Quote from: estar on August 12, 2021, 02:36:23 PM

Quote from: Vic99 on August 10, 2021, 02:52:55 PM
My current stumbling block are shields.  I don't want shields to add to ES. 

Why? That what shields and for weapon parrying do at the end of the day. They reduce the odds that the opponent will not hit their target.

For example GURPS which has an explicit defense roll.

Able has a Broadsword skill of 15
Baker has a Shield Defense of 11.

The odds of Able landing a blow is 95.37% (broadsword odd) times 50% (shield defense odds)  is 47.68%

Now you are not using a bell curve so it easy to eliminate the defense roll. Just divide the impact that shield would have as a defense roll and add that number to your Evasion Score. The odds of landing a blow with a single attack roll will be exactly the same as as the attack roll and defense roll.

As S'mon said your options are limited given your combat resolution system.

Now as mention else in this thread you could give shield a limited number of automatic defense. But that doesn't reflect how it would look if you were there witnessing the action.

There is no cap beyond fatigue to the number of times you can trying to interpose a shield between you and an opponent. Or using the same shield against multiple opponent.

Sure you can try to to say using a shield for defense is that tiring. But then why are not weapons that tiring as well. So the result feels like a boardgame construct divorce from the setting. Even if something fictional I can't think of any depicting of combat with shield where the wielder is limited in the number of time they can use the shield.

You could try to say that the shield can only be used X time to negate a hit before being splintered. That is a little better but you will have to fiddle with the numbers to get the right feel. Even then I suspect it will have to be high.

And you will quickly run into smart players that will game the mechanic to make sure they have a fresh shield on hand at all times. Because negating a blow is a really good option to have. But this behavior does not reflect how shields were used in life or in most fiction.

GURPS got rid of passive defense for armor which added to the character's defense roll. Instead they made skill more important for defense rolls, but they still kept a defense bonus for shields because that worked best for how shield actually worked.

Also note that in the variant rule for D&D 3.5e. Armor as Reduction shield still gave their full bonus.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm#shields

The one place where I could see a limit on shields vs. attacks would be in a flanking situation where both flankers are presumed to be attacking simultaneously, in which case having the shield only apply the attacks of one or the other of the flankers would make sense.

That said, that also adds another layer of complexity that I personally would not find worth it and would just consider that part of any sort of modifiers flanking would provide.

I mention it more for the sake of completeness than because I think it would be worth adding.

When I use various non-D&D systems like Dragon Warriors (d6 shield save) & Mini Six/D6 (shield absorbs damage) I convert the shield rules to adding to Defence/Parry. In Dragon Warriors Defence is a limited resource you split up among attackers, in Mini Six you can use Dodge (DEX) or Parry (STR) vs attacks. In both cases I found that the D&D style shield-adds-to-defence worked great, felt great, & played fast. I'd recommend that approach.

You can do a lot with shields if you want the rules to support doing things with shields.  Conversely, once you simplify the rules enough, some basic defense is probably all you can do, however "defense" works in your system.

I've got shields mostly adding to defense.  I made a few distinctions for shield size (large one give a little more defense, bucklers don't work against ranged attacks, etc.) because my defense numbers can handle that kind of variation.  And I think a big shield should be worth more than it is in D&D. 

I've also got an exploding critical system.  Wearing a helm slows it down.  Having a shield (especially a magical one) is the only other way to slow it more.  So the guy in chain or plate with a helm and magic shield is hard to hit (obviously) and nigh impossible to get a long chain of exploding critical damage against.  Now, I didn't put the exploding critical system in just to have a role for helms and another edge for shields, but it was a consideration.  This is my compromise for "a crossbow bolt to the head could kill even a powerful character" without making it all that frequent or using called shots or the like.  It's more gambling than tactical.  Enough people take shots at you, eventually one will escalate a critical.  If you are in good health and powerful, unlikely to kill you.  If you are worn down, better have some of that protection.

So I would say if you want more out of shields while keeping it as simple as possible, find that little bit of complication you can put somewhere that works well with the rest of the system and isn't just about shields.

Shields in my system are actually weapons in the bludgeon group (though you can pay extra to allow them to be used as certain other groups (ex. Blade by adding a spike to the center, axe by sharpening the edge, etc.)

While they do some damage and have the innate quality of granting a shield bonus to your deflect defense, the reason the weapon group is important is that warriors can learn advanced maneuvers that apply to specific weapon groups. Battering Blows, Knock Them Around and Ring the Bell all apply specifically to bludgeons (others apply more generically) and thus can be performed with shields. Shield Mastery and Two-Weapon Fighting (for small shields) also improve your ability to fight with a shield.

