Does it cost endurance to wear a shield?

[Panpiper]

I have a GM telling me that I need to burn endurance when I swing a sword equal to the strength I use. That much is obvious. However he is also telling me that I need to ALSO, same phase, burn endurance for the strength I use to use the Shield for DCV. The GM is always right if this is a house rule, but I think he thinks this is the way it is supposed to be done. Is he correct?

[dmjalund]

i remember a rule saying you only have to pay END for STR once in a phase, no matter what you are doing

[unclevlad]

15 hours ago, dmjalund said:

i remember a rule saying you only have to pay END for STR once in a phase, no matter what you are doing

 

That can't be true.  Multiple Attack, punches.  You're paying STR for each punch.

 

What are the equipment rules in use?  If this is supers where you paid character points for the shield, then the weight should be a non-issue.  If it's purchased with money, then this might be reasonable, as a form of balance.  6E2 p. 180-1 talks about the potential imbalance...the wizard pays character points for spells and armor, whereas the fighter pays cash.

 

And that points out an extension:  if a character's wearing armor, it's probably heavier than the shield, so are there END costs there?

 

Generally, I don't think paying END to wield the shield's a very good idea most of the time...and when it might make sense, fine, slap on a Costs END limitation.  You pay the END for the STR because the STR is adding to the weapon damage.  And you can execute a light blow that does just base weapon damage, w/o adding STR.  Saying you must burn END for the STR is putting a limitation for which the player is getting no return.

[Panpiper]

Found the specific rule: Page 41 of the first rulebook:

"Using STR costs END — 1 END per 10 points
of STR used in most cases (as an optional rule,
some Heroic campaigns charge 1 END per 5 STR
used, due to the prevalence of armed combat in
those genres). However, a character only has to
pay the END cost for his STR once per Phase,
regardless of how many different ways he uses it in
a single Phase."

[Ninja-Bear]

34 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

That can't be true.  Multiple Attack, punches.  You're paying STR for each punch.

 

What are the equipment rules in use?  If this is supers where you paid character points for the shield, then the weight should be a non-issue.  If it's purchased with money, then this might be reasonable, as a form of balance.  6E2 p. 180-1 talks about the potential imbalance...the wizard pays character points for spells and armor, whereas the fighter pays cash.

 

And that points out an extension:  if a character's wearing armor, it's probably heavier than the shield, so are there END costs there?

 

Generally, I don't think paying END to wield the shield's a very good idea most of the time...and when it might make sense, fine, slap on a Costs END limitation.  You pay the END for the STR because the STR is adding to the weapon damage.  And you can execute a light blow that does just base weapon damage, w/o adding STR.  Saying you must burn END for the STR is putting a limitation for which the player is getting no return.

Multiple Attack is an exception to the rule you only pay once. 

[Steve]

Isn't there also LTE to consider in the case of armor?

 

In the case of fighting with a weapon and shield, a shield bash would be considered part of a Multiple Attack. As others have pointed out, just using it to defend should not cause extra END usage.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Its a house rule he's using.  I can see where he's coming from, and in a super gritty campaign it might make sense -- in real life, yes it is tiring to have that thing on your arm and use it to defend yourself with.

 

Encumbrance can cost you END every turn for the weight you're carrying, and I might require a character to use END to block an attack (subject to the 1 use of STR END cost per phase) but not to just have it on your arm and get DCV from it.

[Ninja-Bear]

CT reminded me that I think as an optional rule in the HSMA Blocking can cost END. The GM might have found a similar optional rule for Shields in Fantasy or just maybe extended it.

 

 

@unclevlad, I could be wrong about Multiple Attack. I’ll need to check it out. I think it might be this way though because in a sense Multiattack is Autofire. An Autofire attack has a higher END cost because its an advantage. 

[unclevlad]

Reduced END costs double on an Autofire attack.  You're paying the normal END for each attack, and because the active points for the Autofire itself also raise END costs.  Just did a quickie 4d6 Blast, 5 shots (+1/2)...3 END.  That's per shot because you don't have to take all 5.

 

An Autofire HA is somewhat cheap because buying Reduced END on your STR *doesn't* trigger the cost multiplier.  So if you have

 

35 STR, 1/2 END:  25 + 9 for the reduced END

3d6 HA, autofire (3 shots), 1/2 END:  26 active points, 21 real;  1 END per shot

 

The full 3-punch volley is each doing 10d6 and costing 2 END, so 6 END total.

 

By comparison, a 10d6 3-shot AF blast at 1/2 END...10d6 with +1/4 for the AF is 62 points, so 6 END, cut back to 3 per shot.  The Blast costs 87;  No Range would help, it's now 58.  Still somewhat more, and less flexible.

