Called Shot Torso?

[BalanceFx]

You have a priest with a large (say 3 inch) steel cross hanging from his neck, a pocket bible in his shirt pocket and a belt with a steel belt buckle which is a family heirloom.

He gets hit in the chest by a fanatical, militant atheist with the bully and intolerance disadvantage. (In fact this clown threw a bottle from 7 yards)

Called shot Torso.

Now where does it hit? The bible? The cross? The belt Buckle? Or would you consider a miss by 1 to hit one of those locations where as a hit means in hit him?

The problem with that is having those three items would provide some protection. So -1 to hit?

The reason I bring it up, is the same can be said for a cloak. Wearing a cloak changes the shape of your body so that a hit may in reality be a miss. You *HIT* the target but there was no living matter behind that target.

So that said. Here is Kromm's response from 2007.

Originally Posted by Kromm

A cloak is used like a shield -- as implied by both the Cloak skill write-up and the cloak's listing under Shields (p. B287). It gives DB only when partly wrapped around one arm or held in one hand, and then used to brush incoming weapons aside (either on its own or by padding the hand enough to allow it to assist) and to partly obscure the body from frontal attackers. Worn on the back, it doesn't do much at all. Well, a heavy cloak might add +1 to DR from the rear, but there's no DB.

In any event, you can only benefit from one source of handheld DB, whether it comes from a shield per se, a buckler, or a cloak. These things never "stack." Magical DB does, but that's not handheld.

It seems this is becoming a FAQ. I guess people don't watch swashbuckling films any more. :(

This is a great clarification of the rules. That said if your actively attacking your cloak is being thrown about and as you dodge it may obscure enough to provide a bonus.

A cloak will obscure some of your body but not enough to make any meaningful difference if your not actively using it is the assumption but moving around with a free hanging cloak could provide some obscurement bonus.. Possibly -1 to hit? If you have a free hand you could easily use it to get the DB bonus of a cloak with RAW. (And you wouldn't have to declare I am using my cloak, you just have to have a free hand)

Now its not implicitly stated but I think a good house rule would be to benefit from the FULL DB value of a cloak you need the cloak skill and a free hand otherwise either:

• The DB is halved. (Nothing for a light cloak and 1 for a heavy cloak)
• The user is -1 to hit whether he has a heavy cloak or a light cloak.

I think that is fair and more representive of a cloak and the defensive value it provides but I want to poll the community. What do you think? (One of my players really thinks just wearing a cloak while dodging would provide an additional benefit of some kind in addition to the mere DR.)

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

You have a priest with a large (say 3 inch) steel cross hanging from his neck, a pocket bible in his shirt pocket and a belt with a steel belt buckle which is a family heirloom.

You can count it as partial DR with an unreliable activation depending on what percentage of the torso it covers.

Unreliable 14-, 90% coverage
Unreliable 11-, 60% coverage
Unreliable 8-, 25% coverage
Unreliable 5-, 5% coverage

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

He gets hit in the chest by a fanatical, militant atheist with the bully and intolerance disadvantage. (In fact this clown threw a bottle from 7 yards)

Called shot Torso.

Now where does it hit? The bible? The cross? The belt Buckle? Or would you consider a miss by 1 to hit one of those locations where as a hit means in hit him?

Those things all together might cover 25% of the front of the torso, so I'd call it 8-, so roll 3d6 and see if it gets stopped by it, using the bigger items for the bigger numbers.

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

The problem with that is having those three items would provide some protection. So -1 to hit?

Nah, you use negatives to hit in GURPS if an item is actually providing cover, these things are too small for that.

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

I think that is fair and more representative of a cloak and the defensive value it provides but I want to poll the community. What do you think? (One of my players really thinks just wearing a cloak while dodging would provide an additional benefit of some kind in addition to the mere DR.)

I'd say it'd depend on the circumstances...
BTW, have you looked at the cover rules? (p.407-408)

[mlangsdorf]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

If you have a free hand you could easily use it to get the DB bonus of a cloak with RAW. (And you wouldn't have to declare I am using my cloak, you just have to have a free hand)

Now its not implicitly stated but I think a good house rule would be to benefit from the FULL DB value of a cloak you need the cloak skill and a free hand otherwise either:

Using the RAW, in order to get a cloak's DB you need to wrap it around your arm and let part of it dangle in front of you, then use your cloak-wrapped arm to ward off blows and entangle incoming attacks. Merely wearing a cloak will do nothing for you.

Your house rule is much kinder than the RAW. I'd stick with the RAW.

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

Using the RAW, in order to get a cloak's DB you need to wrap it around your arm and let part of it dangle in front of you, then use your cloak-wrapped arm to ward off blows and entangle incoming attacks. Merely wearing a cloak will do nothing for you.

Your house rule is much kinder than the RAW. I'd stick with the RAW.

Right, but should it be kinder?

[Lonewulf]

I have experience with fencing. I wear a heavy cloak while in a bout, and will hold up and dangle an edge while wearing it.

