ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: arsieiuni on March 24, 2011, 01:50:36 AM
-
Hey guys,
So, how the hell do you represent if someone is fighting with an honest-to-goodness shield? As in a big piece of wood or metal attached to their arm to deflect blows?
We tried doing it as armor1 and it felt overpowered since there's no penalties for armor (that we can find). We tried doing it as a +1 to athletics for the purposes of defending. Also felt overpowered.
We tried doing it as a block = to half the wielder's athletics and it felt useless.
So ... any idea how to give a character a shield and have it make the difference a shield should make without making them utterly untouchable?
Thanks
-
As a declared aspect. Presuming success, the player would get one free tag and spend fate for the shield to have a greater affect on the story.
-
Or you could require a stunt to use one of the previous solutions.
-
Why is adding +1 to athletics overpowered?
The way I would run it is adding +2 to weapons to block, but not to attack. If the shield is supernatural or the character is, I would allow them to block ranged attacks for no bonus, but it would be possible.
Using a shield in a fight DOES make a person seem invincible to someone who does not have one. There's a reason they were used.
-
Model it after a suit of armor. What material is it made of, what kind of damage it protects against, cost, etc. Then turn it into a shield, and grant double its armor rating -1 as a bonus to blocks. Basically the way enchanted work, but with mundane materials.
-
Well, the idea of a shield is to make you untouchable. If anyone has the chance to join a LARP, try to form a line of shields and approach a group of others to attack them. Even if they are double in numbers, they won't know what hit them, because you are just not going to be able to get through that freaking wall in front of them.
On the other hand, a shield is a huge wall not only in front of those who want to hit you, but also in front of yourself, so you are not going to hit everyone as easy as if you were able to move around without that thing slowing you down and blocking your movement.
So you could implement a stunt like this:
Sword and Shield:
You have learned to use your shield to protect yourself from an attack against you which gives you a +1 to any defense roll. If you took advantage of your shield like that in an exchange, any attack you try to do is made at -1. If you made an attack before you had to make a defense roll and did not apply the -1 penalty, you are not able to bring up the full defense of your shield this exchange, thus do not gain the +1 bonus.
-
Well, the idea of a shield is to make you untouchable. If anyone has the chance to join a LARP, try to form a line of shields and approach a group of others to attack them. Even if they are double in numbers, they won't know what hit them, because you are just not going to be able to get through that freaking wall in front of them.
On the other hand, a shield is a huge wall not only in front of those who want to hit you, but also in front of yourself, so you are not going to hit everyone as easy as if you were able to move around without that thing slowing you down and blocking your movement.
So you could implement a stunt like this:
Sword and Shield:
You have learned to use your shield to protect yourself from an attack against you which gives you a +1 to any defense roll. If you took advantage of your shield like that in an exchange, any attack you try to do is made at -1. If you made an attack before you had to make a defense roll and did not apply the -1 penalty, you are not able to bring up the full defense of your shield this exchange, thus do not gain the +1 bonus.
This is a little too crunchy for me and not nearly powerful enough.
Using a shield does not make attacks weaker. It makes them stronger because you can know exactly where an opponent's weapon is when they try to strike you, allowing you to commit more to attacks.
To me, the disadvantages to using a shield are:
1. They stand out in the modern world. 'Nuff said.
2. Depending on the material, they can be broken.
3. Most are large. In fact, I'd give a buckler a +1 to defend, a heater shield a +2 to defend, and a tower shield or kite shield a +3 to defend. The kite and tower shield would not make supplemental moves possible anymore, though.
4. They stand out and make the bearer a target.
It makes sense to me to make shields that powerful. I mean, even a ghoul would have trouble getting around a shield wielded by an untrained vanilla mortal. Sure, they could grab it, but they'd probably be getting cut up a lot in the process.
I think it makes sense to add the shield to a block rather than armor too because.
