Past games:
So we have heard that blocking now happens by once pressing the block button and from how I've understood it, successfully doing this would take away all the damage from the blow. In Morrowind, successfully blocking took away all the damage and the only real differences between the shields was the overall protection rate they offered, in addition to different enchantability as far as I know, correct me on that if I'm wrong. Now in Oblivion, no matter what shield you had, some damage always came through where the difference between types of shields came again in overall protection and the block rate at which damage was reduced by successfully blocking. At this point, you might be wondering what I'm aiming at, so let me explain.

Protection outside of blocking:
A shield that is not being used, not used as in not when you block with it, shouldn't in my opinion offer you any protection against attacks as if it was an additional piece of steel on your chest as it was in both MW and OB. At the same time I'm a bit worried, if blocking really will take away all damage from a blow, as that would mean no matter what type of shield you use, be it leather, fur, glass or deadric would be just as effective at blocking. So now to my point, how should they be different?

Differences, Shields:
The obvious differeces could be the overall weight, durability and the stamina consumed when blocking. Now that enchant is back in the book of skills, it might also include differences in enchantaby. Overall protection offered is something I sure hope is not included, but that would really be a good way to make differences between heavy and light shields.

Difference, Weapons:
Now I come to the weapons and blocking. The obvious downside of not using a shield is probably going to be the 100% damage reduction from blocking with shields being unable for only weapon users. But how will the different materials differ from eachother here? Iron, silver and deadric. The obvious factors here would again be stamina consumption, weight and durability. But what else could be / should be included to make them really differ from eachother?

An idea about durability:
And interesting idea about the durability of shields and weapons that I have thought of, to really make materials be different from eachother: The stronger the material, the more durability they have to begin with, but in addition to that, they would have "protection" against other materials that are much weaker than them. You might not have understood what I meant, so let me explain a bit more with an example. A deadric sword is really tough and powerful, indeed so much that if you would clash an iron longsword and a deadric longsword together the iron longsword could snap in half with a single strike, without damaging the deadric sword at all. This would be true for shields too, attacking a deadric shield with an iron sword could break the iron sword, while attacking an iron shield with a deadric sword could break the shield. This would really add difference to the weapons and shields without having to make the deadric sword ten times as strong when it comes to damage as an iron sword.

End of post:
Discuss everything that has with materials of weapons and shields here and how the should differ from eachother.

I'm a lone, lonely loner..

Not a single reply? Gosh, is it because of my bad choice of topic or the bad timing of posting it? Let's give this thread another chance shall we?

I understand your concern but I think we have to wait for official information concerning blocking. You will also be able to block with two handed (and dual I suppose) but a lot less effectively. This could perhaps imply that blocking is a combination of skill, timing and stat of the shield/sword. Perhaps a better shield will offer a wider a bigger time span in which blocking is archieved making it easier? There is also shield bash - I assume that a good shield will be better at this.
Perhaps we have a blocking skill or more likely some kind of perk system for blocking. Perhaps you will take some damage unless you have the perks.

Really, we need more information. But I would very much like to find out as well and I do not hope that a small rusty shield will be as good as a daedric.

Sounds alot better than the higher damage bonus that they seemed to have, and at lower levels it didn't seem to make any difference

I want to be able to block with a weapon or in duel wield if I dont have a shield.

Would you even then want to block away 100% of an enemy attack? Or should perhaps your stamina suffer greatly more from blocking with two weapons and then even further take a 5-15% damage? I'd want that dual-wielding would be less effective at blocking, but we should be able to do it.


We don't need information to discuss this

^ no that is true :tongue:

Btw I am quite sure that it have been confirmed in the podcast or something that you will be able to block with two-handed weapons. No information on how it works though - only that it is more inefficient than a shield.

Blocking is kind of a touchy subject. There's "blocking" and "parrying." Both shields and weapons can block and parry. A "block" is simply placing your shield/weapon in front of an oncoming attack. This will cause damage to the item blocking, and you may receive some damage yourself. A "parry" is like an active block that actually intercepts and redirects an attack. Because of this, less damage is done to the item, and almost no damage is done to the parry...er.

Also, while it is necessary to have an item of similar mass and size to block an attack, you can parry a larger weapon with a smaller weapon. For instance, a dagger cannot block an attack from a longsword, but it could parry it. And while you might be able to parry a longsword with a dagger, you probably could not do the same to an axe without having a similarly sized weapon.

if you try and "block" a warhammer or battleaxe with your sword.........kiss your butt goodbye cause you arent going to win that fight. you can however parry it but its never going to be as effective as a shield which is my new favority thing seeing how spartans and other ancient warrior used shields as offensive and defensive weapons.

