Blocking with a shield

[Turin]

Berghs question about a shield bash made me think of something along a similar vein.

PCa is hit by NPCb on an area covered by a shield.  Counting sucesses and strength and weapon mod, 5 points are in excess of the defenders roll.  Not enough to break through the shield, however.  

Would it make sense to have these 5 pt's reduce the defenders CP for the next exchange?

This would be an interesting mechanic to make a heavy hit on the shield which is not blocked properly reduce the recipients CP for a moment.  However, a well blocked attack would not reduce the CP, for example if the defender has more sucesses.  

I've always thought something should be able to factor strength difference into the equation.   With some modifications, perhaps there would be a way to apply this to weapon parries as well.  Something to where parry or block is not a good option when combatting a foe of much superior strength.  For an example, the cave troll in LOTR the movie.  Parrying a blow from that thing would not be effective.

[bergh]

I have already tried that, a troll bashing against a shield.

i just did make the rule that if the damage is equal or more then the shields AV (yes shield have on, heater av7 or something). then the shield take some damage or are smashed!

The troll in my game did an attack on the PC,  it had not many hit success, the player did easly get more success with his block with his shield. so do damage....kinda weird somehow........

But great damage on the shield itself becouse of the enormous strength of the troll!
My trolls have ST13 i think, so i just said to the played that it was succesfull block, and how many succes did he have more then the troll?
4 in his margin of succeshe said! hmmm, ok then even when subtracting the margin of the block from the trolls strength+club, the damage was more then the shields AV = the shield broke!.  any excess damage was automaticly tranfered to his arm......ie he broke his arm!. think it was fair.

Anyway hope you understand it.
all this was part of the players plan to have one "decoy" while the other players out flanked the troll.

anyway i also did say that they should make a ST vs ST test, to see if he got knocked down, and with his st5.......he was knocked down.

hope this helps.

[Turin]

The idea was not just the damage being transferred through the shield, but also the adavantage the attacker gained without causing actuaal damage.

For example, two NPC's with Str 5 are fighting.  NPCa rolls 3 sucesses, and attacks with a swinging attack (+1 dam) for a total of 4 sucesses.  NPCb has two sucesses, and the margin for NPCa is +2.  NPCb loses two CP's from his next exchange, and NPCa keeps the initiative.

This would also prevent someone sloughing of too few dice on a shield block, if they want to keep the initiative.

[bergh]

First off all, remeber that weapons damge is not equal success's!
if i got a weapon got gives +4 damage but only hit with 2 success, and the opponent block/parry/evade with 3, then i don't hit!!! this is importent, it don't get easyer to hit, if you use a large weapon!

giving a shield the posiblity to but block and then deduct CP from opponent. with a shields DTN of 5, this would be a system crasher.
actually i think there are a manuover who covers this =
Block open/Strike.....this is the manuover you need to study.

[Turin]

I realize that sucesses and damage are two seperate issues.  Secondly:

giving a shield the posiblity to but block and then deduct CP from opponent. with a shields DTN of 5, this would be a system crasher.

The advantage is gained not by the shield wielder, but by the one striking

actually i think there are a manuover who covers this =
Block open/Strike.....this is the manuover you need to study.

Block open/Strike is a manuver the shield user uses to their advantage.  What I am discussing is a penalty to the blocker who has the shield.

The premise is this -  When a shield blocks a weapon  (we'll use a sword for example) a few things can happen - the shield deflects the blow, sword user's weapon knocked askew, oppening an advantage for the defender.  The blow can also be blocked in a more straight on fashion, perhaps knocking the shield user off balance, the sword wielder gaining an advantage and probably keeping the initiative.  Also, sword/shield may break, get stuck but that is beyong the intitial scope I am discussing.

It would seem to reason, the more skilled the user of the shield is, the more likely be can block and gain an advantage. Consversely, having less skill, the defender may be able to do little but hide behind his shield against a more skilled opponent.

The idea I had above is that the attacker counts sucesses and damage mods from the weapon, and strength.  For example, 2 sucesses, strength of 5 and an arming sword used to slash (+1) gets 2+5+1 or 8.  The defender assuming 1 sucess and a strength of 4 get 4+1=5.  The attacker has an advantage of 8-5=3, so 3 cp are deducted from the shield user's next exchange, and the arming sword guy keeps initiative.

I would think that if the defender has 1 more sucess than the attacker, this does not apply, as there was not a "hit".  Assuming even sucesses, I would penalize the shield user.  

