material of course (another gesa I'm afraid!), although answering a few general questions would be fine. But we're thread-jacking and should move this somewhere else.

Ave Imperator, Moveo!

 

[Sadric 86th]

Rome would be cool...as would Ancient Greece but I digress.

I'm thinking that a "Block" table would be similar to the original parry table which, for a majority of the results, had the attack actually hitting the target. In this case, you're not trying to avoid the blow entirely. You're trying to position the shield to take the brunt of a blow. So, most results would result in contact with the shield but the level of success would determine how effective the AP is (doubled, normal, halved or none at all).

 

[NEWWELSHORDER]

Hi all - I've just bought the MRQ stuff and have to say, the combat section struck me as problematic from the get go. Comparing the average damage of weapons (most decent weapons falling into the 1d8/1d10 bracket) to the AP of the average shield (8 to 10 points) you would be pushed to get any damage through the shield and armour. Using the rules as written someone with 100%+ in parry would always get the shield in and would rarely take damage.

Changing the rolls to opposed in the Player's Update solves this problem, but I find myself agreeing with the general talk here about the need for a Block response to bring AP of a weapon into play. I've got an idea about how to do this and would like some advice on if this will work:

Parry is used with melee weapons to deflect melee weapons - just like dodge, its an all or nothing approach (and would use the same table as dodge except overextended becomes riposte)

Block is used only with shields and can be used against missile weapons if the shield says so. AP of the shield is added to the armour in the hit location as follows:

If both attacker and defender succeed and the attacker rolls higher, he has moved inside the shield and the defender receives no benefit. If the defender rolls higher, add half the shield's AP to the location hit (round down). If defender criticals and the attacker succeeds, add the full AP to the location hit. If both the defender and attacker critical and the attacker rolled higher, apply half the AP of the shield, and if the defender rolls higher, apply the full AP.

Hopefully you can follow this without seeing it in table form - I'm not very high tech in respect to uploading pdf's and stuff

As this is a very powerful mechanic, to balance it you have shield damage. If the attacker's damage is enough to penetrate the amount of protection provided by the shield (full or half AP as shown in the table), reduce the shields AP by 1. When it's AP reaches 0 it can no longer be used to block until it is repaired.

To incorporate the rules for a shield and sword in hand, a shield will give you either an extra attack at -20% or a free reaction that can only be used to block. Two weapon fighting will allow the extra attack or an extra parry.

I've waffled on quite a bit for a first post so: any thoughts?

 

[Sadric 86th]

I wouldn't limit shields to blocking just missile weapons. Other than that, I'm still puzzling it out.

 

[NEWWELSHORDER]

Sorry - my bad. The intent is that you can use shields against everything INCLUDING missile weapons if the description will allow

 

[kintire]

Most accounts I've seen indicate that the parry didn't really develope unitl around the 15\16th centuries. THat was the time that the metalurgy had reached the point where it was practical to try to parry with a blade rather than risk destroying that very expensive sword

I'd be interested to read those. As far as I'm aware, the earliest accounts of fighting we have, including techniacal manuals, take the parry for granted. And metallurgy wasn't that bad. Celtic pattern welded swords were perfectly capale of withstanding parries (though we don't have any accounts of the details of their use AFAIK).

But surely an attack that lands unopposed is going to be more effective than an attack that had to force aside a parrying weapon.

Possibly, although a draw cut weapon like many swords won;t be much affected. But that's probably too much detail, and can be represented by a low roll on damage.

I agree that there are flaws in how AP are implemented (arbitrary values by weapon, no Str consideration), but I do not believe the system is bad, and it models combat with really big really strong foes pretty well.

Its completely unrealistic, and it models combat between normal people really poorly. Try, for example, a swashbuckling encounter between a King's Musketeer and a Cardinal's Guard. Weapon skills around 80-90%, rapiers, no armour to speak of. There is one roll, and only one, that matters at all: the strike rank determination. Unless the faster character is extremely unlucky, he's won the fight right there.

But I suspect we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this. No hard feelings I hope.

none at all of course