A. Blocking with a shield takes skill and is an active sort of thing - not passive.
B. Attacks that get past the shield can still hit armor and do no damage.
-
I like shields as armour. A buckler is armour:1, a meter wide round metal shield is armour:2, and one of those bloody big shields you more or less brace on the ground and stand behind is armour:3. This doesn't stack with normal armour, because that would be broke-sauce.
Most shields are likely to have a weapon damage rating comparable to their armour rating. A dude with just a shield is NOT helpless.
-
Sword and Shield:
You have learned to use your shield to protect yourself from an attack against you which gives you a +1 to any defense roll. If you took advantage of your shield like that in an exchange, any attack you try to do is made at -1. If you made an attack before you had to make a defense roll and did not apply the -1 penalty, you are not able to bring up the full defense of your shield this exchange, thus do not gain the +1 bonus.
A shield can be as limiting or as fluid as needed in terms of the story flow. Harry's Shield spell is traditionally described as a shield of energy, but the game mechanics list it as a regular Evocation Block, with no modifications for whether or not he attacks/defends/etc. Since shields tend to come into play at appropriate times, one *could* simple tag a melee-focused Aspect for a bonus and say it is because of a shield.
One could also say a Shield is simply a Weapons Maneuver, coming into play as often as the player either pays Fate Points or recreates the Maneuver.
Or, here's an additional idea:
"Shield Use:
You are trained in the use of a shield. This allows you to use your Weapons skill to set up a Block as a supplemental action in the same round that you are using an attack or taking another action (see YS XXXX for penalties of performing supplemental actions). If you are using the Full Defense option, you get a simple +2 to your Defense roll."
Does that sound too powerful, or is it a decent option?
-
We tried doing it as armor1 and it felt overpowered since there's no penalties for armor (that we can find).
Well, yes, there are no mechanical penalties for armor. There's just the plot effects. Such as if you have to deal with the police - kevlar vests are nice, but they sure make it look like you were *Planning* to get in to trouble.
I'm surprised though that you found Armor 1 to be overpowered. In fact, +1 to Athletics for dodging is substantially better than Armor 1, because you're less likely to get hit in the first place, and even if you do get hit, you've still negated 1 more stress than your roll otherwise would have.
I usually let players wear kevlar or other Armor 1 or 2 items, with the understanding that, as the book says, no armor protects against all attacks equally. Kevlar vests suck against fireballs, for example. Make sure you take this into account with a shield.
Also, Armor ratings don't stack with each other, nor do they stack with Toughness powers. So, someone wearing a kevlar vest (Armor 1) and wielding a small shield (Armor 1) is still only at Armor 1 total, but that Armor rating will apply against a larger variety of attacks.
-
I would allow it to make Weapon Blocks that wouldn't normally be allowed, and maybe a +1 Weapon for the purpose of defending.
-
I'd recommend against anything that breaks the action economy, but I like the idea of using a shield as a supplemental action (though perhaps during the subsequent turn, so that a worn-and-ready shield can indeed be used in a failed-at-the-last-moment ambush)
-
A shield can be as limiting or as fluid as needed in terms of the story flow. Harry's Shield spell is traditionally described as a shield of energy, but the game mechanics list it as a regular Evocation Block, with no modifications for whether or not he attacks/defends/etc. Since shields tend to come into play at appropriate times, one *could* simple tag a melee-focused Aspect for a bonus and say it is because of a shield.
Using a shield does not make attacks weaker. It makes them stronger because you can know exactly where an opponent's weapon is when they try to strike you, allowing you to commit more to attacks.
Well I was trying to model my LARP shield experience into the stunt, which kind of was like "If I keep up the shield, I am much harder to hit, but if I try to hit someone, I have to open up my shield to be able to land". Plus, Harry's shield is magic, so it does not really count.
One could also say a Shield is simply a Weapons Maneuver, coming into play as often as the player either pays Fate Points or recreates the Maneuver.
