Unshieldable attacks?

[The Name Without Meaning]

Quick one - are there any charm attacks that cannot be affected by shields? Do charms that ignore armor ignore shields? Do unblockable attacks ignore shields? Maybe this should be a newbie question...


Thanks in advance.

 

[Flagg]

I don't know if this question has every been raised before, actually.


I'd think that anything that's unblockable and/or ignores armor would bypass shields as well, just from a common sense perspective.


-S

 

[The Name Without Meaning]

I don't know if this question has every been raised before, actually.
I'd think that anything that's unblockable and/or ignores armor would bypass shields as well, just from a common sense perspective.


-S

'Kay, one more than - do piercing attacks "pierce" shields in anyway?


That was a really fast reply, Still, thx.

 

[Flagg]

I'd say no. Piercing damage is a special rule mechanic involving armor. Since shields are not armor, and to not provide soak, they do not factor in.


Again, this is just my take on it.


-S

 

[The Name Without Meaning]

I'd say no. Piercing damage is a special rule mechanic involving armor. Since shields are not armor, and to not provide soak, they do not factor in.
Again, this is just my take on it.


-S

*sputters in confusion at the can you opened*


But if shields are not armor, presumably because the use of a shield physically is more akin to parrying than the passive defense afforded by armor, How is it common sense that armor ignoring attacks ignore shields?


Honestly, I thought I'd just overlooked a rule in the main book or the PG...


I withdraw the "quick question" part of my original post.

 

[The Name Without Meaning]

Or, you say shields aren't armor because they have a totally different mechanic than armor. That's more likely what u were thinking. Same question though...

 

[MikeOQuinn]

The piercing mechanic whereby you ignore 1/2 the armour's soak is based on the very correct principle that hammering a nail through a suit of armour is much easier than bashing your way in with, say, the blade edge of a sword.


Basically, what this is saying is that a piercing weapon allows you to strike vitals much easier than a slashing weapon, since as soon as you make it through the armour (including any padding or under-layers, as appropriate), you hit flesh.


A shield is held, by default, some distance away from the vital areas of the body. It is used as cover from attacks, and you can protect yourself against more if it's not right up against you. Any hit on a shield-bearer is assumed to have gotten past this defense. A punch dagger has no higher chance of success in this endeavour than does a slashing sword or a warhammer.


Therefore, Piercing would not affect the use of shields as defense.


However, if an attack is unblockable or avoids armour, common sense would indicate that it would, likewise, ignore a shield.

 

[The Name Without Meaning]

Unless you note that any weapon that can drive through armor can drive through a shield as well, sometimes right into the arm of the shield bearer. Or pinning his shield to his side painfully. I don't think the piercing rules state anything about vitals, just that you ignore half the armor's soak, because the weapon you are using goes through armor so well. If it was about vitals then punches wouldn't be bashing. Then, it would be common sense to factor in some kind of piercing effect on shields.


No?

 

[MikeOQuinn]

Don't have my books with me, so you'll have to pardon me if I misquote.


I remember there being a blurb in the main book about the fact that it is assumed that the characters are trying to hit the vital areas with every attack. You don't attack a shield or a weapon if your goal is to harm the person. You attack the person. If we combine these two assumptions, we come to the conclusion that, if you land a hit against a shield-bearer, you were not aiming to hit the shield, and therefore, would strike somewhere more damaging.


Now, in the area of pinning one's opponent's shield to his side, I'd say that that would require a higher difficulty roll (a'la a called shot with an opposed strength roll), as it's a rather specific maneuver, and much more difficult than simply causing damage to your opponent.


Yes, a weapon which can pierce armour could quite conceivably pierce through a shield. Yes, that would likely cause damage to the shield-arm. Aiming to hit the shield would be a distinctly different action than attacking a person. I'd say that the piercing weapon would ignore half the soak of the shield (as given in the item hardness section) for determining if it makes it through.


Remember, the only time in life-on-the-line combat when you want to aim for something other than a killing blow is when you are trying to shoot down a mounted rider. In that case, you aim for the horse. It's a bigger target, and felling it will hinder, maim, or possibly kill the rider. Other than that, if you're fighting for your life, you don't aim at an implement, you aim at the heart or head.

 

[The Name Without Meaning]

I didn't really mean that one would aim for the shield. Just that the shield bearer would put it in the way of attacks. If that happens, there's a chance of the wounds I mentioned. I only brought up the thing about vitals because I don't think that hitting someone in the arm is hitting them in a "vital" area, but I do think it hurts, and would be more likely with a piercing weapon than without.


I'm thinking that if shields are going to be counted as armor for attacks that ignore armor, there should also be a piercing effect against them. Probably not very severe, as the width of the shield makes it less likely you'll hit flesh going through it, while if you pierce armor it's almost a given you draw blood. Maybe shields that add a difficulty of 1 remain the same, 2-3 subtract one from the difficulty they add, 4-5 subtract 2.


This is all predicated on the idea that attacks that ignore armor also ignore shields, and I haven't given up hope that someone here will jump in with a page quote and a ruling. It is seeming less likely though. Haku found the one page that mentions "shards", long ago, maybe he'll help. If not, the measured opinions of this august and sagaicious forum shall be heeded at my table.

 

[memesis]

Mechanically, shields only affect your chances to hit, not (directly) your chances of doing ANY damage.  They reduce damage in that they reduce the overall damage-die pool.  But at the point you're ready to roll for damage, a shield came into play, your opponent tried to use it, and it didn't help him.  Your attack has already bypassed it.


