Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shield Mechanics

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Shield Mechanics

    I was wondering if anybody has worked/tried changing combat uses for shields in 3rd ed? I am not fan of current system, but don't wont to unbalance things.

  • #2
    What would you like shields to be able to do that they currently can't?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by nosleeves View Post
      I was wondering if anybody has worked/tried changing combat uses for shields in 3rd ed? I am not fan of current system, but don't wont to unbalance things.
      Most shields are Medium weapons, so give +1 Parry. They do less damage than regular weapons (as, I think, a shield bash should) and they let you flurry a Full Defence (such as with a Rush as you use your shield to cover your advance). If it's an Artifact, you can unlock Evocations to improve your Defence.

      That's pretty powerful.

      I can see an argument for giving a bonus to Clashes. And I can see an argument for being usable in either hand without penalty. Maybe Flurry a Full Defence with Aim? But any more than that and you're going to unbalance things.


      Hi, I'm JohnDoe244. My posts represent my opinions, not facts.

      Comment


      • #4
        I would may be kind of like shields to have a larger benefit when paired with medium weapons. Currently the only benefit is you can flurry a Full Defence with a non-attack action, which 90% of the time means Disengage or Rush. This isn't an irrelevant benefit, but it's not that hot: Flurry gives you a -1 Defence penalty anyway, so if you flurry Disengage and Full Defence you're paying 2i and taking -3 on the Disengage roll for +1 Defence, which is a small enough thing that, in my experience, basically no-one ever bothers with a shield.

        On the other hand... for genre reasons, do I really care that PCs and villains just use a one-handed sword two-handed, or use the other one for stunts? Maybe not. I think the only thing is I'd like Battle Groups to benefit from shields (or be penalised by not having them). Admittedly, I often just give Battle Groups shields even though it gives them 0 benefits in every fight I've ever run with them, because I think it fits, and so maybe, again, it doesn't matter that much.




        I will say that combining a Shield with a short sword/handaxe/other small weapon is really good already though.
        I can see that PCs would like a useful benefit from having a shield, but maybe a short sword/shield combo is enough for that. And I guess Artefact shields give useful defensive (or other) evocations. Though I haven't loved any of the shields in Arms/Lunars/Dragonblood.


        I run... Lunars: The Apocalypse! Exalted 3rd edition. Fimbulwinter is upon the world as an Ice Age begins, and only six young Lunar heroes have a chance of saving humanity.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by JohnDoe244 View Post

          Most shields are Medium weapons, so give +1 Parry...

          That's pretty powerful.
          It is.... but longswords, axes, maces, etc, also give +1 Parry and it doesn't stack, so if you're using any of them you don't get the benefit.

          And I can see an argument for being usable in either hand without penalty. Maybe Flurry a Full Defence with Aim?
          Those seem like decent ideas. Although I'm kind on the fence about it making sense to combine Aim with Full Defence.


          I run... Lunars: The Apocalypse! Exalted 3rd edition. Fimbulwinter is upon the world as an Ice Age begins, and only six young Lunar heroes have a chance of saving humanity.

          Comment


          • #6
            I liked the idea of being able to use them as light cover via the "take cover" action, personally, although I haven't had the opportunity to really play it out.

            While it isn't suggested in the rules, I wouldn't say it is denied either.


            Raksha are my fae-vorite.

            Reincarnation of magnificentmomo.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by MoroseMorgan View Post
              I liked the idea of being able to use them as light cover via the "take cover" action, personally, although I haven't had the opportunity to really play it out.

              While it isn't suggested in the rules, I wouldn't say it is denied either.
              I have also considered this myself due to the fact that shields seem very lacking otherwise, and it makes sense both mechanically and thematically.

              Comment


              • #8
                You might have better balance options by splitting it up. For example a tower shield can be placed to act as heavy cover, an action that can be flurries, but can’t be used to flurry a full defense with anything else.

                Comment


                • #9
                  It's definitely worth considering houseruling that shield flurries have none of the usual flurry penalties, both for simplicity's and for its functionality's sake. It's also definitely Melee charmspace to allow shields to flurry with attacks, but it seems it'll be touchy to balance since it's sort of a cap buster.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'd just have them count as light armour.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Synapse View Post
                      It's definitely worth considering houseruling that shield flurries have none of the usual flurry penalties, both for simplicity's and for its functionality's sake.
                      I'm a bit hesitant, but actually that might be fine.

