Shields

[chaindog]

I played an old version of RQ years ago and remember something about shields automatically protecting one or more hit locations when a character is struck from the front. I see nothing regarding that in MRQ. Assuming a character has a shield strapped to his left arm, I would think that a hit on the left arm from the front would automatically deduct the shield's AP from the damage. In addition, depending on the size of the shield, one or more hit locations would be protected from the front as well. Is anyone aware of old RQ rules like that or am I just hallucinating again?

 

[Cleombrotus]

If you choose to set your shield in place rather than actively parry, then you would get half your shield's AP's as armour on the location. The amount of locations covered depend on the shield - small = shield arm, medium = shield arm +1 contiguous location, large = shield arm + 2 contiguous locations.

I love this rule since it adds to tactical decision making with a very simple mechanic.

 

[Inspector Zero]

I played an old version of RQ years ago and remember something about shields automatically protecting one or more hit locations when a character is struck from the front.

Things ain't what they used to be. The new opposed tests means it's very unlikely your shield (or parrying weapon) will ever get hit by your opponent if you make a successful parry. Why? Well, according to the GM Handbook which included some revisions to the MRQ Rulebook a successful parry downgrades a succesful attack to a miss (assuming the parry roll was the higher of the two in the opposed test). According to the tables this means the attack fails full stop and the parrying weapon/shield takes no damage. It's only when the attack and parry rolls are EXACTLY equal, or when they are both critical hits, that the parrying object takes damage from the attacking weapon. It's completely daft to my mind.

So if I were you, I'd set your shield and just take the extra AP it affords... or ignore these ridiculous tables.

 

[master of reality]

I played an old version of RQ years ago and remember something about shields automatically protecting one or more hit locations when a character is struck from the front.

Things ain't what they used to be. The new opposed tests means it's very unlikely your shield (or parrying weapon) will ever get hit by your opponent if you make a successful parry. Why? Well, according to the GM Handbook which included some revisions to the MRQ Rulebook a successful parry downgrades a succesful attack to a miss (assuming the parry roll was the higher of the two in the opposed test). According to the tables this means the attack fails full stop and the parrying weapon/shield takes no damage. It's only when the attack and parry rolls are EXACTLY equal, or when they are both critical hits, that the parrying object takes damage from the attacking weapon. It's completely daft to my mind.

So if I were you, I'd set your shield and just take the extra AP it affords... or ignore these ridiculous tables.

According to the old RuneQuest rules, when a successful attack is countered with a successful parry, damage is reduced by the armor point value of the parrying weapon. You get the same result from the Mongoose rules if you ignore the downgrade rule for opposed tests. I don't remember any hit location advantage for shields from the old rules, but as a GM, if a character with a shield strapped to his left arm is hit in the left arm, then the hit is automatically parried with the shield.
Speaking of hit locations, hitting someone in the leg when you're trying to punch them in the face doesn't make much sense. An easy fix that I borrowed from the combat rules for "Flashing Blades" is for the attacker to declare the location where he would like to hit and roll for hit location TWICE. The roll that gives a hit location closest to the declared location is then applied. Occasionally, I'll add a modifier to the hit location die roll to reflect height differences between combatants.
The nice thing about the combat rules for MRQ is that they are flexible and fairly simple. I've experimented with more "realism" in the system, but once I got beyond two on two combat, I began to appreciate a little more abstraction and simplicity.

 

[chaindog]

I don't have the GMs Handbook as I only use the rules for Elric. However, looking in the Players Update on the website it looks like a successful parry reduces the attackers damage by the parrying weapon's AP, not causes a miss as InspectorZero said. Is there a more recent rule change than that?

 

[master of reality]

I don't have the GMs Handbook as I only use the rules for Elric. However, looking in the Players Update on the website it looks like a successful parry reduces the attackers damage by the parrying weapon's AP, not causes a miss as InspectorZero said. Is there a more recent rule change than that?

Inspector Zero is refering to the opposed skill test rule that says that if both combatants roll successfully, then the result of the combatant who rolled lowest is downgraded to a failure. The only way for both combatants to have identical results is for both of them to roll exactly the same numbers. This is not indicated by simply looking at the tables. According to the table, a successful attack versus a successful parry reduces the damage by the AP of the weapon, but again you're only supposed to use the table if both combatants roll exactly the same.
I usually just consult the tables as is without applying the "downgrade" rule.
An alternative way of resolving an opposed rule test is to take the difference between the character's skill level (chance of success) and what is actually rolled (assuming success) and apply that as a negative modifier to the opponent's chance of success. This is how it's done in Flashing Blades. However, in MRQ chances of success can exceed 100%, which can make this way of resolving opposed rule tests a little trickier.

 

[kintire]

It's only when the attack and parry rolls are EXACTLY equal, or when they are both critical hits, that the parrying object takes damage from the attacking weapon. It's completely daft to my mind.

Well, I have equal trouble with the idea that two solid objects interpenetrate, as the old rule would have it...

