Zombie Killing

[fifiste]

Mainly what I think is that either there should be some major rework on melee - which would be unholy mess of work. Also it works ok as it is for most combat like situations by trained people.
OR
For non-combat uses and combat and combat-like uses in cases where the opponent is disadvantaged enough (to be basically counted as a target object not an opponent) there should be possibility to get large boni even to the excess of +10.
Otherwise many pretty basic actions will be unavailable for untrained people.


On large boni for non-combat melee. An experiment conducted in many years ago :D
Me holding a wine bottle, a friend slowly pitching tennis balls to me.
my DX 10 at most.
SM of ball -9, untrained average melee weapon -5, and then -0 to -3 for improvised weapon and probably some minus for being tipsy.
so from -4 to -7. In the latter case if I get bonus of 10 I'll still have +3 at max so 0.5% chance of success.
Actual hits were bout 1/4 so should get bonuses enough to have 7. (11+)

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

If the attack itself is not a source of extra noise, it seems to make sense. It's reasonable for a professional-level skill to be reasonably good for archetypal professional activities (e.g. élite SEALs and other SpecOps have Stealth-13, and sentry removal is one of their professional activities).

And does that sound like a standard attack or something that might take a bit more work?

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Same reason people compare the cross-specialisation default penalty for lawyers and the penalty for a lawyer trying to defend a client while having his necktie on fire (-2 or so). Because magnitudes matter too.

Sorry your having to cite a running GURPS joke? Do you not see that this has your argument on shaky ground?

Moreover how is it equivalent to comparing in combat attacks and out of combat attacks?

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Sometimes. But it's also part of the something you do when attacking an inanimate target. Telegraphic Attack absolutely explicitly so. Anyway, I PMed about TelA/Eval, and am waiting for the martial artists' replies.

I don't thinks there's anything explicit about inanimate targets and TA's it talks about combat sport and exhibition stuff. Inanimate targets are pretty much non combat anyway so probably not going to require roles for hitting with melee weapons.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Are you talking about Acc bonuses?

I'm talking about all bonuses., You saying "you can't stack Evaluate, AOA:D and TA because +11 is too high, being over the ranged non combat plinking bonus of +10" you then started to cite ranged combat to prove this point. I pointed out that I can get way higher than +10 in ranged attacks (in or out of combat) making it:

A: not very good example,

and

B: disproves your basic premise

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

My point is that you're essentially advocating the ability of a person to pick up a flamer for the first time, wait for three seconds, run for three yards, and hit a target at the weapon's range, who is also moving at human speeds but is not actively defending at maximum range, in the jaw, with the whole one-second burst (not a dispersed burst fanning over a wide area). I think as someone with no points in Liquid Projector, you'll find that feat more difficult than doing it with a spear (in which you probably have a Dabbler or a point).

No I'm not, I just said I wouldn't allow targeting a bit of the face with a flame thrower.

Also you keep saying "running 3 yards" as if it's a prerequisite of AOA:D it's not it's what you can move if you chose (assuming Mv5).

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

What about the rest of the section? (I think I don't understand the question.)

The bit of the quoted section you didn't address (you just did it again by the way in regards to the point about precision aiming giving the same bonus of non combat plinking)

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

About why the specific E+TelA combination - I already expressed my opinion, and waiting for the replies from the martial artists.

OK.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

As for the downside existing:
Should 'I let the target defend at +2 and maybe whack me' be a source of a bonus greater than 'my target is not an opponent, can never defend, can never whack me, and I know all this, and my hit or miss is of no importance whatsoever'? I think not.

If you referencing non combat, then there is no 'opponent' to compare to so again not an equivalent comparison. The +10 plinking bonuses seems to only apply to ranged attack, so again your comparing Non combat ranged to in combat melee, so that's two point of separation in your comparison.

And on top of that you'd have point if I could never get over +10 with melee bonuses, but I can in other ways!

So again the "broader You can't go over +10" argument is not standing up, I suggest it down to the specific combination in question. And since you not supporting that but waiting I suggest we wait.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

If I AoA'ed, I can't do anything like that.

Sorry AOA's root you immobile to the spot and unable to defend for 4 seconds do they?

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

If I'm blind and deaf. If I'm crazy, or a zombie, or whatever. Whatever the reason, a non-Defence is a non-Defence.