Which would make a shield not really that helpfull.
Or, here's an additional idea:
"Shield Use:
You are trained in the use of a shield. This allows you to use your Weapons skill to set up a Block as a supplemental action in the same round that you are using an attack or taking another action (see YS XXXX for penalties of performing supplemental actions). If you are using the Full Defense option, you get a simple +2 to your Defense roll."
Does that sound too powerful, or is it a decent option?
I like this one, because it takes into account both the active part of blocking and the difficulty of concentrating on both attacking and blocking at once. Great job. :)
-
Perhaps as a modification to devonapple's stunt, allowing the user to 'spray' their action between attacking and blocking with a weapons roll as a supplemental action, gaining a +2 bonus to that roll, with at least 2 shifts going to the block?
It still might be a bit on the strong side of things, but I'd say it'd be a lot better than the prior version.
-
Perhaps as a modification to devonapple's stunt, allowing the user to 'spray' their action between attacking and blocking with a weapons roll as a supplemental action, gaining a +2 bonus to that roll, with at least 2 shifts going to the block?
If it becomes a Spray maneuver, I'd want to remove the Supplemental Action penalty altogether. But if the original is too powerful, asking a player to split their skill between attack and defense sounds to me like a decent compromise.
In fact, we may opt to simply abstract the Stunt as:
"Defensively Trained:
You may use an Attack skill (Fists, Weapons) to Attack as well as create a Block (versus attacks against yourself) during the same exchange. Split the effort (skill ranks + roll result) of your action between the two effects as per the Spray Attack rules (YS XXX). If you have an appropriate defensive item (shield, main-gauche, tonfa, nightstick) which you are not also using to attack, you gain a +1 to the Block roll, and if you spend the exchange using a Full Defense action, you add +2 to the normal Full Defense bonus (see YS p XXX)."
-
"Defensively Trained:
You may use an Attack skill (Fists, Weapons) to Attack and Block during the same exchange. Split your skill ranks between the two effects as per the Spray Attack rules. If you have an appropriate defensive item (shield, main-gauche, tonfa, nightstick), you gain a +1 to the Block roll, and if you take a Full Defense action, you gain an additional +2. "
Actually, that looks reasonably balanced to me. At most, I might add that the 'appropriate defensive item' cannot be used in the attack itself if it is to provide the bonus.
-
I model shields with a stunt that gives 1 physical armour as long as you have a shield.
Said stunt is on the master list, under Weapons.
I don't understand the line about full defence in Defensively Trained.
-
I don't understand the line about full defence in Defensively Trained.
I'm assuming that it means you gain a +2 bonus to defense rolls when you take a full defense, but it's not ideally worded.
-
I think it means when you are not also attacking whilst using a shield you get a +2 to your block.
-
You know the thing that I think a lot of people miss is that almost anything that can be done with evocation can be done by pure mortals. The only difference is that the mortal has to find an appropriate justification, for the evocator the justification is "it's magic."
In this case I would think that the shield would be a great justification for creating a evocation style block. Roll athletics and that's the block to attacks against you. You could add a sheild bonus to that if you like or have a stunt that makes it more effective. Just as with evocation blocks if there's justification for an attack to bypass the block (like bullets, fire, electricity) then the block is ignored.
You could do it many other ways and I'm not even sure that something like this is functional, but that's my two cents.
-
You know the thing that I think a lot of people miss is that almost anything that can be done with evocation can be done by pure mortals. The only difference is that the mortal has to find an appropriate justification, for the evocator the justification is "it's magic."
In this case I would think that the shield would be a great justification for creating a evocation style block. Roll athletics and that's the block to attacks against you. You could add a sheild bonus to that if you like or have a stunt that makes it more effective. Just as with evocation blocks if there's justification for an attack to bypass the block (like bullets, fire, electricity) then the block is ignored.
You could do it many other ways and I'm not even sure that something like this is functional, but that's my two cents.
