A poll! What's a shield?

[Sovy Kurosei]

Seven:

Weapons that do more damage depending on the opponent, like morningstars doing more damage against opponents wearing ring mail.

Specific weapons vs specific armors won't be in the game.

From this thread.

 

[pyrrho12]

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.

I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be choices involved, but I do believe that if the player chooses to wear a shield then he should get a defensive advantage over players who choose not to wear a shield. The non-shield-wearing players should get other kinds of advantages to balance things, of course.

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.

That's what I was talking about. Maybe I misunderstood your plans... If the various means of defending your character are functionally equivalent (make defense roll against opponent's attack roll, or similar mechanism) and the choice rests in choosing how you want your character to defend himself (by dodging, by parrying, or by shield-blocking), then using a shield isn't very useful. First of all you have to buy a shield, carry it around, and keep it equipped. Unlike a weapon that can be used for parrying the shield serves no good purpose other than defense. You're investing your resources in a defensive item that won't actually improve the character's defense. This is, IMO, broken.

- JH.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

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

Some roman gladiators would sharpen the edges of their bucklers and use them as weapons. Also, during medieval times, some knights would sharpen the ends of their kite shields so they could stick them down into the ground easier when needed, but also used this to their advantage in a fight. Besides, it doesn't necessarily need to be sharp in order to perform a slicing action.

 

[Eelusion]

Human Shield should know, best shields are made of meat with a tiny controllable brain

 

[Sarvis]

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

Some roman gladiators would sharpen the edges of their bucklers and use them as weapons. Also, during medieval times, some knights would sharpen the ends of their kite shields so they could stick them down into the ground easier when needed, but also used this to their advantage in a fight.

Didn't know that... interesting.

Besides, it doesn't necessarily need to be sharp in order to perform a slicing action.

No, but that slicing action wouldn't actually _do_ anything now would it?

 

[Vault Dweller]

...but I do believe that if the player chooses to wear a shield then he should get a defensive advantage over players who choose not to wear a shield.

Well, that goes without saying. I believe that a shield safely absorbing all blows for a short time is such an advantage, no?

The non-shield-wearing players should get other kinds of advantages to balance things, of course.

Of course.

If the various means of defending your character are functionally equivalent (make defense roll against opponent's attack roll, or similar mechanism) and the choice rests in choosing how you want your character to defend himself (by dodging, by parrying, or by shield-blocking), then using a shield isn't very useful.

Each way of defending is different, each comes with advantages and disadvantages. From that point of view, a shield is not "just like" any other way. It fixes the disadvantages of the other ways, but introduces new ones. The choice would probably depend on players' preferences, on what's more important to them.

Unlike a weapon that can be used for parrying the shield serves no good purpose other than defense. You're investing your resources in a defensive item that won't actually improve the character's defense. This is, IMO, broken.

Defense could be achieved in a variety of ways, could it not? It could be high AC, or DR, or DT, etc. A shield, as I see it, is another way of defending yourself. It won't actually improve YOUR chance to avoid being hit, but it will misdirect the blow to something else, buy you several turns of being safe behind a shield. That's defense in my book.

 

[EEVIAC]

First of all you have to buy a shield, carry it around, and keep it equipped. Unlike a weapon that can be used for parrying the shield serves no good purpose other than defense. You're investing your resources in a defensive item that won't actually improve the character's defense. This is, IMO, broken.

I wouldn't mind having specialist weapons that provide a defensive bonus to blocking/parrying. I've always liked the idea of dual-wielding as a defensive style, rather than a means of an extra attack. The blades could be hooked or waved (which would also make them far less usefull as offensive weapons,) so that at high levels of parry, you could disarm an opponent when fighting defensively.

 

[Vault Dweller]

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)?

Heavy armor makes you easier to hit (less mobile), but absorbs a lot of damage (DR). Some weapons are more effective against armor, like hammers, crossbows (high penetration), etc. Some upgrades would increase the effectiveness of your weapons against armor (i.e. steel arrowheads against bronze armor, etc)

What I meant with "Specific weapons vs specific armors won't be in the game" is that I don't have different damage types in the game, and thus you can't have a weapon that's very effective against leather armors but less effective against heavy plate mail. If your weapon is effective against armor, it's effective against all types of armor.

I wouldn't mind having specialist weapons that provide a defensive bonus to blocking/parrying.

I don't have "specialist" weapons, but there are many weapons that give bonus to Parry and Disarm.

