Using Shields (the physical kind, not magic kinds)

[Mr. Death]

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.

[devonapple]

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.

[InFerrumVeritas]

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.

[Todjaeger]

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

[UmbraLux]

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.

[Mr. Death]

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.

[Sanctaphrax]

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.

[InFerrumVeritas]

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).

[grimward]

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.

[Mr. Death]

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.

[Todjaeger]

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

[Aminar]

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.

[Mr. Death]

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.

[CottbusFiles]

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

[Kiero]

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.