Forums of the Megaverse®

Okay. 1st off-It is a piece of armor that just allows you to parry.
Second- after 15 levels the shield bearer gets a whopping +1 parry higher than other weapons.
3rd-It has SDC and takes damage when parrying as opposed to a weapon, which doesn't, leaving the shield vastly inferior in this regard.
4th- Wielding a shield means one must carry a one-handed weapon and will do inferior damage to the larger weapon wielders who almost suffer nothing from lack of shield or your 2-weapon guys.

Possible fix. Perhaps a shield should have an intrinsic bonus to parry. The logic is even a non proficient person picking up a shield for protection should get some sort of benefit.
I'm thinking +1 parry for small shields and +2 parry for large shields. This, of course is in addition to the bonus accrued from Shield Proficiency.
Simple and easy. Also, this intrinsic bonus would apply to projectile weapons making it only -9 or -8 to parry vs arrows.

What do you think?

Here is a few house rules I use,

1. it gives you a +1 to A.R..
2. A flat +1 to parry for small shields and a +3 for large shields.
3. If actively covering behind a med/large shield, opponent must make a called shot of 12+ (remember called shots take two attacks), but if you are actively covering you are -4 to strike.
4. Does not suffer the -10 to parry arrows, can parry them with a shield like normal.

Well hope that helps!

Yes it does help. At least I know I am not alone on an island.

The Parrying and +s are for reactive attacks. You can always be proactive and use your shield as cover, using the cover rules. You can't hide behind a two-handed weapon.

I also use the parry arrows not at -10, and the +1 bonus to AR.

ZorValachan wrote:The Parrying and +s are for reactive attacks. You can always be proactive and use your shield as cover, using the cover rules. You can't hide behind a two-handed weapon.

I do not know the cover rules as I only own the Palladium Fantasy Rules Book and there are no rules for cover in it.

I dont understand the titles metaphor?

The Dark Elf wrote:I dont understand the titles metaphor?

Beating a Red-Headed Step-Child

I think all the explanations below are written by people trying to avoid the unpleasant and far more basic meaning:
A step child would get beaten more than a biological child. As redheads are traditionally disliked and picked on, a redheaded stepchild would get an even worse beating! Nasty, simple, basic.

Additional Input from contributors:

"Beating you like a red-headed stepchild" refers to a terrible beating. It is a variation of "beating you like a rented mule."

Etymology (the origin of words and phrases) is notoriously hard to pin down. The etymology of this one obviously has something to do with child abuse. Some clues to the origin of its specifics:

A stepchild is often presumed to be less favored than biological children. If a parent was abusive, a stepchild might get the worst of it. (Similarly, a rented mule would be less valuable than one you own.)
A child having red hair might be an indication that they have a different father, thereby reinforcing that they are a stepchild.
Red hair is often associated with a fiery personality. (Similarly, a mule is considered an especially stubborn animal.)

I believe 'beat you like a red-headed stepchild' came from the movie "The Wrath" starring a young Charlie Sheen. It was a teenage flick from the 1980s.
I believe that it is linked to the Viking invasions experienced in Britain and Ireland in the 11th century. The Vikings came down from their area, pillaged and raped and left a few red-headed children. Being so obviously different from the rest of the children in the area, they were subject to discrimination by parents knowing their origin was from an invading source. I can imagine that these children would have suffered the wrath of the local population who could obviously identify them as products of the Vikings violent influence on their culture. They were an easy target to vent the frustration of this phenomenon of force.
I believe the origins are from the Viking era.
I believe that it can definitely be attributed to the Viking era, a European experience of not fitting in.
It is a slang insult born of violence that has become a catch phrase. It means "to beat you extremely", assuming that in anger or frustration you would beat a redheaded stepchild more than any other child because she/he is less desirable - both for being a stepchild and for being redheaded. In the poorer classes one might beat a stepchild more than their own because they care less for them than their own child. The redheaded part may be a reference to the hotheadedness that redheads are supposed to be prone to, which would incite the beating all the more. It is probably anonymous, coming from less educated people who use and make up their own slang frequently.
It may have arisen from the feudal/mideval practice known as jus primae noctis. This was an ancient privilege of the lord of the manor to share the wedding bed with his peasants' brides. This right was depicted in the film Braveheart. The English declare they will "breed out" the Scots by introducing the ancient English custom, giving noblemen the right to sleep with the bride on the night of a tenant's marriage. Jus primae noctis was also said to have been practiced in Ireland where it passed with title to the land as part of the land rights. A first-born child might have been assumed to be the offspring of the landlord, would be a de facto stepchild, and may have been treated differently from other offspring.
I believe everyone is over thinking the question just a tad bit. The phrase beat you like a red headed stepchild came from the musical and show Annie. It was all about her getting beat with the brush by her step-mom. Let's try to keep it real everyone; and not try to show off intelligence.
The origin of the phrase "red haired step child" dates to the 1830's & 40's when Irish emigrants began arriving in America. The newly arrived Irish were somewhere below free blacks on the social scale at the time, and lived in segregated communities. Then, like now, young men were having sexual relations with young women before marriage. Sometimes the men were Irish and the girls were not. This resulted in many out of wedlock children with that red Irish hair. When these young women did finally marry, usually to a young man not of Irish descent, the new husband was not particularly patient or sympathetic to the red haired step child and treated them harshly. The phrase is derogatory although many do not know its origin, it is still considered an insult to knowledgeable people of Irish descent, and should be avoided in polite conversation.
I'm not sure what the origin of this phrase is, but I first heard it used in the book "Stuff White People Like", which is basically a 200-page anti-hipster manifesto. I've never heard it mentioned anywhere else, though.
My answer is to put in bold print the actual answer given amonst all the theories. It refers to someone having an unloved step-child who was clearly of Irish origin. So great was prejudice against the Irish that signs in front of restaurants, bars or hotels used to say, "No dogs or Irish".
It is a wholly nasty term born in the american south, by scumbags who kept slaves, that speaks to abusive hatred aimed at Red Headed Male children. The English aren't the only ones who display a clear predjudice to "Gingers", in fact as a "Ginger" Male, I can tell you that I can spot a decent human being from an awful excuse for a human being, just based on the way they treat me, Having grown up in New York, far from England, almost 150 years and several hundred Miles removed from the despicable Old south. Saddly it will be the last scumbag predjudice that anyone ever addresses.



