ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Mr. Death on February 01, 2012, 09:53:14 PM
-
So, the rulebook is kind of mum on the subject of sword-and-board style shields, not mentioning how they work mechanically. In my games, I've treated them as Armor (2 or 3, depending on size) when used with the Weapons skill on defense, and allowed one to roll Weapons to defend against more things, mainly claws, Fist attacks and the like, bullets occasionally--basically anything you could realistically get a shield in front of if you had one.
How has this been handled in other games? I saw the Shield Carrier stunt in the master list, but I feel like you shouldn't need to have a stunt to benefit from having a shield, just like you wouldn't need a stunt to wear Kevlar or plate. Unless that stunt stacks on top of the shield's normal Armor rating, in which case disregard that last sentence.
-
How has this been handled in other games? I saw the Shield Carrier stunt in the master list, but I feel like you shouldn't need to have a stunt to benefit from having a shield, just like you wouldn't need a stunt to wear Kevlar or plate. Unless that stunt stacks on top of the shield's normal Armor rating, in which case disregard that last sentence.
Depends on what the shield will do. For a flat Armor rating, the GM and player can discuss how powerful it will be, agree to a Resources difficulty, and the shield adds that defense rating as Armor. I would allow it to stack, but I wouldn't let it provide more than 1 point. I'm not a weaponsmith, nor an expert on how modern firearms interact with medieval defenses, but in my game, I'm not placing good odds on the shield being effective for long against anything but buckshot.
-
So, the rulebook is kind of mum on the subject of sword-and-board style shields, not mentioning how they work mechanically. In my games, I've treated them as Armor (2 or 3, depending on size) when used with the Weapons skill on defense, and allowed one to roll Weapons to defend against more things, mainly claws, Fist attacks and the like, bullets occasionally--basically anything you could realistically get a shield in front of if you had one.
How has this been handled in other games? I saw the Shield Carrier stunt in the master list, but I feel like you shouldn't need to have a stunt to benefit from having a shield, just like you wouldn't need a stunt to wear Kevlar or plate. Unless that stunt stacks on top of the shield's normal Armor rating, in which case disregard that last sentence.
The Weapon Defense trapping gives you the ability to defend against Weapons and Fists attacks. In my games, Shields give you the ability to defend against ranged attacks as well. (To deal with bullets shooting through a shield, I treat this as a guns declaration, or a resources/craftsmanship declaration to say that they can't).
I also allow it to give a +1 on full defenses and blocks.
-
Depends on what the shield will do. For a flat Armor rating, the GM and player can discuss how powerful it will be, agree to a Resources difficulty, and the shield adds that defense rating as Armor. I would allow it to stack, but I wouldn't let it provide more than 1 point. I'm not a weaponsmith, nor an expert on how modern firearms interact with medieval defenses, but in my game, I'm not placing good odds on the shield being effective for long against anything but buckshot.
It depends on the type of shield. There is a type of shield called an entry shield which is typically used by law enforcement and/or counter terrorism tactical teams during forced entries. Typically the first one or two members of the entering tactical team have them, and the are used to provide protection for the rest of the entering team. Some of the those I have come across are rated to NIJ Level IIIA ballistic protection which equivalent to a high velocity or large caliber handgun round like a .44 Magnum round.
However, most of these shields are heavy (16+ lbs.) and large, with some being 4 ft x 2 ft. This is why one tactical team member has the shield, and their role is to keep the shield between their team members and any shooting hostiles.
-Cheers
-
It hasn't come up in the game I'm running (don't exactly have a lot of tank characters charging into fights).
That said, I'd suggest something like the following:- Bucklers & small shields: +1 to defense roll when applicable*.
- Kite shields, riot shields, and other medium sizes: +1 to defense roll and / or +1 or 2 (depending on materials) armor when applicable*.
- Tower shields, entry shields, and other semi-portable barriers: Material dependent cover bonus (+2 to complete immunity) to armor when applicable*. Would probably also use separate zones (front/back of shield) if used in constrictive areas.
*"When applicable" - I wouldn't grant any bonus if the shield would be ineffective against the weapon being used.
-
Hm...Todjaeger's post has me wondering whether shields ought to be locked into Weapons defenses--a shield as he describes, used by entry teams with guns, should perhaps be used with the Guns skill instead.
-
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.
But nothing will break if you treat it as non-stacking armour or as a justification for parries.
Something will probably break if you let it give a free bonus to defence rolls. If using a shield is strictly better than not using one, then everyone will use one. And you don't want that.
-
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.
But nothing will break if you treat it as non-stacking armour or as a justification for parries.