The only time I can use it as a "free" action is when I accidentally entangle my sword up in my cloak, and keep on fighting as I don't have time to get it detangled (which can, surprisingly, work for my defense; I can ward off blows at a cost to a definite penalty to my sword skill!)

Just grabbing up the edge... well, as a free action, no, I don't think that's all that simple. I'd have to say at least a ready action, to make sure that you have a decent grip. It's only 1 second, after all.

And no, I wouldn't count it for extreme obscurement. While, admittedly, I was somewhat obscured (mainly because I chose to be), it works a lot more like a feint; experts just wait until I'm revealed and poke at me -- and if I keep myself concealed by sweeping out the cloak, I'm concealing my opponent at the same time! However, with the cloak just around my soldiers... no, there's not a whole lot of obscurement going on.



Still, I'm wondering. When I held my cloak up with my arm, it DID cover up half my body; that might count as passive 1 DR over that side of my body (100% probability from an attack from my cloak side, and 50% probability straight from the front); and then an attempt to "block" by pulling the sword out-of-line *before* it can touch my body through the cloak. It would still damage the cloak, though, for no apparent game in RAW (except maybe, possibly, a +1 to Block...)

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

I'd say it'd depend on the circumstances...
BTW, have you looked at the cover rules? (p.407-408)

Yep! It came up recently when someone was in a tree. I was pleasantly surprised to see the no skill penalty and random hit location variation work out so well.

Wasn't cover completely different in 3E?

I like the cover rules because of their simplicity. I always provide sources of cover in any tactical combat and the players take great advantage of it. Being only 150-160 point characters they are not quite the heroes yet they imagine themselves to be someday and using strategy in combat is imperative for success. (That and prudent use of extra effort and heroic rolls if neccesary hehe)

[Dustin]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

You have a priest with a large (say 3 inch) steel cross hanging from his neck, a pocket bible in his shirt pocket and a belt with a steel belt buckle which is a family heirloom.

He gets hit in the chest by a fanatical, militant atheist with the bully and intolerance disadvantage. (In fact this clown threw a bottle from 7 yards)

Called shot Torso.

Now where does it hit? The bible? The cross? The belt Buckle? Or would you consider a miss by 1 to hit one of those locations where as a hit means in hit him?

The problem with that is having those three items would provide some protection. So -1 to hit?

These are not particularly unusual items. The belt buckle and pocket bible especially are just ordinary items, and to start treating them as armor points towards madness. ("But I'm wearing 2 pocket protectors full of steel mechanical pencils! And my shirt buttons are REALLY big!")
The effect of items like these is, I think, subsumed into the randomness of the damage roll. A low damage roll might mean that one of these items was hit - basically they're too small to have an effect at GURPS' level of resolution.

If the 3 inch cross is 3 inches in diameter, it isn't really big enough to warrant special rules, but for a larger cross that was purchased with the intent that it would provide some protection, I might follow something like Ze'Manel Cunha's suggestion, giving the cross an activation roll to be in the way (or just assigning it a 1 in 6 chance). However, anything beefy enough to be armor is beefy enough to have weight, and I would certainly enforce that. It would also appear unusual in most circumstances ("Why do you wear that?"). Basically, any cross large enough to provide protection will be large enough to inspire notice, comments, and perhaps be prohibited in certain circumstances ("No, you can't wear that in the courtroom. No weapons allowed.")

[Tinman]

I fenced on my college team & after college for a total of 10 years.
I've also fenced with the SCA.

In my expireance a cloak on your shoulders will NOT in any way obscure you from a swordsman. The DB & block of the cloak is from actively using it to interfear with your oppents weapon. Its used either to wrap around your arm & 'parry' with your arm OR using it loose, sweeping it infront of you to 'trap/entagle' your opponents weapon.

The flaping of a cloak is as obscureing/distracting as a PC flaping his arms & jumping up and down.

I think the RAW is right on target.

[JAW]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

Right, but should it be kinder?

Well look it that way - if just wearing a cloak would give significant defensive bonuses everybody would be doing it. Do you see security personnel or police officers going around wearing cloaks?

In supers orcinematic games - OK why not -but the character still has to pay CPs for the enchanged defense that works only while a cloak is worn.

Similarly one could have the priest with some sort of special defensive ability that works with the cross, bible etc.

Ze'ssugestion of treating the items as unreliable armor might work - but then they really should have significant weight. And yeah - you'll be on the road to entirely too much detail on items.

[Kromm]

I'd allow a worn cloak to give DB in one situation: when it obscures the wearer's vision as much as his opponent's. If a PC in my game was wearing a cloak and wanted to fluff it around to get +2 to defenses without wielding it using a hand, I'd allow it . . . and give him -4 to DX and Vision for all other purposes. And if he had to retreat or was knocked back, he'd be making a DX-4 roll to avoid tripping over the darn thing and falling down.