Improving the Tonfa

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I'll give you an alternative. We keep hearing about the tonfa's speed in one particular strike. Special strikes that do more damage than basic ones are common in MA. See Uppercut for just one example.

So giving the tonfa +1 damage on this strike only might be a good option. It might change the tonfa from Thrust to Swing. In most grips the tonfa will be doing only Thrust.

think thats a good call. Since the Op talks abut how hard it is to learn just give it a special technique.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Gollum

It's even worse! In GURPS, strength is only one basic attribute. In reality, every sport, martial art or other physical activity makes you improve your muscle in a way that would't really fit to another activity. A very good karateka, for instance, would make a very poor climber, runner and vie versa.

GURPS correct that a bit with the optional striking and lifting strength. But even then, a good weight lifter would make a poor karateka. And even if we remain in martial arts, a good karateka would make a poor fencer and vice versa...

All these people do a lot of muscle training exercises... But their musculatures are still very different...

Having said that, GURPS has to be a playable game.

Trained Strength is a fairly playable mechanic as is bought up ST with limitations.

Originally Posted by Anthony

What GURPS calls a 'light club' is actually a rather heavy club.

Specifically it's a 3 pound weapon, starts at reach 1, requires ST 10 and can't be used with Knife. That's twice the weight of the GURPS tonfa, longer reach than it on a thrust and 3 ST higher of a requirement.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I'll give you an alternative. We keep hearing about the tonfa's speed in one particular strike. Special strikes that do more damage than basic ones are common in MA. See Uppercut for just one example.

So giving the tonfa +1 damage on this strike only might be a good option. It might change the tonfa from Thrust to Swing. In most grips the tonfa will be doing only Thrust.

Or for another weapon specific technique like this there is Crack.

Originally Posted by Refplace

think thats a good call. Since the Op talks abut how hard it is to learn just give it a special technique.

I'm the OP, not Gollum.

[DCB]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Momentum seems very, very important in hand weapons.

The standard intro physics textbook (Halliday&Resnick) at one time analyzed the kinematics of brick/board-breaking in karate. The short version is that the brick could absorb 50% less energy before breaking than the board, but required 20% greater fist speed in order to transfer enough momentum to achieve that energy transfer.

Breaking bone (or bending armour) is likely to have similarities, which is likely one reason momentum is so important for hand weapons.

[Gollum]

Thank you for the informations about the light club. It is a far much heavier weapon that what I imagined...

What I realized this morning, while reading again (and more attentively) the whole list of melee weapons in Martial Arts, is that the tonkwa is supposed to deal less damage than the jo. The comparison with the bo may be debatable... But the one with the jo is certainly not.

So, I fully do agree with Sindri now. The tonkwa could be raised to sw+1 cr (instead of sw+2). It would make it as powerful as the jo handled with two hands, which would take into account its very specific speed when turning around the wrist, without making it as powerful as a small or round mace.

For the thrusting damage, I wouldn't change anything. As far as I know, it has no special quality when punching with it (except being harder than a naked fist).

This would give:

• Tonkwa, sw+1 cr
• Or, thr cr

And would perfectly fit to that weapon, in my humble opinion.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I'll give you an alternative. We keep hearing about the tonfa's speed in one particular strike. Special strikes that do more damage than basic ones are common in MA. See Uppercut for just one example.

So giving the tonfa +1 damage on this strike only might be a good option. It might change the tonfa from Thrust to Swing. In most grips the tonfa will be doing only Thrust.

Yes. Building some specific techniques for the jo could also make the job. And the Uppercut one, with its improve damage, is a very good example.

Swirling attack*, average, +1 to damage.

After all, designing a couple of interesting techniques may be the way to make the Tonfa skill more attractive, Sindri.

_____

* I don't know if swirling is the word that really fit.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Sindri

Trained Strength is a fairly playable mechanic as is bought up ST with limitations.

You're right. I often claim how adaptable is GURPS but sometimes still forget to what amazing point it really is.

[Varyon]

Alright, let's put together some of Gollum's statements about the tonfa/tonkwa to generate a technique.

First, we're talking about a technique of spinning the tonfa to strike. I'm going to assume we're starting with it in a normal (Reach 1) grip and making a full circle to build up speed and hit.

