Using Shields (the physical kind, not magic kinds)

[Tedronai]

Personally, I like the idea of requiring a stunt to use a shield. Because not everyone with Weapons will know how to use a shield.

Not every swordsman will be proficient with a longstaff, either, but neither the sword nor the staff require a stunt to use.

[Becq]

Perhaps something along these lines?

Shields counts as a weapon for the purposes of the Melee Defense trapping of the Weapons skill.  In addition, shields have defense ratings depending on their size.  This defense rating adds to the bearer's Athletics or Weapons defense rolls, but only against one source of damage each exchange -- either the attack(s) of a single opponent in the bearer's zone or any number of ranged attacks from another zone.  All other Athletics and Weapons defense rolls suffer a penalty of -1 due to the additional encumbrance.  As an action, a character with a shield can also use it to perform a defensive block against foes chosen as above, adding the shield's rating to the block strength.  As a general rule, the largest shields (wall shields, riot shields) are defense:3, small shields (bucklers) are defense:1 (melee defense and blocks only), and medium shields (in between those sizes) are defense:2.

Rationale for the melee/ranged useage rules:  In melee, I'm assuming that those fighting are moving fluidly around each other, thus the shield only protects against one melee opponent at a time (any others will simply attack from the flank).  Against ranged attacks, the character has to keep the shield between the ranged location and himself, making it easy for any melee attacks to bypass it.  This doesn't account for shield wall tactics, which should probably involve a stunt.  The ranged rule assumes that the 'map' has fairly few zones as suggested by the rules, though if you use many zones, just apply the ranged defense bonus to ranged attacks from an adjacent zone and any ranged attacks passing through that zone (or something like that).

Edit: forgot the penalty which was intended as a balance measure, and can be cancelled via a proficiency stunt.

[Mr. Death]

As I said, I'm against it adding to the skill roll without a stunt--as mentioned, swords don't add to the attack rolls, and what you're describing could easily result in someone taking a medium shield and regularly rolling 7 for defense rolls at no refresh cost. In any other circumstances, you'd need a stunt or a -4 power (Supernatural Speed) to accomplish that sort of thing because a 7 for a starting defense roll is extremely difficult to overcome and more than a little broken for an item you effectively get for 'free'.

[Becq]

As I said, I'm against it adding to the skill roll without a stunt--as mentioned, swords don't add to the attack rolls, and what you're describing could easily result in someone taking a medium shield and regularly rolling 7 for defense rolls at no refresh cost. In any other circumstances, you'd need a stunt or a -4 power (Supernatural Speed) to accomplish that sort of thing because a 7 for a starting defense roll is extremely difficult to overcome and more than a little broken for an item you effectively get for 'free'.

Does the associated penalty help balance it any?  (I'd intended to include it, but it slipped my mind as I shifted gears several times; you reminded me of it.)  Note that you are getting your hypothetical 7 defense roll for a subset of your opponent, and a lowered defense against everyone else.  Shields would therefore be fairly effective against a single opponent (though such an opponent would likely be more powerful) and against groups of ranged opponents who stuck together and shot at you.  Against even small groups of tactically-minded opponents, the penalty would provide a reasonable balance (unless you buy the proficiency stunt, in which case you deserve a benefit).

[Mr. Death]

I don't think so, because it's been my experience that in conflicts, it's rare for one member of the party to take that many attacks per round--and I don't think it really fits, because if that situation does occur, you're asking the shield carrier to take a penalty on the majority of his or her defense rolls--having a large sword wouldn't provide any penalty to defense rolls, and presumably the same justification for that penalty would apply to a shield.

Getting around a shield ought to be done through maneuvers and compels--a built in penalty just for having it is just going to discourage the usage if it means that most of your defense rolls are going to be worse than if you didn't have it, and it frankly makes no sense when having an item that's almost purely defensive in nature regularly penalizes your defense roll.

So if you're doing it through the rolling and penalties, you risk either a game where the shield carrier is rarely in any danger of being hit (which is boring), or a game where having a shield is more often than not a liability (which is frustrating and discourages any use of them).

[Becq]

Getting around a shield ought to be done through maneuvers and compels

I thought of doing that, but having to spend an action to accomplish "Uh ... I'm attacking from your left, and my buddy here is on your right" seemed too much.  On the other hand, the shield-bearers friends can do maneuvers like "I've got your back" or perform blocks to represent guarding his flank.

