Shields

[Stattick]

Where are the stats for shields in Rifts? I remember running across them recently, but cannot remember where. I have a player who wants to pick up a shield, and I cannot recall how much MD they should have.

[kaid]

They are in the rifts game master guide. I believe the ones I glanced at this morning when I was looking something up were in the 40-70 MDC range depending on if it was a light or heavy shield.

[Nekira Sudacne]

They're pretty useless though. You still can't parry projectiles with them, and they take damage when they parry unlike weapons which do not.

[kaid]

I never quite understood why they went with the mechanics for shields they did. If shields worked in real life like they do in palladium nobody would have ever used them. Seriously if you have a big shield and you hold it in front of your body you sure can block bullets/arrows. Just look at swat officers using a riot shield you crouch behind it and if they don't want to try to shoot your feet they are not going to hit you without going through the shield first. I always thought the best way would be to give shields an AR where if you hit but do not beat its AR then you hit the shield first.

[Akashic Soldier]

They're pretty useless though. You still can't parry projectiles with them, and they take damage when they parry unlike weapons which do not.

That isn't true. You are at -3 to parry projectiles (instead of it being impossible) and they only take damage if they're under heavy fire and for good reason. Shields can provide cover. It is not explicitly stated within the rules however, if you look at the dimensions of the cyborg Combat Shields from Triax II than you'll find that it is VERY easy to essentially "tank" for a normal man-sized character, thus allowing them to get TOTAL cover from enemies firing in at a 180 degree arc. That essentially makes them impervious to attack. Likewise, they are large enough for most characters to squat down behind them and get partial cover. The same is true for the riot shields, which is why they are made with the eye slits and cover is a massive tactical advantage.

Shields are amazing. I love shields.

[Shark_Force]

They're pretty useless though. You still can't parry projectiles with them, and they take damage when they parry unlike weapons which do not.

That isn't true. You are at -3 to parry projectiles (instead of it being impossible) and they only take damage if they're under heavy fire and for good reason. Shields can provide cover. It is not explicitly stated within the rules however, if you look at the dimensions of the cyborg Combat Shields from Triax II than you'll find that it is VERY easy to essentially "tank" for a normal man-sized character, thus allowing them to get TOTAL cover from enemies firing in at a 180 degree arc. That essentially makes them impervious to attack. Likewise, they are large enough for most characters to squat down behind them and get partial cover. The same is true for the riot shields, which is why they are made with the eye slits and cover is a massive tactical advantage.

Shields are amazing. I love shields.

the *official* rules give shields about the same bonus to parry as most other WPs (spears for example get it slightly faster, most others get it slightly slower in the lower levels and equal or faster at higher levels), and you don't get to use that bonus against projectiles. or any other bonus for that matter... it's d20 -8 to parry bullets/energy blasts, no bonuses apply. it's d20 -3 to parry thrown objects and such, no bonuses apply. and no, it isn't impossible for most to do those things. it's hard, much like parrying with a shield, which is completely ridiculous. even more ridiculous is that parrying with a shield isn't easier than parrying with a knife for the most part (in fact, if you have fencing, a knife or sword is likely better. how dumb is that?)

using shields as cover is nice and all, but has nothing to do with using a shield. a pile of dirt or a thick stone wall or a destroyed MDC structure, armour, monster, etc does the same job.

the rules for shields need some serious improvements. like making them actually a better option than using a knife for the same purpose, for example.

[Killer Cyborg]

using shields as cover is nice and all, but has nothing to do with using a shield. a pile of dirt or a thick stone wall or a destroyed MDC structure, armour, monster, etc does the same job.

Sure, if you have a portable, Mega-Damage pile of dirt, or stone wall, or monster, or whatever.
But shields are sometimes easier.

And I'm not sure what you mean with "has nothing to do with using a shield."
Shields are used for cover today, and they have been used as cover historically.

the rules for shields need some serious improvements. like making them actually a better option than using a knife for the same purpose, for example.

100% agreed.

[kaid]

They're pretty useless though. You still can't parry projectiles with them, and they take damage when they parry unlike weapons which do not.

That isn't true. You are at -3 to parry projectiles (instead of it being impossible) and they only take damage if they're under heavy fire and for good reason. Shields can provide cover. It is not explicitly stated within the rules however, if you look at the dimensions of the cyborg Combat Shields from Triax II than you'll find that it is VERY easy to essentially "tank" for a normal man-sized character, thus allowing them to get TOTAL cover from enemies firing in at a 180 degree arc. That essentially makes them impervious to attack. Likewise, they are large enough for most characters to squat down behind them and get partial cover. The same is true for the riot shields, which is why they are made with the eye slits and cover is a massive tactical advantage.

Shields are amazing. I love shields.

WP Shield has any shield taking 10% damage when parrying. Sure it's an "optional" rule, but why it is even included at all is unfathomable.

Using shields as cover is only minutely better. Partial cover requires a called shot to hit and full cover makes you totally protected. The issue is that most shields short of tower shields or other massive variants only actually provide partial cover (which is defined as there only being a head or arm to shoot at) and very rarely full cover. Obviously transporting such large shields could be an issue (although nothing actually hinders you under the rules) for the benefit of only partial cover. Smaller shields provide no benefit at all in the cover department.

