Shields - Not For Blocking
"Also, you'd certainly be better off focusing on dodging an ax than trying to block it with a shield that's going to be hacked to bits."
This seems to be based on a misconception of what a shield is used for. Yes, in a shield wall, you use a shield for blocking.
But in a one-on-one fight, the shield is used to defend you in the same way a weapon is used - by controlling and guiding the opponent's weapon, not by simply "blocking" it. If you're holding your shield out and taking the full brunt of an axe blow with it, you're doing it wrong.
Dodging - A Good Way To Get Yourself Killed
"focusing on dodging"
Dodging is a very small part of combat, and is really more of a last-ditch defense or a way of sweetening a parry than something to be relied on. You always want to be seeking to control the other person's weapon, and you can't do that by dodging. You need to be making contact - either with your weapon or your shield, or by grabbing their hand/arm.
There's a rule of fighting - "Never be uncrossed in distance." That means don't *ever* let your opponent so close they could hit you with just a hand motion, unless you have control of their weapon.
Hollywood depictions of combat are terrible for this - the two fighters stand sword toe-to-toe and slug it out, constantly crossing and uncrossing their swords while they're close enough to punch each other. Well, in real life, both of them would end up dead doing that - being uncrossed in distance tends to lead to double kills.
Furthermore, "dodging" implies (to me, anyway) contorting your body in some way to get out of the way, something you should ideally not be doing, as it breaks your structure and makes you vulnerable. It's far better to use your weapon for defense than to rely on dodging.
But this is getting into the territory I'm going to cover tomorrow, which is Reach, and why more of it is better.
Mechanical Problems
"That's a minor in-game justification, but since the goal is something minimalist that's in between the traditional Weapon vs. AC system and "all weapons are the same", it seems reasonable."
I respect the goal, but I think that any mechanic that encourages players to have their characters behave irrationally is broken.
You would most certainly be better off facing someone with an axe with a sword and shield than with just a sword. I think that really should be obvious.
I can see, if you want to give axes something special, maybe you could have them just negate the shield bonus (i.e. +1 vs. shield). There's no real-world justification for that, but it fits with the system you're building, and doesn't encourage bizarre character behaviour (i.e. "The orc has an axe? I quickly drop my shield and charge!).
A better approach might be something like, "unbalanced weapons count for twice their length", where unbalanced means any weapon with most of the weight at the end - mostly the mace and axe.
This would serve to model unbalanced weapons main function - dealing with armour.
"... the shield is used to defend you in the same way a weapon is used - by controlling and guiding the opponent's weapon, not by simply "blocking" it ..."
ReplyDeleteSo what you're saying is that the 'shields shall be splintered' argument is really nonsense - these would be skilled, trained combatants, and the likelihood that a shield would be splintered - given its proper use - is irrational.
Would it not also follow that if a lot of damage were taken, that would mean the shield failed to be struck at all, but that the defendant was? I'd like your thoughts on that.
I'd also like to know what you think about Homer's Iliad, where shields were 'pierced' by spears, and then tossed away by the combatants.
"So what you're saying is that the 'shields shall be splintered' argument is really nonsense - these would be skilled, trained combatants, and the likelihood that a shield would be splintered - given its proper use - is irrational."
DeleteYes and no. I can absolutely see someone throwing up their shield as a barrier to save their life, even though that's not the "best" thing to do - at the end of the day, you have to stay alive to keep fighting.
I think the idea with SSBS is that it retcons the action - your hero messed up, got hit for massive damage, but the player steps in, rewinds, and has the character just barely manage to get her shield up.
That said, shields are hefty enough that I'm skeptical one blow could destroy a shield, even from a poleaxe, although wooden shields would degrade with use and need maintenance.
I simply can't imagine a metal shield like a buckler being seriously damaged in a fight.
"Would it not also follow that if a lot of damage were taken, that would mean the shield failed to be struck at all, but that the defendant was? I'd like your thoughts on that."
Indeed. I think if SSBS is allowed as a retcon, it might be better to represent the "Oh shit!" response of just throwing up your shield have some kind of tactical disadvantage instead of losing the shield.
But if you're allowing retcons for people with shields, why not people with swords? Why can someone retroactively get their shield up, but not their sword?
For that matter, why can they not retroactively decapitate their foe, instead of taking massive damage?
It kinda seems to me that it's better to just not retcon stuff... The dice say what the dice say.
