A poll! What's a shield?

[Vault Dweller]

A shield is a highly complicated device that:

A. increases your chance to avoid an attack (increases AC)
B. partly absorbs harmful effects of an attack (increases DR)
C. increases both AC and DR
D. absorbs a fixed amount of damage before it falls apart and needs repair
E. does something entirely else (please indicate)

If it's B or D, should an equipped shield decrease your ability to dodge an attack? After all, you can't jump as easily when you are tied to a tower shield. Any thoughts?

 

[Whipporowill]

A device that allows you to block incoming blows - preferably with a shield or block skill.

So I guess A would be an extremly simplified simulation of that. NOT having a shield should have some sort of benefit as you mentioned - possible faster attacks et c?

 

[Vault Dweller]

A device that allows you to block incoming blows - preferably with a shield or block skill.

Fair enough. Now I already have Dodge and Parry, each has its own uses and benefits. I had Block and Armor skills before but removed to avoid redunduncy.

I don't want to simplify anything, so just bumping up AC is out. Now, you said it's a thingy that blocks incoming blows. Do those blows damage it in any way? If they do (as they should ) then your shield would last only for a limited time which brings us to answer D. Agree?

 

[Sarvis]

Tough question!

I tend to go increasing your chance to avoid an attack.

That's not strictly true, but I think it covers things more accurately than the other options.

Essentialy a shield does help you avoid an attack, but a strong hit on the shield could break your arm. I don't say absorb damage because the shield shouldn't absorb damage if you fail to block with it plus it could certainly absorb all damage.

I guess you could have a skill which if succesful the shield absorbs damage, and if you roll high enough it absorbs all the damage.

I don't think the shield should absorb a set amount and get destroyed though. First of all because I hate eq that has any kind of usage limit, and second because it would depend more on how well you used the shield. You could block hundreds of attacks with a shield by angling it properly, or you could block one attack in not quite the right way and have it cut in half!

 

[pyrrho12]

I would say that the effect of a shield will have more to do with the rules of your game than with the actual properties of a real-world shield. Still, that shouldn't prevent me from speculating based on some mostly useless personal observations...

My friend Jeff is into SCA heavy weapons combat, and from watching him practice/injure people this is what I'd surmise: in the hands of a skilled combatant, the shield may be used to block attacks. It covers a greater area than a weapon used for parrying, and appears to require less finesse. In the hands of an unskilled combatant the shield is pretty useless- your opponent will easily be able to either knock it aside or just aim around it.

Blocking attacks with a shield is tiring work. This could be modeled in a game by applying a small amount of damage after a successful shield block. Or, if you have stamina points, it could reduce those. I don't think that wearing a shield would make you any more likely to get hit, though it would certainly affect your dexterity in cases where you need both arms to function well.

If you don't have a shield you can wield two weapons (which, from what I've seen in SCA sparring, is mostly useless) or a two-handed weapon (which is useful largely due to its length).

In the game Mekton, shields worked as follows: If you're attacked and fail the dodge test, you get to make a parry test using the shield. If this is successful then the damage of the incoming attack is reduced by the shield's armor value.. if this reduces it to zero, the attack has no effect. Otherwise the remaining damage is passed on to the character. The shield itself suffers damage from each attack and will be destroyed after a certain amount.

- JH.

 

[Whipporowill]

I'd say that a critical hit would bypass any shield - even with a succesful block roll. That would create situations such as the broken arm mentioned, without making the system too complicated. A shield should break - but I'd say that'd be depending on the material. Early game wooden (?) shields should require some repair or self-tinkering once in a while, while late-game metal shields should pretty much be unaffected due to high quality material.

 

[Sol Invictus]

The shield should provide two benefits:
First, I think that the shield should have its own stat: chance to deflect. Successful deflection causes the total negation of damage.

Second, it should also add a chance to absorb damage. Upon success, a fixed amount of damage is absorbed before the shield falls apart and needs repair.

The shield's use should be determined by the quality of the shield itself as well as the user. A swordsman with high dexterity should be able to use his shield to absorb the impact of enemy blows quite often, allowing him a higher chance to absorb damage with the shield. It should also increase his chance to perform a 'deflect' which completely negates an enemy attack and the shield does not take any hit to durability when this occurs.

The chance to absorb damage occurs before the chance to deflect. So, if you roll the die and you manage to absorb the damage with the shield, you should roll another die that determines if you completely deflect the attack.