Something will probably break if you let it give a free bonus to defence rolls. If using a shield is strictly better than not using one, then everyone will use one. And you don't want that.
Yeah, that's why I went with having it allow weapons to be used to defend against a wider range of things and providing a minor bonus to situations where you're actively defending (blocking attacks & movement, full defense).
-
It feels like there should be some sort of restriction or tradeoff when using shields, or, like someone else mentioned, everyone will be running around with a 6ft piece of metal strapped to their arm. Maybe some sort of encumberance rule? The higher the armor/defense rating of the shield, the bigger the penalty to moving and athletics checks. Maybe the wearing the shield grants you a temporary aspect? "Shield Wall", "Bulwark", "Covered", something like that. Use the normal sticky aspect rules, and maybe allow the player to make declarations using their weapons skill. As long as it involves the shield and is plausible.
Plus there'd be the issue of some guy walking down the street with a shield strapped to his back or arm. Not as big of a deal as wearing a sword around, but it's still going to turn some heads.
-
I think that's the tradeoff right there: You have to carry around the obvious hunk of metal/wood for it to be a benefit, and some places you're not gonna get away with that, just like you wouldn't get away with carrying around a battle-ready sword or a gun.
-
Hm...Todjaeger's post has me wondering whether shields ought to be locked into Weapons defenses--a shield as he describes, used by entry teams with guns, should perhaps be used with the Guns skill instead.
From most of what I've seen, when an entry team does a breach/no-knock, the person on point goes in with a sidearm and the shield. The point man doesn't engage targets on entry, rather their hands are literally full using the shield to protect themselves and the rest of the team following them in. This ends up working out quite a bit differently than the classic sword & shield combinations popular in RPG's and movies.
-Cheers
-
I would use it as a +1 on all applicable defense rolls. +2 if it's larger... But that feels unbalanced personally. Weapons don't give offensive bonuses and shields aren't armor. You block a hit with a shield you blocked that hit until they break the shield(likely by having it hit by a inhuman strength or higher character or with weapon 3+ items. Tie goes to defender already. If you add shields giving too much of a bonus the game becomes defensively stacked and gets boring.
I would not require a stunt. Shields are not hard to use. At all. They're easier than swords. At least in my substantial Belegarth experience.
-
I'd say you shouldn't have a boost to the skill roll unless you have a stunt, but use it as armor. Just because it's a block in the narration doesn't mean it isn't a hit in the game mechanics. It's as stressful to narrowly block a sword strike as it is to narrowly miss being hit by a bullet.
Like, a Guns attack resulting in a Mild or even Moderate consequence doesn't necessarily mean the bullets actually hit the target, it just means that the gunshot resulted in an injury of some kind--maybe a TWISTED ANKLE when trying to get out of the way. Same with a shield: You might get a SORE SHOULDER from taking a hit, where the sword impacts the shield, keeping you from being cut up, but you still feel the impact.
-
The tradeoff of a shield is that it takes a hand to use.
Seriously, think about that.
For me they (the classical medieval type metal shield) would give 2 shifts to mix between Armor or +Defence. You can decide yourself how to aply them but you have to choose when you pick it up
-
Don't forget that a shield is also a weapon in the right hands. Both by slamming it and hitting people with the edge of it, depending on its size.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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'.
-
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).
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://"http://www.unitedshield.com/ballistic_shields/images/hants1_ballistic_shield.jpg") 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?
-
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 (http://"http://www.unitedshield.com/ballistic_shields/images/hants1_ballistic_shield.jpg") 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.
-
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 :P ) 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. ::)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? ;D
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).
-
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."
-
Shields trade away the ability to use two handed weapons for a defensive boost and an off-hand weapon.
Something to think about is that shields are awesome. When people are wandering around with swords and spears and trying to kill you, a shield is something you want. That's why everyone seems to want the things when you look at historic warfare. The Romans used shields to absolutely huge effect. In Europe, until the advent of hefty armour (and after its invention for the not insanely wealthy), shields were everywhere.
The things are also weapons. Rather amazing weapons, actually, if you know how to use them. And I'm not just talking about the ones with spikey bits or dagger blades worked into them. Spartans actually sharpened an edge on their shields and used them to kill people that got inside the range of their spears; I saw something that suggests that just the weight of the things swung correctly was plenty to kill someone or shatter bones, and that's without the sharp edge.
However, one thing to think about is that shields don't magically stop whatever hits them. If someone's swinging a heavy weapon at you and you block squarely with a shield, you can have your arm broken right through the thing, without it breaking. You're probably going to be knocked back somewhat, and you just might end up falling on your ass or getting knocked into something.
