Topic: Shields Block, Shields do not really Reduce damage Idea.

[Warl]

So firstly... My players have been seeking ways to be more "involved" in their own defense.

Secondly, it has always bother some of them, and ME, that shields effectively Jsut reduce the damage you take. When their real purpose was to take the Blow.

Now I have done some SCA fighting, and really, That is what a Shield does, Blocks the blow. If it DOESN'T Block the Blow, It in No way has an effect on how hard or badly you were hit.

So were discussing a Possible House rule to alter this, and I am presenting it here to see what other RM players think and which method you think might work best.

The Idea is that, When an Attacker makes an attack against an opponent that is defending with a shield, the Shield wielder makes an RR (Resistance Roll) against the attack to try and block it.

The Shield Wielder gets a Bonus to the RR based on the Size/Type/Quality of the shield.
The Attackers Level and the Defenders Level are determined by the Number of Ranks in each combatants skill (weapon skill ranks = attacker level, Shield Skill Ranks = Defenders Level)

The other option would be to make it strictly Skill vs Skill opposed rolls, Highest value wins. Might be simpler this way. Anyone with a shield, even with no skill, gets a Base roll with the Shields Bonus value added in.

I am still working on how to determine breakage and Damage, But Thinking basically that I would just use the Standard Breakage rules using the Blocked attack roll as the breakage check for both shield and weapon.

Another option is to base it upon the Attack rolls Damage dealt and crits.
1% chance of breakage per point of Damage dealt by the base hit, +5% for an A crit, +10 =B, +20=D, +50=E. Minus the material rating and Quality bonus of the shield (to be determined ). I actually Like this Idea better... but Again.. Putting the Ideas out there.

[jdale]

Now I have done some SCA fighting, and really, That is what a Shield does, Blocks the blow. If it DOESN'T Block the Blow, It in No way has an effect on how hard or badly you were hit.

I'm not sure I agree. In SCA terms, there are two kinds of hits. Hard enough to count, and not hard enough. If the blow is hard enough, it takes out that location. If it's not hard enough, it does nothing. So if you, say, catch the blow on the edge of the shield to slow it down a bit, it may be transformed from the first type to the second. In SCA terms, it was blocked. But that weapon may still have actually struck you.

In RM terms, and I think real life as well, there is a continuum of hits. That blow that you slowed down a bit can still do damage, just less damage than it would have done otherwise.

[Peter R]

I would agree with jdales interpretation in this.

[VladD]

The RM shield ties in with new views of shields as weapons. You can deal hard blows with them and you might parry with it and it would block a weapon better than an axe or sword because of its size.
I am not familiar with SCA tactics and rules, but large shields went out of style in the real world because the shieldwall proved to be less effective against new weapons and tactics and the shield was weaponized. Wading into melee against a line of Halberd soldiers with a hoplon or a scutem and it gets hooked out of the way and you'll get skewered by another.

That is why, in RM, you should rely on superior numbers, defensive spells or on parrying. And although DB does reduce damage, actually it is making the enemy less effective, since RM catches all offensive capability in a single number. Shield gives DB 20+ but effectively it is hampering the enemy. If you parry enough, it is blocking the enemy.

As a GM I advice you to start using parrying for all your adversaries. Just do a 50/ 50 split. Make sure there are about equal level, equal numbers, so party fighters are a little overwhelmed and when the party targets one enemy (usually the leader or strongest) have that one parry 100% and let the others take advantage of all the player characters focussing on that guy. I'm sure the next fight, your players will decide on a parry split as well.

[markc]

  As VladD pointed out defense can rule until a weapon comes along to make it obsolete. So a Wall Shield is great until a weapon is designed to "hook" it away from you.
 IMHO, the above is where weapon styles would have a huge impact on the combat game.



 For the future I hope I see some new type of armor (in real life (IRL)) that is like kinetic armor from SM:P, yes there is Dragon Scale and other such armor but I do not think it is quite there yet in terms of how it is portrayed in SM:P.
 Then again SM, SM2 and SM:P energy shields would be very cool to see in action also. [size=78%] [/size]
[/size][size=78%]MDC[/size]

[Warl]

Firstly, Though I appreciate The responses... I didn't come posting to have the game system explained to me, (I am a veteran GM of Rolemaster since the Mid 80s) Nor to have attempts to talk me out of the change or why it should be this way.  We have decided We want it changed.

I came Asking for opinions  and Help in what would be the best resolution method for what we want to do. Aid in tweaking said method and what other "changes" might need to be made to help keep the balance. Please help with that.

Were not talking about weapons making defenses obsolete or vice-verse.

Nor are we talking about the occasional glancing off the shield affecting the direct hit.