Shields are not impossible to hit round, knock out of the way or otherwise get past, but it is odd that a shield strapped left arm is no harder to hit than a bare right. However, I also have some problems with a system where I can hit my target comfortably with a high weapon skill, and then be foiled by rolling the wrong target on the random damage location table. Maybe reduce attack percentages by a certain amount depending on shield size to represent the difficulty of striking round them? I think they do need a bit of a boost. They require a whole different skill, after all, whereas you can parry with your main weapon skill.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Shields are not impossible to hit round, knock out of the way or otherwise get past,

...Which is an argument for not automatically applying the shields AP points - particularly for a buckler or small shield where there will most likely be parts of the arm not covered by the shield

but it is odd that a shield strapped left arm is no harder to hit than a bare right.

...Which is an argument for automatially applying the shields AP, since this will make the left arm harder to hit

However, I also have some problems with a system where I can hit my target comfortably with a high weapon skill, and then be foiled by rolling the wrong target on the random damage location table.

If you can hit your target comfortably then you may want to consider Called Shots to counter this problem. The random damage location is to take account of the fact that in a combat situation you sometimes have to take what openings you can get over the ideal choice. (in other words, and in answer to master of reality upthread, if you really want to "Hit the Head" then you won't be hitting the left leg, but then you won't be hitting the target as often, because you will be ignoring the situations where he leaves his leg exposed while you concentrate on his head.)

Maybe reduce attack percentages by a certain amount depending on shield size to represent the difficulty of striking round them?

I think this is the wrong way to go - it reminds me of RQ2 "Defence". A better solution, If you wanted to represent this mechanically would be to produce new Hit Location charts to account for use of the shield, taking numbers from those location(s) covered by the shield and saying when ever those particular numbers are rolled the attacker has hit the shield instead. Per Cleombrotus's post above I would apply half the AP as armour in this case - however if the defender attempts a shield parry and fails the roll they lose this bonus (Obviously on a successful parry the normal parry rules superceed this rule)

I think they do need a bit of a boost. They require a whole different skill, after all, whereas you can parry with your main weapon skill.

Yes, in earlier editions of RQ you parried with a different skill from your attack so a "Sword & Shield" combo might be "Sword Attack 75%, Sword Parry 20%, Shield Parry 75%" for the same "cost" as "Sword Attack & Parry 75%, Shield Parry 20%". You could try making the first shield parry a "Free Reaction", so a shield equipped warrior can protect against more attacks than his identically stat-ed counterpart who doesn't have a shield perhaps?

 

[Inspector Zero]

I usually just consult the tables as is without applying the "downgrade" rule.

What! And wilfully disregard a rule! They spent ages getting that wrong.

Actually, from now on I think I'll do the same and use the table without the downgrade.

 

[Cleombrotus]

Speaking of hit locations, hitting someone in the leg when you're trying to punch them in the face doesn't make much sense.

Remember that the origin of the RQ hit location table lies in the concept of the twelve and ten second combat round with one attack each, where the location roll was supposed to simulate the best opening that offered you a chance of a hit.

There was a rule for aimed hits, 1/2 attack skill on S/R 10 for the perfectionist characters.

One of the problems I had with MRQ was the quick combat rounds (they're five seconds, aren't they?) full of multiple actions (five characters, one on one, 30 actions + reactions!). It creates a mental image of 'one roll to one swing' and the logic of the system becomes somewhat strained.

Having said that I seem to remember that MRQ offers you the option of an aimed blow as well, so when you envisage your character going for the head, you should declare this as an aimed blow rather than wondering why you took his foot off.

I also have some problems with a system where I can hit my target comfortably with a high weapon skill, and then be foiled by rolling the wrong target on the random damage location table.

Once again, your attack skill doesn't tell the whole story. You are only 'good' when you can hit a target comfortably whilst including the modifier for aimed blows. Runequest combat, perhaps more than many other games is a skill. You have to make multiple decisions based on multiple factors, and if you aim for the head but hit the foot, you frankly only have yourself to blame.

 

[kintire]

but it is odd that a shield strapped left arm is no harder to hit than a bare right.


...Which is an argument for automatially applying the shields AP, since this will make the left arm harder to hit

is it? APs are a measure of resilience, not difficulty to be hit.

If you can hit your target comfortably then you may want to consider Called Shots to counter this problem.

there's comfortably and comfortably. The penalty for called shots is pretty severe. Maybe there is room for a halfway house. After all, it makes sense to me that attempting to hit any location, with one exception, should be harder than hitting any location, but much easier than hitting just one specific one.

I think this is the wrong way to go - it reminds me of RQ2 "Defence".

I didn't play RQ2. Did Defence work? I am certainly opposed to a skill that reduces opponents chance to hit. It would just become a must max xp tax.

 

[master of reality]

APs are a measure of resilience, not difficulty to be hit.

Yeah, that's a different game called Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[Inspector Zero]

Quote:
but it is odd that a shield strapped left arm is no harder to hit than a bare right.


...Which is an argument for automatially applying the shields AP, since this will make the left arm harder to hit


is it? APs are a measure of resilience, not difficulty to be hit.