How much focus you choose to put on any one weapon is up to you. There are 76 talents a warrior can choose from (not counting specific path/subclass abilities); at maximum level they will have mastered 9-10 and a shield is typically only part of a warrior's kit.

To me it makes a lot of sense to put it in ES.  That's what shields do.  If you don't like that, then I think Chris's suggestion in post #8 is a good, clever idea.

I really dislike the shield rules in almost every game I've ever read.  They are almost always an afterthought.  A +1 to armor class?  Really?  Shields were a primary defense technology in history for literally THOUSANDS of years.  Do you really think that would have been the case if they added 5% to a warrior's defense?  Do you really think that was the best use they could come up with for a warrior's off-hand if all they did was improve the warrior's defense by 5%? 

They rank up there with most fantasy RPGs making spears 2H weapons and longswords 1H weapons.  Throughout history it was the exact reverse.  Take a look at the world famous Hoplite, the premiere warrior in the world for centuries.  The shield was his PRIMARY defense and the spear was a 1H weapon.

It seems like the original writers of D&D didn't bother to get these items historically accurate at all, and then all other game designers after them just borrowed those rules without actually researching them

Quote from: kidkaos2 on August 14, 2021, 11:16:56 AM
I really dislike the shield rules in almost every game I've ever read.  They are almost always an afterthought.  A +1 to armor class?  Really?  Shields were a primary defense technology in history for literally THOUSANDS of years.  Do you really think that would have been the case if they added 5% to a warrior's defense?  Do you really think that was the best use they could come up with for a warrior's off-hand if all they did was improve the warrior's defense by 5%? 

Simple old school alternative: Shields provide half your armor bonus, rounded down. So if you wear nothing (AC 9), a shield gives you +4 to AC. If you wear plate (AC 3), a shield gives you +1.

If you're already suited up like a ferrous lobster, a mobile piece of armor doesn't add a lot. But if it's all you've got, you're probably going to try to put it between you and them, and it's pretty good at stopping things. Mostly naked Zulu warriors with shields and knights throwing down their shields so they can use both hands to make a more powerful blow begin to make sense.

Quote from: kidkaos2 on August 14, 2021, 11:16:56 AM
I really dislike the shield rules in almost every game I've ever read.  They are almost always an afterthought.  A +1 to armor class?  Really?  Shields were a primary defense technology in history for literally THOUSANDS of years.  Do you really think that would have been the case if they added 5% to a warrior's defense?  Do you really think that was the best use they could come up with for a warrior's off-hand if all they did was improve the warrior's defense by 5%? 

They rank up there with most fantasy RPGs making spears 2H weapons and longswords 1H weapons.  Throughout history it was the exact reverse.  Take a look at the world famous Hoplite, the premiere warrior in the world for centuries.  The shield was his PRIMARY defense and the spear was a 1H weapon.

It seems like the original writers of D&D didn't bother to get these items historically accurate at all, and then all other game designers after them just borrowed those rules without actually researching them

I think the low bonus was specifically because the time period OD&D was emulating a period where plate armor was on the rise and shields on the decline precisely because plate was proving sufficient to turn aside many weapons on its own and two-handed armor piercers were becoming the field weapon of choice.

OD&D didn't really have a thing like "typed bonuses" so the low value was probably a compromise between it being of little added benefit with full plate harness, but great value if you were in a gambeson and/or a mail hauberk.

These days with typed bonuses you could probably get a more realistic results; say a large shield is a +4 shield bonus while chain is +4 armor and +2 shield... so with a base of 10 then a shield on its own is a 14, chain on its own is 16 and chain+shield is 18.

I find with LARP weapon duelling, depending on the opponent's gear, a shield can be surprisingly little benefit one-on-one unless the angle of attack is heavily restricted, eg by a doorway. Shields are brilliant in formation, not so much in the typical sort of skirmish combat D&D tends towards. At worst it can even block the user's own line of sight and increase vulnerability to some attack angles.

Quote from: S'mon on August 14, 2021, 07:10:12 PM
I find with LARP weapon duelling, depending on the opponent's gear, a shield can be surprisingly little benefit one-on-one unless the angle of attack is heavily restricted, eg by a doorway. Shields are brilliant in formation, not so much in the typical sort of skirmish combat D&D tends towards. At worst it can even block the user's own line of sight and increase vulnerability to some attack angles.

