The Fighter Background

[TehDruid]

I dislike some things about the Fi, that imho other than being obnoxious, also make it a trap background for newbies, even though Fi is often described as a good newbie background. If the first thing you have to do starting out as a fighter is take off your heavy shield so you don't die from it, there's clearly something wrong with the starting equipment.

Proposed changes:

Shield - This is my main beef with the current Fi. Give a buckler instead of a medium shield to all species. Only Ogres and Trolls should start out with a medium shield. And maybe Nagas and Centaurs.

Armour - Scale is thematic starting armour, so it should stay. Perhaps it could be taken down to Ring Mail though, especially after the buff to all (mail) medium EVP armours by 1 AC.

This one is a bit odd, perhaps, I don't know if any of you agree; Disallow Choosing Short Blades - This family of weapons make sense for a gladiator maybe, but not a warrior. Keep it there as a choice for smaller than average species (and perhaps, remove the choice of Long Blades for those species).

P.S: If you have any ideas that you think would make Fi a more appealing background, don't hesitate to post them. I'd really like to see how we can make it more interesting.

[KoboldLord]

If you change the fighter's starting shield to a buckler, then you basically have a gladiator that forgot to bring throwing nets.

Really, gladiators are just a better version of the fighter. Better equipment, fewer wasted starting skill levels, and a really good early escape option that doesn't force you to commit to a particular strategy or build. The fighter does get heavier starting body armor, but it is ridiculously super-easy to get armor that is as good or better within a dungeon level or two.

Just merge the two. Gameplay between the two is completely identical.

[TehDruid]

As far as I understand, Gladiators start out with leather armour and dodging only, how is that identical?

So far we have two of our blue boys saying that it should just be removed entirely. What's the devs' thoughts on this?

Do mind that I'm quite aware of how little the XP cost of those few first levels on each of these skills is in the big picture. But backgrounds exist entirely because of those tiny starting perks (which kinda matter, early on). And the bigger perks, like starting books, wands, and the biggest perhaps, Trog.

Of course every background could be taken out and replaced with some sort of character generation process where you're allowed to pick four basic skills which determine your starting equipment or something to that extent.

[Roderic]

It seems fair to me to preserve fighters

fighter - Heavy armor warrior, AC matters
gladiator - Light armor warrior, EV matters
Monk - Unarmed warrior,
Hunter - ranged warrior,
Assassin - Rogue warrior

Alternatively to what is said above remove bucklers from gladiators, they do not need this but dodge and ensnare. Fighters then are the only background with both good starting apts in shield and armour, making them suited as defensive tanks and on the other hand increase the capacity on weapons of gladiators, to make them prone to be extremely good at killing without protections.

To make fighters better, maybe a starting buckler is good to train shields and they would get a better one once they found it.

[KoboldLord]

It seems fair to me to preserve fighters

fighter - Heavy armor warrior, AC matters
gladiator - Light armor warrior, EV matters

While this is clearly the intended distinction, it fails because the majority of gladiators will still swap to heavy armor as soon as they find it, and they will almost never have to play very long before finding it. Compared to the hunter or assassin, those other two at least start with a launcher that is actually uncommon to find early. The fighter's big starting gear is the actively dangerous shield and body armor that is obsolete as soon as you find one of four or five fairly common early dungeon drops.

[rchandra]

Give the fighter a +2 armour as well as the weapon minmay suggests. That will let it last a few floors, likely.

There's also the HP .. perhaps Fi needs even more?

Fighters shield -> buckler and remove Gl shield sounds ok too.

[Roderic]

It seems fair to me to preserve fighters

fighter - Heavy armor warrior, AC matters
gladiator - Light armor warrior, EV matters

While this is clearly the intended distinction, it fails because the majority of gladiators will still swap to heavy armor as soon as they find it, and they will almost never have to play very long before finding it. Compared to the hunter or assassin, those other two at least start with a launcher that is actually uncommon to find early. The fighter's big starting gear is the actively dangerous shield and body armor that is obsolete as soon as you find one of four or five fairly common early dungeon drops.

Remove the abundance of HA in the first floors. AFAIK nobody changes it until they find something branded or artifacts. High AC should remain in deeper levels to those who have trained armor wearing leather or ring mails.

[Roderic]

I don't think roderic actually plays crawl just fyi

You know, some people work to earn money and have a life and such. But I don't like to continue ...

[Volteccer_Jack]

IMO remove Fighter. Their only interesting feature is having a shield, which if you're smart, you take off the moment you start.