Parry and block should both be in the game. I enjoyed the versatility they gave in Demon's Souls. So yeah. But how much of the damage should get through to you if you parry? None? Huge drain on stamina?

Traditionally, shields fall into two categories which are essentially the basic differences between pen and paper playing and player skill gameplay. Morrowind had the former, where better shields had better block rates. Which means that a Daedric shield was more likely to block than an iron one. The latter is Oblivion and Skyrim, where the player actively blocks. That style can't absorb all the damage with every shield, as that defeats the purpose of upgrading them. So traditionally, more powerful shields offer a protection score, where they absorb X amount of damage when you block with them. Though slightly unrealistic, it's a tried-and-true method that works. I'd be fine with the continuation of that.

However, your idea of durability can be worked into that. You can create a formula for durability damage. When a character attacks and another blocks, you can determine the damage by taking a % of damage that goes through, then applying it to durability damage on the shield, and scaling the total durability loss on the total damage dealt. I'm bad at math, but I'm sure there's a formula that could be used.

Probably my favorite system of blocking/parring mechanics are in a game called Mount and Blade Warband. You could have a shield, which blocked a sizeable cone to the front. However, your shield would eventually break after being hit a lot. You could still be hit from the sides and the back, and you moved slower. Or, you could parry a weapon with your own if you had no shield. The caveat with parries though, were that you can only block one direction of attack at a time (directions being left/right overhead/thrust). In order to change your parry direction, you could use the automatic version where you had to still click the block button repeatedly to change your defense. Unbalanced weapons, such as morningstars could crush through a block or parry. Successfull blocks parries blocked 100% of damage, but with the faster combat settings, it was still possible to get hit.

What Bethesda should consider using is the idea of 'timed' blocking (which I think I heard was being implemented), and as a suplement to 'timed' blocking should be directional blocking. Or atleast some varied timed blocking animations that give the illusion of a hardcoe swordfight. Directional attacks tie in to this as well. I did not like the use of movement keys to determine my side power attacks, but movement keys for front and backwards attacks worked well. Intead, I like the system in M&B warband where you look left (or right) with your mouse, and your next swing would correspond. Looking up yielded an overhead attack, and down prepared a thrust.

M&B lacked a fatigue/stamina system, which TES does. If this kind of blocking/parring was implemented, corresponding stamina drains should apply (within contexts of skill and attributes)

Shields should be damn good at blocking pretty much everything, from the front. Having it up makes you slower, and more vunerable to a group of attackers. Should take the damage, instead of you, and will often need to be repaired.

I like the idea of higher quality shields being able to hold more powerful enchantments.

I think as well as your idea about durability, stamina should effect blocking (and vice versa). The lower your stamina, the less effective the block. All blocking reduces stamina somewhat, better shield -> less stamina reduction. Then also maybe a 'parry' perk where you can parry instead of blocking, this could also reduce the stamina taken to block but can only be done if your stamina is high.

to be honest I disagree with blocking entirely; If you block a direct attack with a sheild all you are going to get is a brocken sheild and a dislocated shoulder.

See how Mike loades in 0.45-1.06http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbK7m3w9FXI&feature=related puts an angle to the sheild so that it parries more than blocks. A true steel shield is mostly rawhide and wood protected only by a steel sheet this means a weapon can glance off of it easier but will still not protect the wearer from a full frontal blow.

Perhaps different quality shields can be designed or shaped differently? A higher quality shield may be larger and more rectangular and it would be easier to actually move in front of an opponents swing. A lighter shield would be smaller , lighter and perhaps circular. The bonus here would be lighter shields would be quicker to raise and deflect with whereas heavier , stronger shields would cover more of your body and have higher durability but would be very heavy and take longer to raise to block an attack with. This could also give rise to adding in bucklers for lighter , faster characters.

I also think that shields should have rather lowish durability. Realistically taking a solid hit from a bludgeoning or heavy weapon will put a hole in the shield or shatter it and your arm with it. On an off note it would be rather interesting and immersive to be able to see the damage done to your shield as its durability falls. Perhaps some arrows may stick in the shield?

Furthermore i don't think shields should completely stop damage taken , for the above reason. Heavier hits would leave bruises and do damage to your shield arm. A wooden or iron shield isn't going to stop the sheer force of a giant smashing a war hammer into you. Parrying with a weapon should let a lot more damage through or have a far lower chance to actually deflect the attacks unless your skills with the weapon or defense are higher enough.

