Passive Defense from Shields

[Varyon]

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.

[ClayDowling]

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.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by ClayDowling

You seem to be adding a lot of complication for very little benefit.

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.

Originally Posted by ClayDowling

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

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

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).

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

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

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.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

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.

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

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

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

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).

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...

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.

Originally Posted by Gollum

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).

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

Originally Posted by Gollum

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.

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.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Varyon

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).

Well to be fair shield wall perk is probably the finest single point that can be spent in the game*, if we're making shields even better it just got better too.

Now that might be a separate topic, but unless you're assuming it's a perk everyone has, and even if you ignore the rules in LTC2, your still left with the rules in campaigns. So how does you idea impact with those with large shields?

*personally I tend to rule that to benefit from shield wall training, you have to be actually be in a shield wall which is two or more chaps with shields and the same perk. Or at the least fighting from a fairly static position.

However what I also tend to have is a technique for shield that allows you to buy off the penalty anyway.

Originally Posted by Varyon

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.

My point wasn't about making torso hits less attractive, but that adding to all active defences makes them harder to achieve.

Also remember shields don't protect in all directions in RAW, if you position yourself well you can get negate them. Which IMO gets you to the same place i.e a shield gets in the way for lot of attacks to a lot of locations, but positioning of you, the target and his shield is vital to that.

As an aside this is one of the reasons for shield walls, to protect your on unshielded side with the next chap's shields.

I get there's an issue that RAW doesn't discourage an attacker from targeting the torso (in fact often the opposite). But what the reality we're trying to model here? Shields make targeting parts of the body more difficult than they would otherwise be from certain directions? Then OK but I'd argue that's what a bonus to defence from certain facing does.

What could be done is if you take the favoured facing rules from Gladiators (which is what I think Gollum was referencing earlier) you could easily apply that for attacking from the sides. So if you're in a chap's sword arm side facing, you could target the arm at only -1 and negate his shield DB if he attempts to parry.

Ultimately this makes shields an impediment that forces an attacker to do certain things to negate, actions that the shield bearer can exploit.

Originally Posted by Varyon

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. As I said in the bit you snipped it is an abstraction. In general I prefer specific to abstraction, however there's a caveat to that in that I don't tend to add extra rules if the desired effect is already included in the abstract. POV will of course be vital here,

Originally Posted by Varyon

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

Its not actually that complex, but abstract complexity isn't really the issue here anyway. It's the additional complexity for little pay off. But then that judgement is obviously dependent on what I said above.

Originally Posted by Varyon

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).

Sorry that was about what happens now, shields only add to active defences*, no active defences no benefit from shield, so by RAW means that the moment a shield wielder uses an AoA the shield stops working for him. (well unless his shield arm gets hit).

*barring cover vs missles.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by 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.

I like that, I'm going to give that a go. Keeping track of protected locations round to round might get a bit fiddly, but could be done using a target outline (which I sometimes use to track location damage anyway).

Ultimately I think it's going to make shields more effective (there's now a double bonus of bonus to defend and penalty to being attacked).

Thinking about it in my game I'd probably reduce locations covered by one (and thus reduce the extra bonus that can be moved around by one as well). Simply because IMO small bucklers etc (DB1) aren't going to provide cover to the arm and torso, and it will tone larger shields down some what.

What I think you will get is shield proliferation so shield vs. shield becomes more likely so all those double bonuses will stack. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, and if nothing else will encourage tactics beyond attack, attack, attack but rather one's that directly deal with the shield or circumvent it.

One thing I would do is make last rule about concentrating cover subject to a perk (or may be some kind of technique), just so that levies with Shield skill 11 and DB3 shields aren't chucking their shield around like this. And I'd look carefully at anyone wants this perk and shield wall training as well. As to me both represent different methodologies of shield use.

However if I did that I would be allowing chaps in shield walls to extend protection to the chaps standing next to them, so that your weapon arm is protected by your mates shield.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

So how does you idea impact with those with large shields?

It doesn't, because those with large shields, like those with small and medium shields, don't take attack penalties - because they have a Perk that prevents it.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

My point wasn't about making torso hits less attractive, but that adding to all active defences makes them harder to achieve.

The whole point of this thread is making torso hits less attractive when wielding a shield.
Everything shields do in RAW, they do to all hit locations equally. As every hit location other than Torso takes a penalty, and shields are effectively penalizing all attacks, this ends up actually making Torso more attractive as a target. I don't want this.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

But what the reality we're trying to model here? Shields make targeting parts of the body more difficult than they would otherwise be from certain directions? Then OK but I'd argue that's what a bonus to defence from certain facing does.

We're trying to model that shields make their covered locations - primarily the torso - harder to hit than uncovered locations so long as the shield is in the way (attacker striking from Front or Shield Side).

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Sorry that was about what happens now

Please be more clear in the future. You were talking to me the entire post about my suggested rule, then suddenly went to problems with RAW as though they were problems with my idea. A transition would alleviate any confusion here.


