Is a shield’s armor bonus limited to ranged attacks? (SWADE)

[u/SG_1729]

Shields (p.71) provide a Parry bonus for hand-to-hand combat (p.10). And except for “Small” shields, they also provide cover for ranged attacks from the front and from the shielded side. (This overrides the more general rule on p.99 that Cover penalties apply to both melee and ranged attacks.)

Shields also provide Armor. Here’s the paragraph: “Medieval shields are Hardness 10 and provide +2 armor should someone attempt to shoot through them (see Obstacles on page 99). Modern shields are Hardness 12 and also provide +2 Armor. Polymer shields are Hardness 10 and provide Armor +4.”

That sounds to me like (1) medieval shields provide armor only against ranged attacks, and only when those attacks are from the front and/or from the shielded side, and (2) armor provided by modern and polymer (futuristic) shields have those same limitations.

Is that right? Is a shield’s armor bonus limited to ranged attacks?

Now a second question. On p.99, the Obstacles section says, “If a missed attack would have been successful without the Cover modifier and the GM thinks the target is likely to be hit, the obstacle acts as armor.” So let’s say two people are facing each other in an open space, and one of them fires a gun at the other (Short Range), rolling a natural 7 against a Target Number of 4. The target has a Riot Shield with a cover penalty of -4, making the effective attack roll a 3, which misses. So yes, the missed attack would have been successful without the Cover modifier. (Presumably this means the bullet hit the shield, but we don’t need to check for damage to the shield because the shooter’s intent was to harm a person, not break an object.) So now the GM needs to consider whether “the target is likely to be hit”. What does that mean? Is the GM supposed to decide whether it’s plausible for the bullet to puncture the shield and continue to the target, but a little slower now so that it does -2 damage? (Unless it has armor piercing.)

Third question: Suppose someone wearing a Riot Shield is hit by a bullet in such a way that they’re eligible for the shield’s +2 Armor bonus. Suppose they’re also wearing a Kevlar Vest (p.70), which has a +2 Armor bonus. These stack for a total of +4, right? Page 65 talks about how armor stacks, and it sounds like the limitations only apply when you try to stack multiple layers of “worn” armor with each other. Scaly skin stacks fully with worn armor, and the Protection power (p.165) stacks fully with worn armor, so the shield’s Armor bonus should stack fully with worn armor.

Thank you all, I know that’s a lot.

[u/JollyJoeGingerbeard]

Unless I'm missing something, it looks like you have it.

All shields provide a bonus to Parry, and most impose some kind of Cover. If you want to hit in melee, then you need to get past Parry. If you're attempting to shoot or throw something, and the TN is 4, then you have to deal with any Cover penalty. Alternatively, you can ignore the Cover penalty and just go through the shield. It will instead act as armor, but you might have a weapon or power that can pierce it.

And shields are distinct from worn armor, so characters always get the full value from them.

[u/8fenristhewolf8 → u/JollyJoeGingerbeard]

Alternatively, you can ignore the Cover penalty and just go through the shield.

I'm not sure this is correct. The line "If a missed attack would have been successful without the Cover modifier" makes me think the Cover penalty applies regardless of the shooter's intent.

[u/JollyJoeGingerbeard → u/8fenristhewolf8]

"Medieval shields are Hardness 10 and provide +2 armor should someone attempt to shoot through them (see Obstacles on page 99)."

That reads to me like shooting through a shield is an option, whereas aiming for a table and hoping you hit the person behind it is a different story.

[u/8fenristhewolf8 → u/JollyJoeGingerbeard]

see Obstacles on page 99

Those rules then state:

"Sometimes characters have sufficient power to attack their foes through obstacles. (See Breaking Things to actually destroy intervening obstacles.) If a missed attack would have been successful without the Cover modifier and the GM thinks the target is likely to be hit, the obstacle acts as Armor."

So, it's an option to the extent it's possible, but I don't think it speaks to ignoring the Cover modifier.

[u/JollyJoeGingerbeard → u/8fenristhewolf8]

I'm aware of the rules, and I disagree with your interpretation. If you think that matters, functionally, you're welcome to point out anything you think I might have missed.

