02-26-2020, 02:08 PM | #21 |
Join Date: Nov 2016
|
Re: FAILED parry means contact too? (Zombies)
Me neither, just elaborating on the outcomes of a failed primary attack and a failed parry.
__________________
- 画龍点睛。Hide。 |
02-26-2020, 03:01 PM | #22 | |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: FAILED parry means contact too? (Zombies)
Quote:
On the other hand, if you fail your perception roll to see the attack coming (P#3/57p27) then you shouldn't be able to defend unless someone else is able to quickly warn you. |
|
02-26-2020, 06:25 PM | #23 | ||||||
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: FAILED parry means contact too? (Zombies)
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In cases where having contact occur on a failed Parry would actually be to the defender's benefit (say, defender is blocking with a burning brand against the zombie, or something made of cortosis against a lightsaber), I'd have no such contact occur. If it would be to both the defender's benefit and detriment (unarmored hand that is magically surrounded by flame against a zombie, or a cortosis bracelet that will still have the character harmed by the lightsaber before it shuts down), I'd let the attacker decide. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
||||||
02-27-2020, 08:27 AM | #24 | |||||||
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: FAILED parry means contact too? (Zombies)
Hands are small things at the ends of arms, so you could jerk them out of the way quicker.
I figured it was in the sense that "a parry normally lets me relocate my hand by up to ~4 feet by swinging my hand around, so logically I should be able to get it out of the way of stuff easily" I could see that applying to at least PART of the arm too, like the forearm, since it can move around and is actually a striking surface for an attack. Since you can't use wrist movement to help get the forearm out of the way, I'd think at least a -1 to do it feels right. Perhaps elbows too, but with Elbow Strike we do begin to see penalties (like reduced reach on AOA Long) so the reduced reach should maybe be some kind of penalty to do a "no-contact parry" to remove your elbow from the line of fire. At least a -2, I would think. Upper arm should be even less mobile than the elbow, so if it could do a no-contact parry it should be at least a -3? The 'shoulder' being part of the arm according to Low-Tech (yet 'hip' not part of leg...) doesn't seem like it should be an option, it's basically the torso IMO. When you start moving your torso it's a dodge. MA123 allows the leg (this is what a weapon user can choose to target on a failure, so I assume this is what makes contact... same with MA124 knocking shins) to defend the groin. I imagine that PROBABLY involves lifting the foot off the ground, so at least the feet being able to do no-contact parries makes sense to me. When I think of the reactive ROM that parries normally enjoy (example: a SM+1 guy with reach 1 could go from punching someone in his front hex with his right hand to using the same right hand to Sacrificial Parry for an ally in his rear hex) it does seem similar to weapon reach ...though weirdly there's no -2 penalty to base skill for kicking, which I would expect to give -1 to parry relative to arm/hand parrying (if you use the -2 for low-line parries it's still better) I could look at the lack of penalty as part of technique design though: +1 for limited to lower body, +1 for losing retreat. Anyway, for legs, I figure a similar progression: -1 for no-contact shins, -2 for no-contact knee, -3 for no-contact thigh... seem right? Quote:
MA116 finally added "a handless arm can’t punch or grab". It does allow Elbow Strike, and there's mention when you elbow strike to front it's considered a punch... but since there's no 'Hand' hit location for One Hand chars, I assume the unwritten rule is you would apply contact damage to the arm. Not addressed is 'Hammer Fist'... One Hand guys don't have a "fist" but "forearm smashes" sounds right. Quote:
Brawling parries allowed to pseudo-dodge melee attacks aimed at jaw? Quote:
If we were allowing no-contact parries to be done when the arm is targetted, then I'd be fine giving a +1 to those (but not parries in general) for a guy with the One Hand limitation if all he had was a naked stump. No +1 if he had a shield or hook strapped there though. If no-contact parries were an option instead of dodges when an arm is targetted then we should also consider how to deal with people trying this when their hands are holding stuff. It might not make a difference if all their hand is holding is a 0.25 pound dagger, but their arm should move a lot slower if they're carrying a 5lb shield... RAW, it doesn't seem like unarmed parries are an option at all unless you choose to DROP your weapon, but if we were trying to fudge some rules for this, perhaps we could find some way to derive an arm-parry (contact or no) penalty from how the weapon's weight compares to Basic Lift? It shouldn't apply to hands though, if you can use full weapon skill to yank a weapon out of the way then you should still be able to use full unarmed parry skill to yank a hand out of the way when it's clutching a weapon, a hand can always move faster than a hand+weapon. The only difference I can think would be if you don't meet the ST requirements of a weapon. If a sword needs ST 12 and you have ST 10, the -2 to weapon skill would be a -1 to parry with a weapon, so it would seem okay to also have that be a -1 to parry with your arm as well. Quote:
The suggestion being to buy 'Rapid Fire' for an Aura which can damage a particular foe more than once per turn. I wonder how that works with weapon though, since they can be built as characters themselves... or Independent Body Parts which makes them separate entities. Quote:
I know you only do the 2nd if the 1st fails, but failing doesn't mean there's no contact (ie the 'push past' with heavy weapons, at least, where you passed the roll but lacked the ST to stop the weapon) so it could happen if someone's low-ST arm failed to stop, their high-ST arm could stop it. Quote:
Something like "compulsion: MUST use next attack to try to bite that hand" for example, would probably be enough. Quote:
