Shield rules

[Spark]

I've been going though the rules and I find it very odd the rules for using a shield. Now I understand that the rule is more for game mechanics then real life. But really I find it utterly useless to use a shield when you are always in the negative for parry. More so if you see an attack coming there is no concept of just using the shield for cover, just let hide behind the shield. You can't attach, or if you do it's a wild shot.

I'd like to know if any of you have come up with house rules that make a shield more useful. Cause at this point it seems like it's just a big hunk of metal that weighs down the player.

-Sparkfist

[kaid]

I have seen some have shield giving cover which makes sense. The rules as written for shields though are pretty bad and always have been. There is a reason most ancient fighters had shields of one type or another and that is because they WORK. The current active parry to use them makes sense for something like a buckler but for a tower shield you are more or less just holding it correctly in place and letting its size and coverage do the work in deflecting your opponents blows.

[Dog_O_War]

The very basic of using a shield is cover.

If you do nothing, your shield takes the hit. End of story. But beyond this, there is a move called "Block/Sacrifice" wherein, you have your arms take the hit instead of your main body; your shield is attached to your arm, thus again taking the hit.

The fact that shields have a negative parry is due to the fact that your opponent needs to make a called shot to attack past the shield, which you then get a second chance to interpose your shield in front of. Additionally, the shield is the only weapon with a listed rule for parrying bullets - something no other weapon can do (as far as I recall).

[BuzzardB]

If you do nothing, your shield takes the hit. End of story.

Happen to know where that is written? I have never heard of it before.

[Shark_Force]

the closest i have heard are the vague rules on how cover works.

in order to hit a target in cover, you have to make a called shot, iirc. if you don't, well, you hit the cover.

that works for large shields that you could take cover behind.

personally, my preferred house rule proposal is to give shields an AR rating to reflect how hard it is to hit someone who is using one at range. in melee, use standard parry (although i'd also give shields a larger bonus to parry, and probably no bonus to strike until later levels... probably +3 or better for a fairly average shield, and at least +5 for a full body shield, for those with proficiency, at level one. proficiency would probably be responsible for at least two of those points of AR at level one, and the bonus to parry i would expect to progress fairly quickly... by level 3, i'd even consider adding another +2, then having it slow down to maybe +1/3 levels or something like that).

the AR of the shield would be at least 10 base, plus any shield-specific parry bonuses (ie your WP shield would add to your AR vs ranged attacks at the same rate as it adds to parry against melee attacks). considering the base AR for a person at range is AR 8, i don't think AR 10 is a huge boost, but at the same time it's enough to make some difference and have a shield be a valid choice. for proficient individuals, you could fairly easily reach the point where even trained troops have a hard time hitting you instead of your shield (for example, if you're proficient carrying a full body shield - something like a police riot shield, for example - you'd have AR 15 at level 1, which means a person with +2 to hit will miss entirely on a 6 or less, hit the shield on a 7-13, and hit you on a 14-20.... so you personally would be hit as often as the shield. gain a couple of levels with shield proficiency, and you're much harder to hit).

that would only be from appropriate angles of course... shots from behind would ignore shields.

but that's just proposed house rules... not actual rules.

on a side note, a shield would also be a heck of a lot cheaper to buy/repair than armour.

[Dog_O_War]

If you do nothing, your shield takes the hit. End of story.

Happen to know where that is written? I have never heard of it before.

It's right in the rules for cover.

If you're standing behind an object suitibly large enough to obscure your body (re: the shield you have strapped to you), then you gain an AR which must be bypassed, otherwise the attack strikes the cover.

See, a shield doesn't magically shrink or something simply because you're wearing it; it's like armour that isn't covering your whole body.

Amazingly, armour that doesn't cover your whole body is subject to the same rules (re: unless the AR is bypassed, the attack strikes your main body).

I mean honestly, what did you think shields did? acted as swords simply because there is a proficiency associated with them?
Remember, just because an item is given a skill to associate with, doesn't mean that it doesn't work if you don't have it.

[Jerell]

Indeed. Shields are an excellent source of cover. Be sure to get your daily dose of cover.

[Jerell]

Regarding shooting at someone behind cover, RUE pp. 361 has a rule that says if the target is hiding but part of him can be seen, the shooter must make a Called Shot to shoot him and either shoot what little is seen or wait until he pops into the open.

