12-31-2014, 03:35 AM | #111 |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Zombie Killing
I wonder if it would be more realistic to make it a Random Hit Location, but somehow adjusted for an overhead attack. That way, the chance of hitting the head/skull exists, but there's also a decent chance of hitting something adjacent (e.g. arms), while the to hit penalty is low or absent.
Hmm. Uppercut only hits against top half of the body. What happens if an Uppercut is taken with a Random Hit Location? Seems like the same thing. |
12-31-2014, 03:39 AM | #112 |
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Estonia
|
Re: Zombie Killing
Yes And I'm all fine by that. It's a sound reasoning. What I'm more worried about is that +8 from TA and AoA:D, will still be too small to counteract -5 untrained, -5 from skull hit location. (worse if you add some improvised weapon penalties)
It's still going to be only 26% chance to hit for something that is rather basic movement (take pan with two hands - apply to the noggin right before you) 26% is still chance that makes sense to try and after trying it 3-4 times it will have either succeeded or distracted the black hat enough to give white hat his chance - but what I think would be more appropriate is to give a chance for evaluate or other bonuses. To get a hit chance above the 50% that seems much more suitable for such a simple action. Evaluate would work fine as in this case the untrained will trade the disadvantage of waiting extra time for better guaranteed hit - which will not break my suspension of disbelief. The untrained one would still be disadvantaged enough - having to wait several seconds, foregoing his/her own defenses and doling out an attack that would be easy to defend against if the victim would be able. It would nicely separate the untrained one from a professional who could dish out a similar hit in a second and not leave him/herself defenseless - without making a rather basic action unbelievably unlikely! So what my point is for situations like that there should be possibility to get more that +8 from TA and AoA:D, either letting evaluate stack with TA or some other bonus. Letting evaluate stack with TA would have nice symmetry of exchanging 3-4 seconds of 1/4 chance attacks to one more guaranteed attack - and would keep the untrained one disadvantaged by turns wasted compared to trained one (so no freebies), but still able to perform tasks that should be performable by anyone with basic hand-to-eye co-ordination. Last edited by fifiste; 12-31-2014 at 03:43 AM. |
12-31-2014, 04:00 AM | #113 | |
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Estonia
|
Re: Zombie Killing
Quote:
|
|
12-31-2014, 04:23 AM | #114 | ||||||||||||||
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Zombie Killing
Note: I don't quite have the mental reserve to keep this one at full pace, and I'm noticing more and more that taking breaks from it results in losing some of the connections of branches. Sorry about that. Some branches will have to be dropped, and I'm okay with them counting as a victory against me on those fronts (if this is considered an argument). If it's considered a free discussion, then it's probably not a problem anyway.
Quote:
Succeed at Physiology and you ignore Physiology Modifiers on your main roll. Succeed at Blind Fighting and you attack or defend as if you see the opponent (assuming you don't go for a specific hit location). Succeed at Breaking Blow and your attack is at ×2 ST. Succeed at Stealth and your attack is sneaky. Guess there's no more point in pressing for such analogies if we just see them differently like that. I was about to repeat the 'not more than +10 from non-combat or non-combat-like bonuses', but I guess this is a category about the existence of which we disagree. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
it's certainly not 'you hit it: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for mêlée plinking/non-plinking: mêlée plinking seems to be AoA+TelA, judging from the quoted section plus the usual application of TelA (I'm not sure if MA calls it out specifically for inanimates). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
GURPS includes a certain number of non-stacking modifiers, and they can be quite different. |
||||||||||||||
12-31-2014, 06:59 AM | #115 | |||||||||||||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Zombie Killing
Quote:
no worries Quote:
Maybe, but those are some pretty different things some are inherently linked and sympathetic to attacking and some are not for example. I'd hesitate to inherently group them together in abstract. No matter what I'd penalise one or the other according to what was happening, and attacking is harder to do stealthy than walking slowly, just as running is. Because you are splitting your attention and trying to do two things at once. (I wouldn't do this if it was stealth than attack, just stealth and attack) Quote:
Probably true Quote:
If you could choose either combat or non combat bonuses in ranged you'd have a point but in general they are not mutually exclusive. And the only case where they are (precision aiming) I'd argue is just a way of accessing the equivalent non combat bonuses (that equal each other) in a combat situation if you meet the requirements (which would also apply in similar way to TA even i you did class it as a 'non combat mod'). Quote:
Quote:
I'd certainly count hitting a chair with a baseball bat in non combat situation as an "utterly trivial task" for anyone physically capable of holding bat and within human average hand to eye co-ordination. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Seriously run some one on one duel between humans and see how well it works. Quote:
Quote:
Not sure what you're worried about either. You didn't like the idea of a novice picking up a flame thrower and having a 50% chance to hitting someone's nose (or nose sized flying target) and given my description they are extremely unlikely to be able to. Quote:
|
|||||||||||||
01-05-2015, 08:26 AM | #116 | ||
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Zombie Killing
So, we now have an official answer about non-stackability. Once again, there's more to the story than can be found in Basic Set.
Quote:
In the statline, they have an Acc score of — instead of 0, which is indicative that range modifiers are not applicable. Last edited by vicky_molokh; 01-05-2015 at 08:38 AM. |
||
01-05-2015, 09:39 AM | #117 | ||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Zombie Killing
Quote:
I disagree with that reasoning, I think it's fine to judge the moment were defence is weakest and then ignore what's left, but that's a personal choice. And kromm's right it doesn't help that evaluate gives benefits to hit not a penalty to defence, I'm left to wonder if evaluate is about getting past/reducing a target's defence how does one evaluate a target that's not defending? I.e if that that's rationale behind evaluate, is not matched by the mechanics of it, which are as Kromm says, rather a melee version of aim (and has the connotations of such). Huh now I'm toying with the idea of having evaluate penalise defences! (and if I'd let it stack with TA if I did). Quote:
Anyway cheers TD Last edited by Tomsdad; 01-06-2015 at 03:11 AM. |
||
Tags |
telegraphic evaluate, uppercut, zombies |
|
|