What shields need and what I use to make them better in my games is the ability to straight up block attacks. Not parry, but to put the shield in front of the attack and have it take the damage. I have tried many ways of achieving this from calling it an automatic limb-sacrifice to making the attacker need a 12 to hit (where a 11 or less hits the shield and a 7 or less misses completely). Recently I have being using rules from the Beta in Robotech that allow it to block any attacks with its shielding on its forearms but I encounter two issues. 1) It requires a roll to parry and therefore it is subject to all of the normal parry penalties. Also, do I let them take a normal parry attempt? 2) If don't then all they get is a normal parry, but when successful it has the shield taking damage anyways, which seems like a step backwards.

I think perhaps the simplest way to handle it would be to use the AR mechanic. Give shields a varying AR for small to large shields. For an attacker from the facing that the shield covers to hit the person they have beat the AR of the shield or it is considered blocked by the shield and does damage to the shield instead. Given that shields limit you to one handed weaponry it seems a pretty reasonable trade off extra defense for lesser offense.

[Akashic Soldier]

Using shields as cover is only minutely better.

I disagree.

Partial cover requires a called shot to hit

Effectively halving your opponents attacks.

full cover makes you totally protected.

And that isn't awesome.. how exactly? I think "I am immune to attacks until my shield is destroyed" is pretty impressive if you ask me.

The issue is that most shields short of tower shields or other massive variants only actually provide partial cover (which is defined as there only being a head or arm to shoot at) and very rarely full cover.

Man, that is kinda like complaining that your pistol cannot punch a hole in a tank. Likewise, that shield can be used to plug holes in a wall or cover a downed ally. There are plenty of uses, they just don't spell them out for you, that's all.

Obviously transporting such large shields could be an issue (although nothing actually hinders you under the rules) for the benefit of only partial cover.

Cyborgs and other "big characters" and robots can lug them around with relative ease. Its kind of like complaining that there is no wrist mounted anti-artcraft mini-missile launcher. I'm exaggerating but the logic is the same.

Smaller shields provide no benefit at all in the cover department.

Depends on the situation and how you use them. Likewise, they can be used as weapons, thrown (though not with an amazing bonus to strike). You can even go full Cap America if you pick the right W.P.s. And of course, if your GM is using the optional "can parry energy attacks" rules than you have -8 to parry instead of -10 which is way better than most folks.

What shields need and what I use to make them better in my games is the ability to straight up block attacks. Not parry, but to put the shield in front of the attack and have it take the damage.

You mean like the fact you can use them to get total cover in certain situations?
Or... by say using them to perform a block sacrifice?

The advantage to wielding a shield is all the things it doesn't talk about because that'd get into physics, like being able to simultaneously charge with a shield in response to a missile attack to create an area clear of the blast zone behind you where you can shield someone, or being able to do the same to shield someone small or kneeling from a dragon's breath weapon. This is all the stuff you're supposed to try and do as a hero, its not going to be spelled out for you. You're just supposed to do it.

Finally, if the shield didn't take damage from getting bombarded then things get messy. I have a character that uses a shield and he (without having an incredibly high P.P.) is raking in a +12 to parry. That is impressive.

[Killer Cyborg]

Using shields as cover is only minutely better. Partial cover requires a called shot to hit and full cover makes you totally protected. The issue is that most shields short of tower shields or other massive variants only actually provide partial cover (which is defined as there only being a head or arm to shoot at) and very rarely full cover. Obviously transporting such large shields could be an issue (although nothing actually hinders you under the rules) for the benefit of only partial cover. Smaller shields provide no benefit at all in the cover department.

All you need is partial cover, because that puts the attacker(s) into a position where they have to choose between spending extra attacks trying to blow through your shield, or extra attacks trying to make Called Shots.
Depending on the MDC of the shield, and the MD they inflict on average, it might take them twice as long to kill you if they have to blast through your shield.
And if they have to make Called Shots, it'll still take them twice as long to kill you.

Recently I have being using rules from the Beta in Robotech that allow it to block any attacks with its shielding on its forearms but I encounter two issues. 1) It requires a roll to parry and therefore it is subject to all of the normal parry penalties. Also, do I let them take a normal parry attempt? 2) If don't then all they get is a normal parry, but when successful it has the shield taking damage anyways, which seems like a step backwards.

RUE 364 has rules for Block Sacrifice against missiles, if the character is a robot pilot or borg with bionic arms. No parry roll is required.
Logically, if a borg with bionic arms had a shield, the shield would take the damage from the missile.
Logically, if a borg can do it, so can other people; the key part of the borg simply seems to be his bionic arms, because they're an artificial body part to sacrifice, so anybody unconcerned with their own limbs ought to be able to physically do the same thing.
(Moreover, the rule predated the MDC By Location rules for MDC armor, so I'd say that somebody in MDC armor could try the same thing, though that's just a side note)

That would only help against energy weapons or projectiles if you adapt things with a house rule, though.

[Shark_Force]

using shields as cover is nice and all, but has nothing to do with using a shield. a pile of dirt or a thick stone wall or a destroyed MDC structure, armour, monster, etc does the same job.

Sure, if you have a portable, Mega-Damage pile of dirt, or stone wall, or monster, or whatever.
But shields are sometimes easier.

And I'm not sure what you mean with "has nothing to do with using a shield."
Shields are used for cover today, and they have been used as cover historically.

the rules for shields need some serious improvements. like making them actually a better option than using a knife for the same purpose, for example.

100% agreed.

cover has nothing to do with using a shield, because the rules for using a shield don't give you cover. you have to make a house rule for that.

i suppose i should have clarified that i was referring to the rules for using a shield, rather than the RL use of a shield (which is, indeed, all about providing cover as well as using it to actively block attacks).

now of course, if you house-rule that shields provide cover from a certain portion of the battlefield, then they do become much more useful. in fact, that makes an awful lot of sense, and i really wish the rules reflected that. but it isn't what the rules say happens.

