Two Shields

[Anders]

Originally Posted by DemiBenson

I like this. Makes it so a peshkali with 6 DB0 bucklers gets nothing extra. Also, a peshkali with 6 large shields should be incredibly well covered.

A large shield covers the user from "chin to shin" (LT) - let's say 4' in diameter. I'm not sure how you fit six such shields in front of a person. Surely they would interfere with each other, creating a sort of scale armor with enormous scales. (I don't remember if the Peshkali is SM +1, but if it is the shields would be larger so the same logic would apply).

[DemiBenson]

Originally Posted by Anders

A large shield covers the user from "chin to shin" (LT) - let's say 4' in diameter. I'm not sure how you fit six such shields in front of a person. Surely they would interfere with each other, creating a sort of scale armor with enormous scales. (I don't remember if the Peshkali is SM +1, but if it is the shields would be larger so the same logic would apply).

Hmm. Good point.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Anders

A large shield covers the user from "chin to shin" (LT) - let's say 4' in diameter.

For what it's worth, I think the classic large shields are the Greek aspis, the roman scutum, and maybe the norman kite shield, to pick Western examples.

In almost all cases, "chin to shin" is while the warrior is in a fighting stance...that is, *crouching*. My own viking shields are half my height by design (if I made one for you, it would be half your height), and cover from chin to shin from the opponent's perspective while I'm in my fighting stance.

In real terms, the DB +2 shield held properly really could provide DB +3 in terms of "it only leaves about 25% of your body exposed." Even a DB +1 buckler occludes a remarkable amount of body when held out like it should be.

The heavier shields that are slung from guiges (my aforementioned viking shield is about 6 lbs, which based on museum finds and measurements taken of the historical boards...seems about representative) are held closer in, because holding them extended more like a buckler gets tiring even for strong folks. These still cover from chin to shin...but the crouch is still required.

In any case, I don't think a peshkali could do much with six shields either, unless they were building a wall, or some sort of epic siege device.

[DemiBenson]

Originally Posted by Kromm

This is discussed in "The Shield-Bearer" (Pyramid #3/118, pp. 4-9); see Two-Shield Fighting, p. 6. While strictly speaking for the Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game, the logic is transferable to GURPS. There's a lot there, but briefly: Use only the best applicable, available DB – but this benefits even blocks with a second shield of lower DB.

Think about that last part this way: Yes, two shields cover more of your body than one, but they get in the way of one another and generally block two completely different lines of attack. I suppose you could scrunch them up together to hide from just one foe . . . that sounds like All-Out Defense (Increased Block) for +2 to Block or, more interestingly, All-Out Defense (Double Defense) allowing you to block once and, if that fails, block again with the other shield, both blocks using the best DB.

Thanks!
I thought I’d seen it somewhere, and couldn’t remember where.
Your AOD answers make sense.

[Plane]

I think it'd be cool to move away from using DBs and instead just require attacks from certain angles to succeed by a certain margin otherwise they hit the shield.

Blocks could be used to change the angle on the fly if prior positioning wasn't ideal to impede the attack.

Like for example if you were holding a buckler as cover for your groin then the largest penalty would be to hit the groin (wrap-shotting the buckler as it stops direct frontal attacks) with a smaller penalty to hit adjacent areas (thigh/pelvis/intestines) and no penalty to hit further spots (feet/head)

But if someone did target a further spot and you perceived it (maybe Per checks to detect what hit location is targeted before declaring defenses?) you could do a "block" which if you reacted quickly, would then apply that MoS requirement to a new location.

This would be for the "the shield's DR/HP takes the damage" type stuff (covering up). Actually using a shield to redirect an attack could avoid taking as much damage to the shield (or having the shield penetrated and you take damage minus cover DR) but require more difficult timing.

The idea that shield size (DB) always synergizes with dodging skill has kind of seemed off. If your intention has always been to lift your foot to avoid someone who has thrown a knife at your foot, then how would having a buckler help there? Failing to have lifted your foot quickly enough, you drop into a crouch fast enough to get the buckler in front of your foot? Weird to picture.