It should be different from dodge or parry, though a spiked shield should probably add some chance to parry with the damage of the spikes on the shield in addition to the damage of your weapon.

The type of shield you equip should also determine a variety of things. Using a buckler wouldn't reduce your ability to dodge, and it would also have a much higher 'deflect' rate than its ability to absorb damage which isnt much, since it only covers the length of your forearm. Whereas using a tower shield would allow you to absorb a massive amount of damage, but itself would have a very low shield deflect rating, and in addition to that it would also detract from your dodge rating (as you said, it's hard to jump with a tower shield).

Using a medium shield wouldn't detract much from your dodge rating (just a bit) and it would allow a reasonable deflect rate (not as much as a buckler though) and a reasonable amount of damage absorbing ability.

I think that in addition to shields you should also add off-hand weapons like swordbreakers that add a chance to break your opponent's weapon in addition to parrying, or whips that add the ability to disarm the enemy. A jitte (japanese night-stick sort of weapon), nekode (claws), or battle gauntlet would allow you to deflect blows via parrying with your off-hand though they would not have the ability to absorb damage as a shield would.

Of course, the difference between using a shield and using a parrying weapon is that a shield would only allow you to deflect a blow or absorb its damage, but it wouldn't be able to do an attack in return unless you're using a Buckler or a spiked shield, unlike a parrying weapon which allows you to completely deflect an attack and produce an attack in return.

It'd allow for some pretty nice variations on equipment.

But as Whip said, it'd be best if critical hits bypassed any chance to deflect, absorb or parry.

If you don't have a shield you can wield two weapons (which, from what I've seen in SCA sparring, is mostly useless) or a two-handed weapon (which is useful largely due to its length).

That's only because people in the SCA are lousy at real arms combat, and they only know the basics of fighting with a single weapon (or a single weapon and a shield). Learning to use two weapons to fight requires ambidexterity (or to a lesser degree, lefthandedness) as a prequisite and years upon years of training. True swordsmen like the kensai (Sword Saint) Miyamoto Musashi were very few and far apart could handle two weapons with ease, often wielding the Katana (a two handed weapon, by default) with ease in each hand. Spanish and French stiletto fighters would often use whips or short paring knives (yeah, we use them to cut vegetables these days) on their off-hand to parry, disarm or hamstring their opponents.

 

[Human Shield]

A shield would lower your chance to hit with a weapon, it reduces the range of motion you can attack from (a tower shield limits you to one side) it also reduces visibility. A shield deflects damage and also increases the chance of parrying with your weapon (look after one side). Shields are the best way to block ranged attacks.

Tower shields were a big part of the romans conquering the world, the shield can be used for bashing and many were designed to be used in such a way. Some shields had sharpened edges or spikes.

Metal ones deflect and are more durable but the strain on the arm is greater. Many wooden ones were designed to have the enemy weapon get stuck in it and mess them up, wood is weaker but some metal shields were designed with wood edges to mess up enemy weapons. Ranged weapons would wear down wood much faster thou.

The javalin the romans used were long and flexible enough, they were designed to sink into an enemy wooden shield and spring it out of their hands, as well as really slow down enemy advances.

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

If its a ranged attack then it should fucking bounce off the shield and fly back at the enemy like in zelda. If its mellee then its should be blocked with lots of sparks and special effects.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I don't think the shield should absorb a set amount and get destroyed though. First of all because I hate eq that has any kind of usage limit, and second because it would depend more on how well you used the shield. You could block hundreds of attacks with a shield by angling it properly, or you could block one attack in not quite the right way and have it cut in half!

Not destroyed - needs repair (or recharge, from purely "technical" point of view). I can easily put Block back, and make it control the amount of damage (percentage) that your shield take per attack.

In the game Mekton, shields worked as follows: If you're attacked and fail the dodge test, you get to make a parry test using the shield.

I've thought of that, but I think that you can do only one action to handle an attack: you either dodge, parry, or block.

If this is successful then the damage of the incoming attack is reduced by the shield's armor value.. if this reduces it to zero, the attack has no effect. Otherwise the remaining damage is passed on to the character. The shield itself suffers damage from each attack and will be destroyed after a certain amount.

That's pretty much what I think is the best way to model shields in game. The only thing that I would tweak though is, like I said, make shields resisting all the blows for as long as a shield holds. Considering that HPs are limited (30-50) it wouldn't be too overpowering.