The main issue I have with this is the shield, already rendered not as effective as it was in the real world by the rules (may Jake correct me if I am incorrect) is rendered even less effective.  I do realize heavier weapons (higher damage mods) are more effective with this, and that with the spirit of what I am intending.

Perhaps only applying the penalty only by what exedes the defenders roll by 3 may work as well.  In the above situation, the 8-5=3 would not be a penalty.  But give the attacker a strength of 6, and a weapon doing +2 dam, and then you would still have a 2cp penalty for the defender.

Using that with your troll above, lets assume the troll had 1 more sucess.  The troll then has 1+13+0 = 14, vs the man with a strength of 4.  14-4=10, and if we go with the exceding by 3 idea, the man has a 7cp penalty on his next exchange, and perhaps knocked down as well.

This rules brings the mass of attacker/defender into play by more means than just damage done.  But a skilled defender can still not take the brunt of the attack on their shield by deflecting the blow (and by allocating enough dice).

But to the turtle who hides behind the shield and does not allocate enough to defense, the will find it difficult to generate offense.

[Lance D. Allen]

An alternate to your idea: rather than a CP penalty on the next round, how about an activation cost on any offensive maneuver? Basically, the defender has to keep defending until he manages to actually do it right.

[Starshadow]

So, what you're saying here is that you your want players to die more often or stop using shields?

Let's see if I've got this straight:
If a shield user manages to block an incoming strike, he may yet lose CP.
And if he doesn't block the strike, he should take damage and lose YET MORE CP dice?

An example:
Attacker have ST5, has a long sword, swinging 2-handed at head with 3 successes.
Defender with ST4/TO4 have Heater shield trying to block, gets 2 successes.

MoS to attacker equals 1 -> damage 8 - TO5 = Lev 3 wound to head.
If we then use damage table for Zone IV, Shock is from 5 to 10, pain from 7-Wp to 11-WP.
That's a serious CP loss right there.

In addition to this, you want the defender to lose:
Sttackers strenght (5) + Weapon dam.mod. (+2) + Number of successes (3) - Defender ST (4) - Defender number of successes (2) -> 5+2+3-4-2
=4 CP?

Why would anyone in want to use a shield?

[Turin]

So, what you're saying here is that you your want players to die more often or stop using shields?

No, not exactly.

Let's see if I've got this straight:
If a shield user manages to block an incoming strike, he may yet lose CP.
And if he doesn't block the strike, he should take damage and lose YET MORE CP dice?

The CP loss does not occur if the attacker is sucessful in his attack, but if the attack is blocked by the passive armour of the shield when one of the areas that the shield provides passive cover to is struck.

I would think if using with Bergh's idea of a shield being broken, you would either apply the shock from the wound, or the shock from the strike to the shield, whichever is greater.

In the event of a strike which would be sucessful anyway, such as a strike with more sucesses than the block which does NOT strike an area with the shields armour value is taken into account, the CP penalty rule would NOT come into play

Since there are some negatives from blocking with a shield, maybe an ATN of 4 would give better balance.

[bottleneck]

The CP loss does not occur if the attacker is sucessful in his attack, but if the attack is blocked by the passive armour of the shield when one of the areas that the shield provides passive cover to is struck.

Since there are some negatives from blocking with a shield, maybe an ATN of 4 would give better balance.

I hope you mean: The CP loss does not occur if the _defender_ (the guy blocking with the shield) is successful in his _block_, but if the _damage_ is absorbed by the passive armour of the shield...

(Also, you're suggesting that the _DTN_ of the shield be changed, no?)

Or: if you block poorly (or not at all), and someone bashes your shield, then you will be knocked off balance (such as losing CP or getting a activation cost for an offensive maneuver next exchange).

Fair enough, I guess. But I don't see the problem: Unless you try to break the shield (which by bergh's house rule also can happen on a successful block), you should not be swinging at a location covered by the shield! E.g. the situation (where a successful attack is absorbed by the shield) should not happen often unless someone is fighting stupid.

But I guess the proposed CP-loss/whatever rule could add some more strategic depth to the game (changing a stupid maneuver into a smarter one = more strategies to choose from for players - but harder for a fudging GM who wants to help the players out a bit). Just keep it balanced. Is the troll banging on the shield because it's stupid, or because that tactic will allow it use its huge strength to compensate for lack of finesse?



...

So, if you go for it: CP-loss or activation cost? well:

*activation cost for offensive maneuvers means the blow forces you back / you lose your momentum/aim/whatever. It's a bit stupid tough (sorry!): considering that the block was unsuccessful for the rule to apply, you do not have initiative and most likely will not be on the offensive anyway.

