Question about Shields and Weapons used in defense

[Emerikol]

I'm open to anyone answering even the great Kromm. :-).

What is the argument for limiting shield to a single block but allowing parry to be used at a penalty multiple times? That doesn't seem intuitive to me. In fact I would posit that a shield ads more by default to your defense than a weapon does (though I realize the BD number is part of that).

My temptation is to say parry and shield both can be used once per turn.

Also, going from 3e to 4e, I noticed that all out defense no longer allows the extra parry to be used against another attacker. While I might understand this realistically, it seems cinematically it might be allowed.

Anyway, feel free to chime in...and no I am not houseruling everything in sight before I play. Just thoughts that popped into my head and I thought I'd provoke some discussion to see what people will say. Kind of because I just like to talk about game theory more than anything.

[Rupert]

Martial Arts (p.123) suggests allowing multiple shield blocks at -5 per block after the first.

As for the 'extra parry', I'm not sure what you mean. In 4e all-out defence allows two different defences against every attack you can defend against (assuming you have two defences). Do you mean allowing a second parry vs a second attack at no penalty (rather than the normal -4)?

[Emerikol]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Martial Arts (p.123) suggests allowing multiple shield blocks at -5 per block after the first.

As for the 'extra parry', I'm not sure what you mean. In 4e all-out defence allows two different defences against every attack you can defend against (assuming you have two defences). Do you mean allowing a second parry vs a second attack at no penalty (rather than the normal -4)?

No I was wondering why you could get a second parry at -4 and a third at -8 and so forth when you could not do so with a shield. I thought defensively a shield is easier to use. My inclination is to just say no second uses unless you use all out defense.

[Varyon]

Shields are bulky, so the assumption is they're too difficult to maneuver to actively Block more than once a second (but of course their DB enhances other defenses, so you're still better off with a shield when Dodging and Parrying). It's not entirely dissimilar to Parry U weapons becoming unavailable to Parry if used to attack. The authors of Martial Arts appear to have felt this was overly harsh, however, and so gave the optional rule of allowing multiple Blocks, at -5 per additional Block (as opposed to the -4 for Parries).

[Emerikol]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Shields are bulky, so the assumption is they're too difficult to maneuver to actively Block more than once a second (but of course their DB enhances other defenses, so you're still better off with a shield when Dodging and Parrying). It's not entirely dissimilar to Parry U weapons becoming unavailable to Parry if used to attack. The authors of Martial Arts appear to have felt this was overly harsh, however, and so gave the optional rule of allowing multiple Blocks, at -5 per additional Block (as opposed to the -4 for Parries).

It's probably a theoretical thing. I just wondered if they had something to back up their view or not. Personally my feeling is if three people attack you and you can have a shield OR a weapon to defend yourself from their attacks, you take the shield every time. Now you are in trouble either way perhaps but the shield blocks far easier than a sword does. It's big and round. I'm thinking a medium shield.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Emerikol

It's probably a theoretical thing. I just wondered if they had something to back up their view or not. Personally my feeling is if three people attack you and you can have a shield OR a weapon to defend yourself from their attacks, you take the shield every time. Now you are in trouble either way perhaps but the shield blocks far easier than a sword does. It's big and round. I'm thinking a medium shield.

Well, note those three people are attacking within the same second, making the attacks have very little delay between them (to the extent you likely have one attacker already swinging while your shield is in contact with the first guy's weapon). Your weapon may well require less movement to get in the way of the attack than your shield would, in addition to being more generally maneuverable.

There's also skill to consider. I (briefly) took part in some SCA sparring, and while I probably have Broadsword (or at least something akin to Broadsword Sport) above default, I have basically no experience with using a shield. Active blocking wasn't really in the cards for me, so I found it was more effective to just have the shield serve as additional armor and cover and stick to defending with the sword. There were a few cases where I still had to Block, however, as my sword wasn't in position to Parry (much as how, despite me being heavily right-handed, I often had to defend with my left hand in taekwondo spars); I can easily see someone who is more equally skilled with shield vs sword (or even more skilled with Shield than Broadsword) still needing to Parry instead of just being able to rely on Block.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Emerikol

It's probably a theoretical thing. I just wondered if they had something to back up their view or not. Personally my feeling is if three people attack you and you can have a shield OR a weapon to defend yourself from their attacks, you take the shield every time. Now you are in trouble either way perhaps but the shield blocks far easier than a sword does. It's big and round. I'm thinking a medium shield.

For most characters that's how it would work with the rules as written.