 

[pyrrho12]

Each way of defending is different, each comes with advantages and disadvantages. From that point of view, a shield is not "just like" any other way. It fixes the disadvantages of the other ways, but introduces new ones. The choice would probably depend on players' preferences, on what's more important to them.

Okay, that clears things up immensely. Thanks.

-JH.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

No, but that slicing action wouldn't actually _do_ anything now would it?

That would depend on the type of shield and the material it's made of. If I sliced at someone with the bottom of a kite shield, sharp or not that tip can do some serious damage. Especially when raked across exposed eyes or neck.

The way I work shields is this: At a low skill you get DR from it. The more skill you have, the better your DR. The DR stops going up once you reach the mid point of skill in shield. At that point, however, you can use the shield as a weapon, every point of skill from there forward adding to the damage you can deal. Granted, damage isn't as great as a regular weapon, but it's extra damage you can do without getting the penalty of dual wielding. There is a penalty however in the fact that if you use your shield to attack in a turn, you do not recieve DR from it until your next turn. This penalty is negated once maximum skill level with shield is achieved though.

 

[RGE]

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.

I heard that he considered two katanas better when fighting several opponents, but for a one on one fight he thought that it was better to stick to a single katana. Heard it from a friend who read it in a book (probably those five rings) - how's that for my credibility?

On the subject of shields, I've grown up with a system where there's a skill to use for blocking, and then a certain amount of damage is absorbed from each blow, and if the damage is higher both the shield and the defender take damage. Thus, as long as the shield only blocks weak enough attacks, it lasts forever. With that system the larger shields blocked more damage, and I suppose that given that the weight of the shield could counter the momentum of the weapon, that's about as realistic as giving a larger shield a higher chance to block. For ranged weapons I think that the shield had a set chance of blocking depending only on its size, or if we used bodyparts, the different shields would cover more and more parts, starting with the shield arm.

Once upon a time when I was trying my hand at designing a combat system for a MUD I decided to go with dexterity for dodging, and strength for shield blocking. That made sense to me, because strength to hold the shield (and to move a heavy shield quickly) seemed to be more important than any delicate manipulating of the shield. Or maybe I just wanted to encourage strong fighters to rely on shields for defense, while agile rogues would prefer to rely on dodging? I guess Ultima V inspired me, because in that game onehanded weapons relied on dexterity, while twohanded weapons relied on strength. Not that it mattered in the end, where my whole party used magic throwing axes.

I love shields though. Once a character of mine put his shield on his back as he fled in panic from a group of orcs with longbows, and as it happened, the game master rolled a lethal critical in the abdomen. But with the shield on the back, nothing happened. The only reason this is (almost) worth mentioning is because we were using the MERP/Rolemaster system, so the chance of rolling a critical in the abdomen wasn't very high at all, especially not a lethal one. One of the others got a critical hit in the calf, so we left him there.

I also hate shields, because of NWN.

 

[crufty]

Just to throw in a different bit of flavor, I think the Saxons used to employ a technique where one guy had an axe, and one guy on each side had a shield; the three worked in tandem. It was particularly effective vs calvary and knights.

Translated into a game, maybe someone with a shield could devote their entire round to protecting the flank of an ally close by? Ergo, two goblins on their own--not dangerous. Two goblins on their own with shields--probably not dangerous. Two goblins with shields protecting an ogre/minotaur/suitably strong enemy--well now, things are interesting.

Certainly not an easy development task...

 

[bryce777]

A shield is mostly for protection from missiles.

They can also be useful in melee to an extent, but only from the front and large shields make it impossible to wield a weapon like a longsword.

Using soak in armor should only be done with caution. I dont think it plays very well. The armor in gothic is just soak and demonstrates how stupid this can be. You are either magically immune to all damage or else your armor is totally worthless.

The fallout system is the best in my opinion, but it also needs deflection added in (catches on your pauldron, or glances away on the curvature of the fluting, etc.)

So armor would look like:
%Damage Reduction
%Deflection Chance
Damage absorption (small fixed amount)
for each damage type

For a shield it would have just a small deflection bonus in my mind, possibly tied to stats or skills.

That is what I always thought was ideal, anyhow.

Actual hitting as far as connecting with the target should be totally separate, and have nothing to do with armor, or armor should make it easier to hit.