OK, and how much do you think the entire GURPS combat system in hinged on the deaf, blind and crazy (and also apparently standing still and letting stuff happen)? See my point about expectational circumstances being dodgy ground to base broad arguments on.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Three yards is the normal movement allowance on All-Out Attacks for people with Ground Move 5 that is included in AoAs for free, without any further penalty (cf. Move And Attack, which caps skill at 9 and gives a -4).

Yes, but why are we assuming that what is the max allowed is automatically taken (other than for you to vaguely reference it making attacks more difficult) and more importantly why are we assuming the target is also moving at 3 yards?

This is very obliging abstract target for your argument. Not only is it letting me evaluate for 3 seconds and doesn't defend, but now it suddenly does 3 yards a second so you can say aha it more difficult to hit a jaw that's moving?

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Fine, make it an SM-6 (37%) or SM-7 (50%) flying target.

Well I still wouldn't allow it because you can't pick out facial feature with flame thrower. However OK Liquid projector (flame thrower) defaults to DX-4 so that's -10 or -11 also according to Characters pg 205,

"Modifiers: All applicable ranged"

Ranged combat mods apply not melee ones so AoA:D is +1 not +4 no TA or evaluate but rather Aim (but at least non ranged mods). Liquid projectors with Jet really are a hybrid between melee and Ranged.

So actually that your person picking up flame thrower for the first time at DX(10) -4 -6 +1+3 effective skill 4. to Hit the jaw, so yeah not and easy shot.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

That seems to describe the interaction of Eval+TelA: you can do what you want, but you can't cheat the limit of +4. (Again, it might make sense to add a 'semi-Telegraphic' attack for +2tohit/+1AD to get around the edge case of 3 evals.)

Not really the limit of of +4 is due to the fact that is an advantage that can't be brought above +4 for 20pts. If you had campaign that allowed more than four levels of reputation, the limit would similarly increase.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

There is a difference between "hitting" and "hitting well enough to potentially cause damage". A "miss" in GURPS includes deflections and glancing blows.

True, but the rules forth contact attacks seem to require a successful attack take effect. So I wouldn't want to assume there set amount fo missng that still equates to physical contact just nor damaging contact,

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Maybe you should read about all of the botched executions performed on people who were put in an optimal position and rendered immobile. It takes practice and skill for an executioner to reliably kill a person with a single blow. The rules as they stand in GURPS are fine. If you want an unskilled person to kill a zombie then work out how to pin it in place while you whack at it. You won't kill it with one blow but you can have multiple attempts with no risk of it fighting back.

As pointed out not getting one hit decapitations (or instant kills) ≠ not hitting.

In fact those descriptions you cite quite often have detailed accounts of hitting and wounding (just not hitting and instantly killing). Although they did haves swings and misses too of course!

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Oh, and about target speed:
The range bit of the speed+range penalty apparently only applies to Ranged attacks, not mêlée ones, and normally is ignored for targets moving on the ground at up to Move 10, unless they are sprinting or flying.

Fine guess that answers your reference to combatants moving at 3yds a second making those skull/jaw hits harder then. Which is how we got onto it

(personally I've never understood why it shouldn't apply to melee, other than not wanting another factor in the majority of human combats to track, but then you go down that route than Reach 3 should be -1 to hit from range mods)

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

And doe that sound like a standard attack or something that might take a bit more work?

It's certainly not standard attack for a typical conscript, but it's one of those things élite troops are for, right?

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Sorry your having to cite a running GURPS joke? Do you not see that this has your argument on shaky ground?

Every joke has a fraction of a joke. But it illustrates the point that it's sometimes a good idea to compare the magnitude of one modifier to the magnitude of another, and figure out whether the difference in magnitudes or lack thereof makes sense.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Moreover how is it equivalent to comparing in combat attacks and out of combat attacks?

'Equivalent' is a strong word. But it's still a case where we should make sure in-combat bonuses aren't overkill compared to non-combat ones.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I don't thinks there#s anything explicit about inanimate targets and TA's it talks about combat sport and exhibition stuff. Inanimate targets are pretty much non combat anyway so probably not going to require roles for hitting with melee weapons.

Kromm once said that Telegraphic Attack is largely the legacy of the following line dating back at least to 3e (possibly earlier):

Originally Posted by Kromm

It amounts to a free +4 to hit if your target can't duck, which is the case regardless of target type. The same +4 vs. inanimate objects has been present in every incarnation of GURPS ever . . . it's just that Telegraphic Attack adds rules to handle what happens when you attack a resisting opponent in the same way.

