Page 1 of 3

Path of the Shield clarification

Posted: Tue 09 Apr 2019, 08:49
by Kjarl
I find the rules for path of the shield a bit unclear. The way I envision it the gm is declaring his attack against a player. The fighter with path of the shield uses his saved action and wp to use path of the shield to “parry his attack for him”. I would think since the original attack was made against another player the fighters parry roll would cancel out damage against the original target, any pushing damage would be taken by the fighter and any uncancelled damage would go against the original target of the attack. Who does the non-parried damage go to, the original target of the attack or the fighter who is using his path of the shield to parry the attack made against another player? 

Please clarify,

Re: Path of the Shield clarification

Posted: Tue 09 Apr 2019, 10:12
by Deep_Impact
Since you only deflect part of the incoming energy with your shield, I would say, that the remaining energy hits its intended target. The player you are shielding has a chance to parry or dogde by hisself and so reducing the damage even further.

Re: Path of the Shield clarification

Posted: Wed 10 Apr 2019, 09:08
by lupex
I pictured this as the player with path of the shield moving themselves in front of the attack and taking any damage not negated by the parry.

But I can see it working both ways.

Re: Path of the Shield clarification

Posted: Wed 10 Apr 2019, 11:10
by 9littlebees
I agree with Lupex. It's a talent for Fighters, so they can throw themselves in between an attacker and a weaker comrade. But I think if the narrative / situation dictates otherwise, it could just be an outflung shield instead (hitting the intended target). Just roll with the narrative and keep both options open.

Re: Path of the Shield clarification

Posted: Wed 10 Apr 2019, 11:37
by AndersP
Let the player with Path of the Shield decide and describe the action!

Re: Path of the Shield clarification

Posted: Thu 11 Apr 2019, 13:41
by myrsloken
I think the rules are obvious as to who receives the damage should the parry fail: it's the original target. The rules do not mention anything about intercepting or redirecting the attack, only to parry it. Game rules are inherently permissive: they explicitly state what you are allowed to do. This is different from real-world laws which tell you what you are not allowed to do. Now, you are ofc. encouraged to disregard whatever rule you want to, this is a role-playing game after all.

As for whether your ally can parry if the fighter fails, I think the rules are unclear. But to me the "parry for" should be read as "instead of". If you start allowing multiple parries I don't see why you wouldn't also allow both parry and dodge of the same attack by the same player, or even multiple parries of the same attack by the same player. But again, this is just my interpretation.

Re: Path of the Shield clarification

Posted: Thu 11 Apr 2019, 23:52
by lupex
If I were a player and stated that I wanted to parry an attack directed against another character (especially a weaker ally or one that was close to being broken), I would expect to step in front of the attack and to take any damage that gets through, completely protecting my ally. If my gm ruled that any remaining damage injured my ally instead I would be a bit annoyed as it would negate my action.

Whilst what you say about the wording, and your interpretation, may be true, i feel that it goes against the spirit of the talent.

I have been saying this a lot lately but does anything in the game break if you allow this awesome ally protecting move to equate to stepping in front of the oncoming attack with shield raised?

Re: Path of the Shield clarification

Posted: Fri 12 Apr 2019, 09:08
by Deep_Impact
... I would be a bit annoyed as it would negate my action.
Negate your action? The protected player would get a double chance of reducing the damage:
Damage = Damage - "Your parry" - "Victims parry / dodge" - "Armor rating"

assuming you both have average stats this could be 15 dice, giving a chance of
  • 94% of reducing 1 damage
  • 74% of reducing 2 damage
  • 47% of reducing 3 damage
  • 23% of reducing 4 damage
  • 9% of reducing 5 damage

Re: Path of the Shield clarification

Posted: Fri 12 Apr 2019, 10:00
by myrsloken
Whilst what you say about the wording, and your interpretation, may be true, i feel that it goes against the spirit of the talent.
I think it is always useful to read the rules as they are actually written and try to keep your bias out of (at least the first) the reading. After all, what do you know about the intent or spirit of the writer? After this, and especially during role-playing games, you can ask if this works for me and if not, what will I do instead. Interestingly, when I first read the rule I was intrigued by the possibility of failing to protect your friend and the potential for stories to emerge from this.

Re: Path of the Shield clarification

Posted: Fri 12 Apr 2019, 12:00
by lupex
My bias is always what is most fun, and favouring player agency. I have been role playing for 30 years and am quite adept at interpreting rules. Some systems say what you can do, some systems say what you can't do, most old school systems are quite ambiguous (much like some aspects of Forbidden Lands), if the rules were 100% clear then there would be no need for this discussion.

Enjoy playing how you choose to play, and I will play it my way at my table. Win/win if both groups are happy and having fun.