Passive Defense from Shields
 

Spawned from a discussion in the GURPS Loadouts: Low Tech Armor thread, this is my take on making the shield a bit more realistic.

In the above thread, Dan noted that a shield makes the torso a rather unattractive hit location, while the current GURPS rules do just the opposite. The easiest way to address this would be to have a shield give a penalty to hit the torso, but it was brought up that doing so while having shields grant their DB to other defenses may be double dipping.

My solution is relatively simple - shields impose a penalty equal to 2xDB on attacks to the Torso (and the arm the shield is strapped to, at a minimum). Shields grant full DB as a bonus to any Block with that shield, but only half DB (round down) as a bonus to any other defense. If the penalty or bonus makes the difference in any attack or defense, the attack hits the shield.
These are true for any frontal attacks. Attacks from the Shield side are defended with full DB for any defense, attacks from the Weapon side need deal with only half effects (-DB to Torso attacks, half DB for Blocks, no DB for other defenses), and attacks from behind ignore shields.

...

Another point brought up was how easy it is to target the arms/legs, and how difficult to target the head. In Pyramid #3.34, T-Bone suggests a Dodge bonus for attacks against extremities. I would extend this bonus to Parries against limbs as well, but with a success meaning you got your arm/leg out of the way (just as with a weapon). What skill to use is up to the GM - Brawling/Karate/etc is appropriate for both, weapon skills may be appropriate for the arms, and Acrobatics/Dancing/etc may be appropriate for the legs - particularly in cinematic games!
As for easier headshots, in that thread I recommended allowing a downward strike that basically worked out as +2 to attack, +1 to the target's Dodge, and hitting the torso on a miss by 1 (if the target has a shield, it may be appropriate to let the attacker make another attack roll, with the shield penalty, to see if he hits the torso or the shield (alternatively, just assume he hits the shield).
EDIT: The above is misleading. The +2 to attack is a relative +2 - you're still targeting the Skull at -7, for a total -5 to hit.

...


Naturally, I'm interested in the ideas of others on both topics. Hopefully this thread will allow us to maintain this discussion while leaving the Loadouts thread for actually discussing that work.

Re: Passive Defense from Shields
 

You seem to be adding a lot of complication for very little benefit. Also, if you think a head shot is easier than a torso shot with a shield, I encourage you to find a historical fencing group and give it a shot. The mechanics don't support the notion. More likely you'll find your overhead blow blocked and a sword in your guts.

Re: Passive Defense from Shields
 

How do you envision this working with penalties for to hit rolls while carrying shields. In particular in combat between shield wielders?

I think that the system compensates for the specific point that shields should make torso hits more difficult, by adding to all active defences.

If you take the view that torso hits are in general all hits, and all hits will be effected by all active defences and that all active defences will be strengthened by DB and therefore includes both the active benefit the shield gives and the passive benefit it gives, you kind of get there.

That said that is abstract. As I said in my longer post in the other thread i'd have to check it it in play, and its going to depend on what you want from your combats.

However I think if I was going to go with something I'd go with just the -DB on torso hits suggested in the thread as it would be less of head ache.

And there's the issue of why does the shield magically stop working when it's wielder goes for AoA?


EDIT: also I'd be extremely leery of making head hits easier (especially from Swing damage) a +1 dodge is not really very meaningful for very many combatants. One of the things I like about GURSP combat is that there are already several ways to use to make hard shots easier.

Re: Passive Defense from Shields
 

I'm not sure the shield protect the torso so much. Of course it did... As long as you don't try to hit your foe! But once you try to hit your foe, you're enforce to open your guard, unless using specific weapons and techniques that allow to maintain your shield in front of you...

Maintaining your guard so that your shield especially cover your torso can be handled by the rules as written: the Martial Arts option that allows to focus your defense to some area of your body (sorry for giving no specific reference here; I've not my book at hand).

And using specific weapons like lance can be handled with specific techniques... Again, Martial Arts could help here.

Now, most combats with a shield look like that...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hcv2HiaFYo

The very first minutes show lance attacks with torso protected by the shield but, after that, each time a warrior hit his foe, he opens his guard, showing his torso for about one second. Especially when he swing a sword horizontally. Otherwise, the shield would give an important penalty to the attack, the damage, or both.

Re: Passive Defense from Shields
 

I am rather convinced that most shield combat is like this:

http://youtu.be/Ixm6sXe1TYE

I think you could argue that there should be one ruling is you are in a shield wall of 3+ people and another way to use shields/fight when you are duelling.

