MDC shields, in ready position

[slade2501]

as a house rule, any mega damage material shield held in ready position covers the main body of the user, and absorbs any damage not directed to other areas by a called shot. The shield user must declare he or she is using the shield in ready position in order to gain this effect. The shield does not protect from flank or rear attacks.

we love this for giant robots, borgs etc to use and protect their body.

[Mack]

Yep, shields are under-appreciated. Especially the Magic Tattoo one that's indestructible.

[slade2501]

Yep, shields are under-appreciated. Especially the Magic Tattoo one that's indestructible.

Well, its the whole point of a shield. you hold it IN FRONT OF YOUR BODY. And the shield is tougher than flesh, absorbs most edged weapons without damage, most blunt weapons, etc.

With mega damage structures being ablative, burning/vaporizing the armor away, it makes sense for the shield to absorb damage and protect the main body.

[Killer Cyborg]

as a house rule, any mega damage material shield held in ready position covers the main body of the user, and absorbs any damage not directed to other areas by a called shot. The shield user must declare he or she is using the shield in ready position in order to gain this effect. The shield does not protect from flank or rear attacks.

we love this for giant robots, borgs etc to use and protect their body.

It's not even a house rule; it's simply using tactics to take advantage of how the Called Shot rules work.

And yeah, it's often a good idea.

[Shark_Force]

as a house rule, any mega damage material shield held in ready position covers the main body of the user, and absorbs any damage not directed to other areas by a called shot. The shield user must declare he or she is using the shield in ready position in order to gain this effect. The shield does not protect from flank or rear attacks.

we love this for giant robots, borgs etc to use and protect their body.

It's not even a house rule; it's simply using tactics to take advantage of how the Called Shot rules work.

And yeah, it's often a good idea.

it is a house rule. nothing says shields give cover or require a called shot to bypass. you have to add that rule in yourself.

this is, of course, no different from any number of other situations in rifts; house rules are not uncommon, nor are they in any way bad. but this is definitely a house rule; no shield in the game mentions cover or called shots (and the cover rules are pretty poorly defined to begin with), and proficiency in shields only improves shield bashing and parrying with a shield, so it's all a house rule.

[SpiritInterface]

as a house rule, any mega damage material shield held in ready position covers the main body of the user, and absorbs any damage not directed to other areas by a called shot. The shield user must declare he or she is using the shield in ready position in order to gain this effect. The shield does not protect from flank or rear attacks.

we love this for giant robots, borgs etc to use and protect their body.

We use the behind Cover rules with shields. Kevin Siembieda so under values Shields and their use in Palladium and the rest of the Megaverse.

[ShadowLogan]

as a house rule, any mega damage material shield held in ready position covers the main body of the user, and absorbs any damage not directed to other areas by a called shot. The shield user must declare he or she is using the shield in ready position in order to gain this effect. The shield does not protect from flank or rear attacks.

we love this for giant robots, borgs etc to use and protect their body.

It's not even a house rule; it's simply using tactics to take advantage of how the Called Shot rules work.

And yeah, it's often a good idea.

it is a house rule. nothing says shields give cover or require a called shot to bypass. you have to add that rule in yourself.

this is, of course, no different from any number of other situations in rifts; house rules are not uncommon, nor are they in any way bad. but this is definitely a house rule; no shield in the game mentions cover or called shots (and the cover rules are pretty poorly defined to begin with), and proficiency in shields only improves shield bashing and parrying with a shield, so it's all a house rule.

Is it actually a house rule or does it fall under the "common sense" loop hole the rules seem to utilize. After all depending on the attacker's angle and size of the shield it may completely block the main body (or make it a small difficult to hit target).

[Mack]

Yep, shields are under-appreciated. Especially the Magic Tattoo one that's indestructible.

Well, its the whole point of a shield. you hold it IN FRONT OF YOUR BODY. And the shield is tougher than flesh, absorbs most edged weapons without damage, most blunt weapons, etc.

I specify industructable because all other shields (even other magic ones) have a MDC value. The magic tattoo shield can take a dozen Boom Gun hits with no effect.