I'd say that a critical hit would bypass any shield - even with a succesful block roll

No arguing here.

Early game wooden (?) shields should require some repair or self-tinkering once in a while, while late-game metal shields should pretty much be unaffected due to high quality material.

While metal shields can't be destroyed, they could be damaged beyond the point where they are useful, so it's basically the same thing.

First, I think that the shield should have its own stat: chance to deflect. Successful deflection causes the total negation of damage.

That sounds good. Should the deflection value be a property of a shield or come from skills (like Block)?

The shield's use should be determined by the quality of the shield itself as well as the user. A swordsman with high dexterity should be able to use his shield to absorb the impact of enemy blows quite often, allowing him a higher chance to absorb damage with the shield. It should also increase his chance to perform a 'deflect' which completely negates an enemy attack and the shield does not take any hit to durability when this occurs.

Agree

Using a buckler wouldn't reduce your ability to dodge, and it would also have a much higher 'deflect' rate than its ability to absorb damage which isnt much, since it only covers the length of your forearm. Whereas using a tower shield would allow you to absorb a massive amount of damage, but itself would have a very low shield deflect rating, and in addition to that it would also detract from your dodge rating (as you said, it's hard to jump with a tower shield).

Also agree.

I think that in addition to shields you should also add off-hand weapons like swordbreakers that add a chance to break your opponent's weapon in addition to 'shield deflection', or whips that add the ability to disarm the enemy. A jitte (japanese night-stick sort of weapon), nekode (claws), or battle gauntlet would allow you to deflect blows with your off-hand (as a buckler would) and add a massive bonus to parry though they would not have the ability to absorb damage as a shield would.

Sounds cool. Also I have bearded axes that were actually used to deal with shields.

 

[Vault Dweller]

A shield would lower your chance to hit with a weapon

What's your reasoning here? Shouldn't we assume that a spear/shield fighter is trained to use spear effectively despite the shield?

Shields are the best way to block ranged attacks.

Good point. I have managed to overlook that completely.

 

[Sol Invictus]

That sounds good. Should the deflection value be a property of a shield or come from skills (like Block)?

Both, I think. A buckler would have a much higher deflection value than a tower shield, since it'd be harder to actually deflect blows with that (that'd require moving your shield arm around a lot) You'd just have the shield absorb most of the impact with a tower shield rather than deflect blows outright.

Weapons like bearded axes (as you mentioned) and Katanas could have a property that allowed them a 75% chance to bypass shields when performing an attack.

 

[Jinxed]

In my system the shield dealio wasn't figured out entirely, but this is basically what I had.

All skills were percentiles, ranging from 0 to 200, depending on what you had, you had to refer to the table o criticals and specials. For example, if you had 100, 1-5 was a critical (maxed out double damage) and 6-11 was a special (double rolled damage)

So anyway, all characters had a dodge skill which worked really well.

When it's your turn, you have two actions, you can make one attack and dodge, two attacks, two dodges etc. Dodge was very easy to raise, but the trade off is that you needed to specify who you will dodge in a fight, so fighting two enemies got tricky. Further more, when someone gets a special on you, or critical, you need a critical or special dodge in order to avoid being hit. As a side note, you could also use both actions for one attack, that's 2x your attack skill. Same with dodge or defend.

The way it worked with shields is that it was a skill harder to learn (you couldn't give much points to it at the beginning) so it was fairly low. But, when you defend, you can defend anyone who rolls a succesful hit and if they get a special or critical, you would still defend but you had to calculate damage vs shield strenght.

Example: The shield had 15 armor, and an axe is 1d8 +2 +SM if I roll anything lower than 15, it bounces off. If I roll anything over, the shield would loose one point of armor and the points that were over 15 would be deducted from the hp of the character.

Of course, you can only damage shields with axes, maces and other weapons like that.

 

[Fez]

Different shields act in totally different ways. The lighter wood and leather bound shields can absorb enormous impact from almost any weapon and leave the bearer unharmed thanks to the flexibility of the device. If a blow was heavy enough it would simply break apart, further absorbing the impact and deflecting any missiles. Warriors would be able to carry multiple shields of these types if needed due to the weight. Once broken they were junk and non repairable though.

Metal shields would have less absorbing abilities but be far more durable (and still with all the benefits of deflecting blows off the curved surfaces) and so only one would be needed. The metal ones would stop more blows over time but the arm would suffer a bit of shock if it was used by an unskilled warrior or the enemy got a lucky hit. It is also repairable, unlike the wooden ones.