As for the discussion of whether or not the Spartans in 300 are attacking All Out, look at them. They leave themselves completely open for a second or more when they attack. If that's not an All Out Attack, I don't know what is. What's preventing their remaining opponents from exploiting this are a) the corpses of their foes get in the way of enemies getting close enough quickly enough, b) other Spartans who haven't attacked yet can attack and kill those few that do get close enough, and c) they've all got the Flourish Perk that lets them do a free Intimidate when they kill a foe. There might also be some variant of Melee Etiquette in effect, although the Spartans don't follow it.

...

Of course, all that said, I really, really like Kromm's first version of the rule. As I said before (in an EDIT, so it may have been missed), I'll probably still have Parries get only half DB (unless the weapon or weapon arm are covered) to encourage the use, rather than mere holding, of shields. It might be worthwhile to allow Shield skill to boost the penalty a bit (say, roll against Shield-4 each turn, success imposes an additional -2 to hit shielded locations, failure gives +2 to hit them; buy it up as an Average Technique), but I'll have to think on that.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Varyon

It doesn't, because those with large shields, like those with small and medium shields, don't take attack penalties - because they have a Perk that prevents it..

And if they don't. To assume that every one has this perk is the same as deciding to ignore the rule the perk negates. Fine but by that measure you might as well say all shields protect from both sides because in my game every one has double jointed.

Originally Posted by Varyon

The whole point of this thread is making torso hits less attractive when wielding a shield.

Yes but there are wider implications depending on how we do that.

I.e its an point of consideration, it's just not the only point of consideration. This often the problem with house rules they are made in isolation and often ignore the wider context.

Also your initial post is not the entire point of this thread, in much the same way as your solution is not the only way to solve the problem.

Originally Posted by Varyon

Everything shields do in RAW, they do to all hit locations equally. As every hit location other than Torso takes a penalty, and shields are effectively penalizing all attacks, this ends up actually making Torso more attractive as a target. I don't want this.

Only if you ignore the options of out manoeuvring the shield as I described. Which touches on what i'm saying above.

You saying there's a problem let's fix it while ignoring the implications the fix brings. I'm saying, make sure the problem is not already fixed somewhere else before you bring in a new solution.

Originally Posted by Varyon

We're trying to model that shields make their covered locations - primarily the torso - harder to hit than uncovered locations so long as the shield is in the way (attacker striking from Front or Shield Side).

What you mean like making such attacks easier to block? You made my point for me, the location isn't the deciding factor in abstract, it's the direction of the attacks that's important (although obviously this will impact on which location is most likely to be targeted) i.e does the shield interpose between the attacker and the target.

Originally Posted by Varyon

Please be more clear in the future. You were talking to me the entire post about my suggested rule, then suddenly went to problems with RAW as though they were problems with my idea. A transition would alleviate any confusion here..

Yes I'll be sure to run my posts past you in the future. However I was in fact just posting in the thread, my post didn't actually quote yours, maybe I should add a little "this is not a direct response to Varyon" rider to the parts of all my posts that are not directly relevant to what you may have posted earlier?

Originally Posted by Varyon

As for the discussion of whether or not the Spartans in 300 are attacking All Out, look at them. They leave themselves completely open for a second or more when they attack. If that's not an All Out Attack, I don't know what is. What's preventing their remaining opponents from exploiting this are a) the corpses of their foes get in the way of enemies getting close enough quickly enough, b) other Spartans who haven't attacked yet can attack and kill those few that do get close enough, and c) they've all got the Flourish Perk that lets them do a free Intimidate when they kill a foe. There might also be some variant of Melee Etiquette in effect, although the Spartans don't follow it.

I've no doubt they are doing AoA in the film, we were talking about how realistic the film was as an depiction of hoplites fighting against Persians.

what were you saying about miss-attributing entire responses to points, try to be more careful in the future eh?

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Varyon

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.

I do agree on the fact that 300 is not real combat. But, in my humble opinion, it is still a good example which shows that it is hard for warriors to strike without opening their shield guard... I wouldn't say that all attacks those Spartans do are all-out. Of course, they are very strong. But that's it! When you hit someone in order to kill him, you don't pull your blows.

Here is another video which will show you what I mean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpRN7...ature=youtu.be

It has been posted by Dangerious P. Cats in this interesting thread:
http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=120504

This combat is very different because it is... Training. The shield guard remains better, but the two opponents don't really strike. They don't use their strength. They just softly touch their opponent. So, of course, in this case, the shield is much less cumbersome.

Now, if you look closely at this fight, you will notice that despite of that fact, they still open their guard from time to time. And if you looked closely to the 300 example, you will also notice that the Spartans don't abandon their defense. After each attack, the shield is ready again to block...