Or Rifts GMG pp. 41, "Target is behind cover: Requires Called Shot, impossible if complete cover." That's kind of like having situational, or directional AR 12.

If you have a laser resistant/ballistic shield of MDC construction, that's mobile cover as far as I'm concerned.

[BuzzardB]

I mean honestly, what did you think shields did?

I assumed they just added a small Parry bonus and allowed you the opportunity to block bullets and energy blasts at a wicked negative.

[Slight001]

Should watch vikings or rewatch 300 for the effective use of shields to defend against ranged shots. Check out videos of riot police to see how to use a modern shield against modern weapons.

[Slight001]

I think using shields as cover could be "technically" true in Rifts due to their size, but there's no example of it anywhere. Nothing that explicitly says you can use shields that way. In every other context in the game, shields are described as defensive weapons.

It's fair to say that a tower or riot shield could be used as cover, but there should be penalties for doing so (like reduced speed) or the shield shouldn't be considered a piece of equipment while being used as cover, meaning you don't receive shield parry bonuses while under shield cover, as you are not using it as a shield but more like a wall. You could treat a battle axe as cover too, but then it stops being a battle axe, since you are not treating it as a battle axe. The same should be said of shields, since there are no exceptions made between shields and battle axes in Rift.

KS tends to fall into the belief in the mythical common sense. He assumes that people will be reasonable and apply common sense to the game and rules.

[Hotrod]

We had a good chat about this subject on the Palladium fantasy boards a while back.

[Noon]

The RUE rules for cover are that it takes two attacks to get past the cover. I don't think there's an increased to hit requirement.

[Noon]

I think using shields as cover could be "technically" true in Rifts due to their size, but there's no example of it anywhere. Nothing that explicitly says you can use shields that way. In every other context in the game, shields are described as defensive weapons.

It's fair to say that a tower or riot shield could be used as cover, but there should be penalties for doing so (like reduced speed) or the shield shouldn't be considered a piece of equipment while being used as cover, meaning you don't receive shield parry bonuses while under shield cover, as you are not using it as a shield but more like a wall. You could treat a battle axe as cover too, but then it stops being a battle axe, since you are not treating it as a battle axe. The same should be said of shields, since there are no exceptions made between shields and battle axes in Rift.

KS tends to fall into the belief in the mythical common sense. He assumes that people will be reasonable and apply common sense to the game and rules.

I was going to, but then I bought the book anyway.

[Jerell]

The RUE rules for cover are that it takes two attacks to get past the cover. I don't think there's an increased to hit requirement.

Called shot, old boy. 12+ to hit.

We had a good chat about this subject on the Palladium fantasy boards a while back.

Somebody should do a Rifter article on shields, then.

Yes. Yes, they should. Shields are probably the thing I would most like to see updated in PF.

[Dog_O_War]

I mean honestly, what did you think shields did?

I assumed they just added a small Parry bonus and allowed you the opportunity to block bullets and energy blasts at a wicked negative.

That would be pretty mediocre, especially since (and unlike other weapons) they take damage when you successfully parry.

[Dog_O_War]

I think using shields as cover could be "technically" true in Rifts due to their size, but there's no example of it anywhere. Nothing that explicitly says you can use shields that way. In every other context in the game, shields are described as defensive weapons.

I think using guns as clubs could be "technically" true in Rifts due to their size, but there's no example of it anywhere. Nothing that explicitly says you can use guns that way. In every other context in the game, guns are described as ranged weapons.

I think using climbing ropes as a laundry lines could be "technically" true in Rifts due to size, but there's no example of it anywhere. Nothing that explicitly says you can use climbing rope that way. In every other context in the game, climbing ropes are described as climbing tools.

I think using socks as hand-puppets could be "technically" true in Rifts due to their size, but there's no example of it anywhere. Nothing that explicitly says you can use socks that way. In every other context in the game, socks are described as articles of clothing.

Etc. etc.
The lesson? The book doesn't describe every use (common or otherwise) for every item in the game. That does not prevent said use, however.

It's fair to say that a tower or riot shield could be used as cover, but there should be penalties for doing so (like reduced speed)

So quick question; how does holding a shield in a particular manner make you run slower? Should such a rule apply to robots and supernaturally strong characters?

or the shield shouldn't be considered a piece of equipment while being used as cover, meaning you don't receive shield parry bonuses while under shield cover, as you are not using it as a shield but more like a wall.