Maybe that's more something like we need a "low-line parries" type of rule for small shields the same way we do C-range weapons?

the idea of "I'm blocking and doing something else simultaneously" already seems covered by AOD:double, we could just allow double-defense options for all maneuvers instead of just AOD: just say "if you take -2 to the first defense you perform against an attack, you retain the option of doing a 2nd unpenalized defense against that same attack"

In which case the normal AOD:double option could be like offsetting that first -2 by using Determined +2.

This actually make it a bit weaker since the Determined recipient is locked in for the whole turn whereas AOD:double normally allows you to do any combination/order of defense pairings.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Plane

I think it'd be cool to move away from using DBs and instead just require attacks from certain angles to succeed by a certain margin otherwise they hit the shield.

I could see cause to turn DB into a -1 to -6 (or maybe just out to -5) penalty, as even if you are unaware of an incoming attack, your shield still has to be worked around (depending on angle; an attack from behind doesn't care about your shield). On the other hand, active shield positioning plays a major role, even when doing what GURPS would call a Dodge or Parry rather than a Block, but something like "penalty is halved if the character is unable to use an Active Defense" feels... off, somehow. Back on the gripping hand, active shield positioning should be a function of Shield skill, but (for simplicity's sake) GURPS doesn't distinguish between the Dodge of a character with Shield-20 and one who lacks Shield skill at all and is relying on his DX-4 default - so long as the character is wielding a shield, he gets +DB to his Dodge. And, of course, one advantage to trading DB for an attack penalty is that it expands the categories of shields available - rather than everything needing to fit into one of around 3 slots (DB 1, DB 2, DB 3), you've got around 6 slots to work with (-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6). As with DB, of course, if the modifier makes the difference between a hit and a miss, it is the shield that is struck (and the target can attempt an Active Defense to prevent their shield from taking damage).

[Gumby Bush]

Originally Posted by ericthered

What page and book is that, if you don't mind me asking?

In this case, I spoke from memory. Actually took me longer than expected to track down the words.

B287 and B374 both specify that the DB applies to the front and shield side. I don't actually see anything in the Basic Set addressing multiple shields... one could split hairs one the wording, I guess "A shield." and lack of mention of the effects of multiple shields is suggestive... but by no means definitive.

On the exclusivity of DBs, it is possible I'm remembering other times this has been addressed by Kromm on these fora, since I am certain the memory predates the DFRPG.

[oneofmanynameless]

During my brief time with the SCA I had the opportunity to put on two shields and a suite of armor and let me tell you... with two shields on you are completely blind and your arms will start straining in timeframes measurable in seconds. I'm not exaggerating here. Shields create huge blind spots you have to be careful of. They're mostly ok with only one shield because of the shield's own protective qualities. But with two shields at the same time you are nearly completely blind:
- if your guard is up you can't see anything below your eye level including low line attacks at your legs or hips or whatever. This extends out into your flanks on both sides where the shields would normally protect in a way that essentially eliminates your peripheral vision.
- if your guard is up at all, even if your arms are relaxed (unless they are literally hanging at your sides), the bulk of the shields interferes with your ability to maneuver either shield effectively, making it functionally impossible to use the shields to actively block incoming attacks. It's actually worse then holding a table up in front of you because the shields are not one object, their two different ones, and thus they're considerably more unwieldly.
- keeping your guard up with a shield is an arm and shoulder workout most people don't expect. Shields are way heavier than weapons. But when you've got two of them the rest of your upper body can't properly accommodate the weight and you will completely exhaust yourself within seconds unless you are a truly impressively strong individual.

None of that should get in the way of a heroic duel shield badass pummeling in orcs like Cap America got a second shield. So it's only relevant if you value realism over crazy cool ideas.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by oneofmanynameless

your arms will start straining in timeframes measurable in seconds

This is more a symptom of needing ways to tie incremental fatigue to weapon's weights, which would be a fun tweak for the Action Point approach maybe somehow based on the Grip ST individual limbs have and encumbrance relative to the limb rather than overall body.

Localized AP/FP just like we have localized HP tally could help deal with that too.

Originally Posted by oneofmanynameless

Shields create huge blind spots you have to be careful of. They're mostly ok with only one shield because of the shield's own protective qualities. But with two shields at the same time you are nearly completely blind:

This probably depends a lot on shield size too: a pair of DB1 bucklers isn't going to impede vision as much as a pair of DB3 tower shields.