This is right but I didn't think Duncan Disorderly meant it would be harder to hit the target (a la D&D) but rather that it would be harder for the weapon to actually strike the arm through the shield's AP. The chance to hit the location isn't reduced, it's just that the arm is covered by a great, big piece of wood or metal.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

This is right but I didn't think Duncan Disorderly meant it would be harder to hit the target (a la D&D) but rather that it would be harder for the weapon to actually strike the arm through the shield's AP. The chance to hit the location isn't reduced, it's just that the arm is covered by a great, big piece of wood or metal.

Exactly this! If you've got to penetrate the shield to cause damage to the Left arm, then the left arm will be harder to damage than the right.

Conversely - If the shield is being used to parry with, and the defender is not rolling appallingly, then many more blows will make contact with the shield than make contact with the unshielded right arm.

So if, humpty-dumpty style, you use words to mean what you want them to mean, a shiled-strapped left arm can be easier or harder to hit than the unshielded right arm without changing any of the rules....

 

[master of reality]

Having said that I seem to remember that MRQ offers you the option of an aimed blow as well, so when you envisage your character going for the head, you should declare this as an aimed blow rather than wondering why you took his foot off.


Once again, your attack skill doesn't tell the whole story. You are only 'good' when you can hit a target comfortably whilst including the modifier for aimed blows. Runequest combat, perhaps more than many other games is a skill. You have to make multiple decisions based on multiple factors, and if you aim for the head but hit the foot, you frankly only have yourself to blame.

Ah yes, aimed blows. Good point. In my campaigns, unless a character declares that he is making an "aimed blow", then a successful punch towards the face could still hit the chest, abdomen, or arms. Like I said, I allow characters to roll twice for hit location and then apply the result that is closest to the result desired by the character. In the case of a punch towards the face, however, in which both hit location rolls result in a hit to the legs, I give the character the option of accepting the result but making an athletics roll to avoid falling down, or interpreting the result as a miss. Besides, a punch with a bare fist only does 1D3 damage (not including strength modifier).
BTW, I don't employ this rule with melee weapons. If the result of both hit location rolls is the legs, then he hits the legs, regardless of where he wanted to hit (assuming the character is not making an official "aimed blow").

 

[FNG]

in the original cults of prax there was a small section regarding yelmalio and their shield and 2 handed spear combo

They strapped a large shield to their off arm which covered their off arm, chest and abdomen with the shield acting as armour. This then allowed them to use a 2 handed spear as well. A deadly combo

Defence worked to a point in RQ2. Most characters had 5% defence and so it did little but if you raised it up higher it was very potent. Defence was an automatic adjustment to one enemy's chance of hitting. Any attack that only hit by your defence or less was counted as a miss. You could boost it by Shimmer and some chaos beings used to have 20% to 40% unnantural defence and were a bugger

I do believe in RQ2 that shields were not damaged and stopped all damage as long as the parry roll was as a good as the weapon hit roll. The main difference between weapon and sheild parry was that it was far cheaper to learn and thus easier to get good at.

The other disadvantage to weapon parry was when opposing rune weapons which just destroyed bronze weapons.

FNG

 

[Inspector Zero]

The problem with defense was that unlike Dodge it was not a skill but a natural ability and could never fail. As you say, great to have but a little out of keeping with the way the rest of the skills worked.

As for weapons and shields taking damage from blows I'm not sure its really spelt out with sufficient clarity. The combat results tables suggest that a parrying weapon or shield reduces a hit by the AP and the rest of the damage then strikes the target. What about the HP of the weapon or shield? As FNG says, in RQII a parrying weapon or shield took damage so a 10 point hit to a small shield meant 8pts were blocked by the shield's AP and the remaining two came off the shield's hit points. When the HP's are gone the shield is broken. Hence the usefulness of the Repair spell.

I'm still using this approach now as the small section on inanimate objects in the main rulebook isn't enough to make it clear to me what the writers' intentions here are.

 

[Deleriad]

As for weapons and shields taking damage from blows I'm not sure its really spelt out with sufficient clarity. The combat results tables suggest that a parrying weapon or shield reduces a hit by the AP and the rest of the damage then strikes the target. What about the HP of the weapon or shield?

In MRQ, parrying weapons don't take damage from parrying unless the attacker is actually trying to hit the weapon. This is different from previous editions of the game. Note that AP values in MRQ are significantly less than other versions so they would break a lot more easily as well as offering less protection.

 

[kintire]

The problem with defense was that unlike Dodge it was not a skill but a natural ability and could never fail. As you say, great to have but a little out of keeping with the way the rest of the skills worked.

It looks like it may be sneaking in through the back door. If everyone's going to have to be making aimed blows against any shield user or see a proportion of their blows just hit the shield, that's effectivly the same. Shields basically give 40% Defence (aimed blows are -40% I think? My mind's gone blank but its something like that). Either that, or they give a base miss chance of a set percentage based on how many locations they cover (rolled a left arm hit on the d20? too bad!)

Still, maybe that's not a bad thing.

 

[Ssendam]

I too do NOT use the "downgrade" rule as I think it would make a shield almost pointless.

However ... I can't quite justify the weapon parry (as a pose to the shield parry) as a separate skill to a weapon attack. If you use a sword isn't parrying built into the use of the weapon?