My experience with Sword and Board in the SCA was that Most blows hit the shield, Those that didn't hit the shield were either Parried or connected (whether solidly or not). Rare was the Time that a Blow "Glanced" off a shield and connected in any effective way with the opponent.

The Shield Did what it was meant to do, Block Blows so that they DON'T hit you.

This isn't what happens in Rolemaster, even when you do have players that Parry, Mostly it just makes the hit less severe rather than actually making the Hit a Miss.

ARMOUR is what Makes you take less damage from a Blow.... this is not the intent of a Shield.

This is Our belief and experience and what we wish to more correctly simulate in our game.

I come to you not to be argued out of it because you feel that the game system as is can't be wrong and shouldn't be changed, But instead come to you as Fellow Gamers with a Love for the same game to aid in a Change I and My players Want to make.

After all... One of the BEST parts of Rolemaster.... one of it's Iconic standards, has been the plethora of Optional rules presented not just int he companions, but in even may of the core books.

So please... Let us stick to and address the OP 

[VladD]

I have long thought the same way as you guys, but I kinda enjoy the serenity of a simple bonus to DB...

I did once have thought about making Attacks vs parrying an OPPOSED skill roll. So A attacks B. B decides to parry 50 OB, and he has 15 DB. He ROLLS d100 (OE or not, you decide) and A must overcome that number. (A totals 150 and B totals 115 for a result of 45) Then lookup the result on the correct AT while subtracting 50 from the table results (or add to total OB of course) to compensate for the roll. So A looks up 95 on the attack table vs AT.

[Warl]

I have long thought the same way as you guys, but I kinda enjoy the serenity of a simple bonus to DB...

I did once have thought about making Attacks vs parrying an OPPOSED skill roll. So A attacks B. B decides to parry 50 OB, and he has 15 DB. He ROLLS d100 (OE or not, you decide) and A must overcome that number. (A totals 150 and B totals 115 for a result of 45) Then lookup the result on the correct AT while subtracting 50 from the table results (or add to total OB of course) to compensate for the roll. So A looks up 95 on the attack table vs AT.

This is something we are looking at eventually as well.  One step at a time.

I know I hear a lot of people say "Whu?  Extra rolls? This will slow down the game even more!"

But actually.. We play another game called "Hackmaster" which actually uses opposed rolls for Combat resolution, and since both attacker and defender roll at the same, it really doesn't slow things down.

And the Plus side is that the Players Feel more involved in the game and spend less time twiddling thumbs waiting for "their turn" to roll dice again to come around.

So Vlad?
If you were to go with one of the two Methods of shield blocking above?  would it be the skill vs skill one then? and if so... Would you tweak it any from the method I have posted?

[Spectre771]

There is an optional rule that allows for when (and I am paraphrasing here) "... a blow is enough to strike an opponent and yields 0 points of damage on the attack table."  That was to represent the shield or blocking/parrying item taking the entire blow i.e.: you struck, but never connected to the body/vital area to deliver damage.  In that case, the weapon was "blocked" and the GM could enforce the breakage rules implying that the two weapons took the entirety of the blow or the weapon/shield took the entirety of the blow and either of the two would receive the damage that was intended for the person.  The "winning" object of the RR delivers damage to the "losing" object and that losing object takes the damage/breakage chance.  Thus making it possible to hack away at a shield or weapon and eventually rendering it ineffective.  You would have to give hit points to the weapons and shields (for which I believe there is a chart) and you or the PC would have to track HP for the items too.

If I have time this weekend, I will try to find the specifics for that optional rule.

[Warl]

No worries no bother Spectre

I am well versed in said rule.

If Anything can slow a game down as much or more than an additional die roll, it is Calculating whether it was a shield or parry that took the blow.

[jdale]

You could have a defense roll representing any allocated parry, use of a shield, etc. If it beats the attack roll, the attack is canceled. The question is how to resolve the result of the attack if the defense is not successful. You could use the difference between the attack and defense rolls, but then the tables aren't designed for the right range. Maybe the difference +100? That eliminates a lot of light hits, but if you don't add enough you'll have attacks where the defense failed to block and yet there is no damage.

You could also just look up the attack roll's actual value if it succeeded. The defense either works and the attack is blocked, or the defense does nothing. In that case, you will have very few light hits. You will normally either see the attack is blocked or a really hard hit. Even more extreme than the other option.

[Warl]

For a roll vs roll resolution, is We have the shield block on it's own...

If that fails, What we are starting with is just Parry and Base defense taken from the attack roll. This gives more incentive to use Parry.... and at this time, since few people Use shields, Since shields add so little to defense compared parry, Part of this Idea is to make shields more "desirable".

Most players that are melee Oriented have gone with two handed weapons or two weapon combo. thinking that they can defended nearly as well with two weapons as they can with a shield, and at the same time get attacks off faster with a better chance of getting a disabling/kill shot in.

