Passive Defense from Shields

[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).