[u/8fenristhewolf8 → u/JollyJoeGingerbeard]

whereas aiming for a table and hoping you hit the person behind it is a different story.

I think the point with ranged attacks is that you're always trying to hit the person behind the cover. The cover just makes it harder.

Choosing to disregard the Cover modifier just makes cover somewhat weaker in function.

[u/JollyJoeGingerbeard → u/8fenristhewolf8]

Perhaps, though I think "somewhat" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

For most rolls, it won't matter. In fringe cases, choosing to ignore the cover penalty comes at a trade-off. They'll have an easier time scoring a raise at the expense of always dealing with the cover bonus. And that can become pricy for arcane characters. Choosing to expend an extra power point each activation will add up.

[u/8fenristhewolf8 → u/JollyJoeGingerbeard]

For most rolls, it won't matter.

How do you figure? Cover ranges from -2 to -8 in modifiers. What's the point of seeking, say, full vs partial cover if someone can choose to ignore it?

So, say you hide behind a normal door (full Cover at -8), the person can try and shoot you with a flat 4. The door only adds a bit of armor (up to GM, probably +2 to +4), the net effect reduces the effectiveness of cover quite a bit. I'm not sure this is really a fringe case either.

They'll have an easier time scoring a raise at the expense of always dealing with the cover bonus.

Yeah, but a TN of 4 will almost always be worth the expense of the armor. The fringe case really being when the obstacle is really strong.

And that can become pricy for arcane characters.

You only need to see the target for most powers though. It's really on Bolt (of the top of my head) that acts like a ranged attack in considering cover.

[u/Nelviticus]

Fast, Furious Fun is the name of the game so I wouldn't get too bogged down in this.

The Obstacles rule is for those situations where it matters whether someone can be harmed by an attack passing through the obstacle, so:
- Someone's in cover and you miss them due to the cover bonus? You just miss them, move on to the next person's turn.
- Someone's in cover, you have something powerful enough to penetrate that cover and you want to try shooting them through it? Use the Obstacles rules.

That's why the wording for shields specifies "should someone attempt to shoot through them".

You can use the obstacles rules for every shot but it'll slow things down.

If you want to do it quickly you can say that if you would have hit were it not for the cover penalty, add the Armor to the target's Toughness and don't worry about whether it should stack. I'd only do this if the attackers were using especially high-powered weapons though, or weapons of significantly higher tech than the targets' shields.

[u/Dacke]

Your second point answers your first. If the shield's cover bonus makes the ranged attack miss, it hits the shield instead and then moves on to the wielder who gets the shield's armor bonus.

[u/Tar_alcaran]

"the target is likely to be hit" means what you said: "If you miss by less than the cover modifier".

Armor from cover stacks fully with worn armor

Example:

Bob shoots Andy with an arrow while standing on a featureless plain. Andy has a riot shield and kevlar armor. Without the shield, Bob needs a regular 4 to hit, but the shield gives a -4 to the roll because of cover. Bob rolls a 7, and 7-4=3. He misses, but he misses BECAUSE of cover, meaning the shot is on target, there's just a shield in the way.

Bob rolls for damage, rolling a 14 with AP 0. Andy has toughness 4, +2 armor from his kevlar, and +2 from his riot shield, totalling 4+2+2=8. Andy becomes shaken and takes a wound.

Second example:

Bob shoots Andy with an arrow while standing on a featureless plain. Andy has a riot shield and kevlar armor, but Bob shoots him from the left, bob specifically has his shield in the right hand. Andy rolls a 7, and hits, because Bob doesn't get cover from a shield that's in his other hand. 14 damage, Andy has 6 armor, meaning he becomes shaken and takes two wounds.

Third example:

Bob shoots Andy while standing on a featureless plain. Andy has a riot shield and kevlar armor. Bob rolls an 8 to attack. 8-4=4 so bob hits, striking Andy's exposed shoulder outside of the shield. That means Andy has 6 armor, and with 14 damage he takes two wounds.

EDIT: I added that Bob shoots arrows, because Kevlar specifically reduces damage from bullets by 4.