Remove the abundance of HA in the first floors. AFAIK nobody changes it until they find something branded or artifacts.

Granted, I don't play a whole ton of melee-centric characters, but all the Hill Orcs and Minotaurs I do play put on the heaviest thing I find at the earliest possible opportunity. Branded armour is the only thing that might stop me from upgrading to plate on sight. I do not recall any time I have regretted this.

[Deimos]

What would happen if we gave fighters Plate? Would that trivialize the early dungeon?

[Eji1700]

I personally always thought that shields could use a rework(more shields/sizes and better scaling) but that generally falls under the "to complicated" relm of things.

If it can't be reworked i'm all for either ditching fighter or dropping the shield and shortblade and letting them start with a sword and better weapon levels.

[Baldu]

Would be nice if fighter was 2h weapon + armor background, but there arent too many of the current 2h weapons that would work for this. Or a bit more on the silly side, have all their points be in fighting and have them start with one of each weapon

[cerebovssquire]

I like the 2h weapon proposal too, but practically the worst 2h weapons are great sword, (no sblade), halberd/scythe, dire flail and battleaxe, so I really don't think these should go in.
Giving them "second-tier" weapons might be neat though, by which I mean sabre, long sword (nerf falchion or buff this maybe?), flail (uh... maybe not flail), trident and war axe. Probably these should get plusses too.

[palin]

I would rather increase starting Sh skill for fighters until we got a rebalanced Sh skill. Currently the only people using shields are spellcasters with bucklers. Something is very wrong with Sh now, I think.

[roctavian]

I think the game could profit from the addition of entry-level 2H weapons for a new background. The concern of course would be to balance those versus early 1H weapons -- for example, if a character started out with a scythe, I imagine they'd drop it for a spear in a heartbeat.

[XuaXua]

What would be wrong with combining them and, since both offer customization, expand the customization to include greater variations on armour and weapon combinations?

[Jeremiah]

Give Fi helmets, boots, and gloves (and maybe a cloak) as well as their body armour, and remove helmets from Gl.

Maybe with the proposed changes to weapon skill & attack delay it will be possible to give fighters better starting weapons as well...

[some12fat2move]

It seems fair to me to preserve fighters

fighter - Heavy armor warrior, AC matters
gladiator - Light armor warrior, EV matters

While this is clearly the intended distinction, it fails because the majority of gladiators will still swap to heavy armor as soon as they find it, and they will almost never have to play very long before finding it. Compared to the hunter or assassin, those other two at least start with a launcher that is actually uncommon to find early. The fighter's big starting gear is the actively dangerous shield and body armor that is obsolete as soon as you find one of four or five fairly common early dungeon drops.

Exactly. So how do we reinforce the intended distinction, and balance Fighter and Gladiator while we're at it?

Some of the proposals have suggested giving Fighters plate armour and full armour slots (gloves, boots, etc), which is definitely a good start (makes Fighters better and more focused on armour-ness). Taking the buckler (and helm) away from the Gladiator and giving it the Fighter would make things more balanced, as would giving a nice enchantment to the Fighter's starting weapon. I suggest tweaking Gladiator starting stats to have 2 or 3 points or so moved from STR to DEX to increase distinction.

[KoboldLord]

Exactly. So how do we reinforce the intended distinction, and balance Fighter and Gladiator while we're at it?

Why? Either one already covers both parts of the distinction. The distinction is completely artificial, since the same character can swap back and forth at will for most of the early game. The game mechanics don't enforce sticking with your initial choice until you've either picked up some magic or you have enormous amounts of armor or dodging skill.

Some of the proposals have suggested giving Fighters plate armour and full armour slots (gloves, boots, etc), which is definitely a good start (makes Fighters better and more focused on armour-ness). Taking the buckler (and helm) away from the Gladiator and giving it the Fighter would make things more balanced, as would giving a nice enchantment to the Fighter's starting weapon. I suggest tweaking Gladiator starting stats to have 2 or 3 points or so moved from STR to DEX to increase distinction.

I see you want gladiators to be nerfed. Can you explain why you would want to do that? Neither fighter nor gladiator is in the upper half of martial backgrounds, and they certainly don't need extra bonus nerfs to enforce a completely artificial distinction. If you're intent on nerfing the gladiator into the ground to protect the fighter's niche, why not just remove the gladiator and give all the stuff it had to the fighter?