The actual section for the +4? Here:

Originally Posted by Basic Set 3e

"ATTACKING INANIMATE OBJECTS
[ . . . ]
(1) Figure hit modifiers for size, speed, distance, etc. - see p. 201. If you are using a
hand weapon, and have a second to "aim" your blow at a motionless object, take a +4 to
hit."

That seems very much akin to the role of Evaluate too (since it originally was only doable with an extra second of 'aiming'). So if Telegraphic Attack indeed is the same thing as 'aiming' at an inanimate object, but done more hurriedly in combat, it makes sense for the two to not stack.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I'm talking about all bonuses., You saying "you can't stak Evaluate, AOA:D and TA because +11 is too high, being over the ranged non combat plinking bonus of +10" you then started to cite ranged combat to prove this point. I pointed out that I can get way higher than +10 in ranged attacks (in or out of combat) making it:

A: not very good example,

and

B: disproves your basic premise

Well, Acc and Bracing Bonuses and Range Penalty don't seem to be in the same category as 'non-combat, or treating the target as not in combat despite the risks'.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

No I'm not, I just said I wouldn't allow targeting a bit of the face with a flame thrower.

OK.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Also you keep saying "running 3 yards" as if it's a prerequisite of AOA:D it's not it's what you can move if you chose (assuming Mv5).

It's not a prerequisite, it's just something that can be done with the modifiers included in the AoA:D. So it's possible to do it and get +11 under your rulechange.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

The bit of the quoted section you didn't address (you just did it again by the way in regards to the point about precision aiming giving the same bonus of non combat plinking)

Now addressed uppost: Acc/Distance mods are not exactly 'non-combat, or treating target as non-combat despite the drawbacks' mods.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

OK.

If you referencing non combat, then there is no 'opponent' to compare to so again not an equivalent comparison. The +10 plinking bonuses seems to only apply to ranged attack, so again your comparing Non combat ranged to in combat melee, so that's two point of separation in your comparison.

And on top of that you'd have point if I could never get over +10 with melee bonuses, but I can in other ways!

So again the "broader You can't go over +10" argument is not standing up, I suggest it down to the specific combination in question. And since you not supporting that but waiting I suggest we wait.

I guess at this point we just disagree about whether mêlée attack non-combat (or non-combat-like) bonuses should be less than ranged ones. Oh well, we wait.
Bad news about waiting:
I forgot that Kromm specifically is on vacation from GURPS, and is unlikely to answer. TKD might, though.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Sorry AOA's root you immobile to the spot and unable to defend for 4 seconds do they?

If you AoA four times in a row, then you are unable to Defend 4 seconds. It doesn't prevent you from moving, though.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

OK, and how much do you think the entire GURPS combat system in hinged on the deaf, blind and crazy (and also apparently standing still and letting stuff happen)? See my point about expectational circumstances being dodgy ground to base broad arguments on.

I'm starting with a minimalistic example and building up from there. I.e. I start with just the chances to hit a non-Defending but mobile target, before looking at how Dodge or the like would modify the chances.
(Besides, zombies traditionally AoA, and untrained fighters supposedly AoA about half of the time.)

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Yes, but why are we assuming that what is the max allowed is automatically taken (other than for you to vaguely reference it making attacks more difficult) and more importantly why are we assuming the target is also moving at 3 yards?[...]

I brought up the max movement available while still doing an AoA. Actually, the target can safely move up to 10 yards/second before non-human movement modifiers kick in (unless it sprints or flies).

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Well I still wouldn't allow it because you can't pick out facial feature with flame thrower. However OK Liquid projector (flame thrower) defaults to DX-4 so that's -10 or -11 also according to Characters pg 205,

"Modifiers: All applicable ranged"

Ranged combat mods apply not melee ones so AoA:D is +1 not +4 no TA or evaluate but rather Aim (but at least non ranged mods). Liquid projectors with Jet really are a hybrid between melee and Ranged.

Except many of those become inapplicable:

Originally Posted by B106

Your attack is a continuous stream,
like a flamethrower. Treat it as a melee
weapon with a very long reach rather
than as a ranged weapon. Do not
apply penalties for target range and
speed.
An attack with Jet has no Acc, and
has 1/2D 5 and Max 10 instead of its
usual range.

