A few Questions

[Heavenlyrock]

thanks everyone for replying... That is pretty much what I thought on most.  I figured for the intiative thing that both still get to resolve their attacks because technically they both are swinging at the same time (there is that millisecond difference).  I guess I was playing the locations right... just using the charts out of the back for reference of where you can hit.  The shield thing I guess is a little confusing to everyone (in a way).  I think what I will do is say that depending on the shield's size that it can cover a certain number of areas depending on where the shield was blocking an attack.  Say you have a small shield and was blocking blow to your upper legs then it would cover you arm and legs (for example) giving both the AV bonus.  I think also that everyone should know that when you get into a fight you are not facing your opponent chest to chest (for lack of a better wording), you are more side ways with either foot in front so you reduce your area of what the opponent can hit (at least this is what you should do).  Taking this and using a shield if you are in a Defensive stance you are holding the shield up ready for the attack so it is easier to block an incoming blow therefore keeping your opponent in front of you reducing his chances of hitting someplace unguarded (in which he must use one of those manuevers that lets you get past the shield like feint) therefore getting the AV bonus to everypart (mainly where the attack went).  If you are in a offensive stance, you have it in the "normal" position, so if the opponent also tries to strike, you only get the protection of the areas that the shield would "normally" cover.  If you have more than one opponent on you, I think the same would apply except that the blocker whould keep their shield on one as much as possible (taking they are in the Defensive stance) and watch the other so if the other attacks the blocker can block them but must spend a die penalty or something to that extent.  And for the case of three then the one behind the blocker doesn't have to worry at all about the shield.  This looks like it would be the benefit of using the shield (along with the low DTN's), and why everyone hates going against them. It will also force a shielder to use it like it is supposed to be used and that if you have one why not use it.  Why have one if you are not going to be using the Defensive stance, that's why you see the ones who live using a shield hold them up until the right time to attack their opponent. I just think this will provide a little more realism and that is the way were are probably going to play it.

[Durgil]

...my players specify if they're attacking the shield side or not. Usually it ends up not (go firgure). That meanst that the #1 bonus of a shield in my games is the low DTN, followed by the bonus maneuvers.

Jake

Do you think, Jake, that it would be too harsh or unrealistic to assess a penalty to an attacker that is attacking the opposite side of the defender, i.e. two right handed opponents with sword and shield and the attacker chooses to swing at the non shield side of his opponent?  It seems like a slightly awkward attack, and I would think that it could potentially limit a response from his shield should it be needed immediately following his attack.

[Jake Norwood]

I wouldn't mess with it, mostly because it begins to border on attempting to "account for everything," which simply isn't possible. It's true that many times a shield-bearer's weapon-hand side is "back" and the shield is "front," but when he strikes the back end comes forward, reversing the situation. Thus in a dynamic fight at times either side could be "forward," and therefore a more convenient target. Unless one wants to keep careful track of which side is forward at which time (something that does require significant knowledge of fighting with swung weapons and the multiplicity of European Martial footwoork), then there's no point in trying to reflect it in the dice.

If you really want to, though, it would basically be just a 1-die range penalty, and then only against someone with a shield. Any other combination of weapons wouldn't make a large enough difference.

Although I do know what I'm talking about, here, it is of course still just IMO.

Jake

ps. One of the things I really like about TROS combat is that you *could* account for this with the existing mechanics...it would just be a hassle to do so...not hard, just more bookwork or required declarations and what-not.

[Aaron]

I guess that means no new rules are forthcoming.

I run sheilds like this...my players specify if they're attacking the shield side or not. Usually it ends up not (go firgure). That meanst that the #1 bonus of a shield in my games is the low DTN, followed by the bonus maneuvers. The AV on a shield is really only for folks who are strong enough to bash through the sucker with, say, and ax.