The video also shows some great points about spears and why they probably most often where used underhand and not overhand.

Re: Passive Defense from Shields
 

It doesn't seem terribly complicated to me - a shield has a few more bits of info (torso/arm attack penalty, either no DB or DB 1 for Dodges/Parries), it's not a great idea to attack from the shield side but is pretty solid to attack from the weapon side. And the benefit is that targeting the torso of a shield-wielder is sub-optimal, which was apparently the case historically.

My apologies, I assumed everyone was familiar with the other discussion. In that, I allowed targeting the Skull at -5 (rather than -7) but with +1 to Dodge - essentially the +2/+1 I mentioned in this thread. It may be appropriate to have this +1 to be all defenses, rather than just Dodge, however.

I typically make my systems with the assumption of skilled, competent fighters. I ignore the optional rules of a skill penalty from shield use because I don't expect any serious shield-wielder to actually take said penalty (Shield Wall Training is just a Perk, after all).

This makes all hits more difficult equally, and thus doesn't discourage Torso attacks at all. If anything, it encourages them, as the attacker needs to burn up a good deal of his skill making his attack Deceptive, leaving little for actually targeting another location.

If I were comfortable with that sort of abstraction, I wouldn't make any modifications to GURPS at all, wouldn't have purchased nearly as many Pyramid issues and supplements, and wouldn't make threads like this. I'm not, so I will, I have, and I do.

Fair enough. I don't mind the added complexity of what I've suggested, but it's probably not for everyone.

I've made no statements to this effect. For clarity, the penalty to attack applies so long as the character is wielding the shield. It may be appropriate to halve it after an All Out Attack, however (as it's likely to be a bit out of position).

GURPS is rather lenient when it comes to defenses. For shields, it appears to assume the character is able to get the shield out of the way, make an attack, then get it right back into guard in a single action (either that or can attack without issue without moving the shield at all). LTC2 gives the optional rule of having such an action impose a -DB to your attack roll, which can be negated with a Perk.
In cases where your guard should be open (All-Out Attack, possibly Committed Attack, and during Stop Hits), it may be appropriate to reduce the penalty and/or your DB.

I lack MA (currently, I'll probably buy it eventually), so I cannot use that rule as a reference.

300 isn't exactly scholarly, and frankly the Spartans look more like they are using All Out Attack than normal Attacks, and waiting a good deal longer than is probably likely to pull their weapons out for dramatic purposes. Fights that are realistically choreographed often look confusing and unrealistic to audiences, so typically movements and actions are extremely overstated. In GURPS terms probably most attacks in movies/theater resemble All Out Attacks, and opponents obligingly give the heroes time enough to recover before launching their own attacks.
Still, all those AoA (Double) Shield Push + Spear Thrusts near the beginning are pretty awesome.

Re: Passive Defense from Shields
 

If you're right-handed, striking makes your right side more vulnerable. However, if your opponent is right-handed and using a shield, he will have considerable difficulty attacking your right side, because all his natural striking motions want to hit the left side and his shield interferes with attacking the right side.

Re: Passive Defense from Shields
 

The idea that shields cover the torso seems to be built on a foundation of assuming fighters don't move, but just stand there chopping away at each others' illustrations on the character sheet, so the shield covers the torso and not much else.

The sword-and-board technique I was taught (in my oh-so-brief exposure) was that you held the shield elbow bent, forearm parallel to the ground. From there, you rotate your fist up to cover your head; rotate it down to cover your leg. It's a pretty short motion, and also pretty instinctive to duck your head behind the shield. You're also leading with your shield side and rotating to keep it that way, so coverage of the off leg is easy -- it's mostly behind you -- and the main risk to your main arm is that you're going to attack with it. Going behind someone would make for an easy hit, except that they're going to turn to face you.

That style is very dynamic, throwing blows for no other reason than to get people to move their shield and moving around to force them to turn, and then trying to hit through openings. That head blow is good for getting people to put their shield up where they can't see what you do next, which might very well be to hit their torso. The -2 for weapon side isn't because the shield isn't there; it's because it's that much harder to turn to keep the shield in line. And the motion is as much more like moving your main side behind the shield, turning, than it is standing still and trying to extend your shield arm across your body. Similarly, the runaround is a -4 because the target isn't standing there immobile, but is trying to track the attacker, which is harder than the same defense when not tracking the attacker. Everybody's moving all the time in GURPS combat. It's only the turn system to make it practical to play that makes it look like I-go-you-go.

