The books usually list shields under the "Weapons" listing in the books. So, would you use armor or weapon crafting rules to make a shield?

Neither. In essence, shields are their own special category. Shields aren't weapons and have no weapon traits, so the only crafted weapon trait that could apply is lightweight. Shields don't work like armor, so none of the crafted armor traits should apply, except for lightweight, extra melee and/or ranged defense, extra HP, and duplicate.

I'm guessing that the developers deliberately didn't include shields in their list of weapon templates on page 78 of Special Modifications or armor templates on page 90 of Keeping the Peace because they didn't want players to be able to craft them.

Shield are craftable as melee weapons.

13 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

Shield are craftable as melee weapons.

Hmm, you're right. Which sort of makes sense. But most of the crafted traits shouldn't be allowed. Only Customizable, Lightweight, Knockdown, Defensive, and Deflection.

Shields are melee weapons in the game. You can bash people with em.

10 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

Shields are melee weapons in the game. You can bash people with em.

So you think that a bashing weapon should have Pierce or Sunder or Ensnare? I did overlook the Accurate, Destructive, and Stun traits, and Lethal and Vicious, which a shield could logically have. Oh, and Two-Handed, assuming anyone wanted that.

Pierce - shield spike

Sunder - razor edge

Ensnare - barbed hooks

10 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

Pierce - shield spike

Sunder - razor edge

Ensnare - barbed hooks

I like the first two, but I feel like the third would ensnare the wielder too... unless I'm visualizing it wrong.

Sunder-notched edges for catching and breaking weapons.

A shield spike doesn't work when the shield is a force field. A razor edge or barbed hooks (but not both together) might be feasible. A notched edge won't break a rifle.

2 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

I like the first two, but I feel like the third would ensnare the wielder too... unless I'm visualizing it wrong.

Ok, if it needs to be more Tony Stark it's a glop projector from a glop grenades that secretes a blast of the goo on activation and gum ups the target.

2 minutes ago, ShadoWarrior said:

A shield spike doesn't work when the shield is a force field. A razor edge or barbed hooks (but not both together) might be feasible. A notched edge won't break a rifle.

You assume Sunder means 'break' into pieces. Bend a barrel on a rifle even a smidgen and you now have a complicated club. It's most definitely 'broken'.

Don't assume that I'm assuming anything. Bending a barrel is a lot harder than it might seem. Any decent military weapon is designed to take some abuse from soldiers, and barrels are made of very tough steel (or whatever metals are appropriate in Star Wars, like duranium, which probably cannot be bent by someone lacking seriously enhanced strength). If weapons were so fragile that barrels could be easily bent they'd be near useless in the field.

The notched edges idea is an extension of the sword-breaker (parrying dagger) which could be used with a buckler or (potentially) a larger shield. Against powered weapons, Sunder might consist of an energy discharge from the shield that can potentially damage a weapon that impacts the surface.

I handled plenty of military weapons and they'll get F-ed up a lot easier than you think.

Ensnare could be accomplished by some tractor-beam-like appliance.

Sunder could mean an ionising (Star Wars terminology, not cell damaging) discharge (see the Ion Micro-Rocket).

So did I when I was in the Army. They're not as fragile as you're making them out to be.

Just now, ShadoWarrior said:

So did I when I was in the Army. They're not as fragile as you're making them out to be.

But they are, when you know what part to mess with.

4 minutes ago, Grimmerling said:

Ensnare could be accomplished by some tractor-beam-like appliance.

*cue enemy mooks frantically trying to run away as they slowly get pulled back.*

5 minutes ago, ShadoWarrior said:

So did I when I was in the Army. They're not as fragile as you're making them out to be.

Go ahead and smack a barrel with a hammer and you put a round through it and let me know how that works out for you. I'll let you borrow my avatar.

1 minute ago, Grimmerling said:

But they are, when you know what part to mess with.

Sure, but those parts likely can't be messed with by being bashed or hooked by some notch. Screwing up the internal mechanism(s) typically requires grit/sand, excessive heat, or something else (like Force manipulation).

1 minute ago, 2P51 said:

Go ahead and smack a barrel with a hammer and you put a round through it and let me know how that works out for you. I'll let you borrow my avatar.

Depends on how hard the smack is, whether the hammer's face hits flat or hits with an edge (narrowing the area of contact and increasing force per unit area), and whether the barrel is cold or has just had a few hundred rounds fired through it. Oh, and whether you use a common carpenter's hammer or a sledgehammer, of course.

11 minutes ago, ShadoWarrior said:

Don't assume that I'm assuming anything. Bending a barrel is a lot harder than it might seem. Any decent military weapon is designed to take some abuse from soldiers, and barrels are made of very tough steel (or whatever metals are appropriate in Star Wars, like duranium, which probably cannot be bent by someone lacking seriously enhanced strength). If weapons were so fragile that barrels could be easily bent they'd be near useless in the field.

You have a point here and a vibro edge or laser-cut sounds more like it for sunder. Pierce works that way too.

You go ahead and fire that bullet. Not me thanks. I'm in no rush to have a charging handle buried in my face.

They have such things as lasers to check whether a barrel is true or not. The old days of test-firing potentially damaged barrels are long gone.