So another quick question; what sense does that make?
You already have a giant block of protection in front of you, of which you're only rolling to parry with if an opponent tries to work his weapon around it - so why in any logical sense would you somehow have difficultly shifting your protection to guard against your opponent's limited avenues of attack?

You could treat a battle axe as cover too, but then it stops being a battle axe, since you are not treating it as a battle axe.

Does the same thing apply to blankets and the top page of a report?

Or does the thing remain what it originally was when you go to use it?

The same should be said of shields, since there are no exceptions made between shields and battle axes in Rift.

You don't seem to have a strong grasp on much when in regards to shields. Or battle axes for that matter.

[BuzzardB]

I mean honestly, what did you think shields did?

I assumed they just added a small Parry bonus and allowed you the opportunity to block bullets and energy blasts at a wicked negative.

That would be pretty mediocre, especially since (and unlike other weapons) they take damage when you successfully parry.

Oh, I know. I assumed shields were VERY mediocre.

Your post was the first time it really dawned on me to treat them as cover. I'm not sure if that was ever the intent for shield usage (in-game), but it seems logical enough to be a good idea. Also makes shields a hellavalot more useful.

[Dog_O_War]

I mean honestly, what did you think shields did?

I assumed they just added a small Parry bonus and allowed you the opportunity to block bullets and energy blasts at a wicked negative.

That would be pretty mediocre, especially since (and unlike other weapons) they take damage when you successfully parry.

Oh, I know. I assumed shields were VERY mediocre.

Your post was the first time it really dawned on me to treat them as cover. I'm not sure if that was ever the intent for shield usage (in-game), but it seems logical enough to be a good idea. Also makes shields a hellavalot more useful.

Most definitely.
Now imagine if it was full of missiles...

[Shark_Force]

so, when interposing a shield between yourself and your enemies, you detract from your ability to interpose a shield between you and your enemies?

i mean, colour me crazy, but it seems to me that hiding behind your shield isn't using it in a way it's not intended for. in fact, that sounds exactly what shields *are* intended for.

[Dog_O_War]

When you use a tool for a job it's not designed for, you lose all bonuses that tool gives you in Rifts.

Ah, you're right. Geez, if only shields were a solid, broad surface in which you hide your body behind in order to prevent things hitting you.

Instead, they're a solid, board surface in which you hide your body behind in order to prevent things hitting you.

It's too bad it wasn't designed purposefully for the first purpose instead of the second. Then maybe you'd net some kind of bonus when using it.

A gun as a club no longer grants a hit bonus.

So quick question; do the majority of guns grant a hit bonus, or is it the WP they're associated with?

A shield as cover should no longer grant a parry bonus.

Yeah, you're right; how dare someone move their cover to interpose it between themselves and their attacker in an active manner. I mean really, where do they get off?! Don't they know that it says right in the book that cover must always be stationary and cannot, under any circumstances be used to parry with?!
Or that the best way to parry with a shield is when you're not trying to hide your body behind it?!

Kind of like if you were to grapple with someone using a gauntlet, and then punch someone else with the same gauntlet at the same time; you'd drop your grapple with the first guy to punch the second.

Okay, I've had some fun with you, but here is the cold, hard truth; this is not a situation where you're trying to open your mouth and say, "Mmmm". You can do both in this situation because parry and cover are completely similar; they are an interposed object between you and your attacker. So based upon that logic alone, you are quite logically wrong; you aren't using it in a different manner - you are using it in the same manner for a dual benefit; it's like exploding a giant robot and killing the pilot as well in the ensuing blast. Except in this case you're interposing your object in between you and your attacker, and if he attempts to just attack around it, because of the unique situation where your shield is stuck to your arm, you can move your cover and thus parry with it.

Mechanically, the shield is not a good parry tool, it just happens to have the reasonably unique ability to parry ranged attacks as well as melee attacks; and if you succeed in your parry, the shield takes damage. This is because cover takes damage when struck - which is what is happening. All other weapons generally do not take damage when you parry with them; this is because all other weapons are not also cover.