The rules already give a huge bonus for large shield. +3 to all defenses: block (of course) but also parry and dodge. A skilled warrior (basic level of 14) goes up from a block score of 10 (50%) to a block score of 13 (83.8%). And if the warrior step back, his total bonus to Dodge is +6 (+3 for retreat and +3 for the shield)! So his torso is already very well protected...

Now, if you want even some more protection, Kromm gave you a very interesting rules above... I love the last one for its simplicity.

And I just would like to add this: if you are really interested by combats, Martial Arts could really help you. It gives a lot of very fine rules and detail...

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Gollum

I do agree on the fact that 300 is not real combat. But, in my humble opinion, it is still a good example which shows that it is hard for warriors to strike without opening their shield guard....

TBH they are having to move their shields to strike because they seem to be using under arm thrusts a lot of the time. Switch to over arm and you can keep you shield in line more often. There's also the ancillary arguments that overarm thrusts are stronger in comparison to under arm ones, and maintain a stronger grip and better control of your weapon.

It's a mixed scene for me, the opening minute or so where it's locked shields and a scrum with the occasional overhand jab I really like. Then it all gets bit Hollywood.

I disagree regarding all out attacks. In a situation where there are so many people fighting in such a close space AoA are a death sentence, because even if you kill the chap you attack, he's going to have mates on either side. Spartans (and other elite hoplites) excelled at defensive tactics, wearing down much greater numbers of less drilled, less heavily armoured troops. They are going to fight conservatively relying on training, fitness and kit to to keep them going. It's the other guys who are going to have to rely on AoA.

Don't forget in that scene moving their shields out the way to attack, on occasion involved them physically throwing back the enemy formation by doing so, I do think realism had left the building at that point.

Basically shield walls and AoA don't work well together. Although I guess you can mention saxon/viking shield walls with the occasional two handed axe man but that's more a combined arms kind of thing with the guys in the shield wall protecting the guys with big axes trying to break the other's wall. (But I understand how those Dane axes were used is still up for debate).

Shield walls are mainly defensive in nature, the real killing happened when one broke. Battle of Hastings is a classic example. Shield wall holds for several hours. Plenty of attacks, which are repulsed, but not many deaths on either side. The Saxons have to stick to the good position to defend against cavalry (and time is ultimately on their side anyway), the Normans are free to attack and withdraw and attack again but are unable to break the wall. It's only when the shield wall breaks (to pursue) does it all go to pot. Cavalry against pursuing foot, and then cavalry and foot exploiting a break in the wall and disordering it.

The point of Thermopylae is that the position was tailor made for a small force* in defensive formation to bring all their force multipliers to bear on a much larger force who's force multipliers are removed by the position. And ultimately like Hastings time was what was being fought for (although the circumstances are different obviously).

What I don't like** is when the Spartans all then run out as a skirmish line to show off for the camera, that's asking to get pulled down by a larger force. Although they do seem to enjoy altered time rate at that point!


*although of course there the Arcadians that all seem to be off screen during film's fight scenes!
**from a RL example of combat POV.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

TBH they are having to move their shields to strike because they seem to be using under arm thrusts a lot of the time. Switch to over arm and you can keep you shield in line more often. There's also the ancillary arguments that overarm thrusts are stronger in comparison to under arm ones, and maintain a stronger grip and better control of your weapon.

You may be right... I won't argue here, because I don't know enough combat with weapons. I'm just beginning my kobudo training (second year). My main point was that it seems hard to me to strike with full strength without opening guard. It's already quite hard barehanded (and I'm not just a beginner, here). So, with a shield, I thought it was even harder. But it was just a supposition: I didn't learn combat with shield yet.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I disagree regarding all out attacks.

Either do I.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

In a situation where there are so many people fighting in such a close space AoA are a death sentence, because even if you kill the chap you attack, he's going to have mates on either side. Spartans (and other elite hoplites) excelled at defensive tactics, wearing down much greater numbers of less drilled, less heavily armoured troops. They are going to fight conservatively relying on training, fitness and kit to to keep them going. It's the other guys who are going to have to rely on AoA [...]

Thank you for this very interesting account...

Two notes, though.

1) GURPS rules already have a lot of optional rules to handle defensive fights, so adding one about shields was not absolutely necessary – in my humble opinion. No matter, this thread gave us some really interesting ones, thanks to Kromm.

2) In GURPS, there is a defense that is not really what its name makes it appear: dodge. A character can dodge every attack he is aware off, no matter the number of attacks, and even if it is bullets. So, unless pretending that all GURPS characters have super powers (as it has been discussed in many threads), “GURPS dodge” is not just dodge. It is also the more generic ability to be at the right place with the right stance to avoid being hit. And the shield is already taken into account here! The DB adds to the dodge score as well as to the block one, and the player will almost always have the possibility to make a dodge roll.

Thus, an ordinary man holding a large shield, even without the least hour of training with shields, will have +3 to all his dodge rolls, making them going up from 8 (about 25% chance of not being hurt) to 11 (about 62% chance of not being hurt). This is already a huge advantage, isn't it?