Statting a REAL shield

[Llayne]

I couldn't find any threads that discussed this. A player wants to use an honest to goodness shield for her character... any thoughts on how to stat it? An aspect she can tag? A bonus to her weapons for block/defense rolls?

[Papa Gruff]

From the top of my head a few things seem possible:

The simplest way is to handle it as flavor and us it as armor. From what you wrote I have the feeling that this won't satisfy your player.

An other idea that comes to mind is, that with an appropriate Stunt you could allow your player to substitute her Weapons Skill when defending against gun attacks. That seems really nice, depending on how high the Athletics and Weapons Skills are. Wouldn't even be overpowered in my opinion, because a good gunslinger can still get around it easily enough.

The third thing you could try is handling the shield similar to the evocation/block rules. In this case you would have to talk to your group how much of a block the shield would represent. In my opinion this is really tricky, because you wouldn't want to make it to strong. It's just a shield anyhow and there is a reason why you don't see those around anymore these days...

Last, if the shield would be an Item of Power (why do I have to think Captain America? ), then what it can do would be reflected in it's powers. That might be a good idea too...

Edit: Correction on the Block idea ... You could just use the Block rules ... basically that would come down to just flavor though, because you could do the same thing with the weapon you wield in the other hand ...  

[KOFFEYKID]

It could be an exception to the armor doesn't stack rule. Give the shield an armor rating of say, two, which is the same armor rating chainmail has. So a guy decked out in chainmail with a shield would have an armor rating of 4.

[Papa Gruff]

It could be an exception to the armor doesn't stack rule. Give the shield an armor rating of say, two, which is the same armor rating chainmail has. So a guy decked out in chainmail with a shield would have an armor rating of 4.

It's definitely a possibility, but armor is a really big deal in this game and there is a reason why it shouldn't stack. If you allow it in the way you described I highly suggest a Stunt has to go along with it and a FP has to be spend when it's used... Armor 4 is huge dude

[KOFFEYKID]

How about this, make it so you spend a fate point to allow the shield armor to stack with other armor. This reflects "bringing the shield up" to take the hit in time, and doing so at the proper angle to deflect the brunt of the attack.

[Papa Gruff]

How about this, make it so you spend a fate point to allow the shield armor to stack with other armor. This reflects "bringing the shield up" to take the hit in time, and doing so at the proper angle to deflect the brunt of the attack.

Yeah ... pretty much what I said. Another thing: If the shield would be an Item Aspect, then you always could Invoke it for the +2 on the defense roll. Thats essentially even better then +2 armor, because it makes it so much more likely that you deflect the damage all together. Wouldn't even need a stunt.

[Deadmanwalking]

It could be an exception to the armor doesn't stack rule. Give the shield an armor rating of say, two, which is the same armor rating chainmail has. So a guy decked out in chainmail with a shield would have an armor rating of 4.

This is a bit broken, Armor 4 will more than stop any melee weapon on earth...not to mention Plate Mail and Shield getting Armor 5.

On the other hand, requiring a Fate Point is kind of excessive (actually, since a fate Point gives a +2 anyway, it makes the shield useless). If you go the Fate Point direction it'd need to be at least Armor: 3 to be worthwhile, and that seems REALLY excessive (from a realism standpoint).

Personally, I do think stacking armor is the way to go, I'd just make the shield 1 point of Armor that explicitly stacks, that'll give you a max Armor of 4 or so. Allowing it to stack makes it awesome, while keeping it to a single point keeps it from being an "I Win" button. I'd also note that it's probably Weapon: 1 to bash people with, which might come up.

[KOFFEYKID]

Yeah ... pretty much what I said. Another thing: If the shield would be an Item Aspect, then you always could Invoke it for the +2 on the defense roll. Thats essentially even better then +2 armor, because it makes it so much more likely that you deflect the damage all together. Wouldn't even need a stunt.

On the other hand, requiring a Fate Point is kind of excessive (actually, since a fate Point gives a +2 anyway, it makes the shield useless). If you go the Fate Point direction it'd need to be at least Armor: 3 to be worthwhile, and that seems REALLY excessive (from a realism standpoint).

Personally, I do think stacking armor is the way to go, I'd just make the shield 1 point of Armor that explicitly stacks, that'll give you a max Armor of 4 or so. Allowing it to stack makes it awesome, while keeping it to a single point keeps it from being an "I Win" button. I'd also note that it's probably Weapon: 1 to bash people with, which might come up.

How about a healthy compromise between the two.

Require a fate point to activate it, gives +2 to the defense roll and +1 armor to stack with your other armor, covers both bases of defense (dodging it completely and taking the hit), and does 4 shifts of effect (which is fate point worthy, imo).

[Enjorous]

Why not make it only applicable to the front. That way if an enemy maneuvers to the side or the back they bypass it entirely...kinda like a

(click to show/hide)

real shield

[Papa Gruff]

How about a healthy compromise between the two.

Require a fate point to activate it, gives +2 to the defense roll and +1 armor to stack with your other armor, covers both bases of defense (dodging it completely and taking the hit), and does 4 shifts of effect (which is fate point worthy, imo).

Not bad.

[Deadmanwalking]

If you like...but that's not at all how shields actually work. They're really a fairly passive, always in effect, thing unless you're hitting somebody with them. Large ones, anyway. They make it harder to hit you by vastly decreasing the surface area available that's not covered by hard things, much like armor.

Still, you may have a point for Bucklers and other similar shields. How about this:

All shield have the Item Aspect "I'm A Shield" which may not be Tagged, but can be Invoked on many defensive rolls, though a Maneuver dealing with maneuvering behind you can easily make it useless.

Small Shields: When you Invoke the Shield's Aspect, you also recieve a point of Armor. This stacks with other armor.

Large Shield: As long as you hold the shield, you recieve one additional point of Armor against appropriate attacks which explicitly stacks with other armor.

[KOFFEYKID]

Get out of my mind Deadmanwalking, its dirty in there.

I was totally thinking of giving the shield an aspect of "I am a Shield" that you could get a free invoke off once a scene.

-edit-

Oh and your idea is good too, as long as it imposes social awkwardness in mundane company "Why the hell are you toting around a shield? Freakin wierdo." Im fine with it.

[Papa Gruff]

If you like...but that's not at all how shields actually work. They're really a fairly passive, always in effect, thing unless you're hitting somebody with them. Large ones, anyway. They make it harder to hit you by vastly decreasing the surface area available that's not covered by hard things, much like armor.

Still, you may have a point for Bucklers and other similar shields. How about this:

All shield have the Item Aspect "I'm A Shield" which may not be Tagged, but can be Invoked on many defensive rolls, though a Maneuver dealing with maneuvering behind you can easily make it useless.

Small Shields: When you Invoke the Shield's Aspect, you also recieve a point of Armor. This stacks with other armor.

Large Shield: As long as you hold the shield, you recieve one additional point of Armor against appropriate attacks which explicitly stacks with other armor.

Even better then the compromise. An other nice rule supplement brought to you by Deadmanwalking.

[Deadmanwalking]

Oh and your idea is good too, as long as it imposes social awkwardness in mundane company "Why the hell are you toting around a shield? Freakin wierdo." Im fine with it.

Oh, absolutely. Compelling "I'm A Shield" for social problems would be very appropriate indeed.

Even better then the compromise. An other nice rule supplement brought to you by Deadmanwalking.

It's as much KOFFEYKID's rule as mine, but thank you for the praise.

[Llayne]

I was leaning toward adding to the block role, but this makes sense to me.