But beyond this, and as far as the rules are concerned, there is not a clause anywhere in any book published by Palladium that states you cannot use a shield for both. Of course, (and this is the ignorant person's argument) it does not say you can use it for cover, either. But I will point out that it doesn't give you a list of what can and cannot be used for cover at all. only a guideline of what is and is not suitable cover, of which a shield falls wholly within.
So that would make your assertions wrong canonically and mechanically as well.

So now I have to ask, is there anything else you'd care to be wrong about today?

You can use a shield as cover OR use it for an action (parrying is considered an action if you don't have H2H skills, so I consider it a normal action that's just free for most people), but I don't think you should be able to do both at the same time. Feels like double dipping to me.

Firstly, there is nothing wrong with double-dipping; only paranoid people have a problem with it. Secondly, the game is all about double-dipping; most vehicles are powering firearms off of their engines. Sleep gets rid of fatigue as well as healing you. Powered Armour protects your body and makes you hit harder, and gives you more attacks. Having a high IQ not only gives you higher skills, but makes you better at numerous physical endeavors, such as gymnastics, swimming, and climbing, etc.

I mean honestly - where in the book are you finding stuff that you wouldn't otherwise consider, "double-dipping"? Because the shield is not such a thing; it takes damage when you use it as cover or successfully parry with it; it's decidedly not being double-dipped, but instead being over-worked.

I don't see anything wrong with using your shield as cover and then parrying with a weapon, though.

WAIT, attacking AND defending with the SAME WEAPON?! THAT'S DOUBLE-DIPPING!

That's what you would expect from a shield wall, which is the most practical form of using a shield as cover that has ever existed. Parrying requires good reflexes,

So you don't know much about parrying then. Because parrying only requires you interpose an object between yourself and your attacker.

but keeping a shield as both constant cover and a versatile tool isn't all that plausible.

Seriously?
How are you picturing a shield then? is it some mythical device in which your body is otherwise visible and exposed and completely open to physical attack unless you put your shield there? Or is it more along the lines, even at a state of rest, covering a portion of your person? This of course is rhetorical.

People are just gonna make themselves more vulnerable if they keep waving their MDC shields all over the place.

Yes. How dare they intuitively place their cover between themselves and their attacker.

If a guy was planning on stabbing you with a spear, and another guy was shooting at you, you can take cover from the bullets or you can parry the spear, but it's not plausible to do both.

Guy, cover is passive; it's something your attacker must first bypass in order to strike you; you do nothing while standing behind cover and you are automatically harder to hit, because they cannot hit the portion of your body covered by the shield.

But you turn that cover active - actively interposing your cover between you and your attacker, and not only are you unpredictable (re: where there once was an opening, now there is not), your opponent must now be aware that this cover can shunt their attacks away from more vulnerable locations, making this completely plausible, logical, and fair in the assertion that passive and active protection is better than passive or active protection alone.

Please be a bit more civil. This is someone else's thread. There's no need to be so snide.

Not only were you arrogant, but ignorant as well. If you found my comments "snide", it's because you placed your opinion as a kind of fact. Normally I wouldn't comment at all if you were in-fact right in your assertions, but you are wrong, and painfully, obviously so. You don't seem to have a grasp on the topic of this thread at all, and you're coming off like you know what you're talking about and that others should believe you.

They should not; you don't really know anything regarding the subject matter and have a warped view of what you consider to be "realistic" in regards to how things actually work.
I mean really; you're saying that an interposed object cannot somehow interpose itself both passively (due to size) and actively (due to skill of the bearer), because "it feels like double-dipping". Well unfortunately, feelings don't really count here, so if yours are hurt, well that's because you were "double-dipping" them into a place they had no business being in the first place.

[Dog_O_War]

Let's say Badguy A shoots at you. If you are taking cover behind your shield, you could cower behind your shield to block the bullets from BG A, but then if you're cowering behind your shield, how are you intentionally deflecting (parrying) the shots at the same time?

Firstly, nothing says you are "cowering". Secondly, you gain the benefit of cover for doing nothing beyond being behind it. Only if your opponent makes a called shot, do you then need to be worried about being hit.
Next, you only roll for parry once you are hit; parrying acts retroactively, turning a hit into a miss. Beyond this, parrying (like dodging) is described as watching what your opponent is doing in order to defend yourself. It's by no means a stretch of the imagination that if you're watching your opponent take aim at a section of your person that is exposed, then you would seek to remedy this and interpose your cover again between your attacker and your person.