[Akashic Soldier]

but it isn't what the rules say happens.

The rules do not specify if you are protected by a 7 by 10 mega-damage shield or if its a robots leg or a stone wall. Thus, if your shield is 7 by 10 and you are less than 7 by 10 and you stand behind your shield than PRESUMABLY you're protected the same way you would be if you stepped behind a wall.

Also, your observation ignores the fact that the shield is a weapon, has strike bonuses and damage values, and can be used with W.P. Paired Weapons if a player so wishes.

[kaid]

The problem with the way shields work in palladium is you pretty much either have to house rule or assume things not written to make them useful at all. As written to block/parry attacks you have to use them like you would any other weapon and they are barely better at it than using a dagger in your offhand is.

The really ironic thing is parrying with a shield is actually in some ways worse with a shield with the shield takes 10% damage rule when parrying whereas weapons take no damage when parrying.

If the cover thing was intended then why bother having any plus to parry modifiers because using it to parry would almost always be worse than simply using it as cover.

[Akashic Soldier]

Again, shields don't actually provide cover unless they are of the largest size.

Untrue. If your standard kyte shield is 3 by 3. Standing the average man is 6 by 3. Squatting or kneeling (such as in the average fighting stance) the average combatant stands between 4 1/2 and 5 tall. This alone does not provide cover. However, 3 by 3 is more than enough to cover a downed foe or someone sitting in the fetal position or to block a window of attack. At which time it does not matter if the character has partial cover or not.

More to the point, W.P. Shield provided a parry bonus and so do some shields. Meaning you have a greater chance of blocking. Likewise, just because something is not written in the rules does not mean it isn't possible. Its not like this is Dungeons and Dragons 4E. A certain level of common sense and reason is necessary. For instance, shielding another person who when kneeling or sitting is less than 3 by 3 (which is very easy) is going to protect them from a blast. If your shield is hit with a torrent of flame it will damage the shield and wash past it leaving the shielded character unharmed even if it does not protect the shield barer. The rules are not going to cover this excessively because it does not/cannot apply to every single situation across the board. We are given the tools to make the judgment and need to apply as the situation warrants.

Yes, but cyborgs with upwards of 600 MDC don't benefit from them as much.

This doesn't mean they're less useful or useless. In fact, I am not even sure I agree with this either. It completely disregards the bonuses provided by the shield and W.P. Shield.

As written to block/parry attacks you have to use them like you would any other weapon and they are barely better at it than using a dagger in your offhand is.

Except you're hard pressed to find a dagger that gives you a parry bonus and W.P. Knives doesn't give you as good of a parry bonus as W.P. Shield, plus there is no way you can gain partial cover from using a dagger.

The really ironic thing is parrying with a shield is actually in some ways worse with a shield with the shield takes 10% damage rule when parrying whereas weapons take no damage when parrying.

However, more to the point its to bypass the fact that you can shield downed comrades, give your friends partial cover by blocking a hallway partially and slowly walking back so at best lasers can shoot your legs or the roof over your head and not the other PCs. Plus, they're easy to use like miniature portable walls. Heck, one of my favorite tricks with GrUz is casting dig a few times during a fight and then dropping down into the hole at the end of the melee and then plugging it with my shield until my next turn.

The issue I have is that those rules are written specifically for borgs and RPA pilots. If i let them make limb sacrifices as normal people, what is to stop them from doing it with their normal limbs rather than the shield

Nothing besides sanity. Considering that the robot or 'Borgs arms take serious damage its safe to assume that at best they should have to roll on the critical injury table in the R:MB. Technically, anyone should be able to do it. The only reason its mentioned for 'Borgs and PA is because typically they're the only guys that can sacrifice their arms and still function afterwards.

Again, common sense man. You gotta use common sense.

[Killer Cyborg]

The issue I have is that those rules are written specifically for borgs and RPA pilots

As I pointed out, this seems to be entirely because Borgs and RPA pilots were (when the rule was originally written) the only people who had MDC by location for their arms.
Since they no longer are the only people who have MDC by location for their arms, I see no reason why it should still be restricted.

If i let them make limb sacrifices as normal people, what is to stop them from doing it with their normal limbs rather than the shield?

Nothing. But if normal people try to block a missile with their arms, then they're probably going to lose an arm.

If nothing then it doesn't matter where I shoot at them they can just choose where it hits.

Not really.The missiles in this context are assumed to be aimed at the main body of the target, and only the arms can be used in a block sacrifice.
So all it really does is to allow them the opportunity to try to save their main body MDC/SDC at the cost of their arms.
If you aim at their head, this rule doesn't affect anything.
If you aim at their legs, it doesn't affect anything.
If you aim at their arms, it doesn't affect anything.

Also, as to the first portion see my edited original post but suffice to say that most shields do not provide partial cover except the extremely large (like Tower Shields+)

The shield only has to be large enough to cover the torso.
Many shields are that large.

[Killer Cyborg]

cover has nothing to do with using a shield, because the rules for using a shield don't give you cover. you have to make a house rule for that.

No, you don't.
No more than you have to make a house-rule for hiding behind a wall, or tree, or companion, or mount, or anything else.

[Killer Cyborg]

If there are torrents of flames or missiles flying at you there are even more issues. I assume the types of flame weapons we are talking about here are breath weapons or flamethrowers. Unfortunately, they are AoE weapons, meaning they damage everything in their area. So unless you have a shield that provides total cover, you will still be hit along with the shield.