This is not a bad idea either.
I think the shield should be able to bump that up (for melee attacks), though.
I'm not sure how many people on the boards are familiar with fighting with sword and board, but against anything other than sword and board... it really /IS/ rather OP in the RL.
Since we don't worry too much about things being OP in the DF (wizard casting 20+ shift evocations kind of makes a shield look rather lame), I'd say just go for broke and make shields OP.
That said, if a character had a shield, I'd give them the aspect, "Shielded up" while they're in possession of it. This can enrich the story quite a bit with TONS of compel options and potential problems for the party.
People just don't carry around shields in public anymore.
-
I'm assuming that it means you gain a +2 bonus to defense rolls when you take a full defense, but it's not ideally worded.
Have gone back and reworded it, hopefully for the better.
-
Full Defense is a conflict action, so you can refer to it directly, rather than 'defending and not attacking', which could including other options. Plus, it's less clunky.
Should also fix the second sentence, too. Spray attacks split the effort, not merely the skill ranks.
-
Should also fix the second sentence, too. Spray attacks split the effort, not merely the skill ranks.
How would you phrase it?
-
How about: "You may use an Attack skill (Fists, Weapons) to Attack and Block as a single action. Split the effort (skill ranks + roll result) of your action between the two effects as per the Spray Attack rules." ?
-
From what I know of historical warfare, the shield stopped being carried on the battlefield with the advent of plate harness (i.e. full plate armor). Instead of a single handed weapon and a shield, people instead started to go for two handed weapons that could damage someone in full harness.
So, a rules space to look at would be:
Someone in plate harness (armor: 2) and wielding a pole axe (weapon: 3) has an advantage over
Someone in plate harness (armor: 2) with a sword (weapon: 2) and a shield (does whatever).
But someone in mail armor (armor: 1) would prefer a sword and shield over a 2 handed weapon.
As grainy as the rules are, lets see if they allow anything to fit into this space...
--------
Option 1:
The shield provides +1 armor.
That gives the 2h, plate guy weapon 3, armor 2; and the S&S, plate guy Weapon 2, armor 3.
This makes them even vs each other, they both have a net weapon vs armor advantage of 0. So, not so bad
Now, how about the mail armored guys?
2h, mail guy has armor 1, weapon 3 and S&S guy has armor 2, weapon 2. So the trade offs remain the same.
This produces a simple rules space where the trade offs are simple, but doesn't produce any 'bad' results.
-----------
Option 2
Shield adds +1 to the defensive skill
This option makes the shield a much more attractive option because the shield is effectively 1 armor, in addition, it reduces the number of hits you take, so it's always better the trading up to weapon: 3. Not a great choice.
------------
Option 3
Allow the the weapon + shield guy to 'spray' attack and defense with one action.
Since defense is normally a non-action, this isn't that attractive, either. Even if you got a free +2 bonus to the spray pool, you'd effectively get your normal non-action defense + a targeting 2 attack. But if your weapon skill is better than 2, they it's never worth doing, unless you want to have more defense for no attack, or more attack (and I don't think we want guys who use a sword a shield to have more attack options that guys who use a 2 handed weapon.)
Though the roll you skill and split attack and defense between them as a general way of implementing combat may be a rules-space worth taking a look at later.
--------------
Option 4
Make a shield related stunt required to get a bonus out of a shield.
I don't like this option because we don't need to have a stunt to wield a 2 handed weapon, so this makes the shield not really worth it. The shield has to be worth picking up by itself, and any stunts should improve things, not make you stay even in options with guys who took no stunts.
-
From what I know of historical warfare, the shield stopped being carried on the battlefield with the advent of plate harness (i.e. full plate armor). Instead of a single handed weapon and a shield, people instead started to go for two handed weapons that could damage someone in full harness.