[Shark_Force]

Is it actually a house rule or does it fall under the "common sense" loop hole the rules seem to utilize. After all depending on the attacker's angle and size of the shield it may completely block the main body (or make it a small difficult to hit target).

if it isn't something that you can reliably expect everyone who is doing their best to follow the rules will come up with, it's a house rule. because it's a rule that only applies at your "house" (or wherever that specific game is played). there is nothing linking shields and cover clearly. the OP in this thread obviously thought they had reached a new and previously unheard of idea for how shields could work. there is no clear intent given in the rules that shields provide cover, whereas there is clear intent that they can be used to parry things for example (because the WP gives a bonus to parry).

so yes, it is a house rule. again, there's nothing bad about that. house rules are, broadly speaking, a good thing. but if i come from my gaming group to another gaming group, i might ask what they think about this house rule about shields, but i would not go in expecting it to be the default, because it's never made clear at all. you kinda have to make the leap yourself.

and frankly, given how shields work with this house rule... i kinda suspect that isn't how kevin intended it. it would make shields so effective (they'd be cheaper to make and repair/replace than any body armour, while providing the equivalent of either main body MDC or reducing the damage an enemy is capable of dealing by almost half) that you'd expect them to be in wide use, and yet no OCCs start with them by default, no military is noted as using them, and they barely get any mention at all (i don't think there are stats for MDC shields in the core rules at all, are there?); you'd expect there to be a variety of shields built, with varying degrees of usefulness and naturally costs; special tower shields that can be deployed to support themselves, shields with gun ports or gun rests built into them to allow the use of two-handed weapons with them, shields for cyborgs with extra limbs capable of holding heavier weights, shields that are built with reactive armour, shields that resist lasers for glitter boys (they only need one hand to fire after all), magic shields that are immune to fire/plasma, TW shields that float around the user without using hands, etc, and yet we don't see any of this sort of thing. there are only a handful of power armour or robots that make use of shields at all when you'd expect them to take advantage of all the weapon mounts that don't require arms to use, and for a piece of equipment that would be so simple and effective (using called shots halves your damage plus you might just hit the shield anyways, not using called shots means you have to go through the entire shield first) to be so under-represented would seem really odd.

now, i have no problems with this house rule, personally. i think it makes perfect sense... but only after you've thought of it. heck, i would support changing WP shield entirely as well, to have it give a penalty to called shots to bypass the shield (i mean, someone who's good at using a shield should be better able to position it to make bypassing it harder than it would be to bypass a shield held by some random schmuck with no training).

but it is totally a house rule.

i just don't get why people seem to think that house rules are some sort of undesirable thing. the guy who wrote the actual rules plays the game with house rules, and encourages you to play with house rules any time you like them better. why anyone else should think there's some kind of stigma attached to it is beyond me.

[Killer Cyborg]

as a house rule, any mega damage material shield held in ready position covers the main body of the user, and absorbs any damage not directed to other areas by a called shot. The shield user must declare he or she is using the shield in ready position in order to gain this effect. The shield does not protect from flank or rear attacks.

we love this for giant robots, borgs etc to use and protect their body.

It's not even a house rule; it's simply using tactics to take advantage of how the Called Shot rules work.

And yeah, it's often a good idea.

it is a house rule. nothing says shields give cover or require a called shot to bypass. you have to add that rule in yourself

A character holding an object in front of them isn't a rule.
It's just a character doing something.
Do you think a character needs a rule in order to hide their torso behind a wall or large boulder?



Edit:
Really, I'd go the other way: banning characters from holding an object in front of them would be a house rule.
There's nothing in the books saying they can't do it.
It's within the normal use of shields, historically and currently.
It's within the context of normal character choice and ability.

[Shark_Force]

as a house rule, any mega damage material shield held in ready position covers the main body of the user, and absorbs any damage not directed to other areas by a called shot. The shield user must declare he or she is using the shield in ready position in order to gain this effect. The shield does not protect from flank or rear attacks.

we love this for giant robots, borgs etc to use and protect their body.

It's not even a house rule; it's simply using tactics to take advantage of how the Called Shot rules work.

And yeah, it's often a good idea.

it is a house rule. nothing says shields give cover or require a called shot to bypass. you have to add that rule in yourself

A character holding an object in front of them isn't a rule.
It's just a character doing something.
Do you think a character needs a rule in order to hide their torso behind a wall or large boulder?