Not according to the rules.
According to the rules, area of effect attacks are assumed to hit the main body.
Hitting anything other than the main body requires a Called Shot, and AoE attacks cannot be Called Shots.

But what I'm trying to say here is that the rules as written do not represent even a fraction of what a shield can do.

I can agree with that.
Of course, this is true of most RPGs.

[Killer Cyborg]

The shield only has to be large enough to cover the torso.
Many shields are that large.

Partial cover, as per the rules is everything except an arm or the head is covered.

I believe that you are incorrect on that, but if you care to quote the exact rule, I'll look it over.

As for the rest of your post, it's well founded and reasonable and although I disagree with some but mostly on personal opinion and play style I'm not gonna argue.

Okay.

[Akashic Soldier]

The shield only has to be large enough to cover the torso.
Many shields are that large.

Exactly that is the whole reason they exist at all.

@Johnny, you're ignoring physics which are not a catch all 100% of the time but nor should they be thrown out. Like, with your flame thrower example... if you were close enough "partial cover or not" of course you could use the shield to avoid damage. In fact, you'd only have a -8 to do so instead of the normal -10. That is approximately a 10% greater chance of parrying. If the shield has a parry bonus than there is another +1, then if you have W.P. Shield there is another +X. So, minimum at first level a guy with a shield is 15% more likely to parry a torrent of flame/flamethrower or other energy weapon than someone with a laser pistol in each hand.

Partial cover is covered in a little more detail in the R:GMG I believe (or is it the adventure guide?) its like 50% or more of your body is concealed or if you're darting out behind from something and firing and then falling back behind it.

[Akashic Soldier]

Well since your 3x3 shield is not presumably enough to provide partial cover then I just shoot you with the flamethrower, physics or not. Unless you could actually manage to parry a flamethrower (animeeeeeeee! ), which would be impressive in and of itself. But that doesn't mean a shield is better than someone with a sword and the fencing skill, since they can attempt to parry the fire as well.

Did you look at the math?

I'll explain again:

W.P. Sword +1 to Parry
Fencing +1 to Parry
Parrying an Energy Attack -10
Chance of Success: -40%

W.P. Shield +1 to Parry
Shield Bonus +1 to Parry
Parrying an Energy Attack -8
Chance of Success: -30%

Meaning that at first level, a guy with a shield has a 10% greater chance of parrying the attack straight up. If he is not using a "decent" shield, than he has +5%. That might not seem like much but it increases as the character levels. More to the point, it is still a higher bonus that someone who is a trained fencer. Technically, the character could have a sword in their other hand and the fencing skill too and gain an additional +1 to parry from that too. Taking it up to 15% greater chance of sucsess.

[Akashic Soldier]

I am aware of the math, but personally I don't think an extra 10% to parry ranged attacks is enough for me to think that a shield is more valuable then say, a second sword.

Mathematically, at first level you are (on average) essentially trading 1D4 and 1D6 points on your secondary weapon for an additional +1 to parry.

[Nightmask]

I am aware of the math, but personally I don't think an extra 10% to parry ranged attacks is enough for me to think that a shield is more valuable then say, a second sword.

Mathematically, at first level you are (on average) essentially trading 1D4 and 1D6 points on your secondary weapon of M.D. for an additional +1 to parry.

See edited post above, but I'm not seeing your math for parrying energy blasts.
In melee combat you're right, but I'd rather have the 2D6 damage from a sword (with my fencing skill), then the +1 to parry and 1D4 (sdc only) damage from the shield.

Aren't there shield variants around that have nasty spikes or even vibro-blades peppering them to improve bashing damage?

[Akashic Soldier]

In melee combat you're right, but I'd rather have the 2D6 damage from a sword (with my fencing skill), then the +1 to parry and 1D4 (sdc only) damage from the shield.

Why would you use an S.D.C. shield when all of the printed examples I know inflict M.D.?

Yeah, I guess its just a matter of preference I guess. I prefer a strong defense over a fast victory.

[Akashic Soldier]

Looking at the GMG more and I am seeing some extremely frustrating information.
First off, parrying is not parrying with ranged attacks. The item takes the damage even if it succeeds in parrying. So essentially it's blocking, which seems like a step forward. But for some reason I am -10 or 12 to put a hunk of metal in front of me and let it take the damage? So it's not really a block, it's just a worse version of the parry!?
On top of that the rules go on to say you can't block explosives with a shield (so there goes performing limb sacrifices) EVER. So it would appear that shields are directly forbidden from performing a limb sacrifice, and they get a crappy parry disguised as a block.
It just makes me want to....

Technically its also impossible to parry explosions with any melee weapon. However, if you refer to the optional rules for parrying energy attacks you'll find... blah blah blah blah blah. All the stuff we've already discussed. lol

[Nightmask]

I am aware of the math, but personally I don't think an extra 10% to parry ranged attacks is enough for me to think that a shield is more valuable then say, a second sword.

Mathematically, at first level you are (on average) essentially trading 1D4 and 1D6 points on your secondary weapon of M.D. for an additional +1 to parry.

See edited post above, but I'm not seeing your math for parrying energy blasts.
In melee combat you're right, but I'd rather have the 2D6 damage from a sword (with my fencing skill), then the +1 to parry and 1D4 (sdc only) damage from the shield.

Aren't there shield variants around that have nasty spikes or even vibro-blades peppering them to improve bashing damage?

Probably, but I don't know of that many shields to begin with.

