While reading Morien's excellent Shield And Armor Damage (http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=1491.0) thread, I had an interesting idea. What if a knight could, as a combat option, sacrifice his or her shield to partially or completely negate a damaging blow? The notion of a shield being shattered or torn away is fairly common in cinema and fiction, though I don't recall any specific examples from the Arthurian canon. The trade-off of one-shot avoidance of a debilitating blow at the cost of future vulnerability appeals to my "let the dice fall as they may" mentality, yet allows players to feel somewhat more in control of their knights' fates without the kludge of fate/hero/plot points or the like.

With partial negation, sacrificing one's shield halves the damage taken. Simple, clean, and yet no guarantee the knight will survive. Complete negation should be obvious. Knockback can be determined normally based on the damage rolled, or can be completely or partly negated as well. As a variant, one could permit multiple uses of partial negation per combat, at the cost of one point of shield protection each time. Each lost point either halves damage or reduces Knockback. The ability to reduce Knockback could be useful both on the battlefield and in the jousting lists. Thoughts? Opinions?

I like it!

I think a modest touch of narrative control like this would suit pendragon well. Am I right in assuming that the knight would need a partial success to use the shield like this?

Like it, however will it not make combat last much longer, as squires can bring new shield...?

fg,
Thijs

Am I right in assuming that the knight would need a partial success to use the shield like this?


That was my thought, but with the option for multiple uses one could alternatively allow a knight to sacrifice his or her shield completely on a failure and piecemeal on a partial success.

Under no circumstance am I as GM going to keep track of shield damage... (or allow my players, just another thing to remind them on).

fg,
Thijs

...will it not make combat last much longer, as squires can bring new shield?


Knights don't always have another shield readily available. Also, it's tough to fend off a foe intent on one's life while one's squire is attempting to strap a shield to one's arm. I would rule that a knight could only re-equip if he managed to both deal Knockback to his foe AND make a Squire roll. In a battle, the only way to re-equip is to either make a Squire roll while disengaged (or a critical Squire roll in the thick of things), or grab the shield of a fallen opponent (which gives the gamemaster boatloads of delicious opportunities for mistaken identity).

...will it not make combat last much longer, as squires can bring new shield?


Knights don't always have another shield readily available. Also, it's tough to fend off a foe intent on one's life while one's squire is attempting to strap a shield to one's arm. I would rule that a knight could only re-equip if he managed to both deal Knockback to his foe AND make a Squire roll. In a battle, the only way to re-equip is to either make a Squire roll while disengaged (or a critical Squire roll in the thick of things), or grab the shield of a fallen opponent (which gives the gamemaster boatloads of delicious opportunities for mistaken identity).


Forgive me, working from memory, but even in normal duel a squire can resupply a weapon (on squire roll)...?
A knight is always assumed to have all weapons in two-fold and if this rule existed I am sure that all players will carry extra shields (same way that all spear using knights carry several).

fg,
Thijs

Under no circumstance am I as GM going to keep track of shield damage...


I am merely offering suggestions for those unconcerned by the small amount of added bookkeeping involved. I myself would only use one-shot partial negation unless my players as a group were particularly cursed when it came to dice rolls (and I've had groups whose luck has run like that).

...even in normal duel a squire can resupply a weapon.


Weapons are a lot easier to re-equip than shields. Try it sometime in real life. Even in a friendly spar, it's no picnic.



A knight is always assumed to have all weapons in two-fold and if this rule existed I am sure that all players will carry extra shields (same way that all spear using knights carry several).


It's also a lot easier to tote additional weapons around than it is additional shields. The darn things are cumbersome and may have other gear strapped to them if stowed for ease of travel. Ever pack a horse? It can take time to retrieve any item not kept in a state of specific readiness like one's primary weapon and shield.

Weapons are a lot easier to re-equip than shields. Try it sometime in real life. Even in a friendly spar, it's no picnic.


Good point.