Gollum's statements imply something like +2 to sw damage. He's also made note of the tonfa being unbalanced when used like this, implying difficulty in following up the maneuver with a Parry.

Altogether, I'd say this is probably a Hard Technique with a +1 to damage, typically used as part of a Committed or All Out Attack (Strong). The spinning may make it a bit more difficult to avoid - a -1 to Parry and Dodge may be appropriate. You can easily screw up the spin, and it's the same basic motion as Reverse Grip, so I'd say the ability requires an "activation roll" at full skill, which is probably good for a +1. That means it's either at -1 (just damage bonus) or -4 (damage bonus and defense penalty). I'll leave it to those with more experience with combat and/or physics to determine if it's Realistic or Cinematic - but if the latter, it's probably only lightly cinematic (meaning it's probably appropriate in a realistic game, but not in one using Harsh Realism). A more cinematic version would get a further +1 to damage (for +2 or +1/die total) and be at a further -2 to skill.

Someone with Striking ST 11 (skilled martial artists probably tend to have at least this) can thus use this Technique as a Defensive Attack at 1d+1, an Attack at 1d+2, a Committed Attack (Strong) at 1d+3/2d-1, or an All Out Attack (Strong) at 1d+4/2d. Striking a foe in the Skull with even a Defensive Attack has over a 60% chance of knocking the foe out outright (17% chance of 0 injury, 17% chance of 4 injury, 67% chance of a Major Wound; against a foe with HT 12, the first means no chance of knockout, the second only a 1.5% chance, but the third has a 91% chance of dealing a knockout), while the more common Committed Attack (Strong) has either a 91% or 76% chance of scoring a knockout, depending on if you convert the adds to dice.

[Otaku]

Well this has been an interesting read. I've got some questions and comments, but I don't want to completely derail the Technique building... so skip this if you don't think you can (or just don't want) to try to answer some of my questions while working on Technique design.

...

Okay, still reading? I don't have GURPS Martial Arts for 4e. Long story short I want it (like I want many things in life), but I'm a bum lucky to have a roof over his head right now (let alone internet access) so I'm not getting to read it anytime soon (s'okay, I still need to make time to read Social Engineering ;) ).

Reading this got me glancing at the handful of 3e books I still have on hand (they were too beat up to sell off) I noticed something. Now 3e has some obvious mechanical differences but they shouldn't come up unless we get into a very detailed discussion that even I am not expecting right now. Still, if clarification or further explanation is needed, just ask. The big thing is under 3e Rules, the damage for certain things is different, but other things remain the same. Going through some of the weapons discussed earlier in this thread, nunchaku do +1 damage (that is, sw+2) and even more relevant, the 3e damage rules for tonfa are that when used to augment Karate strikes, it eliminates the usual -2 to damage for unarmed punches and otherwise does thr+1/sw+1. This makes me wonder if it was either intentionally "nerfed" or was simply a victim of trying to save space in the 4e Basic Set rules: there isn't an actual line for Tonfa on the weapons table (well, that I could find). The text for the skill cites treating it as a baton when used that way or holding it alongside your forearm and jabbing with it for thr+1 damage.

So... anyone know why this change happened? There are some other ideas I had, but I'd better keep it as narrow a focus as I'm good with.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Alright, let's put together some of Gollum's statements about the tonfa/tonkwa to generate a technique.

First, we're talking about a technique of spinning the tonfa to strike. I'm going to assume we're starting with it in a normal (Reach 1) grip and making a full circle to build up speed and hit.

Gollum's statements imply something like +2 to sw damage. He's also made note of the tonfa being unbalanced when used like this, implying difficulty in following up the maneuver with a Parry.

Altogether, I'd say this is probably a Hard Technique with a +1 to damage, typically used as part of a Committed or All Out Attack (Strong). The spinning may make it a bit more difficult to avoid - a -1 to Parry and Dodge may be appropriate. You can easily screw up the spin, and it's the same basic motion as Reverse Grip, so I'd say the ability requires an "activation roll" at full skill, which is probably good for a +1. That means it's either at -1 (just damage bonus) or -4 (damage bonus and defense penalty). I'll leave it to those with more experience with combat and/or physics to determine if it's Realistic or Cinematic - but if the latter, it's probably only lightly cinematic (meaning it's probably appropriate in a realistic game, but not in one using Harsh Realism). A more cinematic version would get a further +1 to damage (for +2 or +1/die total) and be at a further -2 to skill.