Edit:
Really, I'd go the other way: banning characters from holding an object in front of them would be a house rule.
There's nothing in the books saying they can't do it.
It's within the normal use of shields, historically and currently.
It's within the context of normal character choice and ability.

if i said you need to make a house rule to hold something in front of you, you might have a point. i didn't.

i said that the rules for shields make absolutely no mention of applying the rules for cover whatsoever. you can build strawmen all you want, but if you want to have a rational discussion you're going to need to actually address what i said, not just imagine up whatever helps you prove your argument and have that be what i said.

we have rules for shields (such as they are). they don't even hint at using the rules for cover, and instead actually point to using other rules (specifically, parrying). therefore any rule which states that the rules for shields are that you use the rules for cover is a house rule.

now, if this was some usage that could not be reasonably assumed would be in the rules for shields (say... attempting to use a large shield to catch wind like a sail in order to provide motive force to a wheeled platform in a reasonably flat open area with strong winds), it is reasonable to argue that the standard rule we should use would not be covered in the rules for shields. however, defending oneself with a shield is the standard expected use, and the rules for shields that cover the expected use would be the standard rule... and those rules that are described for shields again indicate parrying, not cover, as the mechanic that is used.

likewise, if it was the standard rule, we might expect that it should fit in quite seamlessly. if there was some rule stating that long e-clips generally provide 30 shots (there's some statement to that effect) and the L-20 is noted for being popular for being far more efficient than normal for a laser rifle (and it is), then we might expect the L-20 to ignore the general rule (and it does). in this situation, the thing you're claiming is the standard expected rule makes shields exceptionally strong, by making everything much harder to kill while also being much simpler to build, repair, maintain, etc than regular armour, and yet when we look around for evidence showing that the rest of the system expects shields to be a common widely used piece of equipment that greatly enhances the ability of the user to survive attacks, we find none. shields are rare, and are not generally described as being extremely effective pieces of equipment that are used extensively by everyone that expects to get into combat. this acts as even more evidence, though in this case only that cover being the standard rule is *probably* not true (it is technically possible that shields are incredibly effective and yet people still just don't use them because they're all morons with no survival instinct to speak of, for example).

but again, i don't know why you're going bonkers desperately trying to prove that it isn't a house rule. it isn't a bad thing for something to be a house rule. it's perfectly fine. house rules are an expected part of the game, and are generally a good thing. if it increases your enjoyment of the game and doesn't harm anyone, then by all means you *should* use that house rule. frankly i think kevin siembieda himself would tell you to use that house rule if you like it.

but as far as actually being the official standard rule? nope.

[Killer Cyborg]

as a house rule, any mega damage material shield held in ready position covers the main body of the user, and absorbs any damage not directed to other areas by a called shot. The shield user must declare he or she is using the shield in ready position in order to gain this effect. The shield does not protect from flank or rear attacks.

we love this for giant robots, borgs etc to use and protect their body.

It's not even a house rule; it's simply using tactics to take advantage of how the Called Shot rules work.

And yeah, it's often a good idea.

it is a house rule. nothing says shields give cover or require a called shot to bypass. you have to add that rule in yourself

A character holding an object in front of them isn't a rule.
It's just a character doing something.
Do you think a character needs a rule in order to hide their torso behind a wall or large boulder?



Edit:
Really, I'd go the other way: banning characters from holding an object in front of them would be a house rule.
There's nothing in the books saying they can't do it.
It's within the normal use of shields, historically and currently.
It's within the context of normal character choice and ability.

if i said you need to make a house rule to hold something in front of you, you might have a point. i didn't.

Okay, so you agree that it's perfectly within the rules to hold an object as large (or larger) than your torso, in front of your torso?
If so, then great!
You can hold a shield in front of your torso legally.
And what happens when an object is blocking the torso, and somebody tries to shoot at you?
That's correct!
The shooter has to make a Called Shot, or they have to shoot the object.

Unless the GM has a house rule to say "No, you cannot do that."

we have rules for shields (such as they are). they don't even hint at using the rules for cover, and instead actually point to using other rules (specifically, parrying). therefore any rule which states that the rules for shields are that you use the rules for cover is a house rule.

Here's your argument:
-We have rules for X.
-They don't even hint at using the X for cover.
-Therefore, any GM that allows people to use walls as cover are making a house rule.

Substitute for X....
-Cars
-Tank
-Dragons
-MDC Concrete
-Shields

Let me know what your results are.