[QUOTE=Tomsdad;1853090]So actually that your person picking up flame thrower for the first time at DX(10) -4 -6 +1+3 effective skill 4. to Hit the jaw, so yeah not and easy shot.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Not really the limit of of +4 is due to the fact that is an advantage that can't be brought above +4 for 20pts. If you had campaign that allowed more than four levels of reputation, the limit would similarly increase.

Compare to Talent limits of 4, but two Talents at level 4 each stack.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

It's certainly not standard attack for a typical conscript, but it's one of those things élite troops are for, right?

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.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Every joke has a fraction of a joke. But it illustrates the point that it's sometimes a good idea to compare the magnitude of one modifier to the magnitude of another, and figure out whether the difference in magnitudes or lack thereof makes sense.

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

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

'Equivalent' is a strong word. But it's still a case where we should make sure in-combat bonuses aren't overkill compared to non-combat ones.

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

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Kromm once said that Telegraphic Attack is largely the legacy of the following line dating back at least to 3e (possibly earlier):

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)

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"

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

The actual section for the +4? Here:

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

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

That seems very much akin to the role of Evaluate too (since it originally was only doable with an extra second of 'aiming'). So if Telegraphic Attack indeed is the same thing as 'aiming' at an inanimate object, but done more hurriedly in combat, it makes sense for the two to not stack.

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.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, Acc and Bracing Bonuses and Range Penalty don't seem to be in the same category as 'non-combat, or treating the target as not in combat despite the risks'.

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.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

It's not a prerequisite, it's just something that can be done with the modifiers included in the AoA:D. So it's possible to do it and get +11 under your rulechange.

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.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Now addressed uppost: Acc/Distance mods are not exactly 'non-combat, or treating target as non-combat despite the drawbacks' mods.

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

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I guess at this point we just disagree about whether mêlée attack non-combat (or non-combat-like) bonuses should be less than ranged ones. Oh well, we wait.
Bad news about waiting:
I forgot that Kromm specifically is on vacation from GURPS, and is unlikely to answer. TKD might, though.

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

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

If you AoA four times in a row, then you are unable to Defend 4 seconds. It doesn't prevent you from moving, though.

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?

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'm starting with a minimalistic example and building up from there. I.e. I start with just the chances to hit a non-Defending but mobile target, before looking at how Dodge or the like would modify the chances.
(Besides, zombies traditionally AoA, and untrained fighters supposedly AoA about half of the time.)

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.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I brought up the max movement available while still doing an AoA. Actually, the target can safely move up to 10 yards/second before non-human movement modifiers kick in (unless it sprints or flies).

So no issue then (see above)

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Except many of those become inapplicable:

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).

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Formatting error? Either way solves your concern about novice flame thrower wielders picking people's individual facial features to flambé

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Compare to Talent limits of 4, but two Talents at level 4 each stack.

You mean compare to something else that's different again?

So we now have an example of advantage that has cap, and one that allows stacking.

(but to answer the implied question the difference is as follows, each subdivision of rep is subset of the standard basic rep, this is not true of talents).

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.

[Keiko]

Originally Posted by fifiste

I think that in many many games making contact with an object is a very important and frequent ability/skill test. So if I have to smack an airlock button with a stick, etc. then when I'm not trained in stick-fu I will most likely not able to do hit it even if its head sized? Hitting buttons levers, discharging contact spells or applying contact based agents are so profoundly popular in so many genres that it will still make no sense to describe them as failing to do enough damage - jet someone failing so often on those basic tasks of co-ordination by any other combination of explanations will also turn out weird.

I'm having some difficulty determining if you're agreeing with me or not so I'll clarify what I meant.

If the attack or action has nothing to do with the damage done then describing a failed roll as a "glancing strike that does no meaningful damage" doesn't make sense then don't describe it that way. But that doesn't mean a failed roll can never be described to a glancing strike that does no meaningful damage in other cases. IME, the mroe common cases but that's anecdotal as even placing contact based attacks any glancing or light touch might not be enough or you can strike a switch or lever but not apply enough pressure to activate it. At least I've tried similar tasks and failed a few times despite making contact. The idea is role playing games create an huge variety of situations. The rules can't cover them all and GMs (and players really) have to make judgement calls based on the situation at hand, the mod of the game and the setting.