You can fumble on a parry (dropping your shield) and you can take cover, but how can you fail taking cover?

You aren't.
This seems to be the concept that is utterly befuddling you; when a person is taking a called shot (required to get past your cover), then if they hit you, you aren't technically in cover (so to speak); what your parry attempt is doing is moving the cover so that you are back in it.

A person isn't going to go "Oh, his shot bypassed my shield cover, I better deflect this laser as it's 1 foot from my face with the very shield I used to cover against it". Bypassing cover means that it missed what you were using as cover and is now about to hit you instead. Are you just going to be able to block that laser moving almost at the speed of light?

Gee, now that you mention the real-world aspect of how fast light moves, you've converted me and everyone else here

Or rather, to answer your question; YES, AT A PENALTY.

Think of it like this:
Badguy A rolls a 15 against your 12 cover check. A player decides to parry the shot with the shield and rolls a 1. Critical fail, drops the shield. When did he drop the shield? When the enemy was about to attack? No, you were already covered by the shield...that you dropped. The cover and the parry are supposed to be taken place at the same exact time. WHile it's true that not everyone uses critical fails, you can easily see someone intending to parry an overhead attack with a shield (like against a sword) but then gets hosed by the gatling gun that was firing upon him because his shield was now facing the wrong direction. Don't you lose your cover because you were attempting to parry?

Think of it like this:
Badguy A rolls a 1,000,000 against you; because he did not make a called shot, he misses. End of story. A player decides he would like to parry this miss, but cannot, because you can only parry successful attacks, and does not roll anything, because that's how the game works. He doesn't critically fail, or do anything in-fact, because using cover is a have/have-not scenario.

Next attack, Badguy A makes a called shot this time around to bypass cover and succeeds; the player he is attacking is considered to be without cover for the purposes of the attack. The player doesn't like this, so he rolls a parry attempt to try and interpose his cover between himself and the attacker. Regardless of what he rolls, he wasn't getting double-duty from his object, he is merely using the options available to him, which in this case, is using a shield to parry with because against a called shot, it clearly isn't cover at that point.

Then throw on a Badguy B in the opposite direction of A, and now he's shooting at you.

So in this scenario, the player clearly has cover versus one enemy, and no cover versus the other. And as per the rules of combat, can parry attacks of which he is aware (which makes back-strikes a situation which a GM must determine for awareness), but otherwise does not exceed the maximum "can parry attacks from up to three attackers" caveat the rules impose. So he's got cover versus one, and can parry both attackers (potentially), all within the rules of the game.

From a logical stand-point, if the character is able to react to an unseen attacker (re: the guy behind him), then parrying his attacks is therefore not out of the question due to some meta-human ability the character possesses, and does not break verisimilitude since clearly he is more than human.

Your defensive reaction time is determined by your parry ability.

No.
You can also dodge while using this shield, which would actually prevent the shield from taking damage in a scenario where the shield would not otherwise take damage (re: a called shot was made), Whereas, your parry attempt otherwise ensures your shield takes damage if you in-fact need to make one.
But beyond this, there is no "defensive reaction time" in this game, as you get your defences as often as they're called upon, whenever they're called upon.

You are covering against A, what determines if you are skilled enough to cover against B when he attacks a couple seconds later?

You either have cover or you don't. You don't seem to understand this concept; cover is passive - you do nothing to have it, beyond be behind it. So if (in a directional sense) you're behind cover in one direction, but not in another, then guess what? You don't have cover in the latter direction!
Amazing how that works!

A parry/dodge roll would make the most sense, but the parry would come AFTER the cover roll,

So it's now pretty obvious you don't know how cover works.
There isn't a "cover roll"; your opponent attacks you. If you have cover, they hit the cover unless they take a special action to shoot at a portion of you NOT in cover (the "called shot"). So it is at that point where you're considered to be in cover against the attack. If the attack successfully hits (which in this scenario, there is an unsuccessful hit, which strikes your cover), it is at that point in which you are given the option to parry. In this case, you're parrying with your cover.