For that matter, let me know if you know of ANYTHING in the books that have rules specifically FOR cover.
Because if you find anything that matches that description, it's apparently the ONLY THING that can be used for cover, going by your argument.
And if you don't find anything, then I guess those cover rules exist for no reason at all.

now, if this was some usage that could not be reasonably assumed would be in the rules for shields (say... attempting to use a large shield to catch wind like a sail in order to provide motive force to a wheeled platform in a reasonably flat open area with strong winds), it is reasonable to argue that the standard rule we should use would not be covered in the rules for shields. however, defending oneself with a shield is the standard expected use, and the rules for shields that cover the expected use would be the standard rule... and those rules that are described for shields again indicate parrying, not cover, as the mechanic that is used.

The rules for a Laser Torch describe inflicting damage, NOT welding.
The rules for frying pans describe inflicting damage, NOT cooking.

The rules never say--that I know of--that all actions not explicitly stated in the rules are forbidden.
THAT would he a house rule.

If you can hold a shield--or anything else--in front of your torso, then shooters have to make a Called Shot to hit an exposed part of you, or they have to shoot the thing blocking their shot at your torso.
That's how the Cover Rules work, and that's how physics works.
Unless you know of any part of the Cover Rules that states "This works for everything other than Shields," it's a house rule to ban shields from being used as cover.

in this situation, the thing you're claiming is the standard expected rule makes shields exceptionally strong

Your unsupported opinion is noted.

by making everything much harder to kill while also being much simpler to build, repair, maintain, etc than regular armour,

Source that people would be significantly harder to kill?
Source that shields are easier to build than armor?
Source that they're easier to repair?
Source that they're easier to maintain?
Source on Etc.?

IF you have facts, state the facts.
If you have opinions, that's cool... but don't state them as facts.
You're doing a LOT of guesswork here about how things might work in the game world, but they're just your own personal guesses.

and yet when we look around for evidence showing that the rest of the system expects shields to be a common widely used piece of equipment that greatly enhances the ability of the user to survive attacks,

Does it?
In some situations, sure, it's handy.
IN other situations, it's better to have both hands on a rifle than one hand on a pistol and the other on a shield.
IF you want to argue that shields are so awesome that they'd be nigh-universal, you're going to need to actually make that argument, not just state your opinion as fact.
I've NEVER instituted a house rule preventing shields from being used as cover, and guess what? No real difference on game effect. Some players still use shields, and some don't.
Shields haven't become significantly more prevalent, just like they're not very common in modern real-world combat... even though there's not some Hand of God magically preventing people from holding the shields up in front of their torsos.

And even IF you succeed at that argument somehow, guess what?
Your premise that "IF X is super-duper effective, it will be prevalent in the game world" shows little familiarity with how Rifts is written as a setting.
The Laser Bow, for example, should revolutionize the entire world of Rifts, because it generates 2d6 MD worth of laser using only the power in a normal human's arms. This is incredible technology that could be used to create perpetual motion machines, to recharge e-clips, and to do a zillion other things.... but no, it's only used lightly as a sub-par laser weapon.
Because [b]the writers don't always portray realistic effects[/i].
The game world commonly strays from "what would actually happen if x was possible. Trying to hold up "Since Y didn't happen, x isn't possible" isn't a strong argument against x being canon.

but again, i don't know why you're going bonkers desperately trying to prove that it isn't a house rule.

Because I like people to recognize the truth, and the truth here is that it's quite simply NOT a house rule.
You're making up your own house rule banning Shields from being used as cover, then accusing anybody who disagrees with you of making a house rule.
Quit it.

[Shark_Force]

there are no specific rules for putting cars, or walls, or most other objects, in front of you to attempt to prevent damage. so you use the general rule for putting those other things in front of you to prevent damage. there is no section in the typical robot vehicle that describes "here's what happens if you try to hide behind this thing to protect you", so you don't need to assume the specific use.

we DO have specific rules that discuss putting a shield in front of you to prevent damage. so we use those, not some other rules, for determining that specific thing. so yes, we do have specific rules that indicate that putting a shield in front of you does not provide cover; specifically, the rules that describe how shields work, which you will find is that shields can be used to parry things.