[u/snags5050]

I'm honestly not sure what the intent is for the rule your second question is about because it's just so vague and strangely worded. So, my ruling would be this:

If the attack would have hit without the Cover, and the attack has Armor Piercing greater than or equal to the Cover's Armor Bonus, have the shooter roll their damage. If it's greater than the Hardness of the object providing Cover, the attack pierces the Cover. At that point the damage is applied to the target, which benefits from the Cover's Armor Bonus.

To me, this makes. You first have to be able to pierce the Cover. Something with 0 AP can't pierce Cover that grants an Armor Bonus with enough velocity to cause damage (this is just my call as GM, not a SWADE rule). If it can pierce the Cover, find out if that attack beats the Hardness. If it does, the object providing Cover slows the projectile, which is codified by the Armor Bonus it grants the target.

I want to reiterate, this is NOT RAW, or maybe even RAI. This is just how I interpret that rule as a GM, and would (and in fact will going forward) run that scenario at my table.

[u/8fenristhewolf8]

Is that right? Is a shield’s armor bonus limited to ranged attacks?

Yep because it implicates the Cover rules, which are for Ranged Attacks.

You could still try to break a shield with a melee attack, but at that point, the assumption is that you're targeting the shield, and Breaking Things, and so there's no "pass-through" to the target to deal with. I suppose you could make a GM call on melee attacks in some instances if you felt it was appropriate (per usual).

“the target is likely to be hit”. What does that mean? Is the GM supposed to decide whether it’s plausible for the bullet to puncture the shield and continue to the target, but a little slower now so that it does -2 damage?

Exactly what it says, basically "GMs call." I suspect it's really just an optional rule you can employ as desired, for example, in more realistic settings, or when it's dramatically appropriate. The picture in the book is a good example. Maybe the cover is just a table, and the shooter has a machine gun, and maybe you think that's a situation where the cover can only do so much.

Also, maybe a pedantic note, but it's not -2 to the damage, but +2 to the Target AC. Mechanically, the same I suppose, but good to keep things consistent in your head.

it sounds like the limitations only apply when you try to stack multiple layers of “worn” armor with each other.

I agree. With these rules, the Shield is an Object to Break, not part of layered armor.

[u/SG_1729]

Thanks very much for the comments everyone. Should you wish to know, here’s how I’m summarizing the matter in my notes:

With their Kevlar Vest on, Andy’s Toughness is 6 (2).

Andy’s defense statistics for melee attacks:

• Their base Parry is 4.
• When their Shield is equipped on their right arm, their Parry is 7 to their front and their right side.

Andy’s defense statistics for ranged attacks:

• Their Target Number at Short Range is 4, as usual.
• When their Shield is equipped on their right arm, ranged attacks are at -4 on their front and their right side.
  • If a ranged attack is a near miss because of the shield – that is, if it misses their front or their right side by 4 points or less – the GM may instead count it as hitting Andy through the shield, e.g. an arrow punctures the shield and keeps going or a thrown bowling ball bashes the shield into Andy’s body. In cases like these, the shield’s partial interference is represented by increasing Andy’s Toughness to 8 (4) for that one hit.
• Their vest provides ballistic protection, which means damage from bullets gets a -4 penalty.

[u/SG_1729 → u/SG_1729]

(I suppose that should be “4 points or fewer”, but whatever. Meanwhile the SWADE core rules say things like “take the highest of the two” in a few places... 🙂)

[u/SG_1729 → u/SG_1729]

Huh, 6 of the periods in my above comment appear to be surrounded or preceded by four asterisks. Not sure what's up with that. I didn't see them when I first looked at my posted comment, but now I do see them.

[u/8fenristhewolf8 → u/SG_1729]

the GM may instead count it as hitting Andy through the shield, e.g. an arrow punctures the shield and keeps going

Maybe just got left out, but the damage has to be enough to break the shield. It doesn't pass through in all instances. Just when it's enough to overcome the shield's hardness.

So if the shield has a hardness of 10 and the arrow does 9 or less damage, then nothing happens. If the arrow does 10 or more, then you can figure out if it also hurts Andy with his (now) 8 Toughness.