Originally Posted by oneofmanynameless

- if your guard is up you can't see anything below your eye level including low line attacks at your legs or hips or whatever. This extends out into your flanks on both sides where the shields would normally protect in a way that essentially eliminates your peripheral vision.

OTOH you might "shoot from the hip" with emphasis on using shield to guard legs/groin (leaving face/chest exposed) to keep vision unimpeded.

Where your "resting position is" for shields (or maybe weapons in general) should definitely have a stronger tactical impact. I think that's what Gladiators begins to approach when emphasizing side stances, and where the "focused defense" idea in Pyramid was intended to go.

Where you've prepped your defenses should influence both your cover penalties for that location and also how readily you can relocate your implement to defend the uncovered locatons: easier to relocate to adjacent spot than to a further one...

IE if I have my arm pointing straight down to hold buckler to protect my groin, it's going to be harder to get it up and guard my skull (~3ft distance) than if I had that buckler already protecting my neck (~6 inch distance)

Originally Posted by oneofmanynameless

- if your guard is up at all, even if your arms are relaxed (unless they are literally hanging at your sides), the bulk of the shields interferes with your ability to maneuver either shield effectively, making it functionally impossible to use the shields to actively block incoming attacks.

It seems like where they would get in each other's way most is against centre attacks. If you were using a left shield to block attacks coming from left and right shield to block attacks coming from right (nary the two shall meet) I'd expect less interference, so long as you make peace with "neither will be very useful against attacks coming straight down the middle"

It's actually worse then holding a table up in front of you because the shields are not one object, their two different ones, and thus they're considerably more unwieldly.
[/quote]

Originally Posted by oneofmanynameless

when you've got two of them the rest of your upper body can't properly accommodate the weight and you will completely exhaust yourself within seconds unless you are a truly impressively strong individual.

Not entirely sure what you mean. It's obviously systemically a harder workout (legs bear more weight) if you're holding a pair of 20lb weights compared to a single one, but doesn't that just fall under overall encumbrance rules?

In some cases holding a counterweight seems like it might actually make posture easier: if you're lifting one 10lb dumbeell out to the right side (delt fly) your body wants to fall to the right so your left obliques would contract to keep the spine stable. If you're lifting a pair of 10lb dumbbells to both sides, it doesn't want to fall to either side so the obliques can sorta relax (by comparison).

That's only going purely to the side though: if you're lifting them forward then your lower back is getting twice the workout preventing your spine from bending forward. So again it seems a situation like "two shields guarding front very-bad, two shields guarding far-left/far-right perhaps not-as-bad"

[oneofmanynameless]

@Plane

I would love a workup of locational fatigue. Sort of rules I'd love to read... although I'd actually never use them because they'd bog down the action too much while also requiring too much of a spreadsheet. Still, they could take into account things like how torso armor doesn't fatigue you nearly as fast as arm armor, carrying heavy weapons, using shields, etc because throwing all that weight around with your arms is just exhausting in a way that carrying it on your core isn't. Your core is just stronger.

I was using DB2 shields. They rendered me completely blind to anything below eye level and still vulnerable to low line attacks. I think DB3 shields would be functionally impossible to duel wield, but even if they weren't you'd be essentially hiding behind a table and completely blind. DB1 shields would be far far more usable.

And as for the last point: they aren't counterbalancing eachother. They're both relatively to your front which requires different postures then you would normally adopt to hold up one shield, making everything very awkward. And rather than counterbalancing eachother they sort of empahsize the awkwardness more. I guess you might be able to adopt some sort of stance where one is held up in one direction and the other in and opposite direction and manipulate them mostly by spinning your core... but then the extra weight will create a lot more torque on your torso which will be harder to manage on whichever your "back" side is (if you're rotating clockwise your right side will suck and if your rotating counter clockwise your left side will suck), plus you'd have to counter balance them so blocking with one would require a counterbalance motion with the other... idk. Maybe someone with a much better Shield skill and higher DX than me could figure it out.

But DB1 shields should be fine.