Someone with Striking ST 11 (skilled martial artists probably tend to have at least this) can thus use this Technique as a Defensive Attack at 1d+1, an Attack at 1d+2, a Committed Attack (Strong) at 1d+3/2d-1, or an All Out Attack (Strong) at 1d+4/2d. Striking a foe in the Skull with even a Defensive Attack has over a 60% chance of knocking the foe out outright (17% chance of 0 injury, 17% chance of 4 injury, 67% chance of a Major Wound; against a foe with HT 12, the first means no chance of knockout, the second only a 1.5% chance, but the third has a 91% chance of dealing a knockout), while the more common Committed Attack (Strong) has either a 91% or 76% chance of scoring a knockout, depending on if you convert the adds to dice.

I'd say that if spinning the tonfa gives more damage at the expense of defending with it, it sounds like a text book committed (strong) attack.

And this works well in IMO as you use these things in pairs so you do that with one and parry with the other.

so even at current stats Gollum's ST11 teacher is doing 1d+2 on such a committed attack that on average is a major wound on the Skull of similar target.

At the end of the day the tonfa is baton that's traded reach and an awkward grip for some clever techniques that take skill to leverage.

While I can happily see that a good tonfa strike to the skull or joint is disabling, we are ultimately taking about locations with either a really high damage multiplier, or really low HP threshold for crippling.


Ultimately it's niche weapon and I'd hesitate to up it's damage as it risks being all things to all people. Especially as in terms of weight and size it's closer match to a baton than a small club and its already the same basic Sw damage

FWIW while I can accept the swinging circular attack (relying on momentum induced centripetal force) gets some benefit, I not sure it over compensate for the loss of force from reduced arc length and wrist snap form a more traditional weapon strike. (certainly it doesn't match a 6' staff swung at full extension which I think has been claimed).

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

(certainly it doesn't match a 6' staff swung at full extension which I think has been claimed)

My problem with using Staff damage as a benchmark is that I think that typical strikes made while enjoying the +2 Parry bonus from using a Staff is far from being a full extension strike.

There ought to be a difference in the damage of a staff used with Staff skill and one used with Two-Handed Sword skill. The former gives up some reach with the swing and significant leverage for increased defensive utility, but in the rules as written, there is no penalty to doing so. Staff does sw+2 and has Reach up to 2 cr no matter how you hold it, so there is no GURPS benefit to styles that also teach Two-Handed Sword skill with the staff.

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by Icelander

My problem with using Staff damage as a benchmark is that I think that typical strikes made while enjoying the +2 Parry bonus from using a Staff is far from being a full extension strike.

There ought to be a difference in the damage of a staff used with Staff skill and one used with Two-Handed Sword skill. The former gives up some reach with the swing and significant leverage for increased defensive utility, but in the rules as written, there is no penalty to doing so. Staff does sw+2 and has Reach up to 2 cr no matter how you hold it, so there is no GURPS benefit to styles that also teach Two-Handed Sword skill with the staff.

I noticed that myself when looking at the damage for 3e versus 4e. That didn't change for Staff but it got me wondering how many weapons are having their damage bench marked based on actual observed weapon use and how much are just gaming estimates, tweaked according to other similar weapons. Also how much of this is 1 point of damage in GURPS is itself a sizable unit. In real life you'd definitely notice the difference of something doing a "fractional" point of damage difference. Hypothetically speaking (I would not do this for gaming purposes) if a tonfa did something like cr+0.5, that could get pretty significant on skull hits.

Again... I'm clueless about this so please understand that I should probably have a bunch of question marks somewhere in there to make it clear I'm asking as much or more than I'm stating these things. >.>

For a better game world representation... I'm wondering if fractional Armor Divisors (Armor Multipliers) would be worth the hassle to better represent some of these things. Higher base damage (for example) but then an Armor Multiplier means against an unarmored foe its quite effective but pretty pointless striking that guy with a breastplate. Does that match the reality at all?