Jake

That sounds plenty reasonable but would seem to make heater shields bad and kite shields useless. I don't know about Duck and Weave and getting  around or through the shield Av on every attack is a great idea as it would seem to make a the two proficieincies using shields way too good.
So, unless I'm a giant with a ridiculous STR I'm never going to be able to get past the AV of the shield and the armor underneath.  No problem, I don't attack the shield side.  Then my opponent comes to use his defense.  The heater shield opponent finds he has one dice less than he would have had otherwise for the same DTN as a smaller shield.  Thats not too bad, but then who wants to throw away a dice for nothing ? That along with the extra move penalty he would probably be better off with a smaller shield.  Then we look at the poor guy with the Kite shield.  3 CP less.  Same DTN as the other two shields?  So if I used a smaller round shield I'd be rolling 3 dice more for defense against the same DTN?  Doesn't sound quite right.  
This is beside the fact that the shield user would (IMO) be trying to use the edge of his sheild to deflect the blow.  The larger shield has more edge so even though it might be a little harder to move, it doesn't need to be moved as far to deflect a blow.  A very slight change in the angle of the shield users forearm compared to the horizontal when using kite shield would see the shield easily interpose itself against most leg swings.  An area that the attacker gets an extra dice to attack against a shield user.
Now I can definately see a case for shield AV in say a Kjemper sword duel or any other situation where the actual shield is the target.  Smashing through an opponents shields could be an interesting rule to look into.
This is of course all my opinion and as discussed with friends in the SCA.  I realise that I can change the rules to suit myself if I wish but thought, since I'm pretty sure that most of the TFOB would have been decided on that there might have been some update in the rules there.  If not its not a problem.  I just like to use the "official" rules when I can as I think the person writing them has probably got a much better idea of how it all works than I do.  
Aaron

[Durgil]

Aaron and Jake, I was thinking of possibly reducing the attacker's CP by one die on the following round where they had attacked an opponent from the side of the attacker's shield if the attacker looses the initiative and chooses to defend with that shield.

Example:
I've got a righthanded knight with a heater on his left forearm and a C&T in his right hand.  His opponent uses a round shield on his left forearm and an ax in his right hand.  The knight, in an attempt to get by the round shield swings horizontal from left to right to try and hit his opponent on his right side.  Now, inorder for the knight to use his shield in the following attack by his opponent, he must sacrifice one die from his CP or he could choose to parry with a higher TN but with no penalty.

Is this getting too nitty-gritty or is this a good realistic counter to players who always attack the non-shielded side of their opponents?  I would think that it would at least make them think twice about it.

[Aaron]

Aaron and Jake, I was thinking of possibly reducing the attacker's CP by one die on the following round where they had attacked an opponent from the side of the attacker's shield if the attacker looses the initiative and chooses to defend with that shield.

That could work.  I decided to go for a really simple idea.  I thought I'd completely ignore the shields AV but give heater shields and extra dice on block and Kite shields an extra 2.  It means if they block for both phases of a combat round they end up 1 die in front.  Not alot but it helps counter the CP loss.  They are still lacking the versatility of a fighter with no shield.  By versatility I mean having more dice to play with in a round.
Aaron.

[Jake Norwood]

Aaron-

Shields are wonderful, but their real utility comes in the availability of maneuvers and the lower DTN. I was a member of the SCA long ago, and my outlook on sheilds really changed when the lower arms and lower legs became "legal" targets upon my departure from the SCA.

On the other hand, if you want to see more kite and heater sheilds in use in your games, the rewarding them as described is a good idea.

Jake

[svenlein]

Give heater shields an extra dice on block and Kite shields an extra 2.  It means if they block for both phases of a combat round they end up 1 die in front.  Not alot but it helps counter the CP loss.  They are still lacking the versatility of a fighter with no shield.  By versatility I mean having more dice to play with in a round.

I added this one to my house rules website:
http://www.geocities.com/sgalthof/houserules.html#large_shields

mostly becuase it was easy for me to do.
I've been pretty lazy logging suggested house rules.
Please email me any concise ones you've seen on the forumn.

Thanks,

Scott

[Heavenlyrock]

Aaron-

You know we thought of that before... ignoring the AV on the shields but only for the melee attacks.  We figured it could be used for ranged attacks arrows/bolts (hate to reference movies but that seems to be what they were mainly used for).  We looked at the benefits were the lower DTN's and maneuvers but didn't think about that suggestion you made.  It would prove to make the shield user think more of using his/her shield (making a bonus for using the shield, and a penalty for not).  I think that will be a lot easier :).   It would still provide the movement mods and combat penalties for not using them (they would be slightly cumbersome).  

