>I don't think that ^1 for a shield is too low, but a specific rule for shields
>might
>be appropriate.
>
>How about :
>
>Small shield : ^-1 when attacking, ^1 when defending
>Large shield : ^-2 when attacking, ^2 when defending
>
>Superior shields : ^+1
>
>I don't think that this would be too complicated a fix, would it ?
Not too complex, but I don't think it works, unfortunately... Firstly, shields only hamper attacks if the technique used is wrong for the shield. If you learn 'Sword & Shield Combat', the shield shouldn't make your skill worse, your skill is based on having the shield.
Secondly, I still think shields are far more useful than that. A good shield user can basically just put his shield in the way and keep a poor attacker at bay, in a way he could not do without the shield (I just saw it done, in a live roleplaying mass battle). Shields can stop you dead from hurting an opponent. I would suggest the following (admittedly extreme) rule:
Shield use: Bonus +3 to defence (+5 for a Roman-type big shield), Edge ^5 if hit
therefore, it's bloody hard to hit (without multiple attacker penalties), and even if you hit, you have to expend more effort (AP) to get through/past the shield. Now... my own argument, above, is against the bonus to defences for using a shield just as it's against the penalty to attacks, so I'd be prepared to drop the +3 bonus. The ^5 for the shield isn't so much armour, as the extra effort needed to get around it.
Wulf
Powered by hypermail