God help me, I'm going to have parrying rules, so shields actually matter.
Where and how much is it:)?
And what system does this use? Something self-constructed or piggybacking off of something else?
Why is parrying rules a bad thing?? Oh, right, forgot whom this is.
Do shields actually matter if you are not part of an army fighting another army? 1 on 1, an archer would just aim where the shield is not. And I think they would be rather clumsy in melee combat, especially fighting someone with a weapon held in two hands (which would also likely be longer).
And I think they were largely made redundant by plate armor.
Quote from: JeremyR;952506Do shields actually matter if you are not part of an army fighting another army? 1 on 1, an archer would just aim where the shield is not. And I think they would be rather clumsy in melee combat, especially fighting someone with a weapon held in two hands (which would also likely be longer).
The Vikings and earlier civilizations prove you wrong.
Quote from: JeremyR;952506And I think they were largely made redundant by plate armor.
It was.
Palladium Fantasy's parrying rules always worked fine, as did RuneQuest.
It does slow down the game.
The best parry rules I saw in D20 was Conan which broke down AC into Parry and Dodge.
Parry = 10 + Armor + STR + 4 for Shield
Dodge = 10 + Armor + DEX + 1 for Shield
It made shields valuable in close combat, but not a big thing in ranged combat. IIRC there were various class / feats that allowed people to Dodge in Melee or Parry vs Ranged.
Quote from: Spinachcat;952512Palladium Fantasy's parrying rules always worked fine, as did RuneQuest.
It does slow down the game.
The best parry rules I saw in D20 was Conan which broke down AC into Parry and Dodge.
Parry = 10 + Armor + STR + 4 for Shield
Dodge = 10 + Armor + DEX + 1 for Shield
It made shields valuable in close combat, but not a big thing in ranged combat. IIRC there were various class / feats that allowed people to Dodge in Melee or Parry vs Ranged.
It didn't add armour. Armour was Damage Reduction. Each class had a progressive counter you added to your parry and dodge each level, similar to the Base Attack Bonus they copied from the base 3.x they were using. It was my favourite version of D&D for a long time.
Quote from: JeremyR;952506Do shields actually matter if you are not part of an army fighting another army? 1 on 1, an archer would just aim where the shield is not. And I think they would be rather clumsy in melee combat, especially fighting someone with a weapon held in two hands (which would also likely be longer).
And I think they were largely made redundant by plate armor.
Short version: you're so wrong it's not even funny.
Also, they weren't made "redundant", people just needed two-handed weapons to overcome plate:).
Quote from: Spinachcat;952512Palladium Fantasy's parrying rules always worked fine, as did RuneQuest.
It does slow down the game.
The best parry rules I saw in D20 was Conan which broke down AC into Parry and Dodge.
Parry = 10 + Armor + STR + 4 for Shield
Dodge = 10 + Armor + DEX + 1 for Shield
It made shields valuable in close combat, but not a big thing in ranged combat. IIRC there were various class / feats that allowed people to Dodge in Melee or Parry vs Ranged.
Given that prior to the existence of heavy armour, shields were considered the best defence against missiles, those aren't "good" rules, just "better than normal for close combat";).
Quote from: Spinachcat;952512Palladium Fantasy's parrying rules always worked fine, as did RuneQuest.
It does slow down the game.
The best parry rules I saw in D20 was Conan which broke down AC into Parry and Dodge.
Parry = 10 + Armor + STR + 4 for Shield
Dodge = 10 + Armor + DEX + 1 for Shield
It made shields valuable in close combat, but not a big thing in ranged combat. IIRC there were various class / feats that allowed people to Dodge in Melee or Parry vs Ranged.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;952514It didn't add armour. Armour was Damage Reduction. Each class had a progressive counter you added to your parry and dodge each level, similar to the Base Attack Bonus they copied from the base 3.x they were using. It was my favourite version of D&D for a long time.
That sounds cool I'll need to give that game A look.
Quote from: AsenRG;952545Short version: you're so wrong it's not even funny.
Also, they weren't made "redundant", people just needed two-handed weapons to overcome plate:).
Given that prior to the existence of heavy armour, shields were considered the best defence against missiles, those aren't "good" rules, just "better than normal for close combat";).
Yes defiantly shields hung around for A reason Some thing I think to meany people fail to keep in mind is that fighting equipment stays around if it works and dies off if it doesn't.
So if something is still being used it has A purpose and is effective at what it dose.
The shield died off around the use plate armour, except for jousts and tournaments, because of the type of weapons needed that were being developed to defeat plate. That's not to say it wasn't used, it just wasn't used as much. It got re-purposed into a small blocking device for street fighting when the sword was relegated to a commoner's weapon with the introduction of firearms and gunpowder.
Well, since police and even military units still use them today, I think it's safe to say they've always had a purpose.
It's not as if Johnny Peasant was allowed a suit of plate, so no, shields didn't die out, they weren't shiny painted Hollywood shields though.
Quote from: kosmos1214;952661Yes defiantly shields hung around for A reason Some thing I think to meany people fail to keep in mind is that fighting equipment stays around if it works and dies off if it doesn't.
So if something is still being used it has A purpose and is effective at what it dose.
Quote from: CRKrueger;952664Well, since police and even military units still use them today, I think it's safe to say they've always had a purpose.
Yes, the shield, the stick, the spear, the knife, the shortsword, the axe and the chain are the few weapons that have been in use for millennia, and are still used today. There's a reason for that, too.
Quote from: Sean !;952678It's not as if Johnny Peasant was allowed a suit of plate, so no, shields didn't die out, they weren't shiny painted Hollywood shields though.
Yeah, indeed.
Quote from: Sean !;952678It's not as if Johnny Peasant was allowed a suit of plate, so no, shields didn't die out, they weren't shiny painted Hollywood shields though.
OK, correction. Their utility fell off, but had a few resurgences, but nothing like they were back in the 12-13th centuries and earlier.
Quote from: K Peterson;952483And what system does this use? Something self-constructed or piggybacking off of something else?
Lion & Dragon is a rule-set, it is an OSR system but with significant changes from the standard D&D rules. And the orientation is for "medieval authentic roleplaying". It was essentially designed as the ideal system for running Dark Albion; and thus for running authentic-emulation late-medieval fantasy.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;952489Why is parrying rules a bad thing?? Oh, right, forgot whom this is.
Parrying rules are 'bad' only in that they're very tricky to do effectively and still retain the mechanical balance of OSR rules. I think I've managed that.
Quote from: JeremyR;952506Do shields actually matter if you are not part of an army fighting another army? 1 on 1, an archer would just aim where the shield is not. And I think they would be rather clumsy in melee combat, especially fighting someone with a weapon held in two hands (which would also likely be longer).
And I think they were largely made redundant by plate armor.
In the late medieval period, shields were quickly being phased out. However, several types of shields were still in use. The two most important were extremely large shields, that essentially functioned as partial cover for archers or riflemen (and were almost useless in melee); and bucklers which were very small shields used for melee combat.
Parrying can only be done with bucklers, and they're done in response to melee attacks; it's almost impossible to parry a ranged attack in the rules I'm using.