Stepchildren were often mistreated, as opposed to the way biological children were treated. The red-headed stepchild is kind of like saying, "look at the milk man". In other words, a child in the family who may not belong to the Dad. In other words, a child with two strikes against him/her.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_did_the ... z1yGaudFtT

I came here looking for zany ideas for my role-playing games about dragons and fairies and I walk away all edumecated and stuff! Thanks Palladium Boards!

Always happy to help. Anyways, I realized that this might of been more of a term only us Yanks use, so people from other countries are left scratching their heads , which was my bad.

gdub411 wrote:Beating a Red-Headed Step-Child.........

Now that's an explanation! Ty. Id not heard that of that one over here. Lost in translation.

What about beating a rented red-headed step mule?

gdub411 wrote:

ZorValachan wrote:The Parrying and +s are for reactive attacks. You can always be proactive and use your shield as cover, using the cover rules. You can't hide behind a two-handed weapon.

I do not know the cover rules as I only own the Palladium Fantasy Rules Book and there are no rules for cover in it.

I can't find the cover rules either. What are they, and/or which books are they in. I have the base book and the Palladium Fantasy Game Masters Kit.

My apologies. Cover rules are not in PFRPG. They are in RUE, and possibly other games. But they are simple. When you parry, you see a guy shooting and arrow at you and you react by trying to place the shield between you and the arrow to stop it. Cover is pro-active. You place yourself behind the shield and stay, or advance, keeping the shield between you and the guy (if you know where he is), the same as if you would hide behind a wall, pillar, etc. if no part of your body is exposed (complete cover-if you hunker or kneel down, a large shield can provide this-think Greek/Roman turtle), you cannot be hit (the shield will be and take full damage). If a part of you is exposed (leg, head, etc.) that part can be hit on a called shot (which is a -3 to hit). On re-reading PFRPG, they basically left out ranged combat and left it for WP targeting/archery to super summarize it.

Add these 2 features for cover and you have a great reason for shields, which doesn't imbalance the game (too much full damage is going to destroy a lot of shields)

While working up the stat cards for the Gladiator Freebie miniatures I'm putting together to advertise the paper miniature packages I'm doing, I realized that a shield is essentially a blunt weapon, and this should be subject to the superior quality adjustments available from Kobold and Dwarven manufacture; So a top Quality Dwarven shield by the rules can be up to +3 to Parry.

I'm thinking I'm going to have to write up an expansion of the W.P. Shield for the Rifter, and see if we can get it made official...

FWIW, Red-headed people have traditionally been considered unlucky &/or evil. Consider Egyptian God Set has red hair among a people that (at the time) wouldn't have had red-heads as anything other than an anomaly.

I believe the exception might have been in the British Isles, where those of certain Celtic descents obviously had red hair.

It is said amongst my people, that gingers have no souls...

Grug wrote:3. If actively covering behind a med/large shield, opponent must make a called shot of 12+ (remember called shots take two attacks), but if you are actively covering you are -4 to strike.

I like your house rules, but I'm probably out of the loop (don't own RUE); are called shots being two attacks canon now? Not that canon rules mean anything to me anymore, but I like that, regardless.