If you would like another example of parrying with your cover, see parrying without a weapon; the brief version is that your arm is in what amounts to full cover (as a person is typically wearing armour in this scenario), and takes damage to their arm instead of their main body. In another portion of R:UE, there is a move called "Block/sacrifice" wherein, you sacrifice your arms, covering your body against an attack and taking damage to your arms instead of your main body.

which means there's no effective way to determine if you can cover multiple directions in a short amount of time, unless you want to roll some kind of skill/parry check before each cover check, to make sure you don't screw up your cover attempt, and then roll another parry attempt afterwards to see if the enemy actually strikes past your parry (after he hits past your cover).

*facepalm*
You really do not understand how cover works...

If you could automatically cover against both A and B, it would mean you're automatically covering 360 degrees at all times.

It would be as if you had full cover or something

But you can definitely parry from all directions with a shield, which tells me you don't automatically get both when using a shield.

Yeah; your shield has a natural resting direction, which is whatever direction you want. If you shield is able to provide you with cover from two opponents, then that's what cover you have. It doesn't matter at this point whether or not you can swivel at the waist to parry a bazillion opponents, all that matters is whom your cover is against.

>Enemy A attacks
>You're under cover
>You attempt to parry

Why? Did enemy A make a called shot? Did he hit?

>Enemy B attacks (from the opposite direction)
>You're under cover <<<

No.
If your shield is not between you and enemy B, then you do not have cover. Plain and simple. End of story.

[eliakon]

Just to be clear also

Think of it like this:
Badguy A rolls a 15 against your 12 cover check. A player decides to parry the shot with the shield and rolls a 1. Critical fail, drops the shield.

Dropping your shield (or weapon) on a 1 is a house rule. While it is a common rule that you can 'critically fail' in the RAW there is no such thing. So the interjection of a house rule into a discussion about how the system RAW works is a bit....off.

[Noon]

The RUE rules for cover are that it takes two attacks to get past the cover. I don't think there's an increased to hit requirement.

Called shot, old boy. 12+ to hit.

For RUE (Rifts Ultimate Edition) can you give a page number for that?

I'm aware of it in the RMB

[Tor]

I think the issue here is that shields are not written as if they were cover, like you might write about a wall. They're written as one might write about a club, something you need to make a parry roll to defend with. They're written like handheld-swung things, not mobile walls.

They should (at least the bigger ones, probably not tiny bucklers) be written more like mobile walls and work with cover rules and supplement AR, but I haven't seen those mechanics presented to us in a clear manner. Stuff like 'make a called shot to hit someone holding a shield' is cool, but still guesswork.

I mean... if we get overly technical, if I hold a broadsword in front of my face I'm also "cover"ing myself partially, though to a lesser degree. Clear rules need to be given on just how much AR a certain surface area is going to give a person, and obviously stuff like the size of the person will matter. A fairy could probably hide completely in the shadow of a broadsword, for example, while a Cyclops wouldn't get much use out of a human's tower shield.

[Noon]

I think the issue here is that shields are not written as if they were cover, like you might write about a wall. They're written as one might write about a club, something you need to make a parry roll to defend with. They're written like handheld-swung things, not mobile walls.

They should (at least the bigger ones, probably not tiny bucklers) be written more like mobile walls and work with cover rules and supplement AR, but I haven't seen those mechanics presented to us in a clear manner. Stuff like 'make a called shot to hit someone holding a shield' is cool, but still guesswork.

Pretty much, yup.

[Jerell]

The RUE rules for cover are that it takes two attacks to get past the cover. I don't think there's an increased to hit requirement.

Called shot, old boy. 12+ to hit.

For RUE (Rifts Ultimate Edition) can you give a page number for that?

I'm aware of it in the RMB

pp 361. You are correct that it dose not in fact come out and say 12+ as such. Regarding called shots, it does however say that the, "shooter suffers a -3 or -4 penalty (sometimes more depending on the target)." 8+ with the standard called shot negative 4 modifier is still effectively needing a 12+ to strike roll. It seems my players and I just say it the old fashion way. However you choose to express the game mechanic, there is an increase in the to hit roll required for called shots to be successful.

A fairy could probably hide completely in the shadow of a broadsword, for example, while a Cyclops wouldn't get much use out of a human's tower shield.

Which is why GMs need to use their judgment and make calls that make some sense.

[eliakon]

The RUE rules for cover are that it takes two attacks to get past the cover. I don't think there's an increased to hit requirement.