don't like that? no problem. i don't like it either (though i think i would be adequately satisfied with other solutions, such as the parry bonus not being tiny and working against ranged weapons, or giving different shields an AR value like SDC armour in other palladium systems that can be improved with WP shield, using cover works fairly well and doesn't introduce new rules, merely makes an existing rule count for shields). so make a house rule. thinking that a rule is stupid and replacing it with a house rule that you like better is exactly the sort of thing that house rules are for.

and no, that doesn't extend into the rules for everything else as cover, except for things that already HAVE rules for explicitly interposing that thing between yourself and other people... for example, you cannot use a sword as cover, barring some special rules or unusual circumstances (such as being a sword for a being so large that as far as you're concerned it is not practically speaking a sword any more) because a sword has rules for putting that sword between yourself and something harmful (which is once again parrying) which defines how that works. you CAN use a robot vehicle for cover, because there are no specific rules for putting a robot vehicle between yourself and something harmful (with the exception of being inside the vehicle, which does have rules different from the cover rules).

and the thing with the laser torches and frying pans... sure they have rules for inflicting damage. but the main thing here is that they don't have specific rules that eliminate possibilities in their intended use. we have no rules on the laser torch's intended use of welding. what those specific rules on dealing damage do is overrule the general rules on dealing damage; so, for example, trying to zap someone with a laser torch does not work like using an improvised club or knife (which is generally how you resolve most situations of grabbing something that isn't a weapon and using it as a weapon), because it has specific rules for using the laser torch as a weapon. if it also had specific rules regarding welding (say, that it could only be used as a cutting torch and not for welding two pieces of metal together), then it would be comparable to using shields as cover. since the laser torch doesn't have any special rules for welding, we use the general ones (which are generally contained within various skills that allow you to weld things), so the laser torch can be used for all welding torch functions. the fact that it has an *added* function for a specific non-welding situation has no bearing on its use in welding.


shields already tell you how to handle trying to put the shield in between yourself and something damaging; you parry with it. being skilled with a shield makes you better at parrying with it. by the rules, that's how you resolve the question of "did i get that shield in between myself and that <insert damaging effect here>?" you would no more use the cover rules for that situation than you would use the cover rules for putting a telekinetic force field up as a reaction to an attack (which also explicitly uses the parry mechanic), even if in other situations you might be able to use that telekinetic force field as cover; in that specific situation, you have explicitly defined different rules, and those rules are not the cover rules, they're the parrying rules. well, for putting a shield up to block damage, you already have a rule. that rule doesn't make much sense to many people (myself included), but it is still there, and there is no point in pretending it doesn't exist; this is rifts, we don't even have something like the D&D adventurer's league forcing us to use RAW where it exists, every single game of rifts is handled however the group wants whether that happens to be in the rules or not.

as to why shields would be a major increase to survivability if they count as cover, i've already explained it. a few times, i think. it really isn't that complicated.

[Killer Cyborg]

there are no specific rules for putting cars, or walls, or most other objects, in front of you to attempt to prevent damage. so you use the general rule for putting those other things in front of you to prevent damage. there is no section in the typical robot vehicle that describes "here's what happens if you try to hide behind this thing to protect you", so you don't need to assume the specific use.

we DO have specific rules that discuss putting a shield in front of you to prevent damage.

No, we don't.
We have a rule for using a shield to parry incoming attacks, reacting to sword-swings or projectiles by moving the shield into place. That's not the same as simply holding it in front of you before you're shot at.
The equivalent with non-portable forms of cover would be trying to Dodge behind them, NOT getting into position behind them as a general action.
Choosing to use a shield as cover is different from parrying, and as you have pointed out, the rules don't address using a shield for cover.
Which means that there are no specific rules for using them that way, which means that you use the same general rules for cover as anything/everything else.

don't like that? no problem. i don't like it either

My likes and dislikes don't often come into discussions of what the rules are, because they don't affect what the rules are.
In this case, there are NO rules that make shields an exception from the standard rules for cover: if something is blocking attacks to your torso, then attackers have to make a called shot to bypass it (or to attack it).
It doesn't matter one way or the other how either of us feel about things--the rules are the rules.

and the thing with the laser torches and frying pans... sure they have rules for inflicting damage. but the main thing here is that they don't have specific rules that eliminate possibilities in their intended use. we have no rules on the laser torch's intended use of welding.