[snow]

I think in the beginning gladiators were meant to go with light armor and pump dodging. However usually you pump both dodging and armor so fighters and gladiators end up looking the same.

Maybe dodging (and by extension shields) should get a bit of a rework? It would be nice if choosing between dodging and armor was interesting. At the moment you just chose both and AC is better than EV anyway.

If beams and missiles were treated like melee attacks and armor evasion penalties mattered a bit more I could see players choosing dodging over armor in some situations.

[Deimos]

I think giving the Fighter full armor slots and a little weapon enchantment is the way to go. I agree with Kobold; there's no need to nerf Glads. They aren't a great starting class, they are just better then Fighter.

I think the distinction should be shifted. EV and AC are bad distinctions for an obvious reason that everyone has already gone over. The distinction should be how they overcome nasty foes; the Fighter does it the traditional way, with a sharp stick and a lot of padding, while the Gladiator deals with the threat in a slightly more unorthodox manner; nets and other throwing objects. All we really have to do is improve the fighter so he is measurably better at prodding things with sharp, shiny things. This isn't rocket science, we don't need to fiddle with game mechanics.

[nicolae]

I think giving the Fighter full armor slots and a little weapon enchantment is the way to go. I agree with Kobold; there's no need to nerf Glads. They aren't a great starting class, they are just better then Fighter.

I think the distinction should be shifted. EV and AC are bad distinctions for an obvious reason that everyone has already gone over. The distinction should be how they overcome nasty foes; the Fighter does it the traditional way, with a sharp stick and a lot of padding, while the Gladiator deals with the threat in a slightly more unorthodox manner; nets and other throwing objects.

The problem is that "nets and other throwing objects" aren't a complete threat-handling package: both the fighter and the gladiator are going to end up with a sharp stick and a lot of padding, the gladiator is just going to have better accessories.

[Roderic]

This is the problem with warrior classes, in the end or quite early in Crawl, they converge to the same plain dull class. Conceptually, the fighter is one to be meant to be in a war and battles, while the gladiator is focused as a fast and efficient fighter in one to one combats. Indeed the in-game definition if I'm not wrong is that the Gl is a specialized fighter to deal with any kind of foe, but does not excel in really much else; maybe the fault is that Fi is too much dull and should provide something else that Gl cannot in a short term. If Gl is a specialization, what meaningful thing can Fi has in addition respect to it ?

Given that the game is beginning to diversify the weapons effects (or maaaaybe will include some sort of combat techniques) perhaps a *solution* is to restrict the choice of initial weapons for one or both classes. For example, gladiators are only specialized in weapons for a gruesome show: short sword, mace and trident plus nets and less gear, while fighters can go with long blades, maces, axes and spears plus a buckler instead of a larger shield.

I'm aware that it would work much better with a game based on classes rather than flexible and evolving backgrounds, though.

[some12fat2move]

Exactly. So how do we reinforce the intended distinction, and balance Fighter and Gladiator while we're at it?

Why? Either one already covers both parts of the distinction. The distinction is completely artificial, since the same character can swap back and forth at will for most of the early game. The game mechanics don't enforce sticking with your initial choice until you've either picked up some magic or you have enormous amounts of armor or dodging skill.

While it's true that you don't have to stick with your initial choice, a lot of games are started with an idea in mind - like a heavy-armour Hill Orc of Okawaru, perhaps, or a Merfolk who wants to start with a spear and nets, armour be damned. You might switch, but there's a good chance that you won't. A more flexible species has a higher tendency to switch, and not to mention some players have more flexibility than others, but still there's a lot of characters that have a game plan in mind and are likely to stick to it, and these characters will want a class that gives them what they're looking for in a package that can survive the early game. The intended distinction between Fighter and Gladiator is, I admit, feebler than most other classes, but not completely artificial. They might be close enough that they're best off merged though. I guess I came off sounding like "OMG! We have to save these classes!", but really I was just pointing out some ways to add distinction since that's what I thought the OP was asking for. I would not disagree with a good merger idea, or removing one or the other.

Some of the proposals have suggested giving Fighters plate armour and full armour slots (gloves, boots, etc), which is definitely a good start (makes Fighters better and more focused on armour-ness). Taking the buckler (and helm) away from the Gladiator and giving it the Fighter would make things more balanced, as would giving a nice enchantment to the Fighter's starting weapon. I suggest tweaking Gladiator starting stats to have 2 or 3 points or so moved from STR to DEX to increase distinction.

