Option for Shields

[Library Ogre]

In a 1e AD&D message board I'm on, someone posted an interesting houserule for shields. Shields, under the houserule, add their usual +1 to AC, but also absorb damage. If you would've been hit by an attack, it first goes to your shield, until your shield is destroyed.

So, a small wooden shield with 5 SDC means that the first 5 points of damage you take are negated... but then you're without a shield. Take two hits, one for 3 and one for 4, your person will have taken 2 points of damage (5-3 = 2 points of shield remaining, 2-4 equals no more shield and 2 more points to you).

It makes shields a dynamic and valuable addition to a fight, but also an expendable resource.

[Jerell]

That's alright, as long as you have your shield facing that direction I think, it could be workable.

I often think, that even if you're passive blocking (covering the main body) with a decent size shield, it would take a called shot to attack and not hit the shield. I prefer this way.

My favorite shield rules were in the new Hack Master. It takes a brave soul to travel in Hack Master without a shield.

[Library Ogre]

That's alright, as long as you have your shield facing that direction I think, it could be workable.

I often think, that even if you're passive blocking (covering the main body) with a decent size shield, it would take a called shot to attack and not hit the shield. I prefer this way.

My favorite shield rules were in the new Hack Master. It takes a brave soul to travel in Hack Master without a shield.

Oh, I love the Hackmaster rules, but these are quick and have the advantage of not requiring additional mechanics... plus, they work with Palladium's all-or-nothing armor, whereas HM is geared more towards DR-based armor.

[Glistam]

If you succeed in your parry, the shield takes no damage, but if you fail your parry, the shield takes damage as per the normal rules. That sounds intriguing.

[Zer0 Kay]

Sounds like the staged penetration rules from R. Talsorian's Fusion rules could do different amounts of damage required to take of an SDC based on either material or design, design makes more sense as the material's value to the shield should be in the SDC.
So for example a Wood shield could have 5 SDC and ablate off with each SDC of damage removing 1 SDC of protection but an Elf designed wooden shield still maintains the 5 SDC but only looses 1 point per 2 points done. The first shield would be destroyed from damage of six SDC and one point would go to the user. The second shield would only take 3 points of damage and would still be usable but the user still takes one point of damage.
I can't remember the order of magnitude for the different races craftsmanship IIRC it is:
Human
Elf
Gnome
Dwarf
Kobald
So if we use race as the design factor then
Human = 1 point for 1 point = ablative
Elf = 1 point for 2 points
Gnome = 1:3
Dwarf = 1:4
Kobald = 1:5

[Library Ogre]

It tends to go

Human/Gnome/Elf/etc.
Kobold
Dwarf

While you could do a staggered system, I think it would be easier to simply let them have more SDC... if you have a dwarf-made shield, instead of 10 SDC, it has 20, while it's kobold made counterpart has 15.

[say652]

Wouldn't the gi joe rule allow the shield to absorb all the damage then break??

[Library Ogre]

Wouldn't the gi joe rule allow the shield to absorb all the damage then break??

If you use that, you can go that way. I prefer not to.

[say652]

Many pc's in my game especially the supernatural hunter inflict well 100md on a good hit. The gi joe rule extends combat a lil bit longer.

[Killer Cyborg]

In a 1e AD&D message board I'm on, someone posted an interesting houserule for shields. Shields, under the houserule, add their usual +1 to AC, but also absorb damage. If you would've been hit by an attack, it first goes to your shield, until your shield is destroyed.

So, a small wooden shield with 5 SDC means that the first 5 points of damage you take are negated... but then you're without a shield. Take two hits, one for 3 and one for 4, your person will have taken 2 points of damage (5-3 = 2 points of shield remaining, 2-4 equals no more shield and 2 more points to you).

It makes shields a dynamic and valuable addition to a fight, but also an expendable resource.

Sounds reasonable.
Shields are under-rated in RPGs as a rule, considering many ancient warriors used them to fair effect with little to no armor.

[say652]

The parry missile weapons penalty is a joke. Js.

[kiralon]

just like shooting missile weapons.
I hit that bird flying at 30mph moving perpendicular to me in 40mph winds from 600ft and I only need to get a 5 or higher unless it parries or dodges, and that's without training.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. I don't disapprove of the rule in general, but I don't believe it would work with the system as written. With the stats of shields and armor as they are in the main book, shields would have more S.D.C. than armor (with the sole exception of full plate mail), cost considerably less (about 100 gold cheaper for the light stuff, and around 700 gold cheaper for the heavy duty stuff), no movement penalties, and you can't beat the A.R. so they're actually better protection.

Basically, this makes shields better than armor in every possible way. I'm not sure why armor was invented. It's expensive, clunky, causes problems in various weather (such as exhaustion/fatigue in heat), way too expensive, and only serves as a backup in case your good defense is finally worn down (but the cost and penalties are insane for a lesser backup).

With a different armor system and/or greatly weaker shields, the system I think has a place. It's just that this rule requires more work to implement properly (in my opinion). Farewell and safe journeys.

[Jefffar]

Aside for wondering what MDC and the GI Joe rule have to do with Palladium Fantasy, here are my thoughts.

I disagree that armour should make it harder to land a hit, it should make it harder to make that hit count. That's why I prefer a damage soak style armour mechanic.

Shields, on the other hand, should limit the attacker's ability to hit their opponent, acting as a barrier that can intervene.