True, they don't get much love. You'd also think they'd do more damage especially the heavy ones given you can do HtH damage that's greater than 1d4 with the right MA or training.

[Akashic Soldier]

You mean there's a third set of rules for parrying energy attacks!!!!????
*sobs*
why is it so complicated to hold a slab of metal in front of me?

Your problem is you are mistaking "slapping a slab of metal down in front of you" with parrying.

[Killer Cyborg]

The shield only has to be large enough to cover the torso.
Many shields are that large.

Partial cover, as per the rules is everything except an arm or the head is covered.

I believe that you are incorrect on that, but if you care to quote the exact rule, I'll look it over.

Shooting at someone behind cover: If the target is completely covered/concealed there is no hope of hitting him from a distance, and the shooter will need to find a different vantage point where he can see the character or move in on the place of protection and concealment. If the target is hiding but part of him/it can be seen or if the target periodically pops its head or arm out to shoot back, curse or peek out, the shooter must make a called shot to shoot him/it and either shoot what little is seen or wait until he pops into the open for a couple of seconds

So this brings up a couple of things:
1) Partial cover, as a term, is never actually directly addressed (again I am only referencing RUE to my knowledge).
2) The only times the passage refers to someone being behind cover is when they are totally hidden (which is what I'm calling total cover) and when they are almost completely hidden (which is what I'm calling partial cover). I'm not applying any logic to the passage of what cover is in real life, I'm just trying to get the most literal meaning out of it.

Later on that page, in the Bonuses & Penalties section, there is this passage:
Target is Behind Cover: Requires Called Shot, impossible if complete cover.

So basically, and I think we're pretty much looking at this the same way:
Complete Cover = ALL of you (100%) is behind cover.
Partial Cover = SOME of you (?-99.999%) is behind cover.

Now, we can narrow that second definition somewhat.
If my big toe, or even my foot, is behind a rock, THAT doesn't provide any cover.
For that matter, if my entire LEG is behind a wall, that doesn't provide any cover either.
We know this because we know the results of partial cover: you need a Called Shot to hit the target.
And we know that a Called Shot is (RUE 361) a shot that homes in on a specific part of a larger target.
And we know that the Main Body is (RUE 362) typically the largest area of body mass offered by the target. On people/humanoid creatures that is the upper torso (chest and waist).
And we know that (RUE 362) to strike something other than the main body, the attacker must make a Called Shot or roll a Natural 20.

So...
-To strike something other than the chest or waist, a shooter has to make a Called Shot.
-To strike somebody behind partial cover, a shooter has to make a Called Shot.

Logically, this would indicate that "partial cover" would include any situation where the chest and waist are covered, but the arms/legs/heads/tails may or may not be covered.

Furthermore, because a Called Shot is "a shot that homes in on a specific part of a larger target," the amount of the main body that is actually covered does not have to be 100% complete.
One of the examples of the kind of thing that might be hit by a Called Shot is "a bull's eye."
Since the "main body" is "typically the largest area of body mass offered by the target," the "main body" of a traditional target with a Bull's Eye would be the body of the target itself.
The Bull's Eye, being a "specific part of" the larger target would normally require a Called Shot.
Alternately, the GM could declare that a Natural 20 would also mean striking the Bull's Eye.
The rules are consistent here.

But what would happen if one crafted a large steel plate that covered all of the target except the Bull's Eye?
Logically, since one needs a Called Shot (or Natural 20) to hit the Bull's Eye, any other shot at the target would strike the steel plate... even though the Bull's Eye is part of the main body, and therefore part of the main body IS exposed.
So we know that part of the main body can be exposed, and still meet the requirements of being "under cover."
Exactly how small a part is somewhat debatable, but since we know that attempting to hit something as small as a Bull's Eye imposes a -3 or -4 penalty (RUE 361), it's safe to assume that a larger amount of the main body could be exposed and still require a Called Shot.
Probably 3-4x or more as large, which on some targets can get pretty sizable.

If instead of that steel plate, the target in question were covered by a shield, the effects would be much the same.
If the shield covered the entire Main Body of the target, a Called Shot might be made at the legs of the target, assuming that the target were standing on a tripod or some similar arrangement.
If the shield were large enough that the entire target, including legs, was covered, then no shot at all could be made until the shield was destroyed.
If the shield were large enough to cover most of the main body of the target, but not quite all of it, then a Called Shot would need to be made to hit the exposed area, instead of hitting the shield.

And I see absolutely no reason why it would work any differently with a person holding the shield in front of them, as long as the shield was large enough to cover their chest and waist, or at least most of that area.

[Killer Cyborg]

Looking at the GMG more and I am seeing some extremely frustrating information.

Hm.
Which pages and which printing?

[Killer Cyborg]

W.P. Shield +1 to Parry

Which shields give bonuses to parry?

[Nightmask]

That is a very well reasoned out and logical argument. And it is an extremely good case for shields providing partial cover. However, since it relies on extrapolation and a logical thought process rather than finding a page that says "shields provide partial cover" there is still a slim possibility that the authors may throw logic to the wind and completely ignore... well everything.
I'm not saying you're wrong or that I disagree, just that what actually constitutes partial cover is not definitive.

Don't you actually mean there's the very real possibility that the GM will ignore logic and everything because it doesn't explicitly say 'shields provide partial cover' and insist that shields provide no cover at all for no other reason than 'well the book doesn't say so directly'?