*CP loss means they are knocked partially off balance/ the shield is knocked around/ whatever meaning even evasion will be hard. If the CP loss is too big, this will be very harsh. Test for balance!

alternate suggestions: (spur of the moment)
*CP loss ONLY for shield maneuvers? the shield is bashed aside, but evade or weapon parry would be ok...

*knockdown check? (getting them on their knees...)?

*extra fatigue ? not really hurt, but exhausted from being hit. (that would apply to armors too - but I reckon that's exactly what it does already).

[Turin]

Is the troll banging on the shield because it's stupid, or because that tactic will allow it use its huge strength to compensate for lack of finesse

The trol is banging on the shield because it does not care where it hits.  Sure, it would prefer an uncovered location, but going against something man sized it will hit whatever it can.  It's not as quick or skilled as the man, but it's brute force can break a shield, knockdown or stagger the opponent.

The idea behind this is that TROS works grea for things approximately the same size facing each other.  But when it comes to something a fair amount larger/smaller, the strength/toughness thing is the only factor making combat different.  As long as the smaller being keeps more sucesses on defense, he's ok.

But there should be other differences as well.  Even parrying a glancing blow from something like the LOTR cave troll (hate to use this example all the time, but I think it was done well and everyone's seen it) would likely knock you off balance.  Evasion and or maybe even a red-red for a brave pole-armed suicidal type are pobably your only options.

I would actually prefer the size to make a large advantage in getting/not getting hit and not as much of an advantage for damage.  even in plate, facing anyhing with a strength of 10 higher is pretty well an instant kill or maim.

I also think ctain manuvers would not work or work as well.  Bind and strike would be tough against something this size.  At least counter does not work well, for if the thing has any CP left it will strike in defense o the counter.  I don't know if stopping short would intimidate something this large, either.

I'm just trying to get away from the "fencing with a dragon" idea.  Sure, most combat will be with other humans/humanoid types of roughly equivalent size.  But the rare combat with something else should "feel" different and "play" different.  The PC would have to throw ou must of the combat techniques normaly used  It's only fair for the player to have to do so as well.

[aaronharmon]

I see what you are saying, what if you tried to block a charging rhino with a large shield and rolled a bazillion successes?
You would still be knocked a dozen yards down range and proably into a world of hurt.

[Turin]

I see what you are saying, what if you tried to block a charging rhino with a large shield and rolled a bazillion successes?

Exactly my point

[aaronharmon]

great minds think alike, i guess.
alot of this seems to boil down to a human only having enough mass to block/parry/bind/etc... the offending limb/fangs/claws/weapon of an opponent of up to a certain size and no larger.
Against a very large opponent (larger than human) you may wish to inform  the players (or let them figure it out for themselves) of the obvious uselessness of certain maneuvers against a foe the first time they see it. Maybe require an MA roll to get the idea "Ooh, I better stay out of that thing's way."
I think that as creatures get larger, maneuvers should get harder and harder until they are ridiculously impractical. This culd be accomplished by charging an increased activation cost. Maybe start adding to the cost pf parries before you add to the cost of blocks, as blocks will be taking advantage of the shiled itself being designed to absorb large impacts.

[Poleaxe]

couldn't you just take the rule from receiving head blows that deal no damage but still can cause knockout?

I forget the exact rule, but I think it's...

Attack must be a bludgeoning blow to the head (I rule that any weapon that deals shock bonus damage is also included, so axes count in my book!)

take the total damage dealt by the attacker before any subractions, after adding successes.  Divide this number in half.

defender rolls his knockout value against TN of 10-AV of any armor covering.  (for a full helm, your TN is 4).

If defender successes equal or exceed opponent's halved damage, defender is OK.

Otherwise, the margin is taken as a shock CP penalty.

Let me know if I misquoted the rule, don't have the book in front of me.

Why is this important?

Now take the shield bashing Troll example, use KnockDown instead.
Not sure what the margin if you fail would mean though, I guess shock (which would suck, because you're also being knocked down).

Also, based on the swing, the GM could rule that instead of being knocked down if you lose the roll, you get flung through the air, based on the margin.  (Champions as I recall had knockback as well as knockdown, mostly the same thing I guess).  Maybe a yard for each margin.  I would also say that after being flung like that, you'd probably have to roll knockdown again, this time for actual knockdown instead of knockBACK.