So, a rules space to look at would be:
Someone in plate harness (armor: 2) and wielding a pole axe (weapon: 3) has an advantage over
Someone in plate harness (armor: 2) with a sword (weapon: 2) and a shield (does whatever).
But someone in mail armor (armor: 1) would prefer a sword and shield over a 2 handed weapon.
As grainy as the rules are, lets see if they allow anything to fit into this space...
--------
Option 1:
The shield provides +1 armor.
That gives the 2h, plate guy weapon 3, armor 2; and the S&S, plate guy Weapon 2, armor 3.
This makes them even vs each other, they both have a net weapon vs armor advantage of 0. So, not so bad
Now, how about the mail armored guys?
2h, mail guy has armor 1, weapon 3 and S&S guy has armor 2, weapon 2. So the trade offs remain the same.
This produces a simple rules space where the trade offs are simple, but doesn't produce any 'bad' results.
I agree with your assessment. It's based on nothing more than the in-game mechanics of the weapons and armor used during the time period when there were shields. Societal influence shouldn't enter into balancing shield mechanics. If the drawback to using a shield is "nobody carries shields anymore", it doesn't carry over into a game set in medieval times, does it?
Requiring a stunt to enjoy the basic benefit from a shield is lame. Having stunts that increase the user's shield abilities is fine; but to just plain USE a shield, I shouldn't need anything other than a shield.
For my contribution, however, I suggest that as an another option (either on its own or in addition to the Armor:1 idea), a shield can absorb a mild consequence, which is always "your shield breaks". Maybe a moderate consequence depending on the material of the shield.
I also think a shield can act as Weapon:1, but no higher. Even if there are spikes and stuff on it. It's basically a big metal brass knuckle or studded with knives, both of which I'd call Weapon:1. Better than using bare hands, but honestly a sword would be better, which is why people used swords.
-
From what I know of historical warfare, the shield stopped being carried on the battlefield with the advent of plate harness (i.e. full plate armor). Instead of a single handed weapon and a shield, people instead started to go for two handed weapons that could damage someone in full harness.
This was also because one handed weapons largely stopped becoming much of a threat... well, except for daggers through the eye slits and such.
It's good to look to RL for inspiration, but if we start trying to be too realistic, it would change the entire game and get too crunchy.
For instance, someone fighting a guy in full plate with a stick in the DF could invest fate points into his or her attack after a good roll and do tons of stress to the plate wearer. That does not happen in real life.
If anything, I would call plate armor an armor:3 that only works against melee weapons.
I think if I were going to allow shields in my game, I would have to sit down and really talk it out with the player.
But for the folks looking for a way to "balance" shields or find a downside... there really isn't one. At least not in RL. In RL, some things are just better than others. However, for game purposes, something you could do is to make the character /tire/ faster while wearing a shield.
This can lead to aspects and consequences that makes the character weary faster.
Either way, it seems like the community is very divided on this issue. I think that we will probably all just end up agreeing to disagree.
-
Wow! I just left this little question here and what a response! I really appreciate all the thoughts posted.
Fairly enough, I should say that in my case currently this pertains to the Scion conversion I posted about previously as that's the game I'm running right now that needed help using shields properly, BUT I'm going to be running another game out of DFRPG soon and I wanted to make sure I knew how to work shields for that game because I have a player I just know is going to want to use them.
Crusher_bob seems to have pretty much laid it out simply as possible.
From what I know of historical warfare, the shield stopped being carried on the battlefield with the advent of plate harness (i.e. full plate armor). Instead of a single handed weapon and a shield, people instead started to go for two handed weapons that could damage someone in full harness.
So, a rules space to look at would be:
Someone in plate harness (armor: 2) and wielding a pole axe (weapon: 3) has an advantage over
Someone in plate harness (armor: 2) with a sword (weapon: 2) and a shield (does whatever).
But someone in mail armor (armor: 1) would prefer a sword and shield over a 2 handed weapon.
As grainy as the rules are, lets see if they allow anything to fit into this space...