It's also a lot easier to tote additional weapons around than it is additional shields. The darn things are cumbersome and may have other gear strapped to them if stowed for ease of travel. Ever pack a horse? It can take time to retrieve any item not kept in a state of specific readiness like one's primary weapon and shield.

Knowing players they will have a specially dedicated pack horse with quick release snaps for it...

fg,
Thijs

Knowing players they will have a specially dedicated pack horse with quick release snaps for it.


What are these "quick-release snaps" of which you speak? This is the Dark Ages, buttons as anything other than ornamentation are an anachronism. Historically, they don't appear as fasteners until the Thirteenth Century. What is that equivalent to in the KAP/GPC timeline these days... the Boy King Period?

Historically, they don't appear as fasteners until the Thirteenth Century. What is that equivalent to in the KAP/GPC timeline these days... the Boy King Period?


Conquest, I'd say, of the top of my head.

As for the idea itself, it is intriguing. I'd probably make it so that partial success negates the damage from a blow at the cost of a shield, while a failure halves the damage at the cost of a shield.

I am not sure if that would be balanced, though. Would you allow it used against Criticals? If so, then bye bye critical hits. If not, then the biggest knight killers would still be out there, as the regular hits are seldom enough to harm the knight severely if he has the shield. And on the other hand, it might render giants pretty impotent, if the knights can just 'burn through' their shields, backing away to get a new one while their fellows chip away at the brute.

I'd be tempted to modify it thusly... Sacrificing your shield nets you additional +6 armor for that blow. So if you rolled a partial success, you get +12 for the shield total, and on a failure +6 instead of 0. This would be still a benefit to avoid that one potentially deadly/major wounding blow, but leave the knight in dire straits afterwards. And make sure that they can't bait 12d6 giants with impunity.

Would you allow it used against Criticals?


Yes. The idea is to give the player a one-use "Get Out Of Death Free" card. Doesn't help his or her knight should a second crit be sustained.



... it might render giants pretty impotent, if the knights can just 'burn through' their shields, backing away to get a new one while their fellows chip away at the brute.


Half-damage from a giant is still pretty insane. Might make players more willing to have their knights face death, however, if they know they can get at least one break. And again, knights don't carry around an endless supply of shields. If you keep track of how many lances a knight has, it's not much of a reach to keep track of shields (and there will be much fewer of them, especially for a knight who must make haste and needs to travel light).

Yes. The idea is to give the player a one-use "Get Out Of Death Free" card. Doesn't help his or her knight should a second crit be sustained.


The thing is, it is one Get Out Of Death Free card PER FIGHT. More than one, if they manage to rearm with a new shield. That is a pretty significant boost of the odds right there.



Half-damage from a giant is still pretty insane.


Depends on the size of the giant, and this depends whether the damage is halved or even reduced more by a successful skill roll (Giant slayers are presumably experienced knights already, so failing in their skill roll ought to be very rare).

The thing is, it is one Get Out Of Death Free card PER FIGHT. More than one, if they manage to rearm with a new shield. That is a pretty significant boost of the odds right there.


So don't give them opportunities to re-equip. There are plenty of perfectly sound reasons why they wouldn't be able. It's as simple as that. Should they use someone else's, give that person any Glory for foes dispatched. It gives knights an excuse for stealing one another's shields like Lancelot always does... they can run around incognito! :)

There are no Bags Of Holding in KAP (unless you let some NPC give them one). A knight can carry only so many shields. I'd allow at most one per ridden horse and two per packhorse. A typical knight would bear his or her primary shield, a secondary shield would hang from his or her squire's saddle, and his sumpter might carry two more (likely unpainted). That's packed for war. And those won't easy to replace in the field. An errant knight could well run out whilst questing. If your players abuse this house rule, ask them to account for EVERYTHING their knights carry and where they carry it. I fear it ceases to be KAP at that point, and turns into HarnMaster, Chivalry And Sorcery, or D&D.