The actual to hit

 

[Mulciber]

A suggestion for a system that I haven't seen before: Split all of the combat items into primary hand/secondary hand categories instead of weapon/shield categories. All of the items can have (differing) attributes that are assigned to them based on whether they are in your primary hand or secondary hand. This would allow you to give every weapon (or shield) reduced attack bonuses for being in the secondary hand and increased defence bonuses. Have incentives for not having anything in the secondary slot (better to-hit, or damage bonus for large weapons).
This set-up could be quite interesting if you start providing neat bonuses for certain combinations of weapons- eg: gladius and tower shield, trident and net (extra ablility: entangle?), tower shield as a primary item allows you to block for party members (as suggested above). It would certainly make the combat-tweakers happy. I picture this as a two dimensional array, with the primary on X, the secondary on Y and the listed bonuses on the intersections.

 

[LCJr.]

E. A shield should require skill to use properly but everyone should start with a basic level. It's simple survival instinct if someone tries to hit your going to try to block it. But of course a skilled warrior will try to feint or otherwise attack an opening. Since most shields don't cover the whole body like armor and has to be used actively I can't see giving some defense bonus simply for holding one. You might consider a strength or skill requirement for each type.

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.

Roman shields changed quite a bit in size and shape over the centuries and probably had next to nothing to do with their success. If had everyone would have copied the design and everyone would have back on even terms. In the early days of the Republic they were large oval shields covering almost the entire body. By the Imperial period and reorganization under Marius most infantry shields were the smaller curved rectangle Hollywood is fond of. And towards the end they used a smaller oval shaped shield. Roman invidual training(which used a wooden sword & shield twice the weight of the real ones) , tactics, organization and logistics are what built their empire.

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.

Not true. I read article some years ago were some scholars were curious as to why wood & leather shields remained use after metalworking was commonplace. They built copies of a metal and wood & leather shield and destruction tested them with an axe. Much to their surprise the wood & leather was more durable. Reason was the wood & leather has some "bounce" to it partially rebounding the blows. The metal shield dented then ripped. You can test that out on any piece of metal, put enough dents in it and it will start coming apart. I'll have see if I can find it again the next time I'm really bored. I'm sure some SCA or reenactor site has a copy or link to it.

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.

The Roman Pilum also had a soft iron shaft for the forward portion that bent hampering shield use even more. The iron shaft also meant you simply just couldn't cut hack the shaft off below the head.

The early Franks used a slightly different method. Their Angon had a metal wrapped shaft with a barbed head. Supposedely if it struck a shield the warrior would try to put his foot on it when he closed and pull his opponents shield down and then strike the exposed neck. Sound a little tricky to pull off to me but then again I wasn't raised to be a Frankish warrior :D

Heavy armor makes you easier to hit (less mobile), but absorbs a lot of damage (DR). Some weapons are more effective against armor, like hammers, crossbows (high penetration), etc. Some upgrades would increase the effectiveness of your weapons against armor (i.e. steel arrowheads against bronze armor, etc)

I like the sound of that. Similiar to the Chartmaster system. I.C.E. even still in bussiness?

A shield is mostly for protection from missiles.

A shield is for protection period. For most of the Ancient to Medieval period it's all the average warrior had.

Slightly offtopic but how about javelin catching? The Roman's make several references to warrior catching them and throwing them back. May be one of the reasons they started adding lead weights.

 

[Mulciber]

It's also the reason the iron in the pilum was soft- harder to throw a bent spear back at the competition.

 

[LlamaGod]

Shield skill = chance to block

If you block, part of the damage is lowered in a percentage per level of shield skill (which also effects chance to block).

Wearing a shield should give a dexterity penalty, when you remove it your dexterity goes up and you could have an Evade stat based off Dex and other stuff.

Evade prevents/avoids damage totally, but cant be trained in, it's a result of your stats.

see where I am going with this?

so you can either be high in dex and hope to evade, or can be high in shield and slower, but have a higher chance of less injury. or something.

 

[Fez]

I'd be happy with A, though if you can do C then that would be neato.

 

[wolfen]

I would say something like A, B (so we'll come to C) and D.
This way: IF you success at blocking with the shield (which is usually easier than dodging - A), it absorbs some amount of damage (depending on the shield) until it can hurt your arm or even break the shield (D).
This is pretty like GURPS setting, tho. Your shield does have hit points - like 60 to a medium shield - and does have a DR (i'm not sure if that's on GURPS) before it could hurt your arm. So a medium shield could be 6/50 for DR/HP (when succesfully blocked).
I don't know if you will use "targetting" in the game, but it obviously it is nearly impossible to hit with an arrow the opponent's heart whose is using a medium or larger shield.