So shields are rarely useful at all?

[nordetsa]

One of the first advice I heard from this forum was to drop shield from the beginning of the game if you're playing as a fighter. And I've seen many posts saying that shields rarely help in most situations, especially large shields.

So I'm wondering now what would be the point of having shield in the game at all. I think bucklers are really handy for mage characters (since it only takes 5 shield skills), but it seems going two-hand is better for melee class since it will make them kill monsters quicker (thus taking less damage). For range too, shield will affect their range dmg.

Doesn't that imply shields(and I say again especially large shields) should be removed from the game as it hardly does anything? I'm genuinely curious about why there are large shields in the game despite people repeatedly saying they're bad.

[KoboldLord]

Shields are unfavorable for fighter, and fighter-type builds. If your main combat tactic is to hit things with your weapon, you want to have a really good weapon to do that with, and you want it as fast as possible. The good, endgame-quality one-handed weapons tend to be super-rare, like demon blades or eveningstars. You might not see one of these that you want in an entire 3-Rune game, and if you don't see one by the end of Orc or Lair your sword-and-board fighter-type might be in trouble if you can't re-train to something else really quick. On the other hand, battleaxes, great maces, and glaives are super-common because they spawn on orcs, and even if they aren't the very best two-handed weapons they're still endgame-quality. If you grab a battleaxe of some random orc fodder, that's going to take you through Lair, Orc, and Vaults easy enough, so there will be plenty of time to either find a better axe or build up the one you have with scrolls.

If you want to start a game with the intention of playing shield melee, you want to set things up so you're guaranteed to get a weapon you can kill things with. Going Kiku or Lugonu is a great way to do that; pain and distortion brands are better on one-handed weapons because those tend to have low weapon delays, so you can rack up the brand procs for heavy damage. Going heavy stealth is another good way; all short blades pair just fine with shields, and you can't stab meaningfully with anything else. Going unarmed with a shield is also solid, albeit pretty xp-intensive, and if you're going Elyvilon or Jiyva your weapon damage is a lesser concern because you have really great divine abilities to work with. Also you can cast spells.

Historically-correct sword-and-board fighting would fall under the category of two-weapon fighting, which is on the list of things that the devteam has declared will not be done. A person realistically fighting with sword and shield will bludgeon with their shield much more frequently than they ever even attempt to swing their sword.

[nordetsa]

But what about large shields? I once tried going shield & sword after finding shield of resistance and it worked pretty okay. But for large shield you'd have to train all the way up to 25. I don't know any reason why should anyone use those big ones.

[Abominae]

Shields aren't completely useless. Or useless at all. In the context of a three rune game, I would say shields are perfectly fine, even pretty good.
If you actually train Shields Skill to 15 and wear a normal Shield, it is a huge increase in survivability against all attacks a shield functions against. It's very debatable if the investment is worth the experience and possibly forgoing a two-handed weapon, but it's not like investing in Shields will give you zero returns. It will give you a monster SH value, which in 1v1 situations is about as effective as the same amount of EV, albeit applicable to less forms of damage. Luckily, the most common form of attack in a 3-rune game is melee hits and you tend to take a lot of them fighting in melee.
Medium Shields have their place on a fair share of characters, though most at the expense of optimum damage. Bucklers have a place on just about anything that doesn't wield a 2-handed weapon. Large Shields, I will agree, are extremely narrow in use. I've only really found a place for them on the large species; 25 skill levels is just too steep a requirement for something that isn't going to be useful in extended.

The problem with Shields (and Large Shields especially) is that by the time you get to extended, you don't need that extra line of defense. Characters who give a crap about their defenses will have a very healthy amount of HP, AC and EV, if not extreme levels. By this time, melee attacks, ranged attacks, etc, (the things Shields do block) are pretty insignificant to your beefed out character. Since Shields, like AC and EV, do nothing against Hellfire, Torment, and Smiting, it's hard to justify giving up maximum damage output for a stat that is now overkill at this point.

My point is that Shields do function. I'm of the opinion Large Shield is currently a bit underpowered, but shields have a place and they are usable.

[KoboldLord]

But what about large shields? I once tried going shield & sword after finding shield of resistance and it worked pretty okay. But for large shield you'd have to train all the way up to 25. I don't know any reason why should anyone use those big ones.

Training shield skill to 25 becomes worth it at approximately the same time it becomes worth it to train other defensive skills, like fighting, armor, and dodging all up to 25. Those skills aren't worth training that high in a 3-Rune game either.

[crate]

Large shields are good with 0 skill if your character wants neither a twohander nor spells. A lot of characters worshipping elyvilon fit into this category. They're basically never worth getting 25 shields skill for though.

[evilmike]

I play a lot of casters, and I find shields very useful on them. These are characters which only use melee as a backup, and tend to use enhancer staves anyway (which are one handed). Bucklers are an obvious choice, but regular shields can be fine too, especially since it takes less skill to eliminate the casting penalty than it does to eliminate the melee penalty. At the very worst, a shield is an extra defensive stat on these characters. More commonly, it's an extra defensive stat plus a resist or two.

On melee characters, shields are less useful. I'll use them if I have a good one-hander (this means a fast weapon with a powerful brand)... a good demon whip/scourge, (eu)demon blade, demon trident/trishula are all viable endgame weapons, although I find in most cases a good 2-hander will be better. But, there are still plenty of cases where shields are a perfectly viable choice. You just have to use your brain when making these decisions.

[nordetsa]

I think it's strange how shields are more useful on mages...from my perspective they are one of the standard features that constitute a fighter.

[Psieye]

I think it's strange how shields are more useful on mages...from my perspective they are one of the standard features that constitute a fighter.

It goes against standard convention in popular culture, yes. But then, DCrawl eschews a number of standard conventions anyway, like imposing permanent death and not making ultimate-quality graphics a priority.

And the order of usefulness is roughly: Invokers/Evokers/Sling users/Throwers > Mages/Stabbers > Fighters/Archers/Crossbowmen

[Stormfox]

I've been thinking on this for a while, and there's some real-life precedent. Historically, medium and large shields were of far more use in formations than for individual fighters. Heavy infantry standing in close ranks used their shields collectively to protect the whole formation from missiles. (Riot police still do -- the tactic ain't broke, so why fix it?) Heavy cavalry also used formation tactics. A single combatant wouldn't want to burden himself with a cumbersome shield that would just speed his fatigue and only protect one side of his body effectively.

Crossbowmen were equipped with large shields, but they planted them in the ground and hid behind them while reloading.

Gladiators (at least the types that were equipped with shields) were in it to provide entertainment, so the shield was part of the game rules. Renaissance-era swashbucklers used, uh, bucklers. The popular notion of the "sword and board" fighter is either a transplanted gladiator, or is a cross between a swashbuckler and a single heavy infantryman -- heavy infantry equipment, swashbuckler tactics.

So Crawl actually gets it right. A shield isn't much good for someone charging into melee combat alone (without a couple dozen equally-shielded friends to rally with), but for someone hanging back and launching missiles (of various sorts), it's a dandy thing to hide behind. It even justifies the attack delay increase for bows and crossbows: you're taking the time to plant the shield between shots, or some such. (Hand wave alert!)

[palin]

Renaissance-era swashbucklers used, uh, bucklers. The popular notion of the "sword and board" fighter is either a transplanted gladiator, or is a cross between a swashbuckler and a single heavy infantryman -- heavy infantry equipment, swashbuckler tactics.

That's after the invention of firearms which brought the demise of heavy armoured footman. In heavy armour (plate-level) bucklers are useless because your forearm is armored enough that you can deflect blade swings with it directly, but shields aren't.