 

Multiattack is the skill-based version of Autofire.  Multiattack has a couple advantages:  it can mix attacks, it doesn't raise the price of reduced END, and it's discretionary...if you use Autofire, you can fire 1 shot only, but the reduced END cost is still double, and you're paying the full active point cost including the Autofire.  It allows many more options for targeting, such as targets at your 8 and 1 positions.  The downside is...once you miss, all the rest of the attacks miss.  If you're not using the APG Defensive Attack (the DCV version of Rapid Attack), you're at 1/2 DCV.  That said...it is a bit expensive, but if I have Defensive Attack on the table, I'd generally rather spend the 10 points for Rapid and Defensive Attack for HTH or Ranged, depending on what the character does, rather than Autofire.

 

I think the classic interpretation is, Autofire's envisioned for guns;  Multiattack is for fancy martial artists, ergo...punchers, and trick-shot artist types.  It's not explicitly limited to those, but those are, I think, the visualized use cases.

[eepjr24]

Multiple attack does have special rules for END, but not sure exactly how they would interact with the above rule on STR. 6e2, 73

 

Quote

A character making a Multiple Attack must expend END or Charges for each attack made (this includes any that automatically miss because he missed one in the sequence).

 

[eepjr24]

On the original topic, I don't find anything on shields requiring END to use their DCV. 6e FH 226 has a 3 paragraph write up on them, but the basics is that it is a multipower with DCV with OAF, STR Min, Real Armor, Mass and the other slot for bashing. STR Min means the amount of STR required to effectively use it and does not indicate one way or the other END expenditure. For example, the DCV for shields is not bought as "Costs End" and the HKA for weapons are bought with Reduced End Cost: 0 End. 

 

All of that said, for the same reasons mentioned earlier in the thread, if the GM wants to house rule that you need to use END for it, they can. I would find it inappropriate in all but the most gritty heroic settings, and I am a fan of enforcing END (and LTE) costs generally for balance reasons.

 

- E

[unclevlad]

END cost for Multiattack:  Yes, but that's the only consideration.  You pay the END for the number of attacks you declare, not the number of attack rolls you make.  This isn't really any different from Autofire in that regard;  if you declare a 2 shot burst with AF, you use 2 charges or spend 2x the per-attack END cost.  AF has the 2 ancillary impacts...that it increases the active points on the power, thereby potentially increasing the END cost, and that the cost of Reduced END is impacted.

[Grailknight]

Autofire  does not increase the END cost of the individual shots.  That is calculated as if the Power were single shot without the Autofire advantage. For some reason I think that this was different in 5th from all the other editions but I don't have my books in front of me and could easily be wrong.

[Ninja-Bear]

6 hours ago, unclevlad said:

END cost for Multiattack:  Yes, but that's the only consideration.  You pay the END for the number of attacks you declare, not the number of attack rolls you make.  This isn't really any different from Autofire in that regard;  if you declare a 2 shot burst with AF, you use 2 charges or spend 2x the per-attack END cost.  AF has the 2 ancillary impacts...that it increases the active points on the power, thereby potentially increasing the END cost, and that the cost of Reduced END is impacted.

I couldn’t find any reference to paying extra END using a multiattack. Now if it’s a combined attack, like strike and flash then you have increased END because of using those powers.

[Hugh Neilson]

6e Vol 2, page 73

 

Quote

A character making a Multiple Attack must expend END or Charges for each attack made (this includes any that automatically miss because he missed one in the sequence). He may elect to stop the Multiple Attack after any successful attack. This does not retroactively diminish the OCV and DCV penalties for using the Maneuver, but it saves END or Charges.

The Nighthawk example on the next page notes that

Quote

Since his third Punch was a miss, he doesn’t even get to roll to hit the fourth target. (He still has to pay END for that attack, though.)

 

On 2/5/2021 at 3:00 PM, Panpiper said:

Found the specific rule: Page 41 of the first rulebook:

"Using STR costs END — 1 END per 10 points
of STR used in most cases (as an optional rule,
some Heroic campaigns charge 1 END per 5 STR
used, due to the prevalence of armed combat in
those genres). However, a character only has to
pay the END cost for his STR once per Phase,
regardless of how many different ways he uses it in
a single Phase."

 

Now finish reading the paragraph...

 

Quote

However, this rule does not apply to situations or game elements that allow a character to make two or more STR-based attacks in a Phase (such as an Autofire HA, or the Multiple Attack Combat Maneuver). In that case, the character has to pay END for his STR once for each attack.