At the end of the day, a small bonus to defend or a small armour rating seems the way to go. +1 or armour:1 seems okay for most shields that aren't huge. And of course that only applies to attacks from the front, and it mostly applies either when you know that particular attack is coming or when you're holding it at the ready because you expect some sort of attack. Weapon:1 or 2 also seems reasonable.
What are you trading away for this? The ability to use a two handed weapon like a long sword, a halberd, or an assault rifle.
-
I would treat a shield as flavour, nothing more. The problem is, it isn't really armour, it is a weapon, sort of, by which I mean it is moving around a lot during a fight. If you apply armour to it, equivalent to weapon ratings, it should only apply on a successful roll. But if your defence roll was successful, you don't need the armour any more. It is however legitimate to put up a block using a shield, which would probably be more effective than the same block would be with only a sword, so you can legitimize more things being blocked, or aspects that could be used against a swords block could not be used against a shield block. You get the picture. One exchange to set up the block, one exchange to attack, rinse, repeat.
I can easily see a shield have a weapon rating however. As TheMouse said, you can hit pretty good with them.
If you really want more use out of a shield, that's where stunts should come in. It is a specialised fighting style after all and that is what stunts are for. A stunt for +1 armour when equipped with a shield, or for a block established with a shield to last 1 exchange longer than usual (see above).
-
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.
You can spend a Fatepoint to make somethign true, not just to create an Aspect. Finding an item is surely the former case. You find the item and you keep it and you use it.
-
I still say having a shield give a small bonus on full defense and blocks against physical attacks (for Weapons, Athletics, or Fists), and simply expand the types of attacks Weapons can defend against works best. I've played with it this way and it becomes something that characters want (especially when they're desperately trying to boost their defenses), but that they'll also discard when they're tying to do something else.
Weapon 1 or 2 is fair depending on the type of shield.
-
You can spend a Fatepoint to make somethign true, not just to create an Aspect. Finding an item is surely the former case. You find the item and you keep it and you use it.
YS 105 and 116 say you can create an aspect using a Declaration, so I see no reason why Jim B. couldn't declare the aspect HANDY RIOT SHIELD. Tagging it for the boost makes sense too--it's not part of Harry's standard equipment, so it's unexpected on the part of the thug, and his attack doesn't account for it, therefore Jim gets a bonus to roll.
And I don't see why you should handicap a shield carrier by forcing him to spend a full action on a block before he can do anything else. Even if a shield is moving, it's still a big hunk of metal/wood that's in the way--even if you're not actively moving it in front of a hit and just holding it in front of you, that's a solid chunk of your body that your opponent can't directly hit. It's not like your arm's curled behind your back while you're swinging a sword, and a trained sword-and-board warrior would be able to use both sword and shield in tandem.
This difficulty to get around even the passive use of the shield should be reflected in the armor rating of it, because it's something the enemy will have to consider and get around (through maneuvers) to attack effectively.
-
YS 105 and 116 say you can create an aspect using a Declaration, so I see no reason why Jim B. couldn't declare the aspect HANDY RIOT SHIELD. Tagging it for the boost makes sense too--it's not part of Harry's standard equipment, so it's unexpected on the part of the thug, and his attack doesn't account for it, therefore Jim gets a bonus to roll.
And I don't see why you should handicap a shield carrier by forcing him to spend a full action on a block before he can do anything else. Even if a shield is moving, it's still a big hunk of metal/wood that's in the way--even if you're not actively moving it in front of a hit and just holding it in front of you, that's a solid chunk of your body that your opponent can't directly hit. It's not like your arm's curled behind your back while you're swinging a sword, and a trained sword-and-board warrior would be able to use both sword and shield in tandem.
This difficulty to get around even the passive use of the shield should be reflected in the armor rating of it, because it's something the enemy will have to consider and get around (through maneuvers) to attack effectively.
You wouldn't. Just to get a bonus from it. Without the bonus, you're just using the shield to defend rather than your sword (and you can defend against a wider range of things).
The only reason why I object to giving it an Armor rating is that you'd essentially have a full equipment sent in a single item them (weapon, armor, possible defense bonus).
-
Alright, how about this:
Shields are a special case. They function like armor, providing Armor 1 against physical attacks, but they also make it easier to defend oneself. The use of a shield allows you to defend yourself from ranged attacks using the Weapon Defense trapping of the Weapons skill. Additionally, gain an additional +1 to Athletics, Fists, or Weapons rolls as part of a full defense action and +1 on any blocks against physical attacks made using Weapons or Fists. Finally, a shield may be used offensively, treat this as a Weapon 2 (akin to a baseball bat or club).