    I think is because larping is not really fighting.  I also think we as modern people may be missing out on many very practical things that ancient people used shields for, number 1 not being pinned with arrows before melee even began, and number 2 practical ways of keeping the shield out of the way and using it as an offensive weapon itself.    I also imagine there are plenty of weapons that could cause problems one on one with a person using a shield and a shorter weapon... But as you mention about skirmishes in dungeons and dragons, well the dungeons is a key term.  Many fights will be indoors where mobility is limited, and realistically good lighting is limited as well.  So a limit on line of sight is less a problem when the lighting is bad and you can corner an opponent and just run his ass over like a linebacker with that shield. 

   But is is all theory craft for both of us, because neither of us has been properly trained for years by people who have been fighting for years on how to keep that shield and sword moving in actual combat in the best manner to do maximum damage with minimum effort and take as little damage as possible.   My point being, I think there will be A LOT of subtle tricks, angles, and timing situations people get quite good at that will make lots of things look very easy compared to dudes with some foam weapons whacking around at one another.   For example, two people in a fist fight in a bar swinging at one another looks NOTHING like high end professional boxers trying to land a punch.  If you take that high level boxer and he is in the bar swinging with the patron who fancies himself a slugger...well it becomes very clear the two parties were in thought doing the same thing, but reality drew a completely different picture. 

Quote from: oggsmash on August 14, 2021, 11:05:36 PM
My point being, I think there will be A LOT of subtle tricks, angles, and timing situations people get quite good at that will make lots of things look very easy compared to dudes with some foam weapons whacking around at one another.   For example, two people in a fist fight in a bar swinging at one another looks NOTHING like high end professional boxers trying to land a punch.  If you take that high level boxer and he is in the bar swinging with the patron who fancies himself a slugger...well it becomes very clear the two parties were in thought doing the same thing, but reality drew a completely different picture.

My son favours the shield when LARP fighting, and after many months of us sparring daily he has developed a lot of interesting techniques to use it effectively. His sword & shield combo definitely beats my two-handed* sword - when I try new stuff it typically works once, then he adapts and develops a way to counter it. He won't let me use two swords though since that is much more effective - his big advantage is having two weapons (sword, shield) vs my one, even though mine is stronger (2 hands) & longer. When he's in a doorway he's pretty much impossible to beat, he knows how to uses the doorframe itself as part of his panoply and it heavily restricts my attack angles.

IME in one on one duel 2 swords > sword & shield > 2-handed sword. But of course on the battlefield with missile weapons the shield is greatly superior.

*It's a LARP version of Brienne of Tarth's Valyrian steel longsword. Very heavy longsword, a lot of authority but slow and one-handed cuts are pretty much out.

The problem with LARP fighting is that more than a few manuevuers for a variety of weapons and shield are unsafe for what is essentially a sport. Melee fighting includes a lot of leverage and wrestling style moves for example. In boffer LARPS the inability to do a head shot and anything involving physical contact affects things. In the SCA the fact you can do a head shot and that it a one shot kill if it lands also affects combat.

Since 2000, it no longer a deep mystery. There are several fighting societies out there with varying level of physical safety and commitment to the martial arts that explore how it apparently worked. Also historical research has gotten better and shared more widely.

As for boffer LARPS, shields have to be restricted in size and what you can do because it possible even in a open field to do something call turtling for which the only counter is to make physical contact and uses one of several possible maneuvers to wrench the shield out of the way. And it worse in indoor or fights on restricted terrain.

Quote from: estar on August 15, 2021, 03:23:27 PM
The problem with LARP fighting is that more than a few manuevuers for a variety of weapons and shield are unsafe for what is essentially a sport. Melee fighting includes a lot of leverage and wrestling style moves for example. In boffer LARPS the inability to do a head shot and anything involving physical contact affects things.

Well we're at home, I try not to poke his eye out and he goes v easy on me, but we're not restricted by any rules.

So looks like HEMA is a good choice to view folks using the most amount of options for melee.

[video] https://youtu.be/tOgSOXSjthE[/youtube]

Quote from: kidkaos2 on August 14, 2021, 11:16:56 AM
It seems like the original writers of D&D didn't bother to get these items historically accurate at all, and then all other game designers after them just borrowed those rules without actually researching them

iirc, Gygax made some serious errors when converting things from Chainmail to D&D.  One of those things was the shield bonus.  In Chainmail it provides +1 to AC but that is in a system that uses 2d6 rolls where a +1 is a much bigger bonus.  He should have increased it to at least +2 when using the d20.