An attack that bypasses the shield will negate the to-hit penalty.  I wouldn't automatically let area effect attacks bypass this, because unless they're magic effects or something like a fuel-air explosive, they're coming in from some direction, and you can point your shield in that direction to mitigate the problem somewhat.  I WOULD let this come into play with stuff like the Spirit Sword, that explicitly bypasses material defenses.

 

[Jakk Bey]

Actually, there are several weapon styles that take shield use into account. Targeting a shield can draw an opponenet off balance--since the dang thing is attached by a strap, it becomes a pivot point to swing an opponent into a more vulnerable position, where the follow up--be it a secondary weapon, a shield bash of your own, a kick, or the reverse swing of a pole arm, spear, or great sword--is waiting with the added mometum of the poor bastiche giving it a little extra smarting.  Some chain weapons are perfect for getting over, under, or around shields, losing a bit of their speed, but still getting in nasty little surprise.


Let's also not forget just skewering the shield and wrenching it can open an opponenet up nicely. But that can be covered with Stunting, easily enough.

 

[MikeOQuinn]

Actually, there are several weapon styles that take shield use into account. Targeting a shield can draw an opponenet off balance--since the dang thing is attached by a strap, it becomes a pivot point to swing an opponent into a more vulnerable position, where the follow up--be it a secondary weapon, a shield bash of your own, a kick, or the reverse swing of a pole arm, spear, or great sword--is waiting with the added mometum of the poor bastiche giving it a little extra smarting.  Some chain weapons are perfect for getting over, under, or around shields, losing a bit of their speed, but still getting in nasty little surprise.
Let's also not forget just skewering the shield and wrenching it can open an opponenet up nicely. But that can be covered with Stunting, easily enough.

All of this backs up the assumption that affecting your opponent's shield is not a simple attack action, but a separate roll (sometimes attack, sometimes not).

 

[Flagg]

Game mechanics can either be simple, or complex. That is, they can be quick-and-dirty, minimizing rules and dice, or they can be quite robust, covering a wide range of situations and contingencies.


The shield mechanics in Exalted are of the former variety. Thus, they don't mimic "reality" very well. As a consequence of this, things like pinning a shield to the body, or striking the shield arm, aren't explicitly covered by the rules.


If you're committed to the idea of these maneuvers, and want them to be compatible with the rules on Piercing damage, you're going to have to come up with your own expanded shield rules.


That, or let it be covered by Stunts.


-S

 

[The Name Without Meaning]

Oy Vey. I was just pointing out 2 ways that a weapon, literally or mechanically, could pierce a shield. I very, very much like the "no called shots" rule in exalted, and wouldn't ever allow them. So I wouldn't let a PC declare those kind of attacks, they are examples of the kinds of results PC's might get when their attacks defeat the defense value of a shield.

 

[Persell]

Game mechanics can either be simple, or complex. That is, they can be quick-and-dirty, minimizing rules and dice, or they can be quite robust, covering a wide range of situations and contingencies.
The shield mechanics in Exalted are of the former variety.


-S

Exactly my feelings. However, to add more spice to this mix, how about shield bracers? As they act mechanically the same as a standard shield, but there is no physical component to their ability to do so, what would be the effect of an attack that ignores 'shields'? I'm guessing it really does depend on the type of attack and is probably a call by the ST, but it adds another twist to things. The same could be said of the Abyssals summoned armour charm (sorry don't have the book to hand), where a cloak can be created that blocks attacks giving the same advantage as a shield would normally.


Thinking about it, given that the flavour text for the shield bracers is hardly comprehensive, how does everyone portray their use? Do they generate ambient essence flows around the user that deflect incoming attacks, do they project an essence-made shield attached to the shield bracer arm or do they act like Wonder Woman's bracelets?!

 

[Andrew02]

Whenever I used Shield Bracers, it was Wonder Woman style. Though, that was because I thought from the flavour text the things actually made your arms move to intercept things.

 

[Forn Clakes]

Whenever I used Shield Bracers, it was Wonder Woman style. Though, that was because I thought from the flavour text the things actually made your arms move to intercept things.

Agreed.


~FC.

 

[Ozymandius]

the question you need to ask yourself is, "do shields provide soak?" and the awnser to said question is "no, shields dont provide soak, they simply provide modifiers to the arratck roll, similer to someone attacking me while im behind a tree" so therefor shields would not be affected by the piercing rule, and as to the point of shields being used like parrying weapons, can you piercs thes weapons? no once again...

 

[Andrew02]

Perhaps another question you need to ask yourself is whether you want shields to provided added difficulty or a reduction in successes. It occured to me that added difficulty does not get considered in step 2 of the order of modifiers, so that you could in theory still roll your 3 dice for a difficulty 5 task, but you could not if you were to have 5 successes subtracted.

 

[Forn Clakes]

Perhaps another question you need to ask yourself is whether you want shields to provided added difficulty or a reduction in successes. It occured to me that added difficulty does not get considered in step 2 of the order of modifiers, so that you could in theory still roll your 3 dice for a difficulty 5 task, but you could not if you were to have 5 successes subtracted.

Sorry, but could you explain this, i can't seem to get my brain around what you've stated.


I thought that by raising the difficulty of an action, whether combat or non-combat, removed a number of successes equal to the difficulty minus 1.


Cheers,


~FC. (a tad confused)

 

[Andrew02]

I probably wrongly thinking subtracting successes would fit somewhere in that whole Order of Modifiers thing.


The way I read the Core, Difficulty does not actually cause you to lose successes, though. It merely raises the threshold at which you start counting Extra Successes. Not much difference, I suppose, but it might matter for some charms.