Tower shields (a category encompassing riot shields, actual tower shields, or even tables wielded by someone strong enough) provide a more effective defense than normal shields. Treat them as Armor 2 and gain +1 to any Athletics, Fists, or Weapons defense roll made (this stacks with a full defense bonus but replaces the one from standard shields). Tower shields are cumbersome, however, and thus cannot be used effectively as a weapon (treat as Weapon 0). Do to this encumbrance, you take a −1 penalty to any attack or sprinting rolls and are unable to take a supplemental action.
I'll have to write up a couple stunts, one for tower shield and one for regular shield use. These would represent extensive training with the shield and thus mitigate some of the downsides.
-
I would say use of shields is covered as much as the use of knives or swords or axes are under the Weapon skill. Nitpicky of me probably, but most shields (until hou get to tower shields and pavis) are not armor...they are weapons. Defensive weapons, but still weapons. Much like a main gauche. Tower Shields are more like portable cover than armor or a weapon....unless you have Inhuman or higher Strength.
I would give a bonus to Defense and to Damage as the base ability for a shield. A Stunt Tree for shields would be nice though.
-Weylin
-
I still think that any bonus to a defense roll should come from a stunt, just like would be necessary with every other piece of equipment covered by the game. And I think that tower shields could definitely be used as weapons--they're heavier, and getting bashed with one is going to hurt. Watch the fight scenes in 300 or Troy--those are comparable in size to, and probably heavier than, modern riot shields, and they're used effectively to smack people around.
Functionally, having it be Armor:1 with a +1 to defense rolls isn't that different from having it be Armor:2--on a failed defense, it still amounts to 2 less shifts of stress you're taking. I see it as Armor:1 would be things like bucklers, Armor:2 would be about the size of a trash can lid (or Captain America's shield), Armor:3 would be a tower shield and larger.
Shields have been a common piece of equipment and weaponry since human beings first conceived of the notion that it would be better to not take a club to the skull, so I don't see why they should be treated in a unique way when the rules already have written-in ways to take care of bonuses and penalties. To me, it just doesn't make sense for a skill roll to be effected by a non-magical piece of equipment without a stunt. The game text makes it clear that if you want to modify a skill roll, compels, powers, and stunts are how you do it.
As for it being a full equipment sent in a single item...Well, yes, a shield is a versatile item, and has been for the last 10,000 years that human beings have been using them (though I would advocate giving it a lower Weapon rating than its Armor rating to emphasize that it's a primarily defensive item). That's more or less the entire point of using one in the first place.
But in the modern day setting of The Dresden Files, you can't carry them everywhere without getting unwanted attention, so there's a built in limitation, the same as with any weapon: You only get the benefit if you can believably have it with you.
Use Compels to say, "Okay, you're about to investigate a Red Court nightclub--here's a fate point, you realize you're not going to be able to bring that 2-foot-wide Viking shield in with you," or use a Compel to say, "The battle's wearing on, and that shield of yours isn't getting any lighter, take a fate point and you'll start taking penalties to your defense."
For bonuses to skill rolls, have a stunt like, say, "Shield Master: Through training, you've learned how to use a shield more effectively. Add +1 to your defense rolls while wielding a shield, and +1 to maneuvers made while using the shield." or "Stone Wall: With a shield in your hand, your defense is damn near impenetrable, but you lose some momentum on offense. Add +3 to skill rolls to defend when using the shield, at a -1 penalty to movement and attack rolls."
-
This topic hits close to home for me.
My current PC uses a shield and this is how shields currently function in our game:
I am allowed to make declarations based on having a shield. I can use it to defend against ranged attacks without a stunt (arrows, bullets, rocks, knives etc.) I should note that I am allowed to block bullets since the material of the shield is quite strong and light.
Without a stunt I get nothing else.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My proposal after reading this thread is this:
Shield bearers get the following:
1. Excuses for declarations, maneuvers, and ability to block ranged attacks due to the shield being in hand
2. +1 to defense rolls in melee combat
3. large shields/portable cover should grant cover bonuses starting at +2 rising to full cover for one person if the player makes a declaration "(I am conpletely behind my mobile wall)"
4. Shields based on size/composition/etc. should serve as a weapon ranging from 1-3
Stunts can be used to add a passive 1 armor or a passive +1 weapons rating boost, etc.
-
The proposal sounds good, but as I've said, I still think it's backwards to have equipment grant roll bonuses, and need a stunt for an Armor bonus. As said, no other mundane piece of equipment provides a rolling bonus without a stunt--a sword doesn't add +1 to Weapons even if it's a longer than average sword and has better range, a rifle doesn't add +1 to Guns to hit even if you've got it scoped, etc.
