Judo is a striking skill

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

What are you trying to convey?

Weapons tables have lists of skills that are allowed to be used to strike.

Originally Posted by Kromm uFAQ

In particular, if a rule explicitly lists the allowed skills ... Judo works only if it's called out on the list.

Judo can only substitute if it's on the list. It's not on the list in the Weapons Tables, therefore it can't substitute.

Can you point out any place in the rules that list DX as being able to strike that does not also contain a list with Boxing, Brawling, and/or Karate in it? Because if Judo isn't called out on the list along with the other skills it can't substitute for DX, so for Judo to be a substitute it has to list DX and nothing else or it must contain Judo in the list.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by RyanW

You seem to have acknowledged that you cannot use Judo as a DX substitute when DX is listed among a set of skills that does not include Judo.

I acknowledge the category established by Kromm, certainly.

You also claim that Judo can be used for strikes.

I read that Judo can be used instead of DX rolls in close combat subject to the conditions established in the rules and the quoted Kromm statement.

I assume that means you know of a case where strikes are allowed using a DX roll that is not part of a list of skills that does not include Judo.

Here's where I'm losing your thread. Is there a dispute that DX can be used for punching or kicking?

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

Weapons tables have lists of skills that are allowed to be used to strike.

Judo can only substitute if it's on the list. It's not on the list in the Weapons Tables, therefore it can't substitute.

I addressed this in post #60. It was at the bottom of a page though, so perhaps you didn't see it.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

Since this is for spells, you just need to make contact, and a grappling skill allows you to make contact.

This makes me wonder about hit locations, could wizards using a grappling skill target those for damage more easily then, since penalties are half when grappling?

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Is there a dispute that DX can be used for punching or kicking?

There is, on the basis of Kromm's quote (if it's not mentioned on a list of skills) and how punching/kicking do list skills.

One thing to note:

Originally Posted by Kromm

if a rule explicitly lists the allowed skills – like "DX or Sumo Wrestling"

This seems to reflect that DX is not merely an attribute, but also a skill too...

Albeit "DX" seems to be a skill that all characters know for free.

It would not be useful to all DX rolls, only as "Melee Weapon (DX)" where it would help you hit with punch/kick/bite.

Unlike Brawling, it would never give a damage bonus or give access to MA techniques.

However, since you have 1 point in it automatically (it's an easy skill of course, bringing that from DX-1 to DX+0 as a built-in perk everyone has for free) I guess that means you could spend 2 points to bring it from DX+0 to DX+1, where normally you'd need to spend 3 points to get Brawling+1

If someone really wanted to do it (you're only ever really saving 1 point compared to Brawling) it seems basically harmless.

I would however allow someone to take Incompetence: DX as a quirk if they wanted. In B164 terms this should make all DX (Melee Weapon) rolls -4, but.

You could use other skills to supercede that of course, and avoid the penalty.

That effectively lets you use the quirk to buy 1 point in Brawling to regain your punching/kicking accuracy (and then some) though.

I don't see this as "free brawling" however, because that -4 penalty should apply to grapples. Which sounds fine, I could imagine brawling representing a guy who punches/kicks well but who can't grapple well.

Similarly, if you took (Incompetency: Melee Weapon DX) and then a grappling skill, you gained a free point but basically lost no grappling ability whatsoever once you buy your Grappling Skill up to DX+0. In that case though: you lost your striking ability, which is fine.

The only true "I lost nothing" in practice would be a cross-trainer who has both brawling and wrestling up to DX+0, but having this quirk is still actually a vulnerability to them.

I will explain the reason for that: it is possible to lose skills later on. Maybe you don't maintain them. Maybe magic wipes your mind. Either way, if that happens, you have to rely on DX again, and then you suffer that -4 penalty!

This is also a neat thing to do if you wanted to design a guy who relies on weapons (and is just as proficient with them relative to his DX as others) but is horrible when relying on his DX for unarmed combat.

That also conveniently (punching at DX-4) would bring punches on par with the DX-4 default for many melee weapons. Pummeling would be demoted to DX-5 which would make it a tie with using the Sword skill to wield a club at default.

This should also reduce people's ability to parry at DX, of course.

Considering that you can actually take an Anti-Talent for combat (Power-Ups 3 pg 21 "Non-Combatant") worth WAY more than a quirk (-15 per -1 to ALLattacks, so -60 points for -4) getting a mere -1 quirk for -4 to a smaller amount (unarmed only, when not using unarmed combat skills) seems pretty fair.

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

I addressed this in post #60. It was at the bottom of a page though, so perhaps you didn't see it.

And the Weapons Tables are still a list of skills that exclude Judo.

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Given that Kromm quoted specific phrases that appear under specific rules, it does not seem like he meant that to be extrapolated to other usages such as the listings in the weapons table(s).

