Zombie Killing

[vicky_molokh]

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.

[fifiste]

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.

[fifiste]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

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.

This seems a good notion to explore.

[vicky_molokh]

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.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Yes, that kind of my point, according to you it's no harder than a normal attack and no harder than normal silent move attempt.

It seems to be the way GURPS does attack-modifying skills - roll the secondary skill, and if it succeeds, you just roll your main skill at no penalty:
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.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Context is key though, and its still not a relevant comparison

Guess there's no more point in pressing for such analogies if we just see them differently like that.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

And yet I can still get more than +10 in ranged.

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.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

so a 3e justification for a 4e question, where in 4e it doesn't reference inanimate objects? Don't get me wrong I happily say TA is a half way point between combat and non combat, but that still doesn't support your argument that you combat bonuses can exceed non combat ones (in fact if we're saying TA is actually a non combat one it weakens your point)

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Don't really care what 3e says, certainly not over and above what 4e says.

Unless evaluate is just the melee version of aiming (which can be done irrespective of being in combat or inanimate target) then there's no link, which is why there's no prescription about evaluating and non combat situations.

The 'heritage' of the modifier seems to be indicative of why it was made non-stackable, at least one of the reasons. You've seen the quote; IANSOP - I can't expand on it any further until the holidays end.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Also I'm still wondering what the non combat ranged plinking equivalent is for attacking an inanimate object in melee. AFAICT its just "you hit it"

I always thought it was +8 from a combined TelA and AoA:D.
it's certainly not 'you hit it:

Originally Posted by B196, Forced Entry

Make a skill roll to hit
an inanimate object with your foot or
an impact weapon. Add +1 per die to
basic thrust or swing damage if you
have this skill at DX+1, +2 per die if
you know it at DX+2 or better. Add a
similar bonus (+1 or +2) to ST rolls
made for forced entry. The damage
bonus also applies when you use
Melee Weapon skills to wreck inani-
mate objects out of combat.

Originally Posted by B483, DAMAGE TO OBJECTS

Inanimate objects are often
motionless and don’t hit back; this
makes them good targets for an All-
Out Attack. No artifact gets a defense
roll unless it is under sentient control

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Only that category you seem to have made up yourself, and it irrelevant any way because I can still go over the +10 threshold with a combination of them. And except precision aiming I co do so in or out of combat.

You also still need to show where the out of combat melee equivalent of non plinking is as well.

The category/out-category bit seems like going in circles, so I'm leaving it alone at least until we get more new data.
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).

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

And RAW doesn't recognise a melee speed of 3yds as being worth an effect. If you disagree I suggest you apply the target speed mods from ranged as that will catch all instances of such speed, rather than trying to tangentially tackle it by targeting anything with AoA which may or may not involve such speeds. Especially when our concerns is evaluate stacking with TA neither of which have this speed issue.

Applying Speed/Range modifiers to mêlée weapons will result in some weapons always acting at a penalty, particularly for high-SM characters. It seems like neither solution will make everyone happy.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

How does that address anything I've posted that was previously missed (seriously)?

This what I meant in the very paragraph of the first post. Seems like I intertwined some of the points, and at some point the connection became forgotten. Sorry. Posting this because just not quoting it would probably only add to the confusion.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

That's not what we're asking I hope? It should be: why are TA and evaluate mutually exclusive?

The actual main question to Kromm and TKD was why TelA and Eval are mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

So that's a no then? And you now assuming our target is doing these AoA's and not interfering with our evaluate set up?

Is there some reason why you seem to be making a connection between being rooted in place and lacking Acting Defences? The two are very different things.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

No you're building on an extremely fringe example and only building on that, and so it's shaky. The moment you move away from a target who will not only let you evaluate for 3 seconds and not defend when you finally attack, the situation in regards to the 3x Evaluate + TA + AoA:D changes completely.

I'm building on the most unfavourable case where there is still no outright penalty for the attacker and no Active Defences for the defender. For Move 5 characters, that is - it could be made somewhat more unfavourable at higher Move, but no more than Move 10 after all mods.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

You quoted the rules for jet not the rules for liquid projectors (specific trumps general). And even then all it says is you don't apply ranged and speed (which I didn't).

Seems like you swapped the specific and general. Liquid Projector is a skill, which covers at least the following:

• 'Flamethrower' - a Jet weapon.
• 'Sprayer' - includes a ranged weapon shooting ring-shaped projectiles (not Jet) called Vortex Ring Projector.
• 'Squirt Gun' - fires a single squirt per pull of the trigger.
• 'Water Cannon' - weapon that fires a continuous jet of liquid.

All of them are Liquid Projectors, not all of them are Jets.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

[...]
Are you sure that's the example you want to bring up given your underlying point about hard limits on bonuses?

