Come back with your shield... or on it.

[larsdangly]

If you made the major step to adding an active defense roll, a'la GURPS, it would be pretty easy to treat shields with more versimilitude. But barring that I haven't run across anything that seemed both better than the standard rules and balanced with respect to other gear.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

We started with the same, more moderate, 'to hit' penalties, but in our playtesting the conclusion was that the shields didn't feel shield-y enough (how's that for a technical term?). Plus we also agreed that the opportunity cost wasn't quite balanced since using a shield means giving up a second or larger, more damaging weapons.

Yes. Though then you are trying to change not just the way shields work, but also to make them more effective than they are in RAW TFT.

The thing that bugs me about the DX penalty, is that it has more of an effect against low-DX attacks than against high-DX attacks, to the point that against a very high-DX attack, it can have little chance of stopping a blow (due to the bell curve).

Alternatives include some independent mechanic, such as rolling another die to see if the shield blocks an attack. Or making it some kind of roll for the defender... at which point it's getting close to what GURPS does.

Or, if you're using one of the many house rules that turn attacks into some sort of comparative system between attacker and defender, you can add the shield factor into that.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Though then you are trying to change not just the way shields work, but also to make them more effective than they are in RAW TFT.

That is my goal, yes.

Originally Posted by Skarg

The thing that bugs me about the DX penalty, is that it has more of an effect against low-DX attacks than against high-DX attacks, to the point that against a very high-DX attack, it can have little chance of stopping a blow (due to the bell curve).

Well, yes, but how is that different than any of the other negative DX combat modifiers (i.e. concealment, aimed shots, the evade ability from UC talents, etc.)?

And while I do agree that opposing rolls or mechanics with comparative qualities would provide more accurate battle simulations, I have intentionally decided to avoid that path. I still prefer to maintain the abstract and streamlined nature of TFT combat whenever possible in my rule revisions.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

That is my goal, yes.

In that case, I agree it should be more. My suggestion of = (hits stopped +1) was in response to Lars' comment about the impact on original TFT balance. It's for if someone didn't want to skew that so much.

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

Well, yes, but how is that different than any of the other negative DX combat modifiers (i.e. concealment, aimed shots, the evade ability from UC talents, etc.)?

It's not different. And since I am also a GURPS player who appreciates the value of independent attack/defense chances (and misses them in TFT), that's the problem. A DX modifier makes sense for something that just increases the difficulty of the attack (like cover) but doesn't work as well at high attacker DX levels for things like evading or blocking. Of course, one way to mitigate that without adding another roll is to limit how high attacking DX values get, one way or another (e.g. just having down-to-earth characters, or capping or curving it somehow).

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Of course, one way to mitigate that without adding another roll is to limit how high attacking DX values get, one way or another (e.g. just having down-to-earth characters, or capping or curving it somehow).

This is a great point, and one that I have attempted address in my own rules. For example, I don't allow many of these DX penalties to stack. A figure w/ a readied large shield who is also partially covered by a stone pillar can either enforce the concealment penalty or the shield penalty against their opponent, but not both. A martial artist who picks up a shield can't use their evade ability and shieldblock at the same time.

[David Bofinger]

There are two obvious ways to implement shield and armour effects: by DX modifier (mostly used in D&D) or by hits stopped (more common in other games, including TFT Classic).

If the shield is implemented by lots of hits stopped then the shield is a defence that cannot be worked around by agility and speed, but can be smashed through by brute force. This can lead to runaway well-nigh-invulnerability as the damage penetrating the defences is driven down toward 0.

If the shield is implemented by lots of DX modifier then the shield is a defence that can be worked around by great speed and agility, but cannot be beaten through by brute force. This can lead to runaway well-nigh-invulnerability when enemy DX is driven down toward 5.

If the shield provides a modest amount of each then a certain amount of each is required. This is probably the most realistic of the three options and the least likely to lead to runaway well-nigh-invulnerability.

Arguably it would be best if the defences could be penetrated by either approach but this isn't trivial to implement.

I think armour, shields, Toughness, stone skin spells, &c should probably provide a combination of defences.

Incidental remark: A large shield is far more useful against missiles than buckler. Against melee weapons the gap is a lot smaller.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

If the shield provides a modest amount of each then a certain amount of each is required. This is probably the most realistic of the three options and the least likely to lead to runaway well-nigh-invulnerability.

I actually agree with this and my rules will restore the 'stopping hits' function of shields as a secondary benefit. As I have proposed, that feature is no longer available as the default function of shields (replaced by the DX modifiers), but it is instead an enhancement provided by advanced training (i.e. talents).

[larsdangly]

Whatever mix of benefits and DX penalties you end up trying, I'd suggest subjecting it to an 'expected value' calculation where you compute the average damage doled out and received per turn (considering both chance to-hit and damage per hit), for basic standard combatants with and without a shield. I feel like you might be on a path to house rules that basically require all fighters to use a certain shield (at least, if they want a fair chance of winning).

[TippetsTX]

Ugh, math.

I can say, however, that in our playtesting thus far, shields feel more like shields in combat. Players have indicated that the decisions they have to make between the defensive and offensive options for their characters are much more difficult now... in a good way. TFT has always been about weighing choices, trading one type of advantage for another and this change seems to do a good job doing that for the age-old sword-and-board vs two-handed vs ranged weapon combatants (accepting, of course, the inherent abstractions enforced by the core TFT ruleset).

[Shostak]

Are you using the Using Up Armor rules on ITL 108? They can make the difference between one shield and another even more important, especially if you are imposing a DX penalty on the attacker and you make the shield take damage from an attack that would have been successful but for the penalty.