This is in direct conflict / contradiction with 3 other areas of the errata. Which way is correct?

the above... there is no "weapon training shield" only armor training...

Does "Weapon Training (Shield)" grant "Armor Proficiency, Shield" instead? Primarily I'm concerned if Experts become barred from choosing a specific shield with their "any weapon" proficiency (though this would also be relevant for backgrounds and paths that grant "weapon training (any)").

Then you need to go back and remove/change the other 3 places where it mentions "Weapon Training (Shield)" particularly those that refer to Archetypes learning shields and that it equals Shield Training.

I don't agree/like the change, but if that's how you want to handle it, that is fine. It means only Martial Characters start with any shield proficiency, which I don't necessary agree with.

John

To be honest I rather create a new talent called shield training and have everything work off of that.

I would also change the rules for using a shield untrained to make it still viable...

So someone can use a shield untrained and still be protected by it, but to know how to fight with it, they would need to take the Shield Training Talent.

...............

So how would you fix it... for now.. I'm open to ideas, I want to make it as easy and simple as possible within the frame work of the current rules.

For now, I would just keep it a you've been saying it:

Getting Armor Proficiency (Shields) gives Weapon Training (Shields).
Getting Weapon Training (Specific Shield) gives Armor Proficiency (Specific Shield).
You may choose Weapon Training (Specific Shield) or Weapon Training (Specific National Shield) when given the chance to learn Weapon Training (Any) or Weapon Training (Any National)

John

Given what you're describing I think the simplest solution is to eliminate Armor Training: Shield all together.

With weapons if you're not proficient you can't use the tricks and you can't use the qualities, but you can use the base weapon. Applying that same principle to shields, anyone could use a shield and get the defensive benefits. If you want to get the weapon tricks, you take weapon training: shields. The only exception to all this is that anyone attempting to use a tower shield will still be dealing with unweildy. Lack of proficiency shouldn't remove a penalty.

Because proficiency in shields is now defined as a weapon all the questions about which archetypes get it, what talents can be used on it etc are resolved. If you want to further simplify things eliminate the option to put weapon runes on shields. There's a category for it, just use it.

I'm more sold on the initial proficiency simplification than the rune issue, but those would be my suggestions.

With a sweep of his hat,

Paul

beyond the scope of "just errata"

At the current time, I think the simplest change would be to the faq posted at the top of this thread to remove the first sentence ("You cannot choose weapon training in shields"). Then everything is consistent within the faq/errata.

The errata as we're using it here is a way of making rules changes and tweaks to make the system better as well as correcting typos and mistakes. In that broader sense you can include this. This has been a pain point for a while as well as a point of confusion.

In terms of impact to characters, I'm not sure that this is bigger than changing the CTN formula on Advanced Spells.

If you don't feel comfortable adding it to the errata now, that's fine. I do think this is the simplest longer term solution then when you are comfortable implementing it.

With a sweep of his hat,

Paul