shields

[AnubisCK]

Right might be me but i can seam to find how Shields are supposed to work in main book. all i find is about gaining a extra CA .and the ability to parry arrows or missile weapons . don,t find anything more wasn,t sure if you got a % increase for shield size or if it gave you any Armour value . and any other ruleings as to materialthe shield is made from

 

[Vortigern]

There are three primary advantages to shields in MRQII that I can see.

First, as you mention, the benefit of one CA.

Second is the ability to Parry Missiles, as you mention as well.

The second is rather nebulous and subjective. The effectiveness of a Parry is determined, as a baseline, by the relative size of the attacking and parrying weapon ( in this case the shield ). Shields come in varying sizes & materials. Parrying a Greatsword with a Buckler tends to not be the brightest idea. This is covered in the combat chapter governing the adjudication of parries. You need to judge the relative size and difficulty of a given weapon and/or shield against what you want to do, and your respective character attributes. Yet, essentially, a bigger/sturdier shield is better, as long as you can still use it effectively.

The stats for the generic shields in the equipment section give their armor/hitpoints etc. Which is one additional advantage of having a larger/tougher shield... that it is harder to break.

 

[Dan True]

Right might be me but i can seam to find how Shields are supposed to work in main book. all i find is about gaining a extra CA .and the ability to parry arrows or missile weapons . don,t find anything more wasn,t sure if you got a % increase for shield size or if it gave you any Armour value .

Nope, as Vortigern so correctly says - shields are just weapons, and the mechanics handle them as such. You can attack or parry with a shield, just as you can with a weapon. The only difference is that they're large enough to parry shields, and usually not the best offensive weapons compared to dedicated weapons - as relfected in their lack of good combat manoeuvres.

and any other ruleings as to materialthe shield is made from

Is it reflected by the AP/HP value of the shield, i.e. how well it will stand up to a "Sunder" Combat Manoeuvre or similar. Most shields are made out of wood, else they would be too heavy. But if you decide to have a metal shield you could probably handle it by giving it +2/+3 ENC and then giving it an AP value similar to most weapons (8+ or perhaps even 12).
But historically almost all shields were made of wood and animal hide/leather combined.

I think my small kite shield gets quite heavy to carry when I'm fighting with it (because all the weight is carried by my arm only, and I'm moving it a lot). If it had been of metal, I would tire out extremely quickly.

- Dan

 

[Loz]

Anubis - look at p86 of the rules.

Shields are weapons, just like swords, axes and polearms. All weapons can be used to parry a successful blow, but what determines the effectiveness is how large the parrying weapon is and the size of the weapon about to cause damage.

The smallest shield, the buckler has a size of M whereas the largest, the Kite has a size H (for Huge). As page 86 says...

If the attacker succeeds with the attack, he rolls weapon damage and adds his Damage Modifier (if any).

If the defender succeeds in his skill check, then he can reduce the attacker’s damage, if any, according to the comparative size of their weapons.

• Parrying an attack with a weapon or shield of equal or greater size deflects all damage.
• Parrying with a weapon or shield of one size less only deflects half damage
• Parrying with a weapon or shield two or more sizes less fails to deflect any damage.

For example, parrying a great axe with a greatsword would block all damage; parrying it with a target shield would halve the damage, and parrying it with a dagger would stop no damage at all.

As Vortigern also points out, shields are generally harder to break than other weapons too.

So using a shield, rather than another weapon, is going to afford you far better protection. To use a weapon that is H in size, such as a Great Axe, for instance, you would need two hands to wield it and you wouldn't gain the additional CA that a shield gives.

Therefore shields give you a great deal of benefit; you can't parry missile weapons without one, and their size, compared with other weapons, makes them the best overall defensive weapon. Even a buckler isn't without its value.

 

[Mixster]

There is also another benefit from shields that my shape-changing dex int enhancing wizard discovered recently.
They are ridicolously large 1 handed weapons. Making them close to impossible to parry properly, even with their short range and low damage, if your damage modifier is 1d10 or more, you don't really care about whether you deal 1d4 or 1d8 damage. You actually often deal more damage with the shield, if your opponent chooses not to parry, then hey, try to disarm him and as soon as he is, hit him with your main hand.

Might seem like a ridicolous way of fighting to have a sword in your right hand and a shield in your left and then keep hitting him with the shield. But mechanically it makes a lot of sense to take away his CAs with the thing that is hard to parry, and then hit him multiple times with the thing that deals a lot of damage. (Actually I think this isn't that unrealistic, I believe the Celts did it a lot).

I prefer using a shield much to having a second weapon in that hand. The difference between using a two-hander and two smaller weapons might be hard to choose from, because the damage and CMs of those two handers are so awesome. Halberds, the lowest damage of the two-handers still have awesome reach and the entangle manoeuvre.

This became rather long, but it's just my thoughts on how well the weapon system works.