An errant knight could well run out whilst questing.


Yes, he might. After using those four shields to negate four criticals, any one of which would have ended his quest right there and then.

Also, if he visits any castles or towns along the way, it shouldn't be that hard to buy a new stack of four shields. Or he might get shields from the knights he defeats, which might cause some identity problems like you mention, but who cares about that if you are fighting a monster alone in the wilderness?

Would the same rule apply to NPKs as well? Players might get a bit upset if their critical has just been blocked by a shield. ;) If not, then it is favoring the PKs by a large margin.

Complaining aside, it is not as if I am in favor of the PKs dying. I am a softie GM, after all, IMHO. However, my worry is that this would make things even more 'safe' for the PKs, especially against civilized opponents.

That is partially why I was advocating the doubling of the shield value of +6 rather than negating or halving the damage. +6 would still be enough to give the PKs a comfortable margin, while not negate enemy criticals outright. As for an example, consider this... 5d6 NPK rolls a crit, so double damage. Our 'average' PK has Reinforced Chain, Shield and Chivalric bonus for 21 armor and CON 14. The average roll is ~35. This is just enough for a major wound. Even if the PK uses his shield, he is down (2xknockdown, most likely), 8 points of damage, and shieldless. Not an enviable state, but preferrable to taking a major wound and being down anyway, right? Now if the shield would negate the crit altogether, the PK would be standing, undamaged, and still have 15 armor, which means he would be taking 2-3 points on average per hit. Much better situation for the PK, I am sure you'll admit.

So I think we differ mainly on how useful this shield sacrifice should be. Full negation is too much, IMHO, and halving is a bit iffy, too, making the crit just a regular hit that would not penetrate. Adding +6 to armor would help to protect the PKs against major wounds and mortal wounds, but not render them totally immune (hence the risk is still there), and would leave them at a distinct disadvantage for the next round (if a high enough crit).

I guess some playtesting would give us an answer?

The mechanic is sound enough. I'd favour Morien's +6 option rather than hit negation.

I think you would need to work on the declaration of usage a little though. If a knight can decide to sacrifice his shield after the dice have been rolled then it won't be an option, it'll be standard practice every time a critical comes in.

Would having to declare it *before* the dice are rolled over dilute its use? I like the combat manoeuvres, because having to declare beforehand means there is at least some tactical decision making going on.

Again, should your players abuse the rule, you can simply tell them that they cannot acquire replacement shields at their current locale. Have them roll Folklore to convince a local carpenter to make one. Have them roll Courtesy to request one of their host. Why be accommodating? Make them work for every little thing, if they're going to be rules-lawyers.

"Gracious, Sir Naimless, can you really afford to lose time waiting for this guy to make you a bunch of shields? Breuse Sans Pitie is getting away with your wife/lover/sister/mother."

Hey, here's an idea: what if the shield's condition after sacrificing it were part of the equation? Should the shield be smashed to kindling, it's complete negation. Should it merely be torn away and is repairable, it's partial negation. Or if we riff off your variant, Morien, half-damage if destroyed and double protection if torn away. Lots of ways to potentially play it.

If a knight can decide to sacrifice his shield after the dice have been rolled then it won't be an option, it'll be standard practice every time a critical comes in.


It could be played either way. Obviously declaration before the damage is rolled makes it riskier and very much a last resort. It's supposed to absorb critical successes (or normal hits from really nasty foes) in a dramatic way. Losing one's shield can be a huge disadvantage, in battle for example it makes you way more vulnerable to missile fire. Want to make it so the player won't do it every time his or her knight fights? Then give it an additional drawback: the knight's shield arm is maimed in the process, and he or she cannot use it (unless he or she accepts a point of Aggravation damage PER USE of the arm) until he or she receives a successful Chirurgery roll (and heals ALL Aggravation damage taken to that arm).

Losing one's shield can be a huge disadvantage, in battle for example it makes you way more vulnerable to missile fire.