And we have no rules on using a shield as cover.
Parrying is not cover, just as damage is not welding or frying.

as to why shields would be a major increase to survivability if they count as cover, i've already explained it. a few times, i think. it really isn't that complicated.

It's not complicated--you're simply incorrect.


(And even if you were right, it wouldn't affect what the rules are or aren't, as I've pointed out)

[Shark_Force]

describing your action differently doesn't change what it is.

if i try to claim that i'm attacking my opponent's sword to deflect it away from hitting me, i use parry. it doesn't matter that i am describing it as an attack, it is still a parry. it doesn't matter that i might like for it to count as an attack because i might have more bonuses to strike, or because i have some special ability that boosts my attacks in some way, it is still a parry.

likewise, i can describe putting my shield in between myself and an attack however i want, but it is *still* a parry. it doesn't magically become not a parry just because i'd like it to be something else. the rules for using a shield as a form of protection are stated, and those rules say that you use a shield to parry incoming attacks. when you say you do it is irrelevant; i don't get to kick someone before they react just because i say i'm kicking them before they react, and saying that you're blocking an attack before the attack is even made does not mean it actually happens.

perhaps they *should* say something different, but they don't. nothing new there, really... most RPGs undervalue shields from what i can tell. that doesn't change the fact that this happens to be one of the RPGs that makes shields quite ineffective, at least, based on the rules. shields parry. if you want them to do something more than parry about as well as any other weapon in the game, then by all means, make them better defensively than just parrying with an off-hand knife, they frankly should be better than they are defensively.

[Killer Cyborg]

describing your action differently doesn't change what it is.

if i try to claim that i'm attacking my opponent's sword to deflect it away from hitting me, i use parry.

That's not what a parry is, and it's not what cover is.
It's close to a Disarm, and there are rules for that.
It could be a Called Shot at your opponent's weapon, but not as a reaction to them attacking you.

This isn't about description, except for that words mean things, and those meanings matter.

This is about what the rules of the game are, and the rules of the game are that Parrying is a reactive action. You can only do it in response to an incoming attack.
Using your shield as cover is not a parry.
Not according to the official rules, anyway. You're free to houserule otherwise, but don't claim that your house rule is an official rule.

It's not about describing putting your shield in front of your torso.
It's about the fact that the rules do NOT allow any form of Parrying except as a reaction to an incoming attack. If somebody who is not being attacked declares that they want to use their shield to cover their torso, and you make them roll to parry, you've just broken the official rules for how parrying works.
And if you as a GM tell them that no, they can ONLY put their shield in front of their torso as a Parry, then you've invented a house rule that prevents them from taking a normal human action that's completely within the official rules, and within the bounds of standard physics.
And if you tell them, "Okay, the shield is in front of your torso, but when somebody shoots at you, you're going to have to roll to parry anyway, even though there's no physical way for their shot to strike your torso without hitting the shield first," then you've broken the rules for how cover works.
All I'm doing here is pointing out that your house rules are house rules.
And no, it doesn't matter how you describe them.

[slade2501]

describing your action differently doesn't change what it is.

if i try to claim that i'm attacking my opponent's sword to deflect it away from hitting me, i use parry.

That's not what a parry is, and it's not what cover is.
It's close to a Disarm, and there are rules for that.
It could be a Called Shot at your opponent's weapon, but not as a reaction to them attacking you.

This isn't about description, except for that words mean things, and those meanings matter.

This is about what the rules of the game are, and the rules of the game are that Parrying is a reactive action. You can only do it in response to an incoming attack.
Using your shield as cover is not a parry.
Not according to the official rules, anyway. You're free to houserule otherwise, but don't claim that your house rule is an official rule.

It's not about describing putting your shield in front of your torso.
It's about the fact that the rules do NOT allow any form of Parrying except as a reaction to an incoming attack. If somebody who is not being attacked declares that they want to use their shield to cover their torso, and you make them roll to parry, you've just broken the official rules for how parrying works.
And if you as a GM tell them that no, they can ONLY put their shield in front of their torso as a Parry, then you've invented a house rule that prevents them from taking a normal human action that's completely within the official rules, and within the bounds of standard physics.
And if you tell them, "Okay, the shield is in front of your torso, but when somebody shoots at you, you're going to have to roll to parry anyway, even though there's no physical way for their shot to strike your torso without hitting the shield first," then you've broken the rules for how cover works.
All I'm doing here is pointing out that your house rules are house rules.
And no, it doesn't matter how you describe them.