If the attacker has it, then contact on failed parries is bad for the defender. |
|||||||
02-27-2020, 08:28 AM | #25 | |||||||
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: FAILED parry means contact too? (Zombies)
Quote:
Like for example, just have there be a risk of accidental collision when a parry fails, and then give both parties a chance to roll a dodge to avoid that accidental collision? B389 ("Hitting the Wrong Target" and B392 ("Striking into a Close Combat") both use a 9-or-less roll for hitting non-intended targets, so that seems the right thing. In both cases there's a "or the number you would have had to roll to hit him on purpose" caveat, but that's weird (for example: why should a blind guy or a clumsy guy be less likely to accidentally hit someone other than his target? they're not applying their sight/agility in that direction) so I'd just apply Size Modifier penalties to the 9 instead, like you would with Bombardment (B111) limitation on Area Attack. If 9 seems too much of an advantage this way, could always lower it, like to 8 which is the lowest level of Bombardment, or even something like a 3. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A perk like DR 1 (Active Defence -40% Limited: Melee Attacks -20% Flexible -20%) sounds sort of like what this might be. I didn't take "Tough Skin" because reducing the damage to 0 effectively means you're preventing contact with your HP. It wouldn't make sense to have this be reducable by Corrosive Attack or for Armor Divisor to work against it, so that might be 2 levels of Cosmic: Defensive (+50%) making it cost 6 points though. Quote:
Quote:
If using that (and especially if using "Flinch!" for a 2nd +1), then the option to use a no-contact parry instead of a dodge isn't as upsetting to the balance of power. Quote:
Dodging still has the benefit of getting a Dodge and Drop bonus resembling retreats (normal retreat bonuses don't apply to dodging ranged weapons, so they shouldn't apply to parrying ranged weapons, contact or not) "Tactical Dodging, Redux" on pg 30 (pyramid3/57) has the benefit (if you dodged before the attack was rolled) of applying the posture penalty for lying down to that shot, so it might miss without you even having to roll, but if you do need to, you don't suffer the posture penalty to active defences. TDR is an epic improvement over the usual "declare a specific attacker" for Tactical Shooting 17 (to reflect that concept we could use the +1 "one foe" for technical grappling, obviously only usable against attackers you're aware of) The only part I don't like about it is "you only roll if the attack would have hit you if you hadn’t been dodging" because rolling could determine if you crit-fail a dodge. That doesn't seem significant (you're diving to the ground anyway... a crit fail on a dodge doesn't use the tables, you just fall down) but I think it could represent the difference between a controlled fall (low risk of injury on a Dodge and Drop) and an uncontrolled one (high risk of injury). RAW, I don't think you would roll fall damage on a Dodge and Drop, so having you roll it only on a crit-failed dodge would create a distinction between the circumstances. If using a grittier "roll for fall damage when you dive to the ground under any circumstances" house rule, then I would represent the difference as you get (unless you took an AOA) an active defence (block or parry the ground...but instead of the weight of the earth, treat it like Slam from yourself, so weight equal to your ST) to mitigate that damage if it's an intended fall, and no active defence (surprise attack) if it's a crit-failed dodge, or you tripped, etc. In terms of "Roll With Blow" or "Breakfall" (they're not active defences, so I'm not sure whether or not you'd get them against surprise attacks or if you took AOA) if you got them in both cases, I'd apply a -4 in surprise situations, like the ST-4 roll in Technical Grappling. |
|||||||
02-27-2020, 12:05 PM | #26 | ||||||||||
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: FAILED parry means contact too? (Zombies)
Quote:
Using the above penalties for normal Parries would likely also be acceptable - a character wearing football pads might opt to Parry a zombie bite to his Neck at -2 so that he's specifically using his shoulder to Parry, that way he doesn't risk contact on a successful Parry. Quote:
For the Head, I'd probably do no penalty for Skull/Eyes, -1 for Face (maybe -2 for the Jaw sublocation), and treat Neck as part of the Torso (unless the character has some trait that indicates a particularly flexible neck, in which case -2 might be acceptable). For non-standard limbs, like tails and wings, divide it into sublocations. Sublocations 1-4 (those furthest from the attachment point) are at no penalty, sublocation 5 is at -1, and sublocation 6 (the one that attaches to the character's body) is at -2. Quote:
Additionally, I'd be perfectly fine allowing an Avoidance Parry with a hand/arm that is wielding a weapon, even if said weapon doesn't normally allow for unarmed Parries (note some weapons, like the various flavors of katar, do allow for such). I would not allow weapon skill to be used for an Avoidance Parry when the hand or arm was the target, however (getting your arm out of the way more effectively if you happen to be wielding a Broadsword-weapon than if unarmed makes no sense, even if your Broadsword skill is far higher than your Brawling). Quote:
Quote:
GURPS is a system for paper and pencil RPG's, not some sort of reality simulator. Some sacrifices on the altar of Gamism are to be expected. You certainly can work out a more realistic system, but that's going to add complexity (and dice rolls), and is likely to also result in questions why you are going so in depth here, yet leaving the Rapid Fire rules as-is - opening another can of worms as you try to fix that mess. And then another one, and another, until you've got an unworkable, overly-complex system. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Personally, I'm inclined to have a Critical Failure on a Dodge use the Unarmed Critical Miss Table, rather than just defaulting to falling down. Note the callout for how to treat "falls down" results for characters who can't fall down (due to already being prone, such as from a Dodge and Drop).