Sorry to keep harping about this, oh ye of the stinky fish (love your shield :) ), but: It is a much much bigger disadvantage to be unconscious and bleeding with a shield, than to be upright, unharmed and without a shield. This makes it a no-brainer to sacrifice your shield, taking out the hits that are the ones that are actually able to make the knight fall and take notice.

Here's the thing from my perspective... Big wounds are worse than a bunch of little wounds. If I were to have an option of taking 15 points and five times 0 points, or 0 points and five times 3 points, I'd be tempted to choose the latter because of First Aid (and more chances to avoid that damage altogether and hit the other guy instead). All the more so if the first hit would be a Major Wound. And that is what halving the damage would do, IMHO.



Want to make it so the player won't do it every time his or her knight fights? Then give it an additional drawback: the knight's shield arm is maimed in the process, and he or she cannot use it (unless he or she accepts a point of Aggravation damage PER USE of the arm) until he or she receives a successful Chirurgery roll (and heals ALL Aggravation damage taken to that arm).


So... If I sacrifice my shield, don't use that arm for the rest of the fight, and get a successful Chirurgery roll afterwards, I am golden? What if the first roll is a failure? Do I have to wait a week before the arm might be checked again? Granted, finding someone capable of Chirurgery while questing can be problematic (unless you have your group's lady healer character with Chirurgery 25+ with you, that is...), but generally those hermits and ladies tend to pop up in quests, too. It is STILL much better option to sacrifice your shield than to take a Major Wound, which would also need Chirurgery and might lay you out for weeks. But at least this rule would make it less likely to have a shield-rearming carousel around a giant. Although you know what? I would rather risk 1 point of damage than take a full hit from a giant's club.

The other suggestion about a repairable shields begs a further question about how repairable are they? Something the knight and the squire can do on their own? Put in a new strap, etc? Since this would fly against your other limiting factor which is the supply of shields. Granted, it is much more balanced option (halved or +6) rather than the full negation, but the halving is still, IMHO, too generous, as it is blocked by armor+chivalric in more cases than not.

Hmm. Now here's an idea, riffing off from the one quoted above.

If you sacrifice your shield, you get +6 armor and the remaining damage, if any, is considered to be dealt on your shield arm, breaking it. You will be unable to use your shield arm, until you heal, and will need a Chirurgeon to set it.

The game effect would be that the PK avoids stat-loss due to a Major Wound and continues active in play, even up to fighting (potential aggravation damage there), but will be unable to use a shield if he does so (hence incurring higher risk for future major wounds). If you furthermore demand that the decision on whether or not the shield is sacrificed is made BEFORE the damage is rolled, this truly becomes more of a tactical choice: will you risk losing your shield arm for the rest of the quest from modest damage, or will you risk getting a Major Wound? I think the balance is still on the side of sacrifice, but it is more like a tactic now, rather than a freebie.

First post here...

I've been using a "sacrifice shield" rule (yes--I even call it that!) for 20 or more years now in Pendragon.

Basically, after the attacker/winner has hit, but before damage is rolled, the defender/loser may elect to have his shield riven/shattered/etc. This has the following effect:

If the defender failed his WS roll, he may enjoy the (normal) benefit of his shield, even though he would not normally do so in such an instance.

If the defender made his WS roll, then his shield blocks twice as much damage as it normally would (so, 12 points instead of 6 for your normal shield)

That's it.

First post here...

I've been using a "sacrifice shield" rule (yes--I even call it that!) for 20 or more years now in Pendragon.

Basically, after the attacker/winner has hit, but before damage is rolled, the defender/loser may elect to have his shield riven/shattered/etc. This has the following effect:

If the defender failed his WS roll, he may enjoy the (normal) benefit of his shield, even though he would not normally do so in such an instance.

If the defender made his WS roll, then his shield blocks twice as much damage as it normally would (so, 12 points instead of 6 for your normal shield)

That's it.