Say you've got Broardsword-12 and Shield-13 (Shield is Easy, so it's going to be +1 higher, though that makes no difference in this case), and you're a professional, so you have Combat Reflexes for +1 to all active defences. Also assume they all come at your front.

You Dodge is 5 + 3 + 1 = 8 (Assuming Speed 5-5.75 or Speed 6=6.75 and light encumbrance).

With only a sword your parry is (12/2)+3+1 = 10. Assuming you AoD you probably choose "two defences", and use a Dodge first, probably retreating from the first hit (for +3 to dodge, +1 to Parry) . That save your Parry from being worn down as much as possible. Assuming all three hit you (either from skill or because they see you're being very defensive and take a chance), you might Dodge the first, fail the second Dodge and have to Parry, and then for the third attack have to Dodge and then Parry at a 6-.

With only a shield your Block is (13/2) + 3 + 1 + 2 = 12, and you now have Dodge-10. Using the same tactics as above, the first Dodge is at 13, then they're at 10, and the Block is a much more reliable fall-back. There is a problem in that the shield flat-out can't reach behind you, but otherwise it's a stronger defensive option because the DB applies to all defences.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Emerikol

It's probably a theoretical thing. I just wondered if they had something to back up their view or not. Personally my feeling is if three people attack you and you can have a shield OR a weapon to defend yourself from their attacks, you take the shield every time. Now you are in trouble either way perhaps but the shield blocks far easier than a sword does. It's big and round. I'm thinking a medium shield.

A block is when you intentionally and successfully maneuver your shield to intercept the attack. This requires the Shield skill, and so only works if you can move the shield just so. Shields are generally too bulky to move that much in one second.

On the other hand, a shield's Defense Bonus applies to all defenses against attacks coming from the sides the shield defends (front and offhand). That's the big and round part. Carrying a medium shield means you add 2 to all defenses against attacks from the front or offhand side.

So if I've got a broadsword and a medium shield, and I have Basic Speed 5, Broadsword-14 and Shield-12, assuming no encumbrance, my defenses are Dodge 8, Parry 10, Block 9. But effectively, against the front and offhand side, they are Dodge 10, Parry 12, Block 11. Thanks to the shield, these are improvements of around 25% for each defense, just for carrying it.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Emerikol

What is the argument for limiting shield to a single block but allowing parry to be used at a penalty multiple times?

Momentum. A broadsword weighs about 3 lbs. A shield large enough to potentially protect the entire body (DB 2-3) weighs at least double that, depending on materials.

Conceivably, a good fighter can alter a sword-like weapon's vector fast enough to block more than one blow per second. It's tricky, but you can do it. By contrast, shields are heavy enough and require sufficient commitment of body motion (e.g., crouching slightly while lowering the shield in order to defend the lower legs) that multiple blocks per second are cinematic.

The Defense Bonus for a shield represents its inherent protective ability and applies to all Active Defenses. That is, carrying a shield improves your Parry or Dodge because you can use it to passively close down potential lines of attack while simultaneously moving your body or weapon to actively avoid the actual line of attack.

In effect, you get one "focused" active attempt to protect yourself with a shield, but unlimited "passive defense" against attacks which must go through or around the shield in order to hit you.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Varyon

I can easily see someone who is more equally skilled with shield vs sword (or even more skilled with Shield than Broadsword) still needing to Parry instead of just being able to rely on Block.

I've seen some excellent "sword and board" SCA fighters in action. I can vouch that the annoying GURPS game mechanics which allow good fighters to shut down virtually all attacks from an opponent of equal skill using Parry or Block maneuvers are realistic.

Even fast-moving fights - more akin to actual combat - might take minutes to resolve with success going to the luckier/fitter/more cunning fighter.

Fights between really good fighters could last sufficiently long that the marshals eventually had to call a hold in order to let the fighters rest and rehydrate.

The trick is that good fighters use the sword and shield in harmony, using the shield's +1 or +2 DB for best effect and also using it to conceal feints and deceptive attacks. A very common strategy is to use the sword to defend against high line attacks to the head and use the shield to defend the lower body.

Of course, since SCA combat is Combat Sport roughly modeled on 15th century foot tourneys, and since it uses the modern equivalent of "wasters" (wooden training weapons), it's a bit harder to get through an opponent's defenses. A 1/2" thick blade is going to go through narrower gaps than a 1 1/2" thick rattan stick and not being able to strike the knee or lower leg puts a huge and vulnerable target area off limits.