Called shot, old boy. 12+ to hit.

For RUE (Rifts Ultimate Edition) can you give a page number for that?

I'm aware of it in the RMB

Page 361, no hit requirement. You just need the standard 8+ to hit and any penalties may be applied from having to hit a smaller target, although there's nothing stopping you from making a called shot on someone's torso for no penalties (with the exception of the second attack). Standard penalties range from -2 to a -6, so it's understandable if someone thought the minimum was 12+.

To be fair though you will be at a penalty if the torso is partially covered. IE your aiming at a smaller target (because its partially under cover...) so you will likely STILL be at a -4....assuming you can even HIT the torso. Remember you can only shoot the parts that the shield DOESNT cover

[say652]

Palladium has no feakin clue how shields actually work. Jussayin.

[eliakon]

Palladium has no feakin clue how shields actually work. Jussayin.

Palladiums rules are not MEANT to be 'realistic' they are meant to be fun. Which is why so many things are not realistic (Armor is ablative, Explosives do not scale, weapon damage does not scale, swords are easier to use than guns, vehicles......)

[glitterboy2098]

actually palladium's rules for shields are some of the most realistic i've seen.

they just don't fit what many people today see as how shields work. but historically, a shield, even larger ones, were active defense, not passive. you didn't just cower behind it, you had to move it to deflect incoming blows and attacks properly. a properly trained user was also taught to use it as a weapon as well, using the edge and center to push enemies back or inflict blunt trauma. even in massed formations, like the old Phalanx, the shield was maneuvered to deflect the spears and sword blows (just hiding behind was likely to get it pushed out of the way by the enemy, and the weapon hitting you or the soldier next to you. you had to be careful to angle it and move it just right to counter an enemies attack and move it away from yourself and your fellow soldiers) though to be fair, in a phalanx the movements were rather constrained in side to side motion, and the focus was more on the tilt and height.

once firearms started to dominate combat, shields fell out of use because they couldn't stop bullets, and now when they show up in use, they are relegated to simple cover or barriers, like with riot shields. but riot cops aren't trained to deflect incoming sword, axe, or spear blows with their shields, while using that action to advance forward and stab or spear their enemy..

[Tor]

All I want to know if if I cast super-human strength on a gnome who has paired WP, can he hold 2 tower shields and form a 'corner' by meeting their 2 inner edges and then just walk forward and automatically block everything?

[say652]

I was thinking of assigning a smaller penalty to parry arrows bullets etc. Or allow a shield to use full bonuses to parry such attacks but have said shield take full damage from the attacks.

[say652]

It also demostrates the REAL usefulness of shields. And autododges are munckin as it gets. Almost carpet of adhesion level of munchkin. Shields protect deflect and absorb. Why can a robot use its arms to shield itself but a shield cant be used to well SHIELD!!

[kaid]

It also demostrates the REAL usefulness of shields. And autododges are munckin as it gets. Almost carpet of adhesion level of munchkin. Shields protect deflect and absorb. Why can a robot use its arms to shield itself but a shield cant be used to well SHIELD!!

Using shields like cover does make sense then you could use the active parry if their called shot would actually hit. You get a bot like the new blocker that has a shield thats 24 feet tall and 12 feet wide. If you just went strict rules as written it is and not using cover you would have basically a two story tall one story wide shield that would be unlikely to block anything rail gun/laser shot aimed at the main body of the bot even thought it is only a few feet taller and a few feet wider than the shield is. Without moving the shield at all just holding it still the only real visable targets are the head feet and one arm but by the rules as written it would be largely ineffective vs any kind of energy/ballistic weapons.

Applying the cover rules to it is a pretty sensible way of at least turning shields into somewhat useful objects.

[say652]

If I grab a car. Hold it in front of me while being shot at. Unless something goes through said car I dont get hit, unless its area effect. Shields. Should have to actions. Um block. You dont parry with a shield. And strike. Also. By assigning an ar. You get the blowthrew effect you see in the movies. Or hide behind it until all of its sdc is gone. Block shield takes the damage. Parry?? Shield takes reduced damage.

[kaid]

The ironic thing is shields used to take full damage on a parry which was another of the really head scratching things about them. You could parry with a weapon and your weapon took no damage but parry with a shield and it took full damage from the attack. They changed that I think in the RUE to taking half damage but even then it was always funny when you could parry for free with no fear of weapon damage with a sword all day long but your shield was good for blocking a handful of attacks.

