Since then, though, PCs and monsters have been doing enough damage that breaking shields really should be a thing.
Here is how we'll try doing it:
Damage to Shields
A shield may take damage if deliberately targeted (GURPS Martial Arts, p. 112) or on any defense made by the shield user.
Shields . . .
- have HP per Basic Set Characters, p. 287, and DR
- take damage, minus DR on a successful block by the margin of the DB of the shield OR on a deliberate attack on a shield not Blocked or Dodged. Shields may take damage (or suffer other effects) on any Block from certain attack forms.
- are damaged as Homogenous.
- At 0 HP, the shield is damaged and possibly useless. Roll 1d. On a 1-3, your shield is broken off the handles and useless. On a 4-6, DB drops to 0 (light or small shield) or 1 (medium or large shield.) A DB 0 shield is hit on any Block roll made by a margin of 0.
Every hit after that point requires a HT roll (12, 14 for Fine shields); success means the shield continues to work as above; failure destroys the shield.
- Destroyed automatically at -1xHP.
Notes:
This will make shields flimsier than Basic Set does (most will take 40-80 damage to break), but still fairly sturdy. Damage will be easy to deal with. And now there is an actual value to Shatterproofed shields and Orichalcum ones.
(Editing Later: However it will make shields sturdier than the rules in Low-Tech do. Another option is to just use those numbers, and let HP go down to -5xHP like anything else. More negative HP numbers, more variability in shield survival.)
We aren't using Overpenetration, (Basic Set Campaigns, p. 484) It's thematically inappropriate for DF.
What about Shieldslayer? It works as written; this does not change its effects at all. That's a special attack form. So are rust monster antennae, and some other special attacks.
Shields in Basic have a lot of HP relative to what their weight suggests, probably because the table was just copied direct from 3e (3e p. B76), so they're pretty tough as it stands. Now Low-Tech has flimsier shields, but they weigh less. DFRPG has all its shields at Basic Set weights. I think there's an implicit agreement: "You agree to carry heavier shields and we're not going to go the shield damage route."
ReplyDeleteThat's plausible. I'm satisfied the above makes them mostly fine, but vulnerable to hard strikes.
DeleteI miss the fragility of 3e shields, honestly - the way you could shatter them with a human-level blow or wear them down over a fight or two. 4e made them too durable for my taste. The above compromise seems workable; we'll see how it goes.
Do you use the slam/shield rush rules from the Basic Set, or DFRPG?
ReplyDeleteDFRPG. We used something similar for a while but the DFRPG version is so much easier.
DeleteI went with the Low-Tech shield stats. Starting equipment from the DFRPG pregens (with GURPS 4e weights) gets "grandfathered" in with DR 4 for a heavy shield, and I calculate/eyeball the correct HP to be in line with the other shields.
ReplyDeleteThat sounds like an excellent approach. I just didn't want the complication of all of those shield types - light, small, medium, and large works fine in my game.
DeleteI've considered adding shield damage to DFRPG, just because I don't want people throwing their shields in front of things that do locomotive-level damage. But I don't think my players really want to track shield damage. So what I've considered is an all-or-nothing rule: if a single blow does enough to break your shield, it's broken. (Also, if a single blow does a lot more than that -- maybe 2x as much as it needed to -- the block didn't count.) But if it didn't break in a single blow, it's fine.
ReplyDeleteMaybe, for that idea, a better idea would be just treating shields as weapons and using the weapon breaking rules.
DeleteAn all-or-nothing approach might work. I just don't want to completely exclude fighters who want to batter a shield apart even if it takes some time.
DeleteMaking them break like weapons is tough - most shields weigh far too much to risk breakage. Even a light shield needs a two-handed weapon to risk breakage, and a small shield needs oversized two-handed weapons. So even though you do, say, 4d+12 with your broadsword, it can't break even a light shield. That seems unreasonable.
I gave that idea a look years ago and rejected it for those reasons.
I'm sure Garreth would like to break Duergar shields! Though Polly has been dragging a shield around and finally used it against a boss who hits harder than Garreth
DeleteThese rules look pretty good.
ReplyDeleteWhile I really like the DFRPG Boxed Set and its rules most of the time, they sometimes skimped (or oversimplified) in areas that are problematic. As per the DFRPG boxed set rules, shields have, I think, DR 4 (metal and wood construction) and a medium shield has 18 hp, while a large shield has 20 hp. That just seems way too low for 15 lb. and 25 lb. shields. Even with homogenous and DR 4, a typical hobgoblin (doing average 8 cutting) could theoretically reduce a medium shield to 0 HP in three shots. For guys doing serious damage (20+ cutting), that could destroy a shield in one shot.
With DR 6 and 40 hp for a medium shield, 60 hp for a large shield, that hobgoblin (and his friends) probably won't last long enough to destroy that shield. Hard hitters can still mess it up, though. Two shots to a medium shield by a guy that does 20 cutting each time has it making HT checks after the second shot.