[fifiste]

Originally Posted by Keiko

I'm having some difficulty determining if you're agreeing with me or not so I'll clarify what I meant.

If the attack or action has nothing to do with the damage done then describing a failed roll as a "glancing strike that does no meaningful damage" doesn't make sense then don't describe it that way..

The thing is that describing for the N-th time that you totally failed to hit a waterballoon with a stick is as tedious (and unbelievable) as describing that you failed to do enough damage to it for the N-th time would seem foolish (and unbelievable).

What I mean that by current rules hitting something - for damage or not - is just plain too hard in many situations. And that describing that - "ahh but you just did very little damage" - is mainly just hiding the problem.

[Keiko]

Originally Posted by fifiste

The thing is that describing for the N-th time that you totally failed to hit a waterballoon with a stick is as tedious (and unbelievable) as describing that you failed to do enough damage to it for the N-th time would seem foolish (and unbelievable).

What I mean that by current rules hitting something - for damage or not - is just plain too hard in many situations. And that describing that - "ahh but you just did very little damage" - is mainly just hiding the problem.

I'm talking about combat descriptions not just hitting something with no pressure, no time constraints under near optimal conditions. Most of the time that wouldn't even require a roll. People do fail to do things like that in real life it seems safe to assume them in an rpg. When you start adding complications then it becomes more difficult, sometimes surprisingly difficult. That's where judgement calls come in, when to apply the rules and when to handwave them.

[fifiste]

Well I am mostly thinking on combat and combat like situations where the opponent is not defending him/herself.

Look at my white hat,black hat, damsel example.
The black hat straddling white hat and strangling him with both hands and back turned to damsel - it should be no difficult feat to apply cast iron pan to his skull and its hard to think that anyone who puts any real strength behind it would so very often not be able to do damage with it.
Though by GURPS the damsel should have skill in two-handed axe/mace to actually accomplish that.

Or hitting a button/lever thats approximately the same size or (gasp even smaller) and requires a fair amount of pressure, or needing to break something of a similar size, even in the middle of the combat.
Without allowing boni in excess of 10+ (frex. evaluate + AoA stacking, or some GM improvised boni) then all those tasks would be nigh on impossible for a dedicated yet untrained character to hit. Though actually being rather basic acts of coordination.

You could site the need to attend other distraction or stress or fright - but all out attacks etc. will quite specifically mean not paying attention to other distractions, and stress/fright etc. should be handled by fright checks. Not to mention the character might be unfazeble yet not be able to smash that evil cursed pumpkin* with a cudgel because thats something you need special cudgel training for.
I do propose that hitting a pumpkin with a cudgel for two or three damage should be something that most people with basic hand to eye coordination should be able to do with rather good success. Even if 6 yards away other fellows have a hand-scuffle etc.
(Or spade and zombie scuffle - latter could hinder the pumpkin hitting process but due to failed fright check not to the lack of basic motor capabilites that seems to attack GURPS characters when they grab a stick) --- and should therefore deserve some bonii to make it actually possible.

Furthermore I do think that there are plenty of combat situations not involving pumpkins, where opponents not defending themselves and not flailing around wildly will present their noggins as quite similar targets as the aforementioned pumpkins and therefore precipitating a need for similar boni.

*controlling the halloween-zombies attacking your party at the moment etc.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by fifiste

Not killing someone/not severing someones head in a single blow != no damage done.

I do understand that someone untrained is likely to cause suboptimal damage -- still suboptimal damage does not mean no damage.....

One way to look at it in terms of the untrained and optimal / suboptimal damage.

Some one trained has an easier time leveraging a favourable combat situation into extra damage, than some one completely unskilled.

The completely unskilled persons has to maximise just hitting so takes AoA:D

The more skilled person can worry less about stacking the mods for hitting accurately and can instead take AoA:S in order to increase effect

Take your black hat strangling white hat, damsel with frying pan situation.

If she's going off default she takes a TA and AoA:D to boost her change of hitting at all (given the 2dr Skull he has to get through there scope for glance even if she hits with successes) but any hot is better than no hit.

If however she has a point or two in two/handed axe/mace/frying-pan she's got less worries about actually hitting can instead be more free in where she takes her bonuses so does TA, but instead AoA:S and worry more about hitting for maximum effect.