--a built in penalty just for having it is just going to discourage the usage if it means that most of your defense rolls are going to be worse than if you didn't have it, and it frankly makes no sense when having an item that's almost purely defensive in nature regularly penalizes your defense roll.

So if you're doing it through the rolling and penalties, you risk either a game where the shield carrier is rarely in any danger of being hit (which is boring), or a game where having a shield is more often than not a liability (which is frustrating and discourages any use of them).

Well, I haven't tested it, of course, but I see it working like this:

1) One-vs-one, a person with a shield (with or without training in the form of a stunt) can make it a lot harder for a single person to hit them regardless of training or relative movement of the two parties.  Ways for the opponent to mitigate this include maneuvers (similar to a disarm) or by destroying the shield (ie, "Breaking Things" in the rulebook).
2) One-vs-several, the shield is more limited.  An untrained character could even be at a disadvantage as he pays too much attention to positioning the shield and less on secondary foes.  A trained character (one with the stunt that removes the penalty) knows how to deal with a shield in this type of fight, and therefore does not suffer the penalty (though the benefit is still limited to the guy the shield is facing).  In either case, the shield-bearer might prevent getting flanked by use of maneuvers ("Back to the wall"), if deemed appropriate.
3) Several-vs-several, it all depends on numbers and tactics as to which of the above cases governs.  If everyone pairs off, then you get one-vs-one.  If several foes attack the shield-bearer, then an ally might protect his back via a maneuver or block.

[Sanctaphrax]

I really strongly suggest not giving any kind of numerical bonus without a stunt. For everyone to carry a shield is not narratively appropriate, so it should not be mechanically encouraged.

Using a hand is a big deal in RL, but not in DFRPG.

And compels are usually good. Giving them to people who carry shields is probably an advantage for shield carriers.

Making shield use a stunt makes sense and is balanced. Why not do it?

Though even without a stunt, you should be able to parry with Weapons using a shield.

[Mr. Death]

I thought of doing that, but having to spend an action to accomplish "Uh ... I'm attacking from your left, and my buddy here is on your right" seemed too much.  On the other hand, the shield-bearers friends can do maneuvers like "I've got your back" or perform blocks to represent guarding his flank.Well, I haven't tested it, of course, but I see it working like this:

Explain to me why this doesn't apply to someone using only a sword, or only a knife. Why does having an item specifically for defense make it easier for enemies to regularly land hits on them than if they didn't have it?

1) One-vs-one, a person with a shield (with or without training in the form of a stunt) can make it a lot harder for a single person to hit them regardless of training or relative movement of the two parties.  Ways for the opponent to mitigate this include maneuvers (similar to a disarm) or by destroying the shield (ie, "Breaking Things" in the rulebook).
2) One-vs-several, the shield is more limited.  An untrained character could even be at a disadvantage as he pays too much attention to positioning the shield and less on secondary foes.  A trained character (one with the stunt that removes the penalty) knows how to deal with a shield in this type of fight, and therefore does not suffer the penalty (though the benefit is still limited to the guy the shield is facing).  In either case, the shield-bearer might prevent getting flanked by use of maneuvers ("Back to the wall"), if deemed appropriate.
3) Several-vs-several, it all depends on numbers and tactics as to which of the above cases governs.  If everyone pairs off, then you get one-vs-one.  If several foes attack the shield-bearer, then an ally might protect his back via a maneuver or block.

The skill rating determines whether or not someone knows how to use the item in question. If you have a Superb rating in weapons, that means you're trained and know how to use whatever you're using. You don't need a stunt to use a sword properly, why should you need one to use a shield without constantly having a penalty?

Again, tell me why someone who has Superb in Weapons and only a sword would regularly be defending better than someone who has Superb and has an item specifically made to help with defense.

With any other weapon combination, you need a maneuver and aspect to gain a flanking advantage over someone. Why should using a shield be any different?

I really strongly suggest not giving any kind of numerical bonus without a stunt. For everyone to carry a shield is not narratively appropriate, so it should not be mechanically encouraged.