Jake-

Thanks for you input, didn't know you were in SCA (kind of cool, and explains for the detailed amount already in this game)... Now that I think about it, it would make the game a little more complicated and prolonged (probably more than my audience has patience for).  I just like this gritty realism.  Not much of a hack and slash man myself.  The people I play with though come from a huge background of AD&D and are still prone to the "Old" ways of thinking.  In the mock combats they proved to be more for the attacking then the defending and seriously focusing on the Head area.  It will prove entertaining come the actual game :).  Hopefully we don't have to spend another night on character creation because they all died.

[Brian Leybourne]

Thanks for you input, didn't know you were in SCA (kind of cool, and explains for the detailed amount already in this game)... Now that I think about it, it would make the game a little more complicated and prolonged (probably more than my audience has patience for).  I just like this gritty realism.  Not much of a hack and slash man myself.  The people I play with though come from a huge background of AD&D and are still prone to the "Old" ways of thinking.  In the mock combats they proved to be more for the attacking then the defending and seriously focusing on the Head area.  It will prove entertaining come the actual game :).  Hopefully we don't have to spend another night on character creation because they all died.

Once your players "work it out" they wont keep dying. :-)

See, if you go into TROS with a D&D mentality, you'll get twatted very quickly. TROS combat is so deadly because that's what real life is like. Get into lots of fights and you'll end up very dead very quickly, it's all about picking your fights, and fighting for what's important to the character. Once you get that straight in your head, you're set.

Someone, and I don't recall who but presumably someone from these forums, said once that TROS was a game where getting into a bar fight would probably leave you with broken limbs (at best), but attack the best swordsman in the world, who just happened to have raped your sister or killed your father, and you'll mop the floor with him. That's the best "quick description" of TROS I have ever come across - the game is all about "what's really important enough to risk dying for?". (edit: And if it's that important, you're probably not risking much, thanks to the cool spiritual attribute system).

Welcome to the game and the forum.

Brian

[Jake Norwood]

Jake-

Thanks for you input, didn't know you were in SCA (kind of cool, and explains for the detailed amount already in this game)... Now that I think about it, it would make the game a little more complicated and prolonged (probably more than my audience has patience for).  I just like this gritty realism.  Not much of a hack and slash man myself.  The people I play with though come from a huge background of AD&D and are still prone to the "Old" ways of thinking.  In the mock combats they proved to be more for the attacking then the defending and seriously focusing on the Head area.  It will prove entertaining come the actual game :).  Hopefully we don't have to spend another night on character creation because they all died.

I enjoyed my time in the SCA immensely, but the "realism" in TROS comes from my experience in the ARMA (www.thearma.org), and not from the SCA. The two organizations are like apples and oranges, really, which leads to some animosity between members of either side occassionally, but I left the SCA largely because the fighting really is just "play fighting," although many of its participants are very skilled at what they do.

Jake

[Spartan]

I enjoyed my time in the SCA immensely, but the "realism" in TROS comes from my experience in the ARMA (www.thearma.org)

I looked into joining ARMA in Calgary, but they only train on Sundays at noon, while I'm still at work. :(

-Mark

[Jake Norwood]

I looked into joining ARMA in Calgary, but they only train on Sundays at noon, while I'm still at work. :(

-Mark

Dang...I know how that goes. Part of the reason I wandered off from the SCA was that exact problem.

We train twice a week out here...hmmm...you're probably not close to NY state, are you?

Jake

[Valamir]

In the mock combats they proved to be more for the attacking then the defending and seriously focusing on the Head area.  

There's a very easy way to deal with that.  Simply remember that helmets were pretty much the most common piece of armor of the day.  It would not be unreasonable for even lower order guards and soldiers to be equipped with helmets.

[Heavenlyrock]

-Brian

Yeah, I know what you are talking about.  I don't think they quite see it yet but they will.  I will still have to throw in a lot of combat, but probably will have to use "weak" adversaries... I don't see much of a non-combat campaign working for the bunch.  We tried one game were everyone wanted to take a break from fighting.  Oh yeah, it was Exalted.  Well, I was the only one who succeeded.  My first character I noticed was straying into combat so I killed him and made a new one, which if he gets into a fight he'll go unconscious, but he will be back, if he defends he rocks. Everyone else still made battle monsters.  Even in TRoS most went Attibutes A or B and Proficiencies A or B so they could make a "fighter" of sorts.  Only one of them valued Skills enough to place it at a B, but is a Mass Weapons & Shield guy.  Guess the saying maybe true "can't teach and old dog new tricks," but I also guess we'll see :).