                      It's also definitely Melee charmspace to allow shields to flurry with attacks, but it seems it'll be touchy to balance since it's sort of a cap buster.
                      Hmmm... 2i and a -3 attack penalty for +1 Defence isn't so attractive that I'd think it cap-busting tech. (Assuming it's not combined with the above).

                      Originally posted by Elfive
                      I'd just have them count as light armour.
                      I like this. Like the current rules there's issues around stacking; it's of no benefit for anyone who's wearing light armour anyway.

                      Maybe you could count it as light armour, and if they've got light armour and a shield it counts as medium armour. Possibly if they've got medium armour and a shield it counts as heavy armour.

                      And for heavy armour and a shield... meh. Guys in full lobster plate often didn't fight with shields anyway.



                      I run... Lunars: The Apocalypse! Exalted 3rd edition. Fimbulwinter is upon the world as an Ice Age begins, and only six young Lunar heroes have a chance of saving humanity.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Yeah, that's the fuller version of the idea, that I've posted elsewhere.

                        Heavy armour + shield doesn't help cos it's redundant at that point.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          We've had fairly long thread about the Shield Tag in the past.

                          In my mind, it's a badly written tag. The damage penalty is crippling, the ability to Flurry Full Defense is is niche and unsustainable without Charms (though it's not bad for Full Defense + Defend Other too), the Flexible Tag ignores it, it has no benefit for most weapons stat blocks (and is actively bad to attach to some), does nothing for BGs, and it's basically not worth it compared to using your off-hand for either the double weapon Clash bonus or having two different weapons to get access to multiple more valuable Tag/stat block combinations.

                          The best solutions I've come up with is splitting it up between two Tags. One for the Full Defense aspect (and possibly a Clash bonus), and one for providing Cover based on the weapon type.

                          Comment


                          • #14


                            "Most shields are Medium weapons, so give +1 Parry. They do less damage than regular weapons (as, I think, a shield bash should) and they let you flurry a Full Defence (such as with a Rush as you use your shield to cover your advance). If it's an Artifact, you can unlock Evocations to improve your Defence."

                            A "shield bash" is basically taking a 15 lb iron,wood and rawhide mace and driving it into your face or ribcage. You can kill people with a shield bash. It shouldn't be any less lethal than a spear through the ribs or a sword to the neck.

                            "That's pretty powerful."

                            Its.... not.

                            The argument over shields is endlessly amusing for me, since it usually devolves into explaining how broken and nonsensical the majority of the other combat mechanics are.

                            What I do to "fix" shields, but please keep in mind that my games were 1) geared towards mortal characters, and 2) pretty simulationist, as much as the system would let me

                            - shields allow the user to use the "Full Defense" Action in a Flurry, although Flurries can't normally contain attack actions
                            - They also lend a +2 Bonus to Clash Attacks
                            - They allow the user to Take Cover as (Dexterity + Dodge) Reflexive Action at reduced Difficulty (0 Difficulty for Light Cover at -1 Initiative Cost, and 1 Difficulty for Heavy Cover at -2 Initiative Cost)
                            - Shields give the wielders a -1 Mobility Penalty, to represent the weight and heft of the weapon, as well as its tendency to interfere with movement and strikes.

                            Last edited by Boston123; 10-04-2019, 12:21 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The Wizard of Oz View Post
                              It is.... but longswords, axes, maces, etc, also give +1 Parry and it doesn't stack, so if you're using any of them you don't get the benefit.
                              And you don't get a Parry benefit from having a sword in one hand and a mace in the other either... so? I don't follow the complaint.

                              Light weapon for the Accuracy bonus. Shield for Parry.
                              Originally posted by Boston123 View Post
                              A "shield bash" is basically taking a 15 lb iron,wood and rawhide mace and driving it into your face or ribcage. You can kill people with a shield bash. It shouldn't be any less lethal than a spear through the ribs or a sword to the neck.
                              You can kill people with a dagger. You can kill people with a tea cup.

                              I'd rather take a shield to the face than a mace.
                              Last edited by JohnDoe244; 10-04-2019, 08:24 AM.


                              Hi, I'm JohnDoe244. My posts represent my opinions, not facts.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X