I approve of this topic.

I disagree that blocking with a shield would dislocate your shoulder, if it did you were holding it too solidly I think and even holding it solidly I think it'd be an impressive feat. The reason that Mike parries with that shield is it's a shield that developed when knights were wearing more armor, the armor meant you yourself were better protected and so didn't so much need the shield, thus it started to became more like a secondary weapon then for protection which eventually lead to the buckler what really could be used as a secondary (or more specifically Companion) weapon tho it's use was more just to hide/disguise your own moves. Overall there are benefits to parrying with a shield but heavier stronger shields are harder to parry with and also require more force to move them. A heavy shield will absorb more energy then a lighter one but the additional weight makes it harder to hold, it fatigues faster, this maybe why some shields like the Scutum might be placed on the ground. So to dislocate somebodies shoulder would also likely require that person was holding a lighter shield, not a heavier one.

I think heavy shields it's entirely plausible to block with, however such shields should really fatigue much more quickly in use then lighter shields what are more effective at parrying and shield bashing (or punching in the case of buckler).

I think you should be able to avoid all the damage when blocking with a shield or a weapon. The only difference should be that you need a shield to block ranged weapons. Different materials should offer different durability, but absorb all the damage untill they broke. If both block and parry are avaliable, parring with a shield should not be as easy as with weapons.

Ok maybe I was a little over the top about the dislocation thing but if you try to guard your face with a frontal block against anything bigger than an arming sword you're just going to get a faceful of sheild. the sheild might be strong but generally arms arn't as strong (voice of experience: big guy with a bardiche thought I could take it, I didn't know what I was doing= broken nose on inside of helm)


but I like your "place on the ground idea" maybe for the smaller shields the character should drop their sheild arm (I cant keep it up during a whole tourney, no innuendos please )so maybe the act of blocking with a shield shouldn't fatigue maybe the action of holding the shield should?

Holding any type of protection or weapon should fatigue just by itself, heavier weapons and shields maybe should fatigue while drawn (or at least reduce fatigue regeneration). Tho I believe there was one type of shield used by archers that rather then just placing it on the ground, actually impaled into the ground, acting as a custom made cover that the archer could shoot from behind. A search of Wikipedia says this is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavise, tho not all Pavise did this, some were literally spiked into the ground.

As for getting a face full of shield, that sounds like somebody was holding their shield wrong, since with a few exceptions you should always be able to see over the top of a shield, only really raising it to block/deflect a downward strikes... what would probably (I assume) be the best time to work on deflecting since you could leave your opponent very open at the moment if you could off balance them. Still taking a Shield into the chest would hurt and characters did take damage in oblivion for blocking as such.

A pavise is just the name given to any mahoosive piece of wall paneling that you decide to use as a shield

Yes I was young and it was my first tourney and it was a downward strike, and thats pretty much what the Master at arms said......... hey! were you there? :blink:

Nope, In fact I never do those kinda things, I am really really good at research tho, as I really want to start make my own games at point. I'd love to make a fantasy, so I get to look up lots of fantastic weapons of legends and lore every now and then. But also I get to look up how real weapons, armor and shields were used. One of my favorite ones is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_crossbow, a lovely mid ranged weapon, but still a longbow would probably still inflict far more damage.

Anyways back to shields, if shields were really accurate, they should be harder to wield if they get hit by projectiles, Javelins should really make them almost usable, so to a degree, I like having unrealistic weapons. After all it's about gameplay, so what makes the best game should really be more important then what is most realistic.

Great talking there Burs and R3sistance, might I add in something?

R3sistance, you menationed that the right way of using the shields is important, perhaps in Skyrim they could go so far into the Block skill that being a novice in it, you would actually use it wrong all the time? Leveling your block skill would add you the perks that give you the right way of using the shields.

Now as to small and big shields and their overall difference, I agree that the light shields should be used for parry and the heavier for actual blocking, an easy way of making difference between the two types. Perhaps we could now have 4 different types of shields instead of 2? The 4 would be a really small, just as old times, secondary "weapon" shield, used more like a weapon than a shield as R3sistance said. The second could be what we know from Oblivion, but used for parry. The third would be OBs heavy shields, used for blocking. The last type would be what in Morrowind was Tower Shields, that perhaps we could put on the ground for extra stability? Keep on discussing, I really liked what I read so far