I like this. A reasonable benefit for a fair cost.

It can save a player knight from getting a major wound or going unconscious in the short term but amps up the tension for subsequent rounds.

I've been using a "sacrifice shield" rule (yes--I even call it that!) for 20 or more years now in Pendragon.

Basically, after the attacker/winner has hit, but before damage is rolled, the defender/loser may elect to have his shield riven/shattered/etc. This has the following effect:

If the defender failed his WS roll, he may enjoy the (normal) benefit of his shield, even though he would not normally do so in such an instance.

If the defender made his WS roll, then his shield blocks twice as much damage as it normally would (so, 12 points instead of 6 for your normal shield)


I like this. A reasonable benefit for a fair cost.

It can save a player knight from getting a major wound or going unconscious in the short term but amps up the tension for subsequent rounds.


I like it too!
I'll suggest that my GM use it

perhaps we should then add it as official house rule on Greg's site somewhere?

fg,
Thijs

Late for the party, but I think I will suggest the Kviksverd rule to my group too. Excellent idea.

I like it too!
I'll suggest that my GM use it

My GM has rejected it
with
essentially, "What? Another teeny rule?"

Aww...what's one more?

Actually, I'm sympathetic—but I'm also using this one!


T.

Aww...what's one more?
Big LoL :D

Actually, I'm sympathetic—but I'm also using this one!
I'll see if I can slip in in on her the next time that someone is that close to death :D

Though I expect the same response that Larry DiTillio used, "No you can't. YOU WROTE THE RULES." :D

Although I think it's a well balanced rule, and works fine in principal, I'm not using it because it would become the norm rather than an option. Anytime a PK takes a powerful Crit, my players will just lose the shield without a second thought. Better to live one round longer than worry about what may happen later on. If I said yes but you'll also lose both eyes and a leg, I'd just find myself with a party of blind cripples. Live ones though.

Although I think it's a well balanced rule, and works fine in principal, I'm not using it because it would become the norm rather than an option. Anytime a PK takes a powerful Crit, my players will just lose the shield without a second thought. Better to live one round longer than worry about what may happen later on. If I said yes but you'll also lose both eyes and a leg, I'd just find myself with a party of blind cripples. Live ones though.

Ha! Well, I like it for the cinematic aspects as well. But it's easy enough to not have a replacement in reach, or require a Squire roll for it and a delay to retrieve it, etc. If a round is 10 seconds (IIRC) I could easily see losing 3+d3 rounds unless you can find one on the ground and rearm with it quickly. Of course, it's probably strapped to a dead guy, who's laying on top of it...etc, etc. Could create for some interesting small moments in the larger mayhem—and then, of course, opportunities for mistaken identity later, etc.


T.

Would it perhaps be interesting to randomly determine if it's your shield or your weapon that breaks, to make things more unpredictable? Maybe the shield breaks on a 1-4 on a d6, and the weapon breaks on a 5-6, with 2-handed weapons breaking all of the time?

I like this rule quite a bit and have introduced it to my players, though they haven't taken advantage of it yet, probably because I decided to check the standard load-out for knights, poor, ordinary, rich, etc. and found that ordinary knights start with one shield, it's only rich ones that have two to begin with (one painted, one un-painted), so, if they're going to sacrifice a shield they know that they're going to have to go and find someone to sell them a new shield at town/city prices, or wait until winter, when their lord might give them a new one.

The only problem would be if they decide to stock up on shields next winter-phase, but I think I'd simply limit them to two shields at most while travelling, those things are big after all!

I'd be inclined to either have the sword break, or have the Armour tear.

The sword breaking ties in with the scene in Excalibur when Arthur 'cheats' so he can beat Lancelot. He broke the unbreakable! This would also encourage use of secondary weapons at some stage.

Alternatively, the armour is damaged to half strength. Far more of a loss than a shield, more expensive and less likely to be abused. No one carries spare sets of armour with them.