View Single Post
Old 08-03-2010, 05:48 PM   #33
Streacer
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Default Re: Basic Set Unarmed Combat boxing questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollum View Post
It is clear for Karate. It is explicitly written in the description of this skill:“(at no -4 fir the off-hand)”. But it is not for Boxing and Brawling…

Having said that, the rule about handedness say “This [the -4] does not apply to things you normally do with your “off” hand, like using a shield”. Bowers and brawlers normally use their off-hand to punch or parry.
The difference between a boxer's left-handed parry and a shield-users shield is that not only does the shield normally go on the off-hand -- it does NOT normally go on the right hand. It's not a case of "you can do it with your left hand" but a case of "this is specifically a left-handed thing."


It is far from clear to me. The full sentence actually reads "Roll against Karate to hit with a punch (at no -4 for the “off” hand), or Karate-2 to hit with a kick." which sounds like some kind of special benefit only for the basic Karate attack. It says absolutely nothing about parrying, or for that matter Karate-based techniques other than basic punching, such as Exotic Hand Strike or Eye-Pluck, which you might reasonably assume require sufficient dexterity to be handedness-reliant. The paragraph in the Karate description which actually addresses defense (parrygraph?) mentions that you can parry two different attacks (as opposed to say, wrestling) and the special retreat/weapon bonuses, but nothing about off-hand penalties.

None of the other obvious logical examples or rules sections give any hint whatsoever that Unarmed combat is assumed to be Ambidextrous combat, take for example the section Parrying with the off-hand, B376: "You parry with your “off” hand . . . OR with a weapon held in it, at -4 to skill" [caps added] stating right out that unarmed parries are subject to off-hand penalties! If there were an exception, why wouldn't they come right out and say it like they repeatedly do with the weapon or thrusting exemptions?

Given the otherwise generally thorough nature of GURPS I would have to assume that the odd lack of explicit rules in the Basic Set indicates that unarmed combat works the same as armed combat (and everything else) with regard to handedness. I mean, this is the same game that ships stock with a "Vermiform, Octopod, Cancroid, Ichthyoid, and Arachnoid Hit Location Table".


At least, that is what I would argue in a courtroom. I will grant that it is quite possibly an error, and most people seem to agree that unarmed combat is intended to be ambidextrous. For all I know the rule got flipped back and forth during revisions or some old house rule got so popular it just became adopted with no documentation. But it really is very unclear to those who didn't have it as common knowledge already... taking 'Harsh Realism For Unarmed Fighters' as the most explicit reference, you'd have to get through nearly 700 pages (BS + MA) just to finally stumble across an off-hand sentence in the optional-rules sidebar of a supplement. That barely qualifies as canon much less strict RAW.

(I don't particularly care either way I just felt like typing a bit)
Streacer is offline   Reply With Quote