Using Shields (the physical kind, not magic kinds)

[TheMouse]

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.

[Haru]

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).

[CottbusFiles]

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.

[InFerrumVeritas]

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.

[Mr. Death]

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.

[InFerrumVeritas]

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).

[InFerrumVeritas]

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.

[Weylin]

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

[Mr. Death]

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."

[Silverblaze]

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.

[Mr. Death]

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).

[Sanctaphrax]

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.

[Mr. Death]

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.

[ways and means]

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.

[Silverblaze]

@ 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)