 

 

 

 

[Panpiper]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Now finish reading the paragraph...

 

That's fine, but my question pertained to wearing a shield. It has absolutely nothing to do with making a multi-attack or autofire HA.

[Ninja-Bear]

7 hours ago, Panpiper said:

 

That's fine, but my question pertained to wearing a shield. It has absolutely nothing to do with making a multi-attack or autofire HA.

Sooty Panpiper, I believe I sent the thread in that direction. I was able to look at my brother’s copy of Fantasy 6th genre book. Now there isn’t anything that I saw specifically about shields and Endurance. However it does list shields weight in reference to Encumbrance. In the Armor chapter it talks about how to change Armor if you want it to costs more END to wear. So I’m thinking that your GM is houseruling the Shield END extrapolated from the Armor rules. 
 

Btw, did you happen to ask the GM?

[Greywind]

Depends on how you wear it?

[Hugh Neilson]

10 hours ago, Panpiper said:

 

That's fine, but my question pertained to wearing a shield. It has absolutely nothing to do with making a multi-attack or autofire HA.

 

While I was more addressing some comments that they could not see that it was clear making a multiple attack with STR required multiple END costs, if using a shield is neither autofire nor a multiple attack, it would not fall within that exception, so there should not be an additional END cost if the STR is being used for something else.  By default, the only END impact a shield has, absent an attack using it, is the possible impact of encumbrance.

 

A Block with no Shield does not cost STR-based END.  The passive use of a shield does not even require the attack action needed for a Block, so it seems less strenuous, not more.

[unclevlad]

I'm looking at HSEG, and...if you're forced to burn END to use a shield, shields are generally grossly overpriced, IMO.  In the section on fighting styles, it's noted that a shield can cause a problem with Encumbrance due to its weight;  there's no mention of END costs.  Shields are priced with a specific -1 Limitation, Mass...but that just feels like it's tied to the Encumbrance rules, altho one could argue that it forces you to use END for the shield when you defend with it, while not otherwise using STR.  

 

So I can see the GM's logic, but...I think it's being petty for the most part.  

 

[Hugh Neilson]

While seldom enforced, using a nonmartial combat maneuver RAW costs a minimum of 1 END.  This could reasonably be extended to phases in which no maneuver is used, but a shield is used (e.g. "Use Shield is a zero-phase abortable combat maneuver which does not end your phase).

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think shields should be nonpersistent, that is that you should have to use your shield to get full effect out of it. 

 

Perhaps it should work this way: when not using the shield, you get only its armor coverage in areas that it is over (one arm, the chest and stomach on one side, for instance), then you get the full DCV bonus when using the Shield maneuver in combat. But I'm still not sure shields should give you DCV to begin with.  In reality they act more as a portable piece of armor and make blocking much easier, so maybe the DCV bonus should just be OCV bonus for Block maneuvers?

[Hugh Neilson]

If a Shield only provides OCV for Blocking, players will not use shields.  They do not want to use their scarce actions to Block.

 

If a Shield first provided Block as a half-phase non-attack action (a Move action in D&D parlance), or a free action, with larger shields providing OCV bonuses to block, people would use shields, but combat would take longer because there would be more rolls.

 

To me, the DCV bonus is SFX for action-free blocking in game and a mechanical compromise for playabiity.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

If a Shield only provides OCV for Blocking, players will not use shields.  They do not want to use their scarce actions to Block.

 

I agree, hence, it also provides added armor to certain areas automatically.  But that probably wouldn't be enough, I agree.

[Panpiper]

I spent many years fighting in the Society for Creative Anachronism. I practiced and was qualified in all weapons (including weapon and shield), but I mostly fought with polearm and two hand sword (what I used was the equivalent of a hand and a half bastard sword, wielded two handed). People wearing shields were by FAR the hardest to hit. There is absolutely no question they got a DCV bonus out of it and it wasn't because they used it to 'actively' block. That's not how shields are actually used.

 

Hollywood gets shields, or more specifically how shields are used, wrong, all the time. They depict people swinging their shields to intercept attacks. You would do this with a buckler, maybe a small heater, but for serious shields there is no way you could swing that thing around with any real effect without utterly exhausting your strength. Rather what you do is to brace it close to your body and lean the weight so it is centered in your shoulder. You then maneuver yourself around the shield, you do not move the shield! There is of course a bit of movement, such as when you hunch your shoulder in a flinch response to defend against a head strike, but for the most part it stays where it is. This is not incidentally why shields can work in a shield wall.

 

Oh, and using a shield that way is not at all tiring. That's WHY it is used that way.