[jdale]

So what is the actual roll you are using for the shield block?

[markc]

Warl,
 Was that rant directed at me, my post, or both?
MDC

[Warl]

Warl,
 Was that rant directed at me, my post, or both?
MDC

hmm? Not you specifically no Mark. It was directed at all responses right after the initial post.. which all seemed more directed to saying why I Shouldn't be bothering to make a rule change at all or how the current rule is implied to work.

Rather than Addressing my OP which is.... Which of these methods might work best and how would you tweak them to work better.

My OP never asked... Why is it done this way instead of that way.

No worries MarkC I wasn't upset.. I as jsut trying to get everyone focused on responses for what I was wanting rather than arguments/Explanations of why/how RM does it   

[Warl]

So what is the actual roll you are using for the shield block?

That is what I am working out. This isn't something we have implemented yet, but are working out to implement..

The Options are to have a shield Block work as an RR vs the attack with the Skill ranks of Shield on the Defendes side and Skill ranks of the attackers skill determining the Attacker and defender levels...

Or having it be a Skill vs Skill opposed Check.

In either case
The defender using the shield would add the "Defense" modifier of the shield to his "block" roll plus any skill From his Shield if he has developed any.

IF the Defender uses His Shield at all offensively to attack with, then, Like weapons, he has to decide how much of his skill goes to OB and DB and he doesn't get the Shield bonus to block like he would just using it defensively.

[jdale]

You asked what we thought, we told you what we thought. I'm also perfectly willing to discuss "if we did this, how should it work", but that wasn't clear in your original post. Anyway....

If you use resistance rolls, how do you take into account stat mods, equipment mods, etc? Also, how do you handle the attacker's parry reducing their offensive total?

Personally I prefer a skill vs skill opposed check because it handles those mods in a way that is consistent with the rest of combat, and because it doesn't require a table lookup. It does require a skill, because otherwise defense doesn't scale with tougher opponents' increasing OB. In the long term (i.e. higher levels) it will be of very limited use to characters who are not practically able to develop shield skill, which you could take as good or bad.

[Peter R]

In my experience shields are still very much in use today. Police doing crowd control still use them and the re-enactment community are still using them. I get into real world sword fights every week normally with sabre or epee but I have also get a chance to use broadsword/longsword and shield occaisionally.

When you take a blow on a shield the energy of that blow does not just vanish leaving you standing there ready to reposte. A huge chunk of that energy goes into you, the defender. The shield comes back at you and it feels like you are running into a brick wall with just your arm out to stop you. Most commonly the shield does not stop the entire blow but it robs the strike of most of its force but the blow rides across the shield hitting you either on the side of the head or down on the hip, thigh or knee.

When we are fencing it takes just 500g of force to register a hit and our protective equipment can withstand over 1000Kg of force so there is a hugh safety margin in there but just a single 15 minute bout with sword and shield will leave your shield arm, shoulder and elbow very bruised and almost useless with exhaustion.

I would say that the existing addition to DB reducing the severity of any resulting wound is more realistic of actual combat than a successful shield roll making a blow just 'go away'.

Obviously anyone can set up any house rules they like but the only part of this that I liked was the bit about people being actively involved in their defence.

[markc]

I have been trying to come up with an easy way but I do not think this is what you are looking for.
 First I think I would have the "skill" be declared active or passive at the start of each round, with different things applying to each. In active mode I would provide more reduction to damage and crits but sacrificing more OB and in passive mode having a small penalty to OB and lower reduction in hits and crits.


 The main problem I have is the way I see the skill being no over powered requires a lot of extra rolls. 1) A roll to see if you use the skill then a roll for the attack to over come the skill, then a roll to see if you reduce the crit (or ignore the crit), then a possible roll to see if the attacker overcomes your crit negation.
  Now some of those rolls probably can be ignored but I think that if the skill is created then there should be ways to by pass it or nullify it. And unless you say ok "X" magic nullifies the skill then it will require a roll sort of like the RM2 Armor ability of "negate a crit 25% of the time".


 For a computer than is not a big deal (but maybe it is depending on the game overhead) but for face to face RPing it might be too much for some groups.   


MDC

[Peter R]

One of the strengths of RM is that a well organised 1st level warrior has a fair chance of attacking and killing a 10th level warrior. Pick your place and your moment you can push the odds towards success. It would not be a task undertaken lightly but you could do it.

If you start using another skill allowing the higher level characters to start dodging the bullet then that 'anything can happen' element disappears. Given that the high level character could well have a well developed sense ambush skill they could bring their shield into play even when 'surprised'.

If there was a defensive shield skill I would want it to have an definite fumble chance. I still think that the exisitng rule for shields adding to DB is the best representation of reality.