Why is the shield the sole deciding factor, instead of it being a mix? If I'm parrying, it's just as easy to say that the attack only hits the shield if my parry fails badly (make by only the DB) or to say that the blow was easily warded off with the shield (make by more than the weapon skill / 2) or that it's more complex, with the shield forcing attacks into places that are more predictable and easier to parry, so that it should be a random decision as to what really made the difference (ratio of weapon skill / 2 to DB). "Make by less than DB" is an easy rule in play, but it seems to be motivated by the desire to have a rule. And it seems the only reason that it matters is if you're tracking damage to shields, in which case "ease in play" is already out the window.

Re: Passive Defense from Shields
 

I'd recommend keeping things moderately simple so that the system sees use in actual play, and making the fussier options really optional. The following example is wordy, because it spells out almost everything, but it's basically easy to remember:

Optional Rule: Shield Cover

When using this rule, shields work as usual and gain one additional benefit: they provide cover to one hit location per point of DB, as well as to the shield arm and shield hand. Allowed locations for this purpose are the skull (including eyes and ears), face (including nose and jaw), neck, torso (including chest, abdomen, and groin), weapon arm, weapon hand, weapon, either leg, and either foot. If a location includes vitals, joints, veins/arteries, or other subcomponents, these are protected as well. The torso is the most effective choice, as it's far larger than the other locations yet easier to screen because it's central; holding a shield out to cover a foot, hand, weapon, etc. is less efficient.

The GM decides how much detail to use. By default, a DB 1 shield protects the torso, a DB 2 one covers the neck and torso, and a DB 3 one screens the neck, torso, and one leg. If the GM wishes, shield users may shift coverage to the same number of adjacent hit locations as a free action at the start of their turn; e.g., a fighter with a DB 3 shield could move it sideways to screen his weapon arm, weapon hand, and weapon, or downward over his torso and both legs, while a warrior with a DB 2 shield could raise it and peek around it, protecting his skull and face. This is an added complication, best-suited to groups who know the combat rules well.

Areas protected by the shield gain the usual effects of cover: an extra -2 to be hit. If a blow to a protected location misses by one or two, it will hit the shield instead. The defender may opt to let this happen or defend normally. If the shield is hit, its cover DR protects the location originally targeted and the shield suffers damage (if tracking shield HP).

Advanced Options

Extreme Coverage: Those with DB 2+ shields can opt to dedicate the shield to protecting fewer than the usual number of hit locations. Every location sacrificed grants an extra -1 to be hit on one protected location. For instance, a warrior with a DB 3 shield could focus on just the torso, making it -4 to be hit, or protect only the torso and neck, giving an extra -3 to hit one location and the usual -2 to hit the other. The range of misses that hit the shield is likewise expanded.

Skull Coverage: Realistically, covering the skull (and thus the eyes) limits vision. The GM may wish to give those peering around shields held high the same -2 to hit that their enemies have to hit their skull – because in effect, all their foes enjoy cover!

Weapon Coverage: A covered-up weapon is harder not just to hit, but also to use and see coming. Attacks with it are at -1, but enemies have -1 to defend against it.

Re: Passive Defense from Shields
 

Essentially everything you describe here (with the partial exception of the facing considerations) should probably fall under Block, which you'll note my system gives the full DB for. It's just that the shield-at-ready typically is covering the torso, making it so that even if you don't move it at all your torso is rather difficult to hit. Giving reduced DB to Dodges/Parries is partially for balance, partially to encourage characters to actually use their shield, rather than just have it around for its convenient Parry bonus.

Those are pretty solid examples of Feints and Setup Attacks (Pyramid #3.52). The idea of Blocking an attack to the head (Skull/Face) resulting in a defense penalty (due to being temporarily blinded) would be tricky to implement (and perhaps trickier to get players to accept), but potentially doable. I'll give it some thought.

If you're ignoring damage to shields, then it's simply a miss and you can describe it however you'd like (although note in that case shields may well become overpowered). Similarly, if you aren't ignoring damage to shields, but you manage to Block/Dodge/Parry the attack in a manner that results in the shield not being hit, you can describe it however you'd like ("I turn my shield at the last moment, causing his axe to glance harmlessly off, then return it to the guard position" "I take a quick crab-step to the right and his axe just barely passes my shield," "My blade slows his axe down enough that it cannot bite into the shield," etc).

EDIT: Didn't see Kromm's post before I responded. That's probably a much more elegant system than what I might have eventually worked out, and it looks to do exactly what I wanted, with the exception being that the shield can still end up as just an accessory (with warriors still favoring Parrying). I might leave in the halved DB for Parrying (and maybe Dodging as well).