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
||||||||||
02-27-2020, 02:54 PM | #27 | ||||||||||||||||
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: FAILED parry means contact too? (Zombies)
Quote:
Plus B17 Extra-Heavy Encumbrance can give -4 to dodge while your parry remains unpenalized (unless fencing/karate/judo) I feel bad not giving One Hand guys some kinda benefit. I guess getting a miss if that hand is rolled as a Random Hit Location might be enough? Quote:
Even though the dagger is more distal (leverage multiplies it's weight more than something worn on the forarm) it's not so distant that it should have a greater strain on shoulder movement than the Wooden Vambrace which weighs 15x as much. Quote:
It gets harder if your ST is constantly shifting (like say, penalty from being grappled, penalty from fatigue, getting hit with -ST afflictions) but then so does your Encumbrance Penalties (as a result of shifting Basic Lift) so I just kinda accept that such crunch comes with the territory. This is why we have excel sheets. Quote:
Quote:
That should be easier than say... just doing a Sacrificial Parry for some friend, who still gets his own normal parry even if you fail. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That's probably written with the 0.5 for Small Piercing and 1.5 for cutting/largePiercing in mind, but I imagine it also applies to stuff like Injury Tolerance. Roll With Blow (MA88) is the only example I know of where you would universally round up, but that's not a wound multiplier, because it applies BEFORE calculating basic damage to subtract DR from. IE if you are wearing DR 5, a Roll With Blow vs 10 damage will protect you entirely while having Injury Tolerance (1/2) just means you take 2 (or maybe 3?) damage (10-5=5... then divide that be half... and probably round down?). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If that's the ultimate goal then people can play GURPS Ultra-Lite and ditch rolling for active defences altogether (just subtract half combat skill from attacker's skill) Quote:
Quote:
Now if the attacker crit-fails and the defender crit-succeeds, the attacker should roll TWICE on the crit fail table :) Quote:
If an attacker wants to make a defence less likely to crit-fail and an attack less likely to miss, he should choose Telegraphic Attack. Quote:
Just so long as we exorcise that auto-knockout weirdness on the unarmed table and replace it with the "hit yourself with your weapon" result on the normal crit fail table. Never made sense you could more easily knock yourself out with a bare-handed punch while wearing a full metal helm than you could wielding a mace with a bare head. B556 should maybe give options besides 50% arm 50% leg... like why can't I accidentally hit myself in the groind/foot/neck/face with a bo-staff? The only target that should be off limit is the actual hand(s) wielding the weapon. |
||||||||||||||||
02-27-2020, 05:23 PM | #28 | |||||||||||
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: FAILED parry means contact too? (Zombies)
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Cases where rounding comes into play are moderately rare. Personally, I prefer to avoid rounding, but "normal human punching other normal human in the face" (the type of situation I was discussing) is one where rounding doesn't really play a role. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Arms and Legs are the parts of the body that are most often struck in combat (both accidentally by oneself and on purpose by the foe), but I could certainly see cause to simply use random hit locations to determine where you accidentally hit yourself. Not doing so is probably largely so that you don't need to roll on yet another table.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
|||||||||||
02-27-2020, 09:40 PM | #29 | |||||||
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: FAILED parry means contact too? (Zombies)
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Since it should be hypothetically possible to shove an arm, we have to assume that it doesn't cause knockback to the entire guy, so representing that could be parries and perhaps beats. Quote:
6 could be feasible if they're suffering posture penaltes... but it might be neat if it applied in more situations. Like what if with ANY failure... you add the MoF to a 3d6 and roll a crit if the result is above a certain number? Whereas with any success, you add the MoS to a 3d6 and roll a crit if the result is above the same number? It's more rolling but it allows that possibility for a wider variety of rolls. Quote:
Quote:
Maybe to make arms/legs more likely you roll random, reroll if it's a non-limb, but if you roll an non-limb the 2nd time you take it? |
|||||||
02-28-2020, 12:10 PM | #30 | ||||
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: FAILED parry means contact too? (Zombies)
Quote:
Again, I was talking about a regular guy punching another regular guy in the face. Cutting doesn't come into that. As for the minimum 1, that means that, when the target is unarmored, even rolling 0 damage or lower (say, rolling a 1 or 2 on 1d-2 cut) still results in 1 HP of Injury. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That would probably be acceptable, yes.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
||||
|
|