I see you want gladiators to be nerfed. Can you explain why you would want to do that? Neither fighter nor gladiator is in the upper half of martial backgrounds, and they certainly don't need extra bonus nerfs to enforce a completely artificial distinction. If you're intent on nerfing the gladiator into the ground to protect the fighter's niche, why not just remove the gladiator and give all the stuff it had to the fighter?

I wasn't taking other classes into account since this seemed like a Fighter to Gladiator thread, but I guess I can do that. Heck, I probably should have been doing that to start with. Here goes:

As it is, there's no reason to choose Fighter since Gladiator is just better (free throwing nets), and no reason to choose Gladiator since javelin Hunters are just better (javelins + throwing nets). This is why, as you say, neither fighter nor glad is in the upper half of martial backgrounds. In addition, we have a distinction problem between glads and javelin hunters - both are dodgy, netty classes liable to branch into magic quickly or just pick up the heaviest armour they find (depending on your plan, or what you find). From this perspective it appears Gladiators are responsible for the distinction problems - they are somewhere between Fighter and Hunter and just too similar to both. Removing glads and buffing fighters does look like the best plan, as it would solve the problems of distinction and of balance.

[crate]

Saying javelin hunter is better than gladiator is strange because falchions, tridents, and quarterstaves are all significantly better than short swords (and hand axe/mace are arguable). Gl also gets better defensive equipment and twice as many nets.

Gladiators are actually quite strong as-is, and fighter is not weak either. Saying there is too much similarity between fi/gl is fine but they are not really similar to hunters....

[some12fat2move]

Saying javelin hunter is better than gladiator is strange because falchions, tridents, and quarterstaves are all significantly better than short swords (and hand axe/mace are arguable). Gl also gets better defensive equipment and twice as many nets.

Gladiators are actually quite strong as-is, and fighter is not weak either. Saying there is too much similarity between fi/gl is fine but they are not really similar to hunters....

Hm...I didn't realize gladiators could get tridents or quarterstaffs (is it -staves?). Also thought javelin hunters got 3 nets. I guess there is a fair enough difference. Perhaps gladiators could be kept, but if so that extra armour should probably go to differentiate them from fighters, and in exchange they could get another net or two or some weapon enchantment.

[crate]

Well gladiator no longer gets a buckler so there is a definite difference now.

[snow]

It's like having two backgrounds: one that specializes in fire magic, and another that specialize in fire magic, but they start with slightly different starting books! Sure they end up looking exactly the same a little past the temple but who cares?

That's basically the fighter and gladiator at the moment only instead of fire magic they're casting axe-to-the-face. Do you seriously not see the issue here and why giving the fighter +1 or +2 to his gear won't help? The gladiator is built around a mechanic that doesn't exist in the game: light armored melee.

[XuaXua]

The gladiator is built around a mechanic that doesn't exist in the game: light armored melee.

It does exist though, when you consider races that cannot wear armour.

This is why I suggest a single fighter class with a 2-3 tier branching quiz, asking what type of weapon to specialize in, and to determine what type of armour to use, and whether to focus on shields (buckler/medium shield) or throwing (nets).

[galehar]

Sure they end up looking exactly the same a little past the temple but who cares?

Backgrounds are starting kit, so the pre-temple gameplay is the most relevant. A Gl can be turned into anything depending on what you find. If you like to turn them into heavy armoured fighters, be aware that it's not the only way to play them.

Also, Remove buckler from gladiator starting kit.

[Roderic]

Not sure exactly why, but people complain about the starting shield of Fi's, probably by its initial cumbersomeness. May a low tier (ie, athe buckler) be a better solution to get skill in shields without so many issues from the beginning ?

[snow]

The gladiator is built around a mechanic that doesn't exist in the game: light armored melee.

It does exist though, when you consider races that cannot wear armour.

This is why I suggest a single fighter class with a 2-3 tier branching quiz, asking what type of weapon to specialize in, and to determine what type of armour to use, and whether to focus on shields (buckler/medium shield) or throwing (nets).

I thought about SpBe before posting but didn't think it was worth noting... but you brought it up so I'll elaborate. You can technically win with a "caveman" background that does nothing but throw rocks and wear an animal skin but there's no synergy in wearing animal skins and throwing rocks so I wouldn't really call it a mechanic built into the game. The same thing goes for wearing leather instead of a plate. There's no reason to do so since anything than can wear leather can wear a plate and the plate is better.