I agree with you as far as rolling goes, but I think shields should still have an Armor rating. You're right, it wouldn't make narrative sense for everyone to carry one--so use compels to say "Someone's going to notice if you're wearing the shield everywhere," or have it only usable with the Weapons skill--a boxer whose main defensive skill is Fists will therefore have to roll lower, ditto with other non-Weapons based characters. Just like with a sword. A sword has a mechanical benefit, but comes with the stipulation that you can't take it everywhere, and need a particular skill to use it effectively.

[Becq]

Making shield use a stunt makes sense and is balanced. Why not do it?

Ok, so say Harry Dresden -- a resourceful guy, but not one trained to use shields (and who would *poof* into NPCdom if he learned a stunt to do so) -- finds one of these babies lying in the street just as some thug opens up on him with a Saturday night special.  Say he holds it up in front of him on a lark.  I would argue that it would improe his chances of avoiding perforation by a non-trivial amount?  And at the same time, wouldn't holding that cramp Harry's style a bit in trying to avoid getting hit by the thug's buddy, who just got out of a car behind him?  That's what I was trying to capture with my suggested mechanics.  At the same time, for those who do spend the effort (and refresh) to obtain training, shields are a pure benefit (though a limited one).

Look at it this way: It's a stunt that lets you get a limited bonus to defense from a shield, but only against one person (or a group of ranged people with no tactical sense).  Those without the stunt can get the bonus without the stunt, but with an attached penalty to represent the encumbrance of a bulky object that they are not used to fighting with.

I really strongly suggest not giving any kind of numerical bonus without a stunt.

Er ... don't weapons and armor do exactly that in the RAW?

[Mr. Death]

Ok, so say Harry Dresden -- a resourceful guy, but not one trained to use shields (and who would *poof* into NPCdom if he learned a stunt to do so) -- finds one of these babies lying in the street just as some thug opens up on him with a Saturday night special.  Say he holds it up in front of him on a lark. I would argue that it would improe his chances of avoiding perforation by a non-trivial amount?  And at the same time, wouldn't holding that cramp Harry's style a bit in trying to avoid getting hit by the thug's buddy, who just got out of a car behind him?  That's what I was trying to capture with my suggested mechanics.  At the same time, for those who do spend the effort (and refresh) to obtain training, shields are a pure benefit (though a limited one).

There is already something written explicitly into the rules for exactly that situation:

Jim B.: I wanna spend a fate point to declare there's a RIOT SHIELD sitting right in the street.
GM: Okay, I'll allow that.
Jim B.: Okay, good. I hold up the shield and tag that for a +2 to my defense roll.

You want a bonus to a roll? Invoke/tag an aspect or take a stunt. You want a penalty? Compell something in their aspects that indicates they don't know how to use a shield.

[Becq]

Explain to me why this doesn't apply to someone using only a sword, or only a knife. Why does having an item specifically for defense make it easier for enemies to regularly land hits on them than if they didn't have it?

Fighting without a shield against multiple opponents tends to be highly fluid.  You are contantly moving and turning to avoid giving enemies a shot at your flanks, and blocking whatever attacks you happen to see incoming at any point in time.  Shields are heavy and slow.  They rely more on getting the shield in the way of attacks than truly blocking in reaction to an attack (much less true with smaller shields like bucklers).  They work really well against your primary opponent, but you lose a lot of the maneuverability described above if you want to benefit much from it -- it's difficult to keep the shield pointed at one foe while blocking the one behind you.  Someone who has practiced extensively with such a fighting style is going to be less hampered, and those using non-shield fighting styles are going to be able to passively keep people from gaining such an advantage (unless the foe actually maneuvers to make it so).

At least, that's my theory based on my truly immense experience with fighting with shields (which I've done boffer-style, but without the stunt )  Though I think I'd probably clarify that the character with the shield can choose to gain the benefit of the shield while suffering the penalty OR ignore the shield and fight normally (but be able to parry with the shield).

And, of course, from a mechanics viewpoint, it's useful as a balance measure -- so that you don't create a run on the shield market.

But hey, its just an idea.  I'm not forcing anybody to adopt it as a rule.   

[Becq]

There is already something written explicitly into the rules for exactly that situation:

Jim B.: I wanna spend a fate point to declare there's a RIOT SHIELD sitting right in the street.
GM: Okay, I'll allow that.
Jim B.: Okay, good. I hold up the shield and tag that for a +2 to my defense roll.

Which works great ... for a single attack.  If the thug pulls the trigger a second time, you're SOL unless you spend another Fate.