 

[Dan True]

(Actually I think this isn't that unrealistic, I believe the Celts did it a lot).

I do it constantly...

 

[tarkhan bey]

This is why I retain the -10% attack with a shield from the first edition rules and why I am flirting with the idea of reintroducing the -20% with the offhand weapon.
Although it is possible within the rules system as Mixster and Dan True have pointed out, I just don't think that a shield should be as effective as an offensive weapon as it is a defensive one.
While I have no doubt that persons trained to use a shield could use it offensively, I reckon, realistically speaking, that the shield would be used 'primarily' for defensive manouevring leaving their offence to their bloody big spears,maces,axes,swords ........etc.
Sorry if you guys don't agree but those are my thoughts on it.

 

[Dan True]

While I have no doubt that persons trained to use a shield could use it offensively, I reckon, realistically speaking, that the shield would be used 'primarily' for defensive manouevring leaving their offence to their bloody big spears,maces,axes,swords ........etc.
Sorry if you guys don't agree but those are my thoughts on it.

Well, you are of course allowed to rule whatever you wish.
I would never rule something like this, as I believe it simply does not fit. However, if you don't like shield bashing then you could instead change the damage value of the shields or give the shields themselves a -10% to attack. As this is a specific property of the shields, you don't make rule changes that might bite you in the ass if you ever want a dude fighting with a bronze shield with knives all around the edges, or let them participate in a trial-by-combat with Duelling Shields (http://artofcombat.org/Dueling_2.jpg).

When I'm fighting in my early-medieval combat group, I always use the shield very aggressively. I bash with it and I use it to get close up and tip over the opponents. The shield and its use it key to fighting the early-style.

- Dan

 

[tarkhan bey]

The -10% attack penalty for shields is what I have gone for 'in game' as a shield is designed primarily with defence in mind. I agree that it could be used to shield bash or shield rush. However, it is invariably used in the offhand and should IMO suffer some minuses because of that and to show that it is not primarily used in an offensive capacity.
As for bronze shields with daggers attached, they would suffer the same minuses unless (like the duelling shields you show) they are two handed weapons.
The only shields from MRQ2 that I might reconsider are the Fang Shield and the Buckler but they would still get the offhand minuses applied.
As I have said, I'm not asking you to agree with me, simply giving my opinion.

 

[Dan True]

As I have said, I'm not asking you to agree with me, simply giving my opinion.

Sure sure, and I'm not trying to force you to change your mind. Merely reporting my real-life experiences with medieval combat and thoughts so we can have an enlightening discourse.

The -10% attack penalty for shields is what I have gone for 'in game' as a shield is designed primarily with defence in mind. I agree that it could be used to shield bash or shield rush. However, it is invariably used in the offhand and should IMO suffer some minuses because of that and to show that it is not primarily used in an offensive capacity.

I agree, but I also believe that the rules reflect this already. Shield have a generally low damage (often down along with knives and such), a bad selection of combat manoeuvres except for the Target shield which have Impale (which I have removed from my game, as those spikes on shields have too much of a Bronze Age feel for Eberron) plus their very short reach (S for all of them). So, a lot of the time you won't be able to shield bash because the dude is holding you at spear or longsword length.

- Dan

 

[Jujitsudave]

except for the Target shield which have Impale (which I have removed from my game, as those spikes on shields have too much of a Bronze Age feel for Eberron)

I don't know if you have seen Deadliest Warrior, but on the William Wallace episode they highlighted the Targe (a small shield with a 1 foot spike) used by Scots Highlanders in the Medieval Era. I don't know the tech level of Eberron, but if it's medieval, it would not be unreasonable to allow for it.

 

[Dan True]

except for the Target shield which have Impale (which I have removed from my game, as those spikes on shields have too much of a Bronze Age feel for Eberron)

I don't know if you have seen Deadliest Warrior, but on the William Wallace episode they highlighted the Targe (a small shield with a 1 foot spike) used by Scots Highlanders in the Medieval Era. I don't know the tech level of Eberron, but if it's medieval, it would not be unreasonable to allow for it.

It's not the tech level, it's more of the feel. Eberron is a bit post-medieval, magic having allowed for wonders non normally seen in a medieval world. It's steampunk and the whole feel of the setting fits broadly 1880-1918, without blackpowder though.
So, some people might use shields with spikes, but it's not the most common shield - which the target has a tendency to become quickly.

- Dan

 

[HalfOrc HalfBiscuit]

Shield have a generally low damage (often down along with knives and such) [...]

But I wonder if the damage is still too high? I have no combat re-enactment experience but I suspect - in terms of immediate damage - I'd rather be bashed by a shield that stuck with a knife. I would have thought the major benefit from the shield bash (for the aggressor) is in knocking your opponent off balance (as represented by CMs like trip) rather than in dealing actual damage.

 

[Dan True]

Shield have a generally low damage (often down along with knives and such) [...]

