within the confines of item and the quality of which they are made the shield holds a very interesting place in my mind, its both a weapon and an armor. as such it can benefit from both weapon and armor quality...well almost. i have a number of questions regarding this. when a shield is not being used as a weapon (ie in its "armor" capacity) how does the quality the shield affect it. the handbook as far as armor goes states
.
here in lies the problem...a shield does not have a bulk nor does it give AV/AR. so quality of make outside of rune space is mot. i personally think that the shield should get a benefit in its armor capacity due to the quality in which its made just like any other item. i would propose that SB, SM and Enc would all be directly effected by how well the shield is crafted. where fine could reduce SM by a point (to a min of 1, if it has a SM). Exceptional could increase the SB by 1 (and in the case of the tower shield possibly rid it of its unwieldy status) while legendary could reduce the Enc of the shield by 1 to a min of 1 or some combination there of.
some may say that that would give the shield to much power in that they gain the benefits from both the weapon and armor qualities, i would have to disagree on that since i do believe that it has been stated that when one attacks with a shield it losses its defensive qualities, as such all benefits from craftsmanship would be lost when an attack is made.

speaking of the tower shield i have two questions regarding it. i know that to attack with it one uses melee(unbalanced) but what is its attack speed and dmg unless i missed something its not listed in the book.

the second question is more of an idea i would like others input on and maybe a possible ruling as to its legality of use in game play. its stated that the tower shield is over 3ft tall. would it be legal for a player who plays a ranged pc to pay a fee to have a customized tower shield made that basicly gives it a leg in which to stand, thus creating a bulwark for the ranged shooter to stand behind. this make shift bulwark would i believe provide a min of standard cover seeing as it would protect at least 3ft of the shooter who is standing behind it. if the pc is holding the shield then it would be a sp 2 to deploy the "wall", then drawing perfered ranged weapon. i think it would be very diffcult/impossible even to have a ranged weapon in one hand and be able to set up a big portable wall with the other. what do others think of an idea like this

I'm going to go with shields are powerful enough as is. They are the easiest and most effective way to increase your Avoidance (the only def that is really augment-able). Ebon shield and Tower shield wielders are the only people I have any trouble hitting, period. I would be fine with fine reducing Enc (min 1) and Exceptional reducing Shield Modifier, but shield wielders don't need another + 1 to their avoidance when they already have an edge over everyone else. 2-3 points of Avoidance might not look like a lot, but you can wield it in Armor, unlike Masterful Defense (ta), which is tier. And don't forget shields go nicely with a benediction of the shield.

My overall feelings though, are at this point, I just believe we've come to far for an errata on shield quality. Maybe next time around they can add it in, but nothing short of Legendary should effect Shield Bonus.

All your suggestions (except more AV) would be reasonable places in a home campaign to start a discussion with your GM. In the Living Campaign I think you're out of luck.

As I've said in other posts, while I have a sword and board fighter I have come to loathe the mechanics of shields in the game. They are overly complex as they shift from weapon to armor and back again to then be their own thing ... and the reasons why a shield acts in one category often seems arbitrary to me. Complex and confusing.

Short version. From me no sale to the above suggestions as errata or editions to the Living Campaign.

yeah, Exceptional shields are exceptional weapons already, why do you want them to be more?

it has always been an either or, and it seems like every shield thread turns into a i want to double dip and get more benefits

i'm aware shields are a very touchy situation and confusing at times, and craftsmanship bonuses make it that much more touchy. but isn't that why erratas and clarification is needed. as to what benefits go where, my thoughts were just an example of what could be done with the bonuses not a this is how it should be. as for shield users wanting to double dip, how is it double dipping if they loss the benefits when they attack with it. at that point in time it is an either or situation, either you attack with it and you get the weapon quality bonuses thus losing the defensive or you defend with it getting the defensive bonuses but losing the offensive. while it maybe a bit complex to me that sounds pretty balanced, and from my understanding that is what was being attempted in the campaign. there are some people out there that have no desire to use their shield as as an offensive weapon

.... you don't lose your benefits with the shield when you attack ( certain techniques not withstanding)

and it is double dipping because you don't need your defensive benefits at the same time as your offensive benefits.

You have an object in hand and pay no speed or talent costs to switch between offense and defense. You can gain an avoidance benefit for the martial technique shielding strike I think it is, but there's a cost to doing so.

When you're talking about things like runes, their power is limited by their strength and the number of slots on an object. If a single rune functions for both offense and defense in different ways then you're getting twice the bang for the buck. A different character can't suddenly transfer a fire rune from sword to armor to switch from bonus damage to fire protection.

The challenge is there's no trade off or downside as proposed for all the benefits and versatility that the shield as both weapon and protection provides.

I certainly agree it's something that needs to be fixed, just not sure what the solution is.

With a sweep of his hat,

Paul

to be clear were not talking about double dipping on rune powers right now just on raw shield benefits

With the exception of the one maneuver that says you lose the shield Def, shield is always double dipping on offense and defense. Shields are a powerful accessory, even if you aren't going to attack with it.

As per confusion, aside from runes, I've never had any confusion with shields and their talents or attacks.

Understood. Within that context my personal opinion is that qualities and benefits should be applied to an object's primary purpose. In the case of a shield, that's defense. I would figure out the appropriate modifications (something like Fine: -1 Enc, Exceptional: - 1 SM, Legendary: +1 Avoidance) and have that it. No speed or damage bonuses when in weapon mode. Leave runes at whatever the shield effect is and not permit "weapon" specific runes on the shield.

I would probably go ahead and count armor training with a shield as the equivalent for weapon training as I believe that's the case already with gauntlets. More precisely, I would have the two follow the same rule.

Using this approach, any weaponization of the shield is strictly based on the skill of the wielder. A wielder could still make use of weapon tricks and maneuvers, get bonuses to hit or damage from weapon mastery.

This lack of equipment benefit offsets and balances some of the versatility. This feels to me like the cleanest approach to resolve the issues around shields.

With a sweep of his hat,

Paul