--------
Option 1:
The shield provides +1 armor.
That gives the 2h, plate guy weapon 3, armor 2; and the S&S, plate guy Weapon 2, armor 3.
This makes them even vs each other, they both have a net weapon vs armor advantage of 0. So, not so bad
Now, how about the mail armored guys?
2h, mail guy has armor 1, weapon 3 and S&S guy has armor 2, weapon 2. So the trade offs remain the same.
This produces a simple rules space where the trade offs are simple, but doesn't produce any 'bad' results.
-----------
The only problem with this is not really in the way it works, but in the way it works in the circumstance in which I was using it. Essentially, the character using a shield was Tora, the daughter of Thor. She's already ... really tough... and obviously trained in weaponry. So making her even harder to do damage to... well it wasn't really working out as a +1 to armor so we sought out other options. (She has armor 2 from Supernatural Toughness and wears 1 armor rating clothing that were made for her by a friend.) Giving her a total of 4 armor really seemed too powerful since she was already hard to hit in the first place and now almost no damage was being dealt and even really powerful enemies couldn't land any damage off her track to a consequence. She faced some really nasty opponents and was all on her stress track as she killed them.
Option 2
Shield adds +1 to the defensive skill
This option makes the shield a much more attractive option because the shield is effectively 1 armor, in addition, it reduces the number of hits you take, so it's always better the trading up to weapon: 3. Not a great choice.
------------
When we did it this way, it made her even harder to hit and reduced the damage because of less overflow in the attack. My mate really felt this way was too powerful and so did I so we just stopped using the shield at that point, setting it aside until we knew what to do with it (and I made this thread). (Lesser foes REALLY had a hard time with her, whereas otherwise they could at least knick at her.)
This could really just be an issue so much because the character in question is already so, so tough, BUT... This is exactly the reason we need to know what is balanced/fair and what is RAW.
What stops a Supernatural Toughness character from wearing thick armor and a shield and being utterly impossible to hurt?
There are no penalties for wearing armor, no penalties for wielding a shield...
I understand the in-game reasons. Assume that the in-game reasons have already been made reasonable in the setting and think about the question as such.
In this setting, yes, it is weird for someone to walk around with a shield, but much as Michael carries his sword around in a duffel bag, there ARE ways to disguise what one is carrying. PLUS there's a big difference between trying to walk into an airport with a sword and board and whipping out a shield from a pick-up truck as one is entering a hidden compound that's full of Giants and Titanspawn. As long as she gives it a look around and is sure that there aren't any cops etc nearby when she gets out, she won't get questioned again for the scene in all likelihood. And Tora? Being the kind of person she is? If she got stopped by a cop and asked why she's wielding a shield and a big hammer, she'd honestly just tell them she was defending her friends and probably make a social attack on them (Which, her Presence ain't shoddy!) to talk them into leaving her be. She's done it before successfully. If she ever got to a point of needing to be "taken in" because a cop saw her with her weapons and thought she needed to be looked into, she'd honestly probably end up knocking them out and getting away from the scene.
I dunno. I'm just saying that she gets around the weirdness. Our setting is a bit different so that it makes sense. Yes, Tora has ended up on the news and yes she's had to deal with the consequences of becoming temporarily very wanted in an area because she killed someone (that the mortals can't possibly know was actually a monster trying to eat them) and yes, she and her friends have had to deal with some serious consequences as a result of her really just not hiding her armor and shield and weapons at certain times.
But at this point I think I'm going to end up rolling with...
that the shield is just a part of her overall "armor". Her armor isn't full plate to begin with. It's usually something like a kevlar shirt or a small plate "sports bra" type breastplate made of molded, reactive armor. The point being that her style isn't full-cover armor. So the shield could really just be flavor, a part of her 1 armor rating from the protective gear she wears. And I'd be happy enough with that. Maybe if she went full defense, she could get an extra armor or defense out of it.