 

[suibhne]

A lot of great points already here, but I wanted to underscore that different weapons will have different effects on shields (just as different shields will have different effects on weapons). Bearded axes, which have already been mentioned, operate on the principle of concentrating the maximum force into a small edge, thereby increasing chances of punching through a shield. (They're most effective with wood, natch.) Blunt weapons generally do a much better job than swords of transferring force through the shield, possibly damaging the shieldbearer and potentially even breaking bones. Long bladed swords, in turn, will transfer force much more effectively than slighter, thrusting swords, but thrusting swords are more likely to penetrate around the shield.

I don't know very much about these mechanics, but I know enough to be daunted by the task of modelling them even semi-realistically.

 

[Human Shield]

A shield would lower your chance to hit with a weapon

What's your reasoning here? Shouldn't we assume that a spear/shield fighter is trained to use spear effectively despite the shield?

The bigger the shield the less range of motion you have = less angles the enemy has to focus on = easier to parry and dodge.

With a buckler in your left hand you could still swing the sword in a left->right arc but it would be slower moving the buckler out of the way. With a tower shield you can't swing left->right arcs and the enemy only has to defend from one side.

The bigger the shield the less angles for thrusting the spear you have, training would improve speed and feinting (increasing chance to hit) but his spear doesn't phase through the solid matter of the shield.

I'd like to see edged weapons get stuck in wooden shields. Didn't you say something about having to pull a lance out of the dead victim to use again.

 

[sInfernal]

I'd say something like C. A shield at the right angle can deflect many attacks, so AC is yes. However, you're not really able to deflect ALL of the momentum behind the blow, so if you're blocking a strong weapon (flail?) then there may be some damage taken... so some kind of damage resistance would be calculated.

I don't see it decreasing dodging, though. Realistically, you're not going to be jumping around or anything to dodge an attack. Voiding an attack usually consists of stepping out of the way. Perhaps weight may make it more difficult, but I'm not sure; if you use this idea you can add a "shield" skill or a "weight management" skill to negate whatever penalty - though it would be slight.

Of course, if your game isn't so realistic (and features high-flying swashbucklers and the like) then you might want to have a higher penalty for shield weight's effect on dodging and the like.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I don't know very much about these mechanics, but I know enough to be daunted by the task of modelling them even semi-realistically.

Yep. That's why I will cut a lot of corners, and just add that to weapon traits. So, a bearded axe would have a good chance to ignore the shield and tear it away, blunt weapons would transfer some damage to the shieldbearer as well, etc. It's simple, but it will work.

The bigger the shield the less range of motion you have = less angles the enemy has to focus on = easier to parry and dodge.

Alright, I suppose it's a good trade off for extra protection.

I'd like to see edged weapons get stuck in wooden shields. Didn't you say something about having to pull a lance out of the dead victim to use again.

Not about having to pull it out of some poor bastard, but about impaling one, and having your spear disappear from your inventory, to be recovered after the combat is over. I can do the same with other weapons obviously, but in case of impaling, there is a trade off, you chose to trade your favourite spear for one guy to be out of the game (assuming he fails his dodge), if it's just stuck in a shield for no reason and benefit, it kinda sucks, and would likely result in a reload, no?

Of course, if your game isn't so realistic (and features high-flying swashbucklers and the like) then you might want to have a higher penalty for shield weight's effect on dodging and the like.

Well, it's a fantasy game, so I don't think it will be very realistic. And no, no high-flying swashbucklers. All the high-flying acrobatic stuff will be represented by your Dodge Class and limited only by your imagination and available drugs.

 

[crufty]

I don't know very much about these mechanics, but I know enough to be daunted by the task of modelling them even semi-realistically.

Yep. That's why I will cut a lot of corners, and just add that to weapon traits. So, a bearded axe would have a good chance to ignore the shield and tear it away, blunt weapons would transfer some damage to the shieldbearer as well, etc. It's simple, but it will work.

Pretty much. At its simplest, I would say succesful use of a a shield is A, an increase in your ability to avoid damage altogether. Complicating things, you could expand that to avoid damage from an attack of a given threshold. Attacks over that threshold could inflict greatly reduced damage to the defender, representing fatigue or actual damage. Attacks over a further threshold (a giant wielding a pick-axe, for instance) might damage or destroy the shield--and the defender.