So which shall we use to support or disprove your assertion of a blanket cap to bonuses.

See the problem with using the very specific to support broad supposition? They often contradict each other so you have good justification for why the one you pick is especially relevant to the point you trying to make.

I wouldn't mind but I already pointed out that there are many advantages and skills that stack bonuses.

On second look, the deeper I go into stackability examples, the messier it gets. Seems to be the case that one general and easily and safely drawn conclusion from those specific examples is:
GURPS includes a certain number of non-stacking modifiers, and they can be quite different.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

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

.

no worries

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

It seems to be the way GURPS does attack-modifying skills - roll the secondary skill, and if it succeeds, you just roll your main skill at no penalty:
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.

.

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)

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Guess there's no more point in pressing for such analogies if we just see them differently like that.

.

Probably true

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

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.

I don't disagree in theory about the category, I disagree that it's a hard and fast total cap on both, since I can go over +10 using a combination of bonuses.

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').

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

The 'heritage' of the modifier seems to be indicative of why it was made non-stackable, at least one of the reasons. You've seen the quote; IANSOP - I can't expand on it any further until the holidays end.

It's only indicative of it being a potentially a non combat mod used in combat, that itself is not indicative of anything. Again which why I can aim normally and then add precision aiming on top

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I always thought it was +8 from a combined TelA and AoA:D.
it's certainly not 'you hit it:

Those are both examples of hitting inanimate objects, not out of combat actions. (it only references out of combat when referring to the damage bonus).

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.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

The category/out-category bit seems like going in circles, so I'm leaving it alone at least until we get more new data.
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).

No it doesn't your citing hitting inanimate objects non hitting inanimate object out of combat, and you referencing the section we are disagreeing on to support your argument, yeah that is circular.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Applying Speed/Range modifiers to mêlée weapons will result in some weapons always acting at a penalty, particularly for high-SM characters. It seems like neither solution will make everyone happy.

Why would it do that? (also it was a better solve the issue you cited regarding the difficulty of attacking at 3 yrds a second, than assuming all AoA's are at that speed, I'm happy not to use it)

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

The actual main question to Kromm and TKD was why TelA and Eval are mutually exclusive.

Cool

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Is there some reason why you seem to be making a connection between being rooted in place and lacking Acting Defences? The two are very different things.

I'm not, but both are needed for this set up to work, which goes to underline the point about what you consider to a an over powerful combination, is actually balanced by the reality of it taking place.

Seriously run some one on one duel between humans and see how well it works.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'm building on the most unfavourable case where there is still no outright penalty for the attacker and no Active Defences for the defender. For Move 5 characters, that is - it could be made somewhat more unfavourable at higher Move, but no more than Move 10 after all mods.

And that not a reasonable thing to do when then broadening it out into the wider context of combat in general and abstract upper limits caps. (I also don't get what you mean by no overall penalty and the move rates)

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Seems like you swapped the specific and general. Liquid Projector is a skill, which covers at least the following:

• 'Flamethrower' - a Jet weapon.
• 'Sprayer' - includes a ranged weapon shooting ring-shaped projectiles (not Jet) called Vortex Ring Projector.
• 'Squirt Gun' - fires a single squirt per pull of the trigger.
• 'Water Cannon' - weapon that fires a continuous jet of liquid.

All of them are Liquid Projectors, not all of them are Jets..

But we're talking about flame throwers, a flamer thrower is used with the liquid projector skill. A flame thrower is jet (but not all jets are flamethrowers), flame throwers are sub category of jets, and use the specific liquid projector rules. The specific trumps the general.

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.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

On second look, the deeper I go into stackability examples, the messier it gets. Seems to be the case that one general and easily and safely drawn conclusion from those specific examples is:
GURPS includes a certain number of non-stacking modifiers, and they can be quite different.

Yep (there are also an awful lot of stackable mods as well).

[vicky_molokh]

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.

Originally Posted by Kromm

Telegraphic Attack is about ignoring the opponent's precise actions and focusing on perfect execution, while Evaluate is about studying the opponent's actions to find the perfect opening.* It's hard to justify ignoring something while studying it, so we made the two mechanics exclusive on realism grounds.

* Originally, Evaluate was envisioned as -1 to target's defenses per turn, up to -3. Lots of playtesters disliked that. I still think that would've been a more logical take on "looking for an opening," but coming up with a melee equivalent to Aim won the day.

And regarding flamethrowers:
In the statline, they have an Acc score of — instead of 0, which is indicative that range modifiers are not applicable.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

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.

Cool.

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).

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

And regarding flamethrowers:
In the statline, they have an Acc score of — instead of 0, which is indicative that range modifiers are not applicable.

Yes but we already know that?

Anyway

cheers

TD