[Killer Cyborg]

That is a very well reasoned out and logical argument. And it is an extremely good case for shields providing partial cover. However, since it relies on extrapolation and a logical thought process rather than finding a page that says "shields provide partial cover" there is still a slim possibility that the authors may throw logic to the wind and completely ignore... well everything.
I'm not saying you're wrong or that I disagree, just that what actually constitutes partial cover is not definitive.

They could say the same thing about trees, that you can't actually use trees for cover.
Or that you can't use MDC concrete bunkers for cover.

But until I see any indication that the writers want to break the laws of physics in that particular way, I'm not going to assume it.
In fact, I'm going to assume against it.

[Killer Cyborg]

Looking at the GMG more and I am seeing some extremely frustrating information.

Hm.
Which pages and which printing?

First printing
pg 41

Okay.
That's just talking about parrying, not blocking.
You can't swing a shield from your side to knock a flying bullet out of the air, nor a flying energy blast, not without great difficulty.

The part about explosives... I think that's just badly worded.
If somebody chucks a grenade at you, that's just like chucking a rock at you; you should be able to parry it (even ignoring blocking it).
So my best guess is that they should have said "explosions can not be parried."

Area of Affect damage is still directional, radiating outward from the center of the blast.
As long as the shield is between your main body and the center of the blast, the explosion should hit the shield first.
Although you should still get knocked back or knocked down.
And by the rules, the explosion only hits your main body, so that's all the shield would need to cover.

BUT you might be right as far as your interpretation of these rules; they might ignore physics here.
It's hard to say, without talking to Kevin about it.

[Blue_Lion]

You mean there's a third set of rules for parrying energy attacks!!!!????
*sobs*
why is it so complicated to hold a slab of metal in front of me?

Your problem is you are mistaking "slapping a slab of metal down in front of you" with parrying.

because shields only seem to be able to parry and keep being strictly forbidden from just blocking an attack.

So let me see if I get this I can jump in front of an attack for some body but cant do it with a shield blocking my main boady?

As for attacking shelds there are probaly more than you think. Atlantis 1 had missle shields.
There is a realy good TW shield in one of the early rifters it had target deflect.

Most shields (other than buclers) are big enofe to cover the main body of the wilder witch is 50% or more. If I rember right legs are 12% each and arms are 8% Now given that most shelds cover from sholders to mid they and one full arm. That whould be over 50%. Isnt the kite shild the one that was a streched triangle that had narrow sides and long to provide greater cover wile reducing wgt?

Simple math whould be shield is 3' person is 5'10" or so that means hgt wise 2'10" are exposed now most people are not half as wide as the are tall. Your waste size is the not how wide you are from side to side. I am a slim person I used a ruler and guess what I am about 16" from shoulder to sholder so a burly person might be 20-24 inches or so across. Meaning the sheld does cover over half you body.

Also on a side note the sheild can cover the entire main boady witch is where all non aimed shots hit. How can you hit something that is compleatly behind something is beyound me.

[kaid]

Looking at the GMG more and I am seeing some extremely frustrating information.
First off, parrying is not parrying with ranged attacks. The item takes the damage even if it succeeds in parrying. So essentially it's blocking, which seems like a step forward. But for some reason I am -10 or 12 to put a hunk of metal in front of me and let it take the damage? So it's not really a block, it's just a worse version of the parry!?
On top of that the rules go on to say you can't block explosives with a shield (so there goes performing limb sacrifices) EVER. So it would appear that shields are directly forbidden from performing a limb sacrifice, and they get a crappy parry disguised as a block.
It just makes me want to....

Hehe yup rules as written make shields a pretty terrible option overall. What little good they do is offset by not using either a second offensive weapon or a larger main hand weapon.

Funny thing is but this kind of thing is somewhat common in a bunch of different RPG systems where shields overall are mediocre to just plain useless. There is a reason shields were so common historically and that is because they are in real life they proved to be very effective. Right now other than police riot shields they are not seen as terribly useful mainly because to be bullet proof it has to be very very heavy and bulky. With MDC a shield should make a great deal of sense and be very handy. I don't need to know who is shooting at me if I hold a tower shield of MDC materials in front of my body the shooter should have almost no chance of bypassing it to hit me.

[Killer Cyborg]

Funny thing is but this kind of thing is somewhat common in a bunch of different RPG systems where shields overall are mediocre to just plain useless.

Agreed.
That was always one of my grips about shields in D&D. Basically, the gave you a point or two of AC, but that's it... when really, there have been plenty of warriors throughout history that got by pretty will with just a shield, and no armor.

With MDC a shield should make a great deal of sense and be very handy. I don't need to know who is shooting at me if I hold a tower shield of MDC materials in front of my body the shooter should have almost no chance of bypassing it to hit me.

Yup.
For that matter, like riot shields, you can have transparent shields, or shields with windows in them.

I wrote up some decent MDC shields for a thread about my fictional arms company, Patriot Arms Incorporated:
(They sell to the CS military, for the most part)
PAI CS-1 Combat Shield
This round, skull-shaped shield can be used to parry incoming melee attacks, or it can simply be held in front of the torso as additional protection against ranged attacks (requiring attackers from the front to either shoot through the shield, or to attempt so shoot around it with a Called Shot).
While this 2' diameter shield is lightweight (5 lbs), the nature of it is to act as a wall between the defender and the attacker, which means that when it is in position to protect the torso from incoming gunfire and ranged attacks, it is also in position to interfere with outgoing attacks as well. Only one-handed weapons are able to be used by the defender to shoot around the shield, and there is a -1 penalty to strike on Aimed Shots.
Damage Capacity: 50 MDC
Cost: CR 2,000