And do you suggest replacing guns and armor the same way?  I think the RAW gun mechanics are useful ... providing a persistant offensive bonus.  Armor mechanics do the same thing, but reducing damage after the fact.  I see utility to having shields provide a persistant benefit, but given their nature it seems more reasonable that they reduce the chance of a blow landing, rather than dampen the blow that does land.

[Mr. Death]

No, Harry gets the Armor rating of the shield for subsequent exchanges--something like that is probably Armor:3. But just grabbing a shield doesn't magically grant him the knowledge of how to use it. I have been saying I prefer shields granting a persistent Armor rating since the first post in this thread.

Reducing the effect of a blow that has landed is exactly what shields do. You're looking at the hit/defend thing too literally. Remember, a "hit" doesn't mean, narratively speaking, that the bullets actually hit Harry, or that a sword actually makes contact. It means the character takes stress, and "Oh crap, I hope this shield can take it" is stress.

Guns don't grant a bonus to -hit-. They grant a bonus to -damage-. A non-magical object shouldn't affect a skill roll at all. It can change the effect, but holding a shield suddenly making you good at using a shield makes no sense.

[Becq]

No, Harry gets the Armor rating of the shield for subsequent exchanges--something like that is probably Armor:3. But just grabbing a shield doesn't magically grant him the knowledge of how to use it. I have been saying I prefer shields granting a persistent Armor rating since the first post in this thread.

No, Harry gets the Defense rating of the shield for subsequent exchanges--something like that is probably Defense:3.  Just grabbing a shield and keeping it between them and their opponent's weapon will help, though not as much as it would with solid training.  I have been saying I prefer shields granting a persistent Defense rating since my first post in this thread.

So, did blindly re-stating my opinion convince you any more than it did me?   

Ok, I get your argument about the distinction between damage and stress and how stress in this sort of situation could represent shaken nerves more than an actual attack penetrating actual flesh.  Fair enough.  Still, I see it differently.  My reasoning:

The purpose of armor is to disperse the force of a blow as best it can, which is why it is subtracted from damage (stress) dealt without changing the fact that the character was struck.  When you use a weapon to parry or block, you are trying to make it harder to land an effective blow at all, and if successful the entirety of the potential damage (stress) is avoided, regardless of how strong the attack was.  (And if not entirely successful, then you dampen the blow a bit.)  Even if the defender is saying "Oh crap, I hope this sword can deflect it," he still doesn't take the extra couple of stress from the weapon rating.  This is why a parry is represented by a defense roll or a block rather than by an armor rating.

I see the purpose of a shield as being much more the latter than the former.  A shield is intended to block or deflect the attack, thus ensuring that some of the attacks that would otherwise hit the bearer don't make contact at all due to landing on the shield instead -- thus inflicting no damage/stress, just like a blow that was parried.  The difference being that a shield is designed purely for parrying, and therefore does it better than a weapon would (thus a bonused defense roll, rather than the unmodified roll a weapon parry would allow).  Basically, I think of it as a 'weapon' that applies its rating to defense rather than offense (by way of bonus stress).

[Mr. Death]

You need to separate the narrative effect from the mechanical effect.

Whether or not the weapon makes contact with the defender's flesh is flavor text you narrate depending on how much stress you take after all the math is done. A failed defense, mechanically speaking, that gives you 2 stress and no consequences is a successful defense, narratively speaking. You took stress ("Phew, that was a close one!"), but the sword clearly didn't actually hit you, otherwise you'd be hurt and bleeding, i.e., taking a consequence.

Same thing with a shield--it does most of its work when your defense fails and you can't get out of the way or parry the blow completely. It's -not- designed purely for parrying (except perhaps bucklers), it's designed for blocking and absorbing blows. You take the hit (i.e., you didn't get out of the way), and the shield acts as armor by stopping the bullets from doing real damage.

In your example, it's the difference between, "Okay, your defense fails by 4 shifts, and he's wielding a Weapon:3 automatic, so you take a 7 shift hit, you have to take a Moderate Consequence of BULLET IN MY ASS to avoid death" and "Okay, your defense fails by 4 shifts, and he's wielding a Weapon:3 automatic, but your riot shield is Armor:3, so you take 4 stress, with the bullets impacting the shield and your ass completely unbulleted."