I've sometimes thought of using shields as a mobile cover against ranged weapons (penalty to hit based on size of shield) and as a substantial parry bonus in melee, but so far I've not been satisfied on how any of those have worked.

[Zer0 Kay]

It tends to go

Human/Gnome/Elf/etc.
Kobold
Dwarf

While you could do a staggered system, I think it would be easier to simply let them have more SDC... if you have a dwarf-made shield, instead of 10 SDC, it has 20, while it's kobold made counterpart has 15.

Thanks, I wasn't sure.
It makes more sense to me. A better staged penetration by design, would make more sense than actually being able to increase material density. X amount of steel should have the same SDC unless it isn't the same steel.

[Zer0 Kay]

Many pc's in my game especially the supernatural hunter inflict well 100md on a good hit. The gi joe rule extends combat a lil bit longer.

It isn't supposed to extend it, it is supposed to provide a chance for the PC to get out of combat alive.

[Zer0 Kay]

In a 1e AD&D message board I'm on, someone posted an interesting houserule for shields. Shields, under the houserule, add their usual +1 to AC, but also absorb damage. If you would've been hit by an attack, it first goes to your shield, until your shield is destroyed.

So, a small wooden shield with 5 SDC means that the first 5 points of damage you take are negated... but then you're without a shield. Take two hits, one for 3 and one for 4, your person will have taken 2 points of damage (5-3 = 2 points of shield remaining, 2-4 equals no more shield and 2 more points to you).

It makes shields a dynamic and valuable addition to a fight, but also an expendable resource.

Sounds reasonable.
Shields are under-rated in RPGs as a rule, considering many ancient warriors used them to fair effect with little to no armor.

Not to mention many used them as a weapon too.

[Library Ogre]

I disagree that armour should make it harder to land a hit, it should make it harder to make that hit count. That's why I prefer a damage soak style armour mechanic.

Shields, on the other hand, should limit the attacker's ability to hit their opponent, acting as a barrier that can intervene.

I've sometimes thought of using shields as a mobile cover against ranged weapons (penalty to hit based on size of shield) and as a substantial parry bonus in melee, but so far I've not been satisfied on how any of those have worked.

I prefer a damage soak system, as well; it's part of why I've mechanically shifted my focus to Hackmaster for a lot of things. I had a basic damage soak system that retrofitted well onto PF, but it just wasn't worth overhauling.

(On Hackmaster and shields, however, shields in Hackmaster actually make it somewhat easier to score some kind of hit on you... but you take less damage. So, a shield adds +X to defense, ranging from a +4 to +6. Not having a shield subtracts 4 from your defense, except against one opponent, meaning a shield usually adds between 8 and 10 to your defense. However, when using a shield, any defense roll you win by less than 10 is called a "shield hit". You take damage from that, but it's less damage, based on the weapon... a dagger does only 1 point on a shield hit, down from its usual 2d4p, while a battle axe does 3d3p damage... down from its usual 4d3p. But a shield hit means your DR is increased by the rating on your shield, meaning you take less damage anyway; someone with a shield and good armor might get through a fight with a bunch of 1 or 2 point wounds, whereas someone without a shield may have fewer hits, but they'd be for more damage).

[Hotrod]

We had a good discussion on this topic a while back. The issue with the rules as written is that the shield is inferior to almost every one-hand W.P., due to its low damage, inability to be used as an effective thrown weapon (Captain America be damned), and inferior strike bonuses.

I'd like to see a game mechanic that provides a substantial benefit from shields, so that it's hard to decide whether to go with a 2-handed weapon or paired weapon for extra damage, or use a shield to live longer. There are plenty of effective ways to do this. Some simple implementations include providing A.R. boosts, allowing users to cover, or allowing users to parry arrows without penalty. There are many more-complicated mechanics that could work, too.

[Voodoolaw]

For simple shield house rules, I like Trollsmyth's basic D&D house rule. You can sacrifice your shield against any attack to have it absorb the blow. When you do this, it shatters. Might require some tweaking for palladium fantasy, but is a cool rule to start with.

http://trollsmyth.blogspot.com/2008/05/ ... tered.html

[say652]

I let shields be thrown. And sharpshootered for the appropriate skill cost. Three total.

[Hotrod]

You know something else that kind of sucks about shields as written? You can get a dwarf to craft blades, pole arms, and blunt weapons with a +4 to parry (+8 if it's hex master-crafted in the Eastern Territory). Shields, though? No bonuses, even if you've got Captain America's buckler-of-awesomeness. Even if you count the shield as a blunt weapon (a dubious call), you can't get higher than +3 to parry (+6 for Master-Crafted)

Mechanics-wise, why would anyone with paired weapons pick any canon shield over a weapon with a +8 to parry?

[kiralon]

Shields do damage and are blunt, so give them the blunt bonus.

[Library Ogre]

Don't forget to give them the staff bonus, as well.

[say652]

Wp shield.
Sharshooting Shield.

Now in place of a parry you strike in coming attacks.
-6 vs normal strike bonus Bullets.
-10 vs normal strike bonus Bursts and Energy.
+6 Roll with punch vs Explosions while using a shield.
Thrown.
Ricochet attack.
Cost two actions(1 attack paired weapons at cost of autoparry) for throw and return.
Quick draw Iniative.
Called shot.
Disarm.
Use two shields in combat.
Throwing range doubled.