"I'd also like to know what you think about Homer's Iliad, where shields were 'pierced' by spears, and then tossed away by the combatants."
It's probably been ten years since I read the Iliad, so forgive me if I'm a little rusty. My recollection (and this seems to be backed up by a quick spot-check of searching "shield" in the text) is that this is in the context of spears being thrown.
You're quite right in pointing out that against a missile, a shield would indeed be used to block, and could become useless if the projectile was too firmly lodged.
I've heard that pilums were specifically for this purpose. Then again, I've heard that they weren't. YMMV.
Shields would also be used for blocking in the context of a shield wall, where the shields are held together to make - well - a wall.
And - like I said - I'm not saying that you would *never* block in single combat. No-one's going to purposefully *not* put their shield in the way of an axe falling on their head. Just saying that it's something you do because you blew it, not as a matter of course.
"Hollywood depictions of combat are terrible for this - the two fighters stand sword toe-to-toe and slug it out, constantly crossing and uncrossing their swords while they're close enough to punch each other. Well, in real life, both of them would end up dead doing that - being uncrossed in distance tends to lead to double kills."
ReplyDeleteThen is the clumsy brawling of the 1973/74 films of the Three Musketeers and the Four Musketeers not better depictions of actual sword fights? If you don't know the movie, here's the famous fight at the end: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9uGy3LlNeI (hope it doesn't spoil it for anyone).
I'd like to know your opinion on that too, please.
It's definitely a tense and emotional scene - I haven't seen the film, but I remember you recommending it on you blog before, and I remember really liking the Man in the Iron Mask when I read it as a kid. I'll have to check it out - great cast, too.
DeleteIt still makes some of the classic Hollywood swordfight mistakes, though. Some of it can definitely be put down to the fact that D'Artagnan is engaged in an all-out attack with little regard for his own safety, but some of it can't.
There's a lot of being uncrossed in distance (partly explainable by D's ferocity), inexplicable lack of follow-ups (R has numerous perfect opportunities to kill D), purposeless spinning (exposing your back is a serious no-no), and air-stabbing (i.e. deliberately aiming blows way off target, which I realize is a safety thing when dealing with actors).
That said, I really liked the last part in the church - I love how tuckered out they are, the cut to the hand from D's desperate last-ditch defense (Gloves shall be splintered?), and the grappling.
I don't know if you've checked out my grappling rules (basically, crits mean you grapple), but the grapples in this fight scene really seemed like the kind of thing I was going for with them - grappling as an attack of opportunity, not as a conscious plan.
Re-reading my response, it might look like I didn't like the scene, but I have to say it was pretty awesome.
DeleteAll your responses were excellent. Thank you.
DeleteDon't know if you've seen Rob Roy, but the final duel between Tim Roth and Liam Neeson is a pretty good example of mortal swordplay, albeit in the context of a formal judicial duel. I'm not well-versed in the art of the Scottish Broadsword, so I can't speak to the specific technicalities of the fight, but in broad principles it seems pretty good.
DeleteIt's also a great example of the potential skill disparity between a skilled and semi-skilled fighter - Tim Roth is never in any real danger from Liam Neeson (who himself clearly knows how to fight).
Rob Roy spoilers (obviously), but the final duel is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27M5KWI_q50
yes, I can see why you like it. It moves very fast, the men are clearly frightened of one another, no one is cool and overly calm. The combat is paced, without constant address to arms ... and when Neesom makes a mistake - even just resting - he's wounded.
ReplyDeleteToo bad the movie was such shit.
Strictly for interest's sake, and because we seem to be tossing out examples, have you see the duel scene from the Life and Death of Colonel Blimp? Not for it's combat simulation, but for the pleasantness of the extremity of duelling rules by circa 1905.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIENN2zv6WE
Shields certainly block but the fellow striking your shield trying to beat his way past it into you is trying to get himself killed in the process. Part of the use of a shiled is in presenting a whole lot of "not you" that gets in the way and forces the other fellow to work arround it. A shield can conceal changes in grip and stance as well. It's a parrying device, it's a small portable wall, it's a weapons, and a screen.
ReplyDeleteShiled use is different in one on one combats, line battles, and wild mixed fights.
In one fight I had a guy jump at my shield with both feet, the ploy failed as my shield and I were heavier then he expected, on contact with my shield I sort of moved him like he was standing on it as I delivered a blow with my sword that would have split him open at the middle were it not padded. It's lightning fast but you can indeed do more with a shied than simple interpose it between you and incoming blows.