Also SpBe plays like a hunter, and TrMo doesn't dodge... I mean yeah there are species that can't wear a plate but that doesn't really have anything to do with the difference between fighters and gladiators since they're corner cases with narrow playing styles.

Also feature request: make wearing animal skin cause thrown stones to deal extra damage. Furthermore make a caveman background that specializes in throwing and dodging.

[Roderic]

Has a gladiator some success to become a reaver for some species like HE or Me?

[XuaXua]

The gladiator is built around a mechanic that doesn't exist in the game: light armored melee.

It does exist though, when you consider races that cannot wear armour.

This is why I suggest a single fighter class with a 2-3 tier branching quiz, asking what type of weapon to specialize in, and to determine what type of armour to use, and whether to focus on shields (buckler/medium shield) or throwing (nets).

I thought about SpBe before posting but didn't think it was worth noting...

Ogres and Trolls also have Unfitting Armour and are geared towards (likely shield-less) melee.

[njvack]

If you're playing a Troll, there's a pretty good chance you're going unarmed and taking a shield.

[some12fat2move]

It's like having two backgrounds: one that specializes in fire magic, and another that specialize in fire magic, but they start with slightly different starting books! Sure they end up looking exactly the same a little past the temple but who cares?

Yes, that would be fine. It's just that Fighter and Gladiator look pretty much the same from turn 1, and not only that, the Fighter is completely inferior. I agree with the OP that this really should be addressed.

That's basically the fighter and gladiator at the moment only instead of fire magic they're casting axe-to-the-face. Do you seriously not see the issue here and why giving the fighter +1 or +2 to his gear won't help? The gladiator is built around a mechanic that doesn't exist in the game: light armored melee.

Have to disagree with you there. Ever tried casting spells in plate? Sure it's doable, but I usually prefer leather or ring mail (or even a robe, if it has a nice brand) for my "battlemage" characters. HOWz is my favorite build at the moment for light armored melee and it is quite effective. HOGl works well too, HOFi not as much. This is partly because Gladiators are just superior in Crawl right now and partly because when I'm playing this way I don't care that much about starting with heavy armor if I'll just ditch it at the first spellbook. If I'm not mistaken, this light armored melee approach is a pretty common style of play in Crawl so I'm surprised you would say it doesn't exist.

[yogaFLAME]

My feeling is that Fi is not the problem. Sh is the problem.

[snow]

If you're playing a Troll, there's a pretty good chance you're going unarmed and taking a shield.

So you're going to lose your offhand attack, do considerably less damage, and invest in a skill you have a horrible aptitude in just to get a shield that you won't need against melee enemies and is worthless against ranged enemies? Are you insane?

It's like having two backgrounds: one that specializes in fire magic, and another that specialize in fire magic, but they start with slightly different starting books! Sure they end up looking exactly the same a little past the temple but who cares?

Yes, that would be fine. It's just that Fighter and Gladiator look pretty much the same from turn 1, and not only that, the Fighter is completely inferior. I agree with the OP that this really should be addressed.

That's basically the fighter and gladiator at the moment only instead of fire magic they're casting axe-to-the-face. Do you seriously not see the issue here and why giving the fighter +1 or +2 to his gear won't help? The gladiator is built around a mechanic that doesn't exist in the game: light armored melee.

Have to disagree with you there. Ever tried casting spells in plate? Sure it's doable, but I usually prefer leather or ring mail (or even a robe, if it has a nice brand) for my "battlemage" characters. HOWz is my favorite build at the moment for light armored melee and it is quite effective. HOGl works well too, HOFi not as much. This is partly because Gladiators are just superior in Crawl right now and partly because when I'm playing this way I don't care that much about starting with heavy armor if I'll just ditch it at the first spellbook. If I'm not mistaken, this light armored melee approach is a pretty common style of play in Crawl so I'm surprised you would say it doesn't exist.

I honestly think some people who post here have never actually won before. I can just imagine you casting meph cloud with like a 35% fail rate while tabbing into confused enemies with some short sword that you have almost no skill in because your XP is spread over too many skills. Yes you can do stupid crap like that but it's far from optimal and you're just setting yourself to die before the temple.

If you want to play a hybrid then play a hybrid. Play a necro, enchanter, skald... and not some janky HOWz that melees. I guess skald is the closest to a light armored fighter as it gets but even then it's still optimal to invest in armor and wear dragon armor. Going with a robe when you don't have to is just a bad play.