And this right here is the problem. You are adding criteria onto Kromm's examples that were not present when he wrote them. All he said is that "if a rule explicitly lists the allowed skills ... Judo works only if it's called out on the list." *YOU* are the only one who took his example lists and took them to mean that he meant only examples that are exactly like those ones, where as his response only mentioned lists of skills that exclude Judo. Which the Weapons Table qualifies as.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

lists of skills that exclude Judo. Which the Weapons Table qualifies as.

One might say 'omit' rather than 'exclude'. Latter sounds like how I'd describe a specific "and not Judo!" notation.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

What are you trying to convey?

Let me see if I can sum up:

• Kromm says that the general rule that Judo can replace DX only applies in cases where a specific skill list is not included.
• The only place I am aware of that states you can punch or kick with DX includes it as part of a specific list of skills that does not include Judo.
• You contend that you can make punches and kicks with Judo.

Either you are aware of a general "make punches and kicks with DX" rule or we are interpreting Kromm's statement very differently.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

And the Weapons Tables are still a list of skills that exclude Judo.

And again, I wonder if you are actually reading my replies. I addressed that in Post #60.

And this right here is the problem. You are adding criteria onto Kromm's examples that were not present when he wrote them. All he said is that "if a rule explicitly lists the allowed skills ... Judo works only if it's called out on the list."

I'm not adding anything. I'm reading the full content of his quote free from any of the bias some here bring against using Judo for strikes. Just there, you stripped away significant bits of the full statement whose significance I explained in prior posts.

*YOU* are the only one

That's not probative of anything even if it were true, which I don't think it is.

[You] took his example lists and took them to mean that he meant only examples that are exactly like those ones, where as his response only mentioned lists of skills that exclude Judo.

I pointed out that Kromm deliberately used quotes and those specific quotes appear at places in the rules exactly as he typed them. Doing so indicates an intention to characterize a category in a particular way. He chose the word "rules" and did not say "tables", and nothing in the tables matched a word search of the quotes he actually gave. I don't know why you want to strive so hard to avoid his meaning.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by RyanW

Let me see if I can sum up:

• Kromm says that the general rule that Judo can replace DX only applies in cases where a specific skill list is not included.
• The only place I am aware of that states you can punch or kick with DX includes it as part of a specific list of skills that does not include Judo.
• You contend that you can make punches and kicks with Judo.

Either you are aware of a general "make punches and kicks with DX" rule or we are interpreting Kromm's statement very differently.

Thanks for elaborating. I get your point now, and for a while it gave me substantial consternation because I remember prior editions of GURPS and had in my mind that using DX for punching was clearly set out, so I had never even thought it might be in question. But in 4e, it was not to be found where I expected.

Nevertheless, I did find confirmation that striking based on DX alone is a thing in 4e. On B370 under Unarmed Combat it says: "Anyone can engage in unarmed combat, but certain skills make you a more effective unarmed fighter." I think we are compelled to conclude that an unskilled combatant is using DX.

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Nevertheless, I did find confirmation that striking based on DX alone is a thing in 4e. On B370 under Unarmed Combat it says: "Anyone can engage in unarmed combat, but certain skills make you a more effective unarmed fighter." I think we are compelled to conclude that an unskilled combatant is using DX.

That quote for Unarmed Combat is literally followed by a list of Striking Skills and Grappling Skills. Which list is Judo on? Which is it not on? That rule also directs you to the Weapons Table for stats for unarmed attacks.

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

I'm not adding anything. I'm reading the full content of his quote free from any of the bias some here bring against using Judo for strikes. Just there, you stripped away significant bits of the full statement whose significance I explained in prior posts.

Those "significant" bits are just examples. And yes, I stripped them, because a plain language reading of what he wrote, free from the clutter of the examples, is that Judo can't be used for striking. He literally says that striking is where the line is drawn. You then ignore that because it doesn't agree with your own bias, and try to apply the general rule ("Judo can substitute for DX") to the specific rule for the Weapons Table ("Weapons are grouped under the skills they are used with.") You could take the entire table and put it in paragraph format, where it would state "Punch using Brawling, Boxing, Karate, or DX. Damage is thr cr. Range is C. etc. etc." but that would be extremely inefficient, which is why it's presented in table format.

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

I pointed out that Kromm deliberately used quotes and those specific quotes appear at places in the rules exactly as he typed them. Doing so indicates an intention to characterize a category in a particular way. He chose the word "rules" and did not say "tables", and nothing in the tables matched a word search of the quotes he actually gave. I don't know why you want to strive so hard to avoid his meaning.

The tables are an extension of the Equipment and Weapon rules, which specifically say that weapons are grouped under the skills that they are used with. They are part and parcel of the entire rules on using weapons.