A dagger can defend, but a shield cannot

[hcobb]

If I'm reading Melee p20 (not p18 as it says on p7) and ITL p117 correctly, you can't defend with a shield. Right?

[Shostak]

The wording on ITL 117 does specify a ready weapon, but, since you can attack with a shield (shield rush), it would be reasonable to treat one as a weapon for the purpose of defending (especially since that is what you actually do with a shield). It could easily be made unambiguous one way or the other with a tiny edit.

I've always allowed someone with a shield to defend.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Shostak

The wording on ITL 117 does specify a ready weapon, but, since you can attack with a shield (shield rush), it would be reasonable to treat one as a weapon for the purpose of defending (especially since that is what you actually do with a shield). It could easily be made unambiguous one way or the other with a tiny edit.

I've always allowed someone with a shield to defend.

I agree it should be made more clear - somewhere - one way or another. I was wondering about this the other night and tried to find something definite in Melee and ITL but could not. I concluded that you couldn't Defend with a shield and the reasoning behind that design decision was that the shield is going to stop hits no matter what. But I agree with your ruling and it makes sense.

[hcobb]

Can you defend with a shield if you don't have the shield skill and your AdjDX is zero?

How about with the staff on the same turn you use its uber special no-action attack? In that case must you defend against the same figure you did the staff special attack against?

Finally, can one Staff of Power auto-defend against the auto-attack of another?

[Skarg]

I think you can defend with anything big and solid enough in your hands. After all, you can defend with a short bow in your hand. So yes I think you can defend with a shield in your hand but no weapon. Realistically, I tend to think a shield would be more effective at stopping both ranged and melee attacks than parrying with a weapon.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Skarg

I think you can defend with anything big and solid enough in your hands. After all, you can defend with a short bow in your hand. So yes I think you can defend with a shield in your hand but no weapon. Realistically, I tend to think a shield would be more effective at stopping both ranged and melee attacks than parrying with a weapon.

I agree, realistically...but what I think is realistic or not realistic seems to lead me astray more often than not when discussing the interpretation of rules.

[platimus]

OK. After getting some feedback in my thread about the Two-Weapon skill, here's why I think things are worded/handled with shields the way they are...

You can defend without a shield! With just your weapon! So most of the time, it doesn't matter if you can 'parry' with a shield, correct? Where it might matter is if you had a shield and a weapon but the weapon got broke or dropped or something and you suddenly find yourself without a weapon...but you've still got a shield! Yes, I would let someone 'parry' with their shield in that situation.

[Skarg]

If you want to be confused again, you can see the new listing for the Shield talent, which says you must have the talent to use a shield, without saying what the result of trying to use a shield without the talent is, exactly.

You can still wear a shield on your back and have it stop one less hit than normal, from the rear only. Seems to me like an untrained person could probably do that well with a shield on their arm, and be allowed to Defend since they've got something solid.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Skarg

If you want to be confused again, you can see the new listing for the Shield talent, which says you must have the talent to use a shield, without saying what the result of trying to use a shield without the talent is, exactly.

You can still wear a shield on your back and have it stop one less hit than normal, from the rear only. Seems to me like an untrained person could probably do that well with a shield on their arm, and be allowed to Defend since they've got something solid.

Ha! That is funny! I think it would have been better to just leave out the Shield(1) skill and go straight to the Shield Expertise(2) skill. In fact, Shield Expertise doesn't mention needing Shield as a requirement.

But to answer your question: What happens if you use a shield without the talent? I'd say "Nothing. Absolutely nothing. When you get hit, that shield does absolutely nothing! Doesn't matter where it is. It stops 0 hits." LOL

[Skarg]

Another idea is trying to fight with a shield without the shield talent gives you an adjDX penalty, possibly -4DX like other lack-of-talent weapon use. I'd still let it protect at a reduced rate, since it's there, assuming you didn't crit-fail your IQ roll and are wearing it on your head or holding it someplace truly useless.