Passive Defense and 4e

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by elco2

There is a PD stat in the handcuffs section of GURPS Mysteries (4e). What is that?

That seems to be third edition Passive Defense. Mysteries is a rather early 4e book, first published in 2005, and PD seems to have leaked through.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by johndallman

That seems to be third edition Passive Defense. Mysteries is a rather early 4e book, first published in 2005, and PD seems to have leaked through.

That's because the handcuff stats were lifted straight from GURPS Cops (3e).

elco2, you should use the stats from High-Tech (4e):

Handcuffs (TL6). Metal, key-locking cuffs give -5 to Escape.
DR 4, HP 6. $50, 0.5 lb. LC4.

[smurf]

I am just glad it has gone from 4e.

Even if they were mooks all out attacking on 14 (it may have been less), the shield PD bonus was hard. The mook would only hit the character if the skill roll was less that -x of the PD of the shield, otherwise the mook would hit the shield.

But also the mooks could hide behind the character's shield and there would be a penalty for the character to hit the mook, usually -x PD of the shield.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by smurf

Even if they were mooks all out attacking on 14 (it may have been less), the shield PD bonus was hard.

If the character is using active defences, then isn't the "Defense Bonus" effectively the same as the "Passive Defence" in 3e?

The primary difference seems to be that DB is of no help if you don't make a defense while PD allowed a defense roll even if you did not defend (like if it was a surprise attack, or you were using AOA)

Originally Posted by smurf

The mook would only hit the character if the skill roll was less that -x of the PD of the shield, otherwise the mook would hit the shield.

Isn't that how the cover penalty currently works in 4e?

I thought PD in 3e meant you didn't modify the attacker's roll and instead treated it like a free block or a free parry, but if you didn't actually make an active defence then the PD alone was rolled against instead of PD+skill/2

Originally Posted by smurf

But also the mooks could hide behind the character's shield and there would be a penalty for the character to hit the mook, usually -x PD of the shield.

I hadn't thought of that... wouldn't a mook normally have to disarm you, pick up the shield and then ready the shield to benefit from either its PD (3e) or DB (4e) ?

I'm curious where I can find the rule of it being harder to hit a mook by them trying to use your shield's cover against you. It sounds pretty cool.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Plane

If the character is using active defences, then isn't the "Defense Bonus" effectively the same as the "Passive Defence" in 3e?

Yes. The big thing is that PD was provided by armor in 3e, and that has been completely deleted in 4e.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Anthony

PD was provided by armor in 3e,

Ah that's right, so even in normal situations it could add up nicely perhaps comparable to rolling active defences in 4e?

Then when ADDING those rolls on top of that, even more amazing.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Plane

Ah that's right, so even in normal situations it could add up nicely perhaps comparable to rolling active defences in 4e?

It was usually only a problem with magic; mundane armor and shield capped out at PD 8, ultratech armor sometimes had PD 6 but usually didn't combine that with a shield. However, plate with deflect-2 and a large shield with deflect-2 was PD 12...

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Anthony

It was usually only a problem with magic; mundane armor and shield capped out at PD 8, ultratech armor sometimes had PD 6 but usually didn't combine that with a shield. However, plate with deflect-2 and a large shield with deflect-2 was PD 12...

However, the lack of PD from armor was a major problem in times and places where people didn't wear armor but still did violence to each other.

I discovered this very early in 1e when I took Gurps Horror 1e and tried to use it as a 20th Century sourcebook. I was trying to make a hardboiled PI named Roscoe Gatt as a sample character and his defenses were so low that he and everyone else might as well have taken AOA every Turn.

Martial arts 1e tried to patch this with new Skills but it wasn't really until 4e that there was a systematic solution and I beleive it was this unarmored combat problem that the developers were mostly trying to fix.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

However, the lack of PD from armor was a major problem in times and places where people didn't wear armor but still did violence to each other.

Oh, agreed. I was greatly in favor of removing armor PD, but just commenting that being unhittable without trying to defend wasn't a big issue (4e basically replaced armor PD with a flat 3).

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Oh, agreed. I was greatly in favor of removing armor PD, but just commenting that being unhittable without trying to defend wasn't a big issue (4e basically replaced armor PD with a flat 3).

It gave a bit of a perverse incentive: the best way to maximize your Dodge score was to wear a hundred pounds of steel.