PAI CS-2 Combat Shield
This heavy, rectangular shield is black, with the standard CS skull emblem on the front. It measures 2' wide by 3' tall, and weighs 12.5 lbs. There is a small, 4"x16" window in the front of the shield, so that view is not obstructed while the shield is being used as portable cover. This window is equipped with special polarizing technology that makes it impenetrable to lasers (i.e., they damage the window instead of passing through), as well as protecting somebody looking through it from bright lights that might otherwise interfere with their vision. The slight curve of the shield allows for the shield to be set on the ground and used as protection with the soldier kneeling behind it to fire a rifle or other two-handed weapon without compromising aim, although the head, arms, and weapon are unprotected by the shield in this situation.
Damage Capacity: 75 MDC
Cost: CR 3,000

PAI CS-3 Combat Shield
This shield is too cumbersome for most human soldiers, but has quite a bit of popularity among Borgs and Dog Pack members. It is similar to the CS-2 Combat Shield, but is even larger, 26"x70", and weighs 45 lbs. The shield is too tall to kneel behind as cover, though a tall enough person might be able to fire over the top of it in a similar fashion. Generally, somebody wishing to shoot from behind the shield must shoot from around the side of it, which would allow an enemy to make a Called Shot in order to hit their torso, arm, and/or leg, depending on how the person is placed behind the shield, and the vantage point of the shooter.
Damage Capacity 150 MDC
Cost: 5,000

[ZorValachan]

KC and AS pretty much explain the whole cover idea. I just wanted to add another way to think on it.
Parrying is Re-active. The guy shoots at you and you have to move your shield into position to block the attack. WP shield comes into play here.
Cover is Pro-active. You plant your body behind the shield and gain cover from whatever side of your body the shield covers. No need for WP shield. You got cover.

The shield is one object that provides 2 rules. Parry and Cover. A nice big shield like a Roman scutum or riot shield can easily provide full cover when used proactively.


Side note-nit pick of mine: I agree with all AS said except there wa sno need to say "Likewise, just because something is not written in the rules does not mean it isn't possible. Its not like this is Dungeons and Dragons 4E here" A lot of uninformed people think this, but they must never have read the 4ed DMG, which states many many times how to improvise, story tell, and do things there are no rules for.

In Palladium FRPG 1st edition, I had a player whose character lost a hand. There is no rule for that in PB. In D+D 4th edition last week, another player's character lost a hand. No rule for that either. in both cases it did not stop, slow down, hamper or in any way jolt the game. In fact the 4th edition player took his fighter's sword hand loss better.

Or to make it simple. No need to bash a system here to make PB games seem better. The game should stand on its own, and IMO PB Rifts rules with parrying and cover give shields a darn good reason to be used and in this case it stands strong.

[kaid]

Problem is if they actually intended shields to give cover bonuses why would they even mention parry. Cover would always be more effective than a chance to parry especially vs any kind of projectile. Yes it makes sense to use it this way but the rules as written seem to indicate that this is not intended.

[Killer Cyborg]

Problem is if they actually intended shields to give cover bonuses why would they even mention parry. Cover would always be more effective than a chance to parry especially vs any kind of projectile. Yes it makes sense to use it this way but the rules as written seem to indicate that this is not intended.

It's hard to tell with Palladium, because they assume that most people use "common sense."
So it's entirely possible that they think it's SO obvious that you can hide behind a shield that they've simply never mentioned it.
It's also possible that they did not think of this possibility at all when they were writing the rules, and aren't really familiar with how shields and cover work.

As it stands, nothing in the rules precludes the use of shields in that manner, and the rules for cover allow it.
So it's currently fair game, whether it's intended or not.

[Shark_Force]

and this is why, to me, the rules for shields don't grant cover. should they? yes, they probably should.

but the thing is... if a shield is large enough to provide cover, this is the sort of thing that should be mentioned right in the shield's description. particularly since it's presumably the primary use of any shield large enough to be used as cover (given that the parry rules for shields are... shall we say "less than ideal"... in the sense that if you have a spear and a shield, you should probably parry with the spear. if you have a sword and a shield, and both WP sword and fencing, you should use the sword. and likewise, if you have a knife, WP knife, and fencing... use the knife).

it would be like having information about how effective headbutting someone while wearing environmental armour with the helmet on is, but not bothering to mention how long it can stay environmentally sealed before needing fresh breathable air. sure, a headbutt with MDC environmental armour on should probably be more effective than headbutting without. but you talk about the main function of the device first, and worry about secondary stuff later.

if the rules for parrying with a shield suck (and they do), they should discuss how shields are useful as cover, not how they're supposedly useful for parrying. the fact that the shield rules don't mention cover *anywhere* makes me think that they aren't intended to be used as such by the authors.

[Talavar]

and this is why, to me, the rules for shields don't grant cover. should they? yes, they probably should.

but the thing is... if a shield is large enough to provide cover, this is the sort of thing that should be mentioned right in the shield's description. particularly since it's presumably the primary use of any shield large enough to be used as cover (given that the parry rules for shields are... shall we say "less than ideal"... in the sense that if you have a spear and a shield, you should probably parry with the spear. if you have a sword and a shield, and both WP sword and fencing, you should use the sword. and likewise, if you have a knife, WP knife, and fencing... use the knife).

it would be like having information about how effective headbutting someone while wearing environmental armour with the helmet on is, but not bothering to mention how long it can stay environmentally sealed before needing fresh breathable air. sure, a headbutt with MDC environmental armour on should probably be more effective than headbutting without. but you talk about the main function of the device first, and worry about secondary stuff later.

if the rules for parrying with a shield suck (and they do), they should discuss how shields are useful as cover, not how they're supposedly useful for parrying. the fact that the shield rules don't mention cover *anywhere* makes me think that they aren't intended to be used as such by the authors.

