How shields SHOULD work

[SekoETC]

All or nothing. The shield either blocks the attack fully or not at all. I've been wondering how can an arrow hit you half-way, does it go through your iron shield or bounce from the edge or what?

When an animal or a person attacks, the size of the shield and maybe a shield handling skill affects the chance the attack is blocked by the shield. Maybe if the character is carrying lots of stuff then blocking would be less likely (imagine a person carrying four shields, a bow and a sabre, are you an octopus or what?? )

Anyway, if the blocking is a success, the person suffers no damage at all, but the shield may be damaged from the attack (turn "used" more quickly). Sequential attacks will cause the shield to crumble eventually.

To counter the higher chance of blocking all the damage, the chance of "your shield was ineffective against the blow" is now more likely.

Shield skill. Might depend on physical strenght. If a character is weak then they might get worse chance of blocking when using heavy shields. Also if a character has no shield at all, maybe it would be easier to dodge because your hands are free to keep balance.

[Talapus]

This would be very bad for people with bone shields, the newspawns trying to protect themselves from animals. I would imagine that a bone shield would only block like 20% of the time which makes it practically worthless, and that character will quickly be devoured by animals if they have even a few medium nasty animals about. And besides, some weapons can go through a shield. Claymores were designed to cut through almost anything, and were very good at cutting right through shields, And with a bow, I can imagine arrows from powerful bows passing through weak shields to strike flesh below, but at a much lower velocity. In general, I think this idea will make the weak alot more weak (at least with the current system, bone shields can actually be useful against weak weapons such as bone clubs, and also against some animals like horses. If you made this change, then bone shields would provide far less protection to most people then they do now), and the strong alot stronger (because suddenly their iron shields block everything 80 or 90% of the time).

[Surly]

In general, I think this idea will make the weak alot more weak (at least with the current system, bone shields can actually be useful against weak weapons such as bone clubs, and also against some animals like horses. If you made this change, then bone shields would provide far less protection to most people then they do now), and the strong alot stronger (because suddenly their iron shields block everything 80 or 90% of the time).

Exactly what I said. I think that claiming this is balancing is just a straight out lie. It is the opposite of balancing, it is exacerbating the problem, not balancing it.

[Snake_byte]

What if each shield had a set amount of points they could block, bone COULD block up to 10%, wooden up to 20% ect... I don't think it's up to a shield to decide whether a block will happen.

[Talapus]

What might be interesting is to supplement the current system with your suggestion. So say a small percentage of the time the character deflects the shield (rather then recieving it full on) and takes no damage no matter what kind of shield you have (You could even vary it with types of shields like bone shield at 3%, wooden shields at 4%, and iron shields at 7%). This would allow even weakling characters to sometimes avoid even large blows from a claymore or crossbow. And I think it would be a constructive and interesting (although slightly trivial) change.

[wulf]

How complex do you want to make it? Plenty of RPGs have explored different approaches to damage infliction and avoidance so there's a wealth of models to draw on.

Having done a little live roleplaying / trying out real armour / etc, one factor to consider is that even if a shield stops your opponent's weapon cutting you, you still suffer some damage from the impact.

In some ways, I think the AD&D abstraction of combat is actually quite sensible - a shield reduces the chance of your opponent scoring a telling blow, and hit points are meant to reflect much more than just the raw damage you can soak up. However, that doesn't differentiate much between different materials.

Another approach is to have the shield suffer a measure of the damage it saves you from - after a certain number of hits, it's likely to fall apart or at least get markedly less useful (for example, consider the duel in The 13th Warrior where the viking hero goes through several shields as his opponent hews at him with mighty blows.

Or, maybe, we could all settle down and live peaceably in Cantr and not have to worry about combat mechanics at all?

Wulf

[El_Skwidd]

Or, maybe, we could all settle down and live peaceably in Cantr and not have to worry about combat mechanics at all?

*puke*

Yeah, the way shields are run right now are a little weird. But it doesn't seem all that bad to me. In reality, a shield would save a LOT of damage and be damaged itself, or no damage at all. You might still get hurt from the impact of the blow, especially with heavier weapons like war hammers and claymores and battle axes and stuff like that, but the way things are run now doesn't really bother me that much.

What would be cool is a little approximation of what kind of wound, say, 10% damage is. Broken arm? Gash on the chest? It could mean different things depending on the weapon and the situation and stuff. Would be cool for the Wiki.

[SekoETC]

I would imagine that a bone shield would only block like 20% of the time.

No it wouldn't. Because the blocking would depend on the SIZE of the shield, not the material, besides a bone shield is lighter than an iron one thus easier to handle. So I'd give it over 50% blocking but it would be damaged greatly from the stronger attacks and would soon crumble without constant fixing (and when you are fixing it, you are naturally setting yourself vulnerable).

[Nixit]

The way I see it... is that when it says your shield block so and so percent, but you still got hurt, you tried to dodge the attack and dodged for the most part... it's not a perfect system, but I think it works pretty well.

[Pie]

well, i rather like the idea, but sheilds can break, and swords can go through sheald. arrows can go through the sheald, and puncture the arm, so you can deflect some of the damage with a sheild and not all of it. Though, it should caues more damage to the shield.

[SekoETC]

The way I see it... is that when it says your shield block so and so percent, but you still got hurt, you tried to dodge the attack and dodged for the most part... it's not a perfect system, but I think it works pretty well.

If it's dodging and not blocking then how come the shield material affects it? When you think about some RPG's there the heaviest armor might not be the best choice because it slows you down. Dodging and blocking should be separate things.

[Pie]

i voted i don't get it, becous it should be somwere in the mittle to, but it should hurt the sheild more.

[creepyguyinblack]

What I've been advocating to the prog department for awhile is to have seperate shield and armor protections, or at least the ability to set % chance of blocking per protection item. That way we could have say chain mail or leather armor that you would wear over your body and have a high chance of blocking with it, but it reduces the damage less than a shield, and then lower the shield's blocking a bit, possibly have a skill with it too, and they could stop more damage.

[Nick]

I think people need to stop complaining about animals killing people.

Do you know what? If somone let a couple dozen boars and bears in my town square, they might kill someone.

That's why our SOCIETY has found ways to make sure the animals are NOT in the town square. If people go hunting, it's shouldn't be in downtown Quillanoi.

This is one of a few things in Cantr that are rather ridiculous.

[Surly]

Good point Nick.

I would like to point out I never complained about animals. I think there should be more...