Myrrhibis wrote:people that (at the time) wouldn't have had red-heads as anything other than an anomaly.

that's every culture/race/ethnic group that's ever existed. Redheads exist everywhere, but it's not a dominant gene. They're exotic, no matter what ethnic group they originate from.

Guys...its just a saying. It wasn't meant as a derogatory viewpoint toward Red Heads. If I have insulted any red heads, I apologize. That wasn't my intentions. Heck, who doesn't think red hots are hot??!!

My house rules for shields are
you need a shield to parry 2h weapons, projectile weapons or chain weapons except nun-chukkers and the like.
shields give partial concealment negatives to hit (depends on size of shield) when being fired at, but ranged weapons in my campaign have minimum to hit numbers depending on range modified by speed cover and weather effects.

I always thought there should be a sword and board fighting style. And one can hold a shield. But training with one makes you effective with it.

thats what the wp is for, but i did see another idea here somewhere stating that shields had a native block rating that if the strike roll didnt get over it was automatically blocked (8 for small, 14 for large shields i think).

I did a bit of larp in quite a few years ago and shields were pretty effective.

First and foremost - Gingers DO NOT HAVE SOULS!!! - sorry Gingers - y'all know its true...

For shields, I give a couple bonuses to people willing to go "old school" sword and board.

+1 AR for small shields, +2 for large shields.

I also allow for shields to be enchanted by alchemists. Alchemists can enchant shields with 2 magic features.

Plus, the larger the shield, the more damage it can do. In the book (PFRPG pg 60), a couple different damage amounts are listed. 1d4, 1d6 and 2d4. I use the following chart:

Small shield 1d6 damage
Large shield 2d6 damage
Large iron shield 2d6+3

I'd always assumed that WP Shield works perfectly when allowed to be combined with Paired Weapons, so instead of two one handed weapons, you have a one handed weapon and a shield. The bonus being that you are (albeit) slightly more defensive with the shield and sword than two swords (end up with +1 parry better), can still bash people with the shield, so it is not purely defensive, and can hide behind the shield when under fire (assuming it is large enough). Seemed easy enough.

Eashamahel wrote:I'd always assumed that WP Shield works perfectly when allowed to be combined with Paired Weapons, so instead of two one handed weapons, you have a one handed weapon and a shield. The bonus being that you are (albeit) slightly more defensive with the shield and sword than two swords (end up with +1 parry better), can still bash people with the shield, so it is not purely defensive, and can hide behind the shield when under fire (assuming it is large enough). Seemed easy enough.

That's how I've always seen it too, although not having paired weapons won't prevent you from using a shield (otherwise it would be a prerequisite), so if used in paired weapons, you could use your shield to parry and still simul with your weapon..

MADMANMIKE wrote:

Eashamahel wrote:I'd always assumed that WP Shield works perfectly when allowed to be combined with Paired Weapons, so instead of two one handed weapons, you have a one handed weapon and a shield. The bonus being that you are (albeit) slightly more defensive with the shield and sword than two swords (end up with +1 parry better), can still bash people with the shield, so it is not purely defensive, and can hide behind the shield when under fire (assuming it is large enough). Seemed easy enough.

That's how I've always seen it too, although not having paired weapons won't prevent you from using a shield (otherwise it would be a prerequisite), so if used in paired weapons, you could use your shield to parry and still simul with your weapon..

Ditto here... worst abuse of the simul attack defensive move I have ever committed... Every single combat I would declare simul-attack for every defense... (made me see just how broken that rule is RAW).

Take a look at Hackmaster (the new version has a free basic set, a $10 basic plus PDF, or a gorgeous full hardcover) for a system that really knows how to treat shields.

1) Armor is Damage Reduction, not Hit Reduction. Standard Leather armor has 2 DR, and reduces your Defense by 2.
2) Defense without a shield is HARD... d20p-4 is the standard defense die for 2-handed weapons. If you're attacking with two one-handed weapons, you defend with only a d10p. Defense with a shield is d20p + bonuses from a shield (ranging from +2 for a buckler to +6 for medium, large, and body shields)
3) If you successfully defend with a shield, you may still take damage. However, this damage is reduced of die (usually about half, though some weapons are horrible against shields, and some are good), and you get the DR from both your shield and your armor on top of it. If they really whiff (your defense is 10 points higher than their attack), then they missed you entirely. If they do a lot of damage, your shield may outright break.
4) Shield also have an inherent cover value. If someone shoots at you, and you have a shield out, you get to make a cover save... that number or higher on a d20p, and the shield takes the hit (cover values range from 20 for a buckler to 1 for a body shield you are actively hiding behind).

Choosing not to use a shield is a big choice, such that even our ranger uses a buckler.