When the authors don't know what they're talking about, and it's not expressly forbidden by the rules, who cares what they intended?

[Shark_Force]

When the authors don't know what they're talking about, and it's not expressly forbidden by the rules, who cares what they intended?

well, seeing as how they're the people who write the default rules, I care.

so far as i can tell, there is no "they did a crappy job of writing the rules in this book" discount at my FLGS. presumably because my FLGS, while assuredly not the *best* way to make money, has at least somewhere in their list of goals making enough money to keep food on the table. and since that crappy rule is taking up several lines that could have been better applied to, say, actually providing clear cover rules, instead of leaving us with a single paragraph of fairly vague advice, i'd much rather they do a good job of it than a crappy one.

no, it isn't something that can't be fixed. but if you bought a new car and it was covered in mud, would you not be a little bit upset that the new car isn't clean? i mean, yes, you can clean the car. it's not an insurmountable problem. but that doesn't mean you aren't going to feel upset about your brand new car coming with a layer of mud coating the whole thing.

[Killer Cyborg]

and this is why, to me, the rules for shields don't grant cover. should they? yes, they probably should.

but the thing is... if a shield is large enough to provide cover, this is the sort of thing that should be mentioned right in the shield's description.

If a hat is big enough to wear on your head, should this be specified in the hat's description?

if the rules for parrying with a shield suck (and they do), they should discuss how shields are useful as cover, not how they're supposedly useful for parrying. the fact that the shield rules don't mention cover *anywhere* makes me think that they aren't intended to be used as such by the authors.

What ARE specifically mentioned in the books to be used as cover?

[Shark_Force]

and this is why, to me, the rules for shields don't grant cover. should they? yes, they probably should.

but the thing is... if a shield is large enough to provide cover, this is the sort of thing that should be mentioned right in the shield's description.

If a hat is big enough to wear on your head, should this be specified in the hat's description?

if the rules for parrying with a shield suck (and they do), they should discuss how shields are useful as cover, not how they're supposedly useful for parrying. the fact that the shield rules don't mention cover *anywhere* makes me think that they aren't intended to be used as such by the authors.

What ARE specifically mentioned in the books to be used as cover?

the hat doesn't really have *any* statistical information for the most part. we don't have a lot of information about the hat. in fact, so far as i am aware, there is nothing that gives us rules for the use of a hat anywhere. we do have information about what you can do with a shield, in the WP shield skill. it never once mentions cover.

now, if someone were to dedicate 4-5 lines of text to rules for the use of hats for some reason, it might be comparable.

also, the fact that the rules don't tell you what other things should grant cover doesn't make it any better that they don't discuss whether or not shields grant cover.

in fact, the current source we're using (RUE 361, to the best of my knowledge, is the only rules information that has been actually discussed regarding cover) mentions only total cover, and what hiding but having a small part of your body spotted does. the rest is just (admittedly educated) guesses. of course, even then, you get silly results if you apply that logic too far. for example, it requires a called shot to hit the hangar bay door on a carrier spaceship; therefore, it could be argued that anything smaller than a hangar bay door requires a called shot to hit. using the same logic as you used to decide that cover should mean the main body is protected, and taking it to the extreme, we get that result.

(not that i support that interpretation. personally, i think it shouldn't require a called shot to shoot the hangar bay door unless you're talking about long-range ship battles; i strongly suspect that most GMs wouldn't even think about it before deciding you have no problems firing your laser pistol at it from 20 feet away without a called shot, and probably don't ever reach the point where they realize that's technically a house-rule)

[Killer Cyborg]

and this is why, to me, the rules for shields don't grant cover. should they? yes, they probably should.

but the thing is... if a shield is large enough to provide cover, this is the sort of thing that should be mentioned right in the shield's description.

If a hat is big enough to wear on your head, should this be specified in the hat's description?

if the rules for parrying with a shield suck (and they do), they should discuss how shields are useful as cover, not how they're supposedly useful for parrying. the fact that the shield rules don't mention cover *anywhere* makes me think that they aren't intended to be used as such by the authors.

What ARE specifically mentioned in the books to be used as cover?

the hat doesn't really have *any* statistical information for the most part. we don't have a lot of information about the hat. in fact, so far as i am aware, there is nothing that gives us rules for the use of a hat anywhere.

Bingo.

we do have information about what you can do with a shield, in the WP shield skill. it never once mentions cover.

True.
We also have quite a bit of information about helmets.
But it never says anywhere whether they're big enough to fit on your head.

also, the fact that the rules don't tell you what other things should grant cover doesn't make it any better that they don't discuss whether or not shields grant cover.

Why not?
Why single out shields, out of all the borderline infinity of things that are NOT mentioned as being viable cover?

in fact, the current source we're using (RUE 361, to the best of my knowledge, is the only rules information that has been actually discussed regarding cover) mentions only total cover, and what hiding but having a small part of your body spotted does.

Way back in SB1, they establish that you need a called shot in order to hit anything other than the main body.
Which means that if your main body is behind something, then a Called Shot is needed to hit you, if it's possible to hit you at all.
They spelled it out a bit more in RUE, since some people seemed confused about the whole "bullets and energy beams travel in a straight line, and don't curve around or jump over obstacles between the barrel and your torso" bit.