[say652]

Right. I do the sword n board combat. I have seen many many weapons break. Like two shields maybe. Ine a strap broke. The other a rivet popped out :/

[say652]

Poorly. A half ton warhammer made of mdc materials only inflicts 2D6md. Pfffft. Pffft. (Thats pitbull for this is bull dung!) *maintains eye contact as I devour yet another universal remote*

[Dog_O_War]

As to Dog's comment, I understand that cover is a passive thing. I mentioned the same thing at the very end. But how would you determine a defender would get his cover?

That's a GM's call, plain and simple.

That he was aware enough to cover himself with his shield or to change directions against a different attacker?

Those are merely actions; if he has initiative, then he is considered to be "aware" (barring special circumstances).
As for "changing direction", well that's something a person does on their action. As a part of actions, or a part of movement. Remember, this isn't a video or boardgame; there is a certain level of realistic 'wiggle-room' every GM allows.

Would you allow him to change directions every time he gets an action?

I see no reason (barring specific instances) on why a person wouldn't; every action is well, an action. That's when that character gets to do stuff.

I'd say this makes the most sense if you considered taking cover with a shield the same as moving for cover, although it's kinda awkward.

There are so many other awkward instances within the rules, but moving a shield four times (on average) over the course of 15 seconds is not one of them.

Back to what I was saying, would you lose your cover if you tried to parry an attack?

This is what I was getting at when I said that you don't seem to understand how shields/cover works. If your shield is hit, well you didn't lose cover; in fact, you don't even get a parry attempt because you were not hit. if you are hit, it's because they hit past your cover, so you've nothing to lose whether or not you attempt a parry, though if you don't attempt a parry, you will lose more X DC.

If an attack DOES bypass your original cover, and you block it with your shield, that would mean your shield is now defending the area that it wasn't defending earlier (so it's now covering a different area, or nothing altogether).

The rules imply but do not state that when you dodge, you're typically moving some distance and getting into cover. Why am I mentioning this? Because in practice, you don't actually move from the spot. So like dodging, it is implied that your cover is moving from where it was, but in practice, it is still considered to be in the same area.

Does this mean that shield cover can only be used as long as you don't actually need to parry an attack with a shield?

No.
No one is saying this; you're over-thinking it.

As to the double dipping comment, I was saying that it doesn't seem right to get two rolls for the same job for the same device.

And I was pointing out that you don't; typically when you successfully defend, you don't get hit, and when you simply stand there and do nothing, you get hit.
The shield gets hit when you do nothing, or gets hit when you do something to defend yourself (when the need arises); either way it gets hit. That as a balancing mechanic is incredibly potent; you aren't getting anything for free. But beyond this, you (as I've stated previously) don't roll anything to count the shield as cover.

Why not just make it simpler, remove shield cover and just increase the parry bonus on larger shields?

Because that's the exact opposite of what is trying to be achieved here; it's like stripping armour off a tank in order to make it faster. If you wanted a fast vehicle, then you shouldn't be using a tank. Or in this case, if you wanted a thing to parry with, then you should pick a sword or a knife.
The whole point of this is that shields are heavy and clunky; that's why they have a poor parry bonus. But the advantage of them is that you have to do very little for them to take a hit for you; that's why they have damage total and take damage when you parry.

I always assumed parrying already considered the possibility of blocking an attack that was going to be blocked regardless if you did anything or not.

Well you're completely wrong on this account; you only get to parry if you're hit.

It just makes sense to me that if something is a better defensive tool (larger, wider, lighter, etc) then just make its parry bonus higher, since you are actively wielding and controlling how that object protects you. For things you can't parry with or control, you use as cover.

That's good; classic even. Trying to make sense of Rifts.
Consider that you can use all of your actions before everyone gets to go, leaving you to stand there doing nothing thanks to the round-robin format of combat. Consider that even with a -1,000,000 to initiative, you can still go at the exact same time as the Juicer who has a +30 to his initiative score. Consider that millionaires are the ones running around fighting wars instead of having the rabble fight wars for them.
And you wanna talk sense?!

[Dog_O_War]

Are you talking house-rules, or are you convinced that is the actual sequence of events?