I kind of like the universal DR rather than the Basic Set's scaling DR based upon shield size, because in the end, aren't they essentially made of the same construction? I can see the rationale both ways, but universal DR 6 is easier.
Do you have a page ref for the shields in DFRPG? I did not find it when I wrote these, or I may have written them differently (or just said to use those rules.)
DeleteNevermind - you're just calculating their DR and HP per the Damage to Objects table on Exploits, p. 102, correct?
DeleteI have zero issue with those results, but they will make shields really flimsy in terms of HP, which means we'll need to ditch the "simplified" rules above and go to the normal rules for damage to objects (Basic Set Campaigns p. 483-484). The rules above assume you're using the HP given to shields on the tables in Basic Set. At that point we may as well use Overpenetration (p. 408), too.
The DR, though, you're right about. I'll revise the above - it should be DR 4 for wood-and-metal, DR 6 for metal, to be consistent with object DR used elsewhere.
I believe that DFRPG omits DR/HP stats for shields altogether by design; I would infer the intent was to drop the (optional) damage to shields from GURPS for simplicity. Then it doesn't matter if the shield HP hasn't been "boosted" like in 4e Basic, because it's not going to be broken if the DB makes the difference. Therefore, I don't see the simplification as problematic.
DeleteI prefer the realism and detail of the Low-Tech numbers, but that may be me. I can understand the desire for simplicity in a boxed set game.
I agree completely - I think it's an added complication and omitting it saved both that complication and a lot of additional rules text.
DeleteStill, I do like shields getting bashed apart sometimes . . . it is something I miss from their fragile-but-heavy 3e days when everyone winced when they defended by the (then-PD) margin of the shield and the damage dice rolled for effect . . .
Yes, I was looking at Damage to Objects from DFPRG on p. 102. Changing them to DR 4 makes them a bit weaker--I like DR 6, ha ha--but it should be OK. If someone blocks X number of average hits from our typical hobgoblins wielding cutting weapons--and assuming it makes it by the shield DB all X times--then it would take ten such hits/blocks for a large shield to get down to 0, and seven hits/blocks for a medium shield (assuming 4 DR, 4 gets through, multiplied by 1.5 for 6 injury to the shield each time). My guess, though, is that with fairly skilled guys (Shield-16 and Combat Reflexes gives a block of 12 before DB) most of the time it's not hitting the shield (about 26% of the time), so they can probably block, on average, about forty or so of those 8 cutting damage hits before the large shield gets to 0 HP, and twenty-eight hits or so for a medium shield. Of course, those shields will last a lot shorter against stronger foes.
DeleteCan someone with Armory (Melee Weapons) make some level of field repairs? I'm not sure if that is within the contemplation of that skill (it can be used to repair *minor* damage like a bent sword from bashing, but maybe not this kind of damage...and it might require specific tools). Medium shields are heavy and carrying a backup isn't realistic for most folks, so maybe guys like Aldwyn and Crogar should buy a second shield and perhaps have one of Gerry's skeletons carry one on their back (Crogar might be strong enough and have enough to spare to carry another one himself).
Personally, I would certainly allow Armoury (MW) to repair a shield.
DeleteOTOH, I don't like the expectation (which DFRPG hardly refutes) that PCs can somehow use crafting skills like Armoury or Alchemy between adventures without the proper tools and workspace. I consider tools, workspace, and parts/ingredients essential. Therefore, I consider that part of the repair/fabrication cost is to pay the smith/alchemist/whomever for the inconvenience of using their forge/lab. If you can't convince someone to let you use their workspace, then you'll just have to pay them to do the work, or buy a new one.
That's my take, anyway :)
Minor repairs might be a few HP if you have tools and materials handy.
DeleteHere is a bit longer of a response.
Delete- What's with all of the focus on hobgoblins?
- DR 4 and 6 would have been corrected to, anyway. I'd have noticed eventually.
- I'll run the numbers on the above HP vs. using the Basic Set's damage to objects HP tables and see what I see. I'll post that tomorrow if I get a chance to complete it.
FWIW What I mean by minor repairs, I mean treat it like First Aid - take 30 minutes, roll against Armoury (Melee Weapons), penalized for improvised equipment if you lack a tool kit (which no one has ever purchased and carried . . .). Success restores 1d-3 HP x the usual modifiers for HP scaling.
Carrying a second shield isn't a bad idea if you expect to fight creatures that can break yours. Shields are heavy, true. We could potentially go to lighter Low-Tech weight shields, but they'll also have even less HP and break more frequently, and add a lot of need to change existing PCs and NPCS, like when we made the armor switch. That's still having some spillover effects, so I'd rather not go and do it for shields.
Hiring a laborer to lug around backup shields seems legit
ReplyDeleteThe Servant (DF15 p. 23) is probably the way to go - to carry a spare shield, and your spare weapons, and take Fast-Draw (Assist) . . .
Delete