But I wonder if the damage is still too high? I have no combat re-enactment experience but I suspect - in terms of immediate damage - I'd rather be bashed by a shield that stuck with a knife. I would have thought the major benefit from the shield bash (for the aggressor) is in knocking your opponent off balance (as represented by CMs like trip) rather than in dealing actual damage.

That is a very valid point. However, in my view these things a very abstracted. If you deal 1 damage with your shield attack, you might have strained the opponents wrist - if you deal 4, you might have strained the opponents wrist and then used the opening for hitting his arm with your sword pommel or axe shaft. The damage range of the weapon is just a value for how much damage that weapon allows you to do, not necessarily with that weapon.

Plus, the reason I would fear a knife both in MRQ and in real life is because it can use the Bleed CM. If he didn't manage a CM he hasn't really "stuck" the knife into me, but perhaps merely scratched my skin - and then I'd rather be scratched by a knife than smashed by a viking shield - that can break bones, especially if not wearing padding.
Most shields weight more than the sword and around the same as a good club. If it hits correctly, it can really do some internal damage. Image if it hits an arm perfectly - it might snap, or if it is bashed into the face of the opponent, chucked towards the knee etc.

But it all depends very much on the level of abstraction you wish and the style of combats you wish. I personally love a combat system that accepts the shield as a weapon, not as a solely defensive concept. Try to watch the series "Weapon that Made Britain Great" on the shield (and the others, great series). He demonstrates some good stuff there.

- Dan

 

[Mongoose Pete]

But I wonder if the damage is still too high? I have no combat re-enactment experience but I suspect - in terms of immediate damage - I'd rather be bashed by a shield that stuck with a knife. I would have thought the major benefit from the shield bash (for the aggressor) is in knocking your opponent off balance (as represented by CMs like trip) rather than in dealing actual damage.

It depends on the situation. In most cases if you can close on an opponent then shield bashing is indeed a very good way of knocking someone down. But it can also be particularly nasty if someone with a centre grip shield uses the boss or edge aggressively.

I've been caught out several times by unexpected shield punching, from which I've received a number of mild concussions, despite my helmet. I have even once been struck across the throat, by a Viking re-enactor who lost his temper and punched his shield edge out horizontally - I was very grateful that I had been wearing a helm with a camail or I wouldn't be writing books today. The force was enough to drop me on the spot, choking and retching, even through all the protection.

So whilst a shield might look innocuous to the untrained eye, it can still be applied in a very lethal manner by those who know how to use it as the weapon it really is.

 

[HalfOrc HalfBiscuit]

Thanks for the answers guys.


And for confirming that I want to continue to steer clear of re-enactment ... :wink:

And, Pete, I (and I'm sure everyone on here) is glad you were wearing a camail too.

 

[Antalon]

Apparently the term 'swashbuckler', comes from a sweeping / cutting motion used by dinner-plate sized bucklers in the off-hand: 'to swash your buckler'.

 

[Mixster]

Shield have a generally low damage (often down along with knives and such) [...]

But I wonder if the damage is still too high? I have no combat re-enactment experience but I suspect - in terms of immediate damage - I'd rather be bashed by a shield that stuck with a knife. I would have thought the major benefit from the shield bash (for the aggressor) is in knocking your opponent off balance (as represented by CMs like trip) rather than in dealing actual damage.

Given that I'd probably be wearing armour, I'd choose the knife.
Actually speaking about the deadliest warrior again (which I find a bit silly TV show, but they did prove some points). In the spartan episode, he makes a slash with his bronze shield that almost decapitates a man.

I think the good part about shields is, IRL as in Runequest that it's hard to parry, since it weighs much/has a big size.

So if you want them to be less offensive, lowering their damage wouldn't matter much. If my DM lowered the damage on my shield I would shrug, I don't use it to deal damage anyway, I use it for disarming, delievering my damage modifier without reduction, and generally forcing the opponent to use CAs to avoid me getting CMs. I sort of give him a lose-lose situation, if he spends a CA he's not going to reduce my damage by much, if he doesn't I get a CM and attempt to trip him or disarm him.

A good idea for making shields less offensive could be -20% to attacks with it.

Apparently the term 'swashbuckler', comes from a sweeping / cutting motion used by dinner-plate sized bucklers in the off-hand: 'to swash your buckler'.

I thought it came from the sound young nobles made when they walked through the towns with their buckler knocking against their sword.
Never really understood how that could say "swash" anyway, so I like your explanation better.

@Dan, I <3 Duelling shield.

 

[Dan True]

Never really understood how that could say "swash" anyway, so I like your explanation better.

Because they're swashing through the streets.

 

[Redcrow]

The biggest downside I can see in using a shield offensively is its lack of reach. Once you get in close though, striking someone with the edge of a shield could be quite effective.

I believe on Deadliest Warrior they compared the trauma caused by a headblow from a Spartan shield to a high speed car crash.