I've always looked at the skill rating as exclusively how well you do something--and holding a non-magical shield shouldn't impart skill or knowledge, but even in completely ignorant hands, it would serve as a solid barrier from damage, i.e., armor.
All in all, it seems we're pretty much agreed that having a shield should impart some kind of 1-3 shift bonus to defense. I just think it makes more sense for that bonus to reduce the shifts of stress taken than to prevent stress entirely.
For #3, now that I think about it some more, I'd say something big enough to serve as mobile cover (i.e., that you can stick your whole body behind without being a contortionist) may not be in the same category and subject to the same rules as, say, a smaller, circular shield you hold in one hand. I'd say treat that sort of thing as an aspect/maneuver to tag for the defense, as a Block for a more persistent benefit, or as both (navel-gazing to put yourself BEHIND THE SHIELD, then immediately tag that to add +2 to a Block roll).
-
Mr Death speaks wisdom.
And Silverblaze's current approach sounds much better than his new one.
See, if using a shield is just better than not using a shield, then Harry Dresden looks kinda dumb for not carrying one.
Incidentally, I misspoke in my last post. I'm actually pretty okay with shields having armour and weapon ratings. (Though armour 3 is way too much.) I just hate the idea of a stuntless defence bonus, for the following reasons:
1. It isn't balanced. It's a free +X to defence rolls for many characters.
2. It's an unnecessary subsystem. The RAW can handle shields quite well, in multiple ways. Why add all this complexity?
3. If I were to get +1 to Weapons defence for a shield, I'd feel stupid whenever I made a Weapons-using character without a shield. This would push me away from a great number of of valid and interesting character concepts.
-
I agree with pretty much everything Sanctaphrax says (especially that first sentence, for obvious reasons), though I'd allow an Armor:3 shield if it was one of those huge reinforced deals that, like, a bomb squad might use.
That said, if a shield was going to offer any numerical value to avoid damage entirely (barring stunts), it should be as a block on its own and replace, not stack with, your defense roll. When Harry calls up his shield rote (which he holds up very similarly to a mundane shield if the illustrations in Welcome To The Jungle are any indication) it acts as a 4 shift block against damage all on its own, not an addition to his own Athletics defense roll--or as Armor:2, in which case it acts exactly as I've been suggesting mundane shields ought to act.
-
Me I treat shield wielding the same way DFRP treats duel-wielding you get no effect unless you have a stunt and with a stunt you get a +2 to weapons when parrying with a shield.
-
@ Sancta: Wearing armor is always better than not wearing armor.
Using a weapon or a gun is always better than not using a weapon or gun.
Driving a car or having speed powers is always better than walking.
Hell, having access to thaumaturgy is always better than most other things in the game.
If a player cannot keep to his/her character concept and theme etc. you will always have people min/maxing and playing for efficiency. I really don't like that particular arguement. Otherwise I'll argue you should need a stunt for driving/shooting/sword wielding.
@Mr. Death (then swap skill for armor in the proposal)
-
Armour is always better.
But weapons are not. They use different skills, and so there is a legitimate reason to go unarmed.
Speed powers are better than no Speed powers, but they cost Refresh. Which might be better spent elsewhere. So there's a solid reason not to take them.
And driving definitely isn't better than walking. It requires a skill investment and it's only useful in certain situations.
And Thaumaturgy has its benefits and its drawbacks, like other powers.
The only part of that post which holds up is the armour part.
-
Also, armor isn't always practical. Anything that's better than Armor:1 and not made of magic is going to be bulky and obvious, and thus unusable in a situation where wearing bulky and obvious armor is going to draw unwanted attention.
-
Also, armor isn't always practical. Anything that's better than Armor:1 and not made of magic is going to be bulky and obvious, and thus unusable in a situation where wearing bulky and obvious armor is going to draw unwanted attention.
In many of the situations in which armour isn't practical, a shield also isn't practical. They weigh less than really hefty armour, but that weight is distributed far less well around your body. Shields are likely to draw attention from people such as law enforcement; they're also weapons in addition to being armour, so good luck carrying it around most places without getting into trouble.
Although now -- for some reason -- I have this mental image of someone wearing 15th century harness waiting in line at the metal detector, trying to get into a court building.
-
Yeah, that's what I meant. I was only pointing out that Armor does have a drawback, not saying that a shield is better. "You can't take it everywhere" is a limiting factor of pretty much anything Armor:/Weapon:2 or above.
-
That isn't really a drawback, it's just a restriction. A guy who owns armour isn't any worse off than a guy who does not when he can't wear his armour.