Her shield, for the record, is a mechanical shield that extends and detracts to go from a buckler/small shield size to a medium shield size. (Think of the awesome shields in Gears of War 2. Similar in concept if not in style.)
And yes, shields can be broken. >:3
I definitely wouldn't make shield use a stunt though. Just to me, that seems kinda like too much cost for something that just anyone could pick up and it'd at least help.
Also for the historical viewpoint: You DO NOT straight-up BLOCK attacks with your shield. If it's a blow from any heavy weapon (axe, hammer, etc) you will BREAK your arm that way. Shields are used to parry/deflect blows aside to keep your arm from taking the shock.
Those speaking from the point of view of having faced shield-bearing opponents in a larp, it's kinda a bit different when the weapons are all made of foam and latex. People CAN and DO hide behind a shield and just let blows fall on it an d be untouchable (my mate has a shield and uses it sometimes and maaaaaan does it suck to fight the shield) but in all realism (for the sake of re-creating the effect in a game when the shield isn't blocking boffers) you can not ever assume that just hiding behind a shield is going to save the wielder trauma. It might even get them hurt. They have to parry the blows with it. That's why armor is a pretty appropriate representation.
For example, an Amazon was being attacked by a thrall with a shotgun. She used a shield to block some of the blast and took damage past the shield (armor 1, reduced the damage but she still took some stress). Very appropriate. The shield just causing the attack to miss her (like if it added to defense rating) would not represent that as well to me.
Okay... I think I know how I'm going to handle this for my game currently. I'm glad it could open such a nice discussion though. Thank you to everyone! I really appreciate all the input.
-
What stops a Supernatural Toughness character from wearing thick armor and a shield and being utterly impossible to hurt?
There are no penalties for wearing armor, no penalties for wielding a shield...
Armor does not stack in the DF.
Whichever armor is highest is considered the armor. So a character with toughness that has a natural armor of 1 who is wearing a bullet proof vest for an armor of 2 gets an armor of 2. Not 3.
This may be where the game breaker you were talking about before was coming from.
Being able to add 1 or 2 armor (stacked) with a shield is pretty powerful, but not game breaking.
-
I peronally just use a stunt to gain a +2 to weapon defence with a shield.
-
I peronally just use a stunt to gain a +2 to weapon defence with a shield.
That is probably the simplest thing I've seen so far... and I like it.
The problem is that "weapons" skill would probably apply to shield use as well...
And it seems a bit unfair to make someone use up 1 refresh just to be able to use a shield.
....so we go in circles again. /sigh
-
The problem is that "weapons" skill would probably apply to shield use as well...
And it seems a bit unfair to make someone use up 1 refresh just to be able to use a shield.
Well, if they just want to be a sword and board fighter they can defend with their Weapons skill just like anyone else.
On the other hand, I would permit anyone with a shield to add +1 to their weapons defenses in the subsequent round as a supplemental action, no stunt.
If they take Shield Training (or whatever you want to call it) I'd make readying the shield a free action, so they'd get +1 to weapons defense whenever they have a shield in hand.
-
I dunno I think whoever mentioned it had something with the idea of it being like a mages auto block he can cast for defense.
Depending on the shield thickness and strength it might even be able to protect against lower calibers of bullets.
Either run it as a bonus to the defensive weapons roll or as a stunt like this:
Shield Defense: Kind of like how mages summons power to defend themselves through mental strength so can you through physical strength. Modify your weapons skill with your might and roll it as a temporary block against the current attack. Add a bonus to this roll for the type of shield you are using proportional to how well it can defend against the particular attack.
Maybe something along these lines.
-
The more I think about it, the more I think I like using it as a wizard style block.
Hmmm....
-
Yeah, I never intended to split Attack and Defense like that - it is supposed to allow an actual Block in the same round as an Attack (to reflect getting the Shield in the way). I have modified it to be more clear.