I agree with the above. The shield COVERS your main body, the default target for ranged attacks and most melee attacks.
It absorbs the attacks to center mass, protecting the holder with its mass and armor.
If your opponent aims for your head with a sword, you have to PARRY their attack by moving and raising your shield to block the sword attack. Trying to parry modern ranged weapon attacks is at -8 penalty if I remember correctly (unless your character is a Juicer or has some form of super speed power). my rule of thumb is that any ranged attack where you can see the projectile moving slowly compared to a bullet (a flight of arrows) allows the character to re-position their shield to provide cover.

[Prysus]

describing your action differently doesn't change what it is.
[snip]
i can describe putting my shield in between myself and an attack however i want, but it is *still* a parry.

Greetings and Salutations. Your response seems to show a disconnect from what's actually being discussed. So, I'll try to clarify, and I'll provide some links to help show visuals.

A shield can parry. I believe we're all in agreement about that.

Captain America often uses it this way (though he also uses it as cover sometimes, but he doesn't hunker down that often and his fights are generally more cinematic) such as in this scene (used to parry at least a few times, though he does tend to attack more often than defend): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtVznoxEdDs

These two use the shield to parry often: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFiIDl_mt2c They're moving it around as a counter to the other.

However, shields just because shields can parry does not mean they're incapable of doing anything else. Historically shields can be used as cover, cinematically shields have been used as cover, and nothing in the Palladium rules I have found suggest shields can be used as cover.

In 300, they use their shields as both cover and to parry. This scene starts off with using the shield to parry (once in a while, though like Cap they tend to attack with it more often than defend), and then at the end of the scene ("Fight in the Shade") they use it as cover: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFiIDl_mt2c
Or would you argue that each of them is literally rolling hundreds of parries even though they never move their shield once? For note, Leonidas alone would've had to roll at least 10 (maybe more).

Army of Two is a video game I can think of that used Shields as cover. Here, they use a car door as a shield. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxSOhE5I-RE&t=86s
Keep in mind, the one using it is mainly facing a single direction. He's not swinging it around all over the place. He's holding it as cover, making himself (and those behind him) harder to hit.

This video is a real life shield, where they put it on a dummy and take shots with different weapons at it to test it's stopping power. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRsvs4qTaNg
The dummy has it over its main body. Is the dummy rolling a parry?

Basically, the argument isn't that shields can NOT parry, it's that just because shields CAN parry doesn't stop them from being used as cover as well. So, if I have 3 enemies to the north, positioning a shield to the north as I approach the direction is a good direction. Parrying bullets is HARD. So I don't. I just hold it steady. If the enemies only make quick shots at my torso, they hit shield. However, the enemy can also take the time to aim for my leg or foot, or maybe my head (if it's sticking out), or my shooting hand (if I'm using say a pistol positioned slightly to the side and slightly extended in front of the shield, similar to the last video I showed), or the enemy can just flank me. Once the enemy moves to the east and west of me, the shield facing north won't help me protect me from those two. I can either try to parry each of them (abandoning any cover benefit), or hold true and try to counter the two flankers in some other fashion.

There are rules for parry, and shields receive a bonus (if you have a W.P., or you're using the rules from Aliens Unlimited that provide a default shield bonus). However, cover does not require a roll, unless you're using cover as a reaction. So, for example, if on my turn I dive behind a car as cover or I raise a shield into a set position as cover, there is no roll required. However, if someone shoots at me and I try to dive behind cover or raise my shield, then I'm rolling either a dodge or a parry, because then it's a reaction to perform the action in time. Telekinetic Force Field is a good example of this (no roll required if you're doing it on your time, but a parry required if you're trying to raise it in response to an incoming attack).

So far, I have yet to see a good argument for shields not being able to be used as cover within the current game mechanics. Stating they have can parry (or have a parry bonus) only tells us they can parry, not that they're incapable of other uses. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Blue_Lion]

Well I think the size of a shield would matter in how effective it would be for cover. A large tower shield may have a surface that hides the whole person while a bucker would only provide limited cover not even hiding the main body. I do not think the rules for cover exclude shields from providing cover.