[njvack]

Wait, since when is SH worthless against ranged enemies? It's useless against penetrating bolts and less good if you're being hit more than once per turn, but it stops normal arrows and bolts just fine... unless I'm totally mistaken?

Getting good AC or EV on a troll is nontrivial. And the shield penalties are smaller if you're a big race, so you don't need to train so much. And yeah, you have a crap aptitude in shields, but it's no worse than armour and dodging, and you get extra special penalties to armour and dodging just for your intrinsics.

So, I'd thought that unless you're swinging a GSC or something, a shield troll was a pretty sane choice? (I mean, as sane as any troll.) The offhand punch is better than I'd realized, though.

[snow]

I'm sorry but yes. You are mistaken.

SH is completely useless against ranged enemies. For one it doesn't block beams (ever notice how that ice dragon always hits?) and they're only about half as useful against missiles as they are against melee attacks (they are calculated differently and melee attacks are far easier to block). Furthermore the biggest ranged threats usually are fast and get multiple shots per turn... making SH even more useless. Oh and I believe fire and ice arrows count as beams so the only thing SH does against a yaktaur with ice arrows is lower your damage output.

Trolls can tab pretty easily to the vaults where they'll probably die to either yaktaurs or something with a beam attack. SH doesn't help against either and you're better off just putting that XP into anything else that can help you survive.

You know how to make SH not suck? Just treat ranged and melee attacks the same and get rid of that silly "multiple attacks per turn" rule which doesn't even make sense (if you attack faster you block more! Really...?) SH is actually really good against melee attacks and can block around 35% to 50% of melee attacks in a hallway.

[Galefury]

Bullshit. Shields may help less against ranged attacks than melee, but they do help quite a bit against the ones you can block. An unarmed troll might as well wear one.

[snow]

You lose your offhand attack which for a troll amounts to a good chunk of its damage. You must block a percentage of damage that's higher than the percentage of damage that you're not doing because of the shield. For a troll you need a really high SH skill to break even.

Also do some tests in wizard mode and see how often you block fire and ice arrows. Now... which kind of arrows kill a troll? Instead I would invest in something that helps me survive instead of actively hurting me. That's just me though... I guess having that 50 SH in the corner of your screen at least looks pretty...? It doesn't help much in terms of keeping you alive though.

You know what would help? Swapping to a staff of fire or ice when running up to that ranged enemy. That'll reduce the damage way more than wearing a shield and requires no skill at all!

[some12fat2move]

My feeling is that Fi is not the problem. Sh is the problem.

Good point - with an alteration to Shields, starting out with one might turn out to be worth something.

If you're playing a Troll, there's a pretty good chance you're going unarmed and taking a shield.

So you're going to lose your offhand attack, do considerably less damage, and invest in a skill you have a horrible aptitude in just to get a shield that you won't need against melee enemies and is worthless against ranged enemies? Are you insane?

Actually, Trolls practically have one of the best Shield aptitudes in the game when you consider they only need level 15 to negate the EVP of a large shield. If you make that investment, you can take a large shield without losing anything but the offhand attack. Sure it doesn't help against most ranged attacks, but I wouldn't call it insane - since unarmed Trolls can't benefit from badass weaponry, they could sure use some help in melee past Lair. Maybe a bad idea if you're looking into magic, since it'll be hard to spare exp for those 15 levels, but a TrBe should certainly go for shields after UC is maxed if not before.

[snow]

The ranged attacks it doesn't help against are the only actual threats to a troll.
The offhand attack is such a huge portion of your damage output it's not even funny.

Do you even play trolls?

[BlackSheep]

Sorry, but you're just wrong about the relative value of the offhand punch. You may need a really high SH value to make good use of your shield, but you don't need a really high Shields skill on a troll to get that value because you can eliminate the penalties of a large shield at skill 15. To add to that, using a shield affords you the opportunity for additional resistances or other bonuses.

[snow]

https://crawl.develz.org/tavern/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5738

It's 20% to 30% of your damage and you don't even need 15 SH skill to negate the SH penalties on a troll.

Again... do you people even play Crawl? Shields suck. They actively hurt you more than they help you against hard enemies and give unneeded help against easy ones. Actually they hurt you against easy ones too because you win both ways but with a SH it takes longer.

As a final note resistances don't really matter in 99.99% of instances and when they do matter you can just swap rings for half a turn or sip a resistance potion. So I'm just going to presume you're trolling me at this point because your arguments are just silly.

So... congrats for making me type so much when everyone already agrees shields suck.