Passive Defense from Shields

[Gollum]

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.

[Lorka]

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.

[Anaraxes]

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.

Originally Posted by varyon

If the penalty or bonus makes the difference in any attack or defense, the attack hits the shield.

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.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

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.

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).

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Gollum

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...

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.

[Kromm]

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.

[Kromm]

Of course, an even simpler rule would be to say that the shield moves around and might get in the way. When an attack lands and a defense fails, roll a random hit location for the defender. That's where his shield happens to be at that moment. If it's the same location that was just hit, the shield's cover DR protects him and the shield takes damage. Attackers who wish to avoid this can specify that they're striking around the shield at -2 to hit; this doesn't affect DB, Block, etc., but means that if the blow lands, there's no chance of surprise cover DR.