[SpiritInterface]

Well I think the size of a shield would matter in how effective it would be for cover. A large tower shield may have a surface that hides the whole person while a bucker would only provide limited cover not even hiding the main body. I do not think the rules for cover exclude shields from providing cover.

I worked out a chart of size and material values for shields.


Shield Size Coverage A.R. Parry Add M(S).D.C. light medium heavy
Small 1-2 sq. ft. 7 2 20 30 45
Medium 2-5 sq. ft. 10 1 30 50 75
Large 5-8 sq.ft. 14 0 50 100 140
Extra Large 8-12 sq. ft. 17 0 80 130 175

The AR is the Cover Value. It works for both MD and SD worlds.

[Killer Cyborg]

Well I think the size of a shield would matter in how effective it would be for cover. A large tower shield may have a surface that hides the whole person while a bucker would only provide limited cover not even hiding the main body. I do not think the rules for cover exclude shields from providing cover.

Exactly.
And like any other cover, yes, it has to be large enough to work.
Hiding behind a buckler or a 2” diameter tree isn’t going to do much—it has to effectively hide your torso.

[Mack]

I worked out a chart of size and material values for shields.


Shield Size Coverage A.R. Parry Add M(S).D.C. light medium heavy
Small 1-2 sq. ft. 7 2 20 30 45
Medium 2-5 sq. ft. 10 1 30 50 75
Large 5-8 sq.ft. 14 0 50 100 140
Extra Large 8-12 sq. ft. 17 0 80 130 175

The AR is the Cover Value. It works for both MD and SD worlds.

I like the approach of using an AR for shields!

(And I reformatted your table.)

Code: Select all

Shield Size  Coverage     A.R.   Parry Add   M(S).D.C.  light  medium  heavy   
Small        1-2 sq ft    7         2                    20     30       45
Medium       2-5 sq ft    10        1                    30     50       75
Large        5-8 sq ft    14        0                    50     100      140
Extra Large  8-12 sq ft   17        0                    80     130      175

[Axelmania]

I've never seen a system with decent rules for using shields as cover. Not even GURPS. All of them seem to need house rules. Shields are never as awesome stat-wise as they should be and paired weapon parrying always wins out.

[eliakon]

I've never seen a system with decent rules for using shields as cover. Not even GURPS. All of them seem to need house rules. Shields are never as awesome stat-wise as they should be and paired weapon parrying always wins out.

heh.
I will say that almost everyone in my GURPS group loved shields. That sweet, sweet PD bonus is hard to beat (and hard to get!)

The problem with this is the same one that so many issues have.
Making something "good" with out making it 'game breaking'
I use the example of the "evolving metagame" you see in lots of MMOs. As new material comes out the "optimal build" always changes as people juggle all the new bits and bobs to make the 'best' character.
That's cool, its part of the game.
BUT can often be a skill or build that is too optimum. One that is so good, that no other build is viable other than a niche build.
If you make shields too good, you run into the question of "why would anyone want to do anything but run a shield build because they will be non-competative in the meta when faced with foes with shields"
You of course also dont want to make shields too weak either... or you get the opposite problem. The challange is, as always, to get things just right so that there are lots of viable builds and that many different play styles can be done and enjoyed.

[Killer Cyborg]

I've never seen a system with decent rules for using shields as cover. Not even GURPS. All of them seem to need house rules. Shields are never as awesome stat-wise as they should be and paired weapon parrying always wins out.

Agreed.
Shields predate armor, IIRC, and are a lot more useful than most games give them credit for, both as parrying tools and as cover.

[Axelmania]

I will say that almost everyone in my GURPS group loved shields. That sweet, sweet PD bonus is hard to beat (and hard to get!)

They axed PD in the 4e from 2006 on, now it's only of benefit if you make a roll. Advantage of blocking arrows attainable with non-shields via Parry Missile Weapons skill. Repeat parries were allowed from outset and when Martial Arts supp allowed blocks it became a cumulative -5 instead of -4.

The only real advantage is there doesn't appear to be a cap on the weight of attacks you can parry like there is with shields (though realistically there ought to be) and the ability to change Slam into Shield Rush, and the latter became less impressive when Slam dmg was allowed for all weapons in MA.

The only way to put them in their zone is apply cover rules on top of it generously. Penalties to hit you (defense or no) are the closest thing to passive defenses now. That's probably what Palladium should use.