 

[Human Shield]

I'd like to see edged weapons get stuck in wooden shields. Didn't you say something about having to pull a lance out of the dead victim to use again.

Not about having to pull it out of some poor bastard, but about impaling one, and having your spear disappear from your inventory, to be recovered after the combat is over. I can do the same with other weapons obviously, but in case of impaling, there is a trade off, you chose to trade your favourite spear for one guy to be out of the game (assuming he fails his dodge), if it's just stuck in a shield for no reason and benefit, it kinda sucks, and would likely result in a reload, no?

It wouldn't get stuck forever, with a successful block it would increase the action points used to attack (to include pulling it out). But it would cost money to keep repairing the damage. Damage done to the wooden shield reduces its 'stuck' ability.

The player could choose not to pull out the weapon and leave it in the shield, which would slow down the shield holder and reduce its 'stuck' ability. Ranged and thrown weapons would work great for this purpose (Romans designed javalins to disarm wooden shields). Heavy weapons that cut through wooden shields would be counters too.

But against an oppenent with a single dagger, a wooden shield would really kick ass in real life. But repair bills would be higher.

 

[pyrrho12]

If you don't have a shield you can wield two weapons (which, from what I've seen in SCA sparring, is mostly useless) or a two-handed weapon (which is useful largely due to its length).

That's only because people in the SCA are lousy at real arms combat, and they only know the basics of fighting with a single weapon (or a single weapon and a shield). Learning to use two weapons to fight requires ambidexterity (or to a lesser degree, lefthandedness) as a prequisite and years upon years of training.

It still seems to me that using two weapons instead of one weapon plus a shield is more trouble than it's worth. Historically it's only been used in cases where demonstrating your talent is more important than simple efficiency, such as among duelists. I think that for a game this should be a difficult technique to master, but one which signifies your character as a certified badass when you do.

I've thought of that, but I think that you can do only one action to handle an attack: you either dodge, parry, or block.

Is that really such a good idea? The benefit of using a shield is that it makes you harder to hit, not that it makes you just as easy to hit but through a different mechanism. If using a shield requires learning an extra skill and replaces your dodge skill, I expect that most people won't bother learning how to use a shield because there will be no benefit to it.

-JH.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Is that really such a good idea? The benefit of using a shield is that it makes you harder to hit, not that it makes you just as easy to hit but through a different mechanism.

I disagree with that. The AC system was a bit screwed up because it followed that principle. There was only one way to avoid being hit - putting on as many items as you can find. The disadvantages in most cases were abysmal, and not that important. It was basically a choiceless one way street. In the AC system, a shield is one of the accessories, just another item you add to increase your AC. Technically there is no difference between your boots and your shield, although they play very different roles. I'm just trying to tweak that a little and see what happens.

If using a shield requires learning an extra skill and replaces your dodge skill, I expect that most people won't bother learning how to use a shield because there will be no benefit to it.

True to a degree, but I prefer giving people a choice, and I can support that choice by giving it advantages, disadvantages, and special traits. In many games there is no real difference between a sword and an axe, yet there are many types of weapons. Why? Ability to choose is important. Look at all those people bitching about the lack of throwing weapons in Oblivion.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

I personally feel that a shield should not add to AC and instead add to DR. Also, in the right hands, a shield can be a deadly weapon and that's where I emphasis the use of shields in any PnP RPG I play. You can thrust, slice, and bash with it, making it a sword and mace in one. Something like that though would be reserved for a medium skill level in shield or better. The better your skill, the more damage you can deal with it.

 

[Seven]

This might be slightly off topic, but how do you plan on handling armor. Will it be multi-functional (ie, plate is more effective against arrows and reduces chance of damage as opposed to chain which is less effective against arrows, reduces less damage than plate, but increases AC because you're more mobile)?

PS, I think that the benefits of a shield should be multiple: harder to hit, absorbs damage and a bonus against ranged weapons.

 

[Sarvis]

I personally feel that a shield should not add to AC and instead add to DR. Also, in the right hands, a shield can be a deadly weapon and that's where I emphasis the use of shields in any PnP RPG I play. You can thrust, slice, and bash with it, making it a sword and mace in one. Something like that though would be reserved for a medium skill level in shield or better. The better your skill, the more damage you can deal with it.

Slice? With a shield? Never heard of a sharp shield before...