What is the default for punching someone?

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I think that hands take a much more positive role in punching than that (but equally a lot of hands get broken or damaged in badly thrown or just unlucky punches!)

I can't see hand DX affecting accuracy of punches, but maybe the ability to land them with minimal risk to yourself. Like if you had DR (Hands Only, Requires DX roll) then maybe as a feature you could roll separastely for the DR of both hands, and the off-hand penalty should apply to the off-hand's roll.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I think bad grip is specific to gripping things, which infers holding an object. But I might stretch it to forming an effective fist. Ultimately if I did this I'd look at it on a case by case basis, as there are plenty of animals that can't form fists and strike like we do, but can strike without issue due to their own morphology.

MA73 "Hammer Fist" covers "punches with the palm or heel of an open hand" in addition to "the side of a clenched fist" so you really don't even need to make a fist at all to hit with a fist... weirdly enough. "Palm or Heel Punch" sounds like it should be a different technique though.

I remember reading in 3e that Poor/Bad Grip explicitly didn't apply to punching. Although I could see if you had to make some kind of skill roll to grab weapons (perhaps including making a fist out of an open palm: grabbing nothing but carefully tucking fingers to avoid harm) that it should apply there.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

could be, I think that the particular harsh realism box is talking about unarmed fighting so naturally enough limits itself to unarmed fighting (it makes the point that armed fighter already suffer an off hand penalty).

Only a DX penalty though, a ST penalty also sounds good.

Technical Grappling basically uses a ratio of -10% ST = -1 to DX (with how Control Points ratios work) so it would even make sense to give -40% to ST with the off hand. That might scale better than -2 to ST, since that basically gives a ST 2 creature ST 0 punches with off hand, way more serious than some ST 100 guy having ST 98 punches with off hand.

Originally Posted by Rupert

it usually becomes grappling and then goes to ground, and is mostly more grappling and biting.

This would be reflected better if punches went back to being reach 1 weapons like in 3e. We could still allow them in Close Combat (I think you couldn't use them in CC in 3e?) but use MA117 rules for Long Weapons in Close Combat (-4 per max reach) to cause punches to be -4 to hit in Close Combat.

This would explain why people move to grappling (to avoid the others' punches, we see this with boxers) and why people would do stuff like biting/foreheadbutting/elbowing as you can keep those C-range attacks.

If that were done then "Pummeling" should probably be reach 1 as well.

LWiCC could also have ST penalties scaled to its DX penalties, but given that this would mean -120% ST at -12 to DX it might be a bit extreme. Might work better if instead of -4/yard LWiCC was shrunk to -3/yard, then you'd only be -90% at 3 yards. Or even -2 per yard, since that would give an easier to work with -1/yard for parrying.

Actually perhaps that might make a good technique: the ability to buy off some of the penalties from using longer weapons, which would also buy off 10%-per-point of the scaled ST % reduction. So if someone really wanted to be good at making wrap-shots with 4-yard spears, they could do that.

It could be like Targeted Attack where you can only buy down the penalty to half normal so it can never be as good, but better, to allow someone initially striking with a 3-yard spear into close combat at -12 to hit -120% ST to reduce that to -6 to hit -60% ST for 6 points.

You wouldn't need to buy this technique to have options though: if you get to -120% ST then basically you're making 0-damage hits and relying on the minimum damage from impaling/cutting (1) to injure them, or else you can use Pummeling with your weapon to make crushing attacks at higher ST (60%) and more accuracy.

Perhaps the Technical Grappling options could be expanded to allow Control Points to be spent to buy off penalties other than those from Hit Location, such as penalties for low Size Modifier, penalties for Shock, penalties to hit people who used Defensive Feint, penalties to hit someone in the dark (or Obscure), or penalties for using Long Weapons in Close Combat.

[Lord Azagthoth]

Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
You're already going to get a lot of argument at tables about a normal person only having a 50% chance to hit someone who doesn't defend themselves,

For stationary targets, you get a +4, take 3 turns extra and you are at +7. At 16+ you have a 98.1% to hit with DX 10. If the target moves, you're still at 83.8%

[Gollum]

Exactly.

And as it has been said above, if you use the telegraphic attack option, you even get a further +4. Going beyond 17 is not really required. But for an average totally unskilled guy, it still makes 10 + 4 + 4 + 3 - 5 = an effective skill of 16 to hit the face.

Of course, it is when the adversary doesn't move at all ...

But people who complain ("It's impossible to miss a target who doesn't move at all, even for Untrained-Average-Joe!") usually imagine a situation where they can take all the time they want to hit their target and, thus, just forget that a GURPS turn lasts only 1 second (which is very short if you also have to make your decision during that time!) and that it is also supposed to be a stressful and dangerous second during which other enemies want to kill you, not just a friendly demonstration like: "Just look... If you stand there and don't move, I cannot miss your face, even if I have never learned the last thing about unarmed combat ..." (followed by a demonstration in slow motion to prove that they are right).

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Lord Azagthoth

For stationary targets, you get a +4, take 3 turns extra and you are at +7. At 16+ you have a 98.1% to hit with DX 10. If the target moves, you're still at 83.8%

But a human being who is up and standing but just isn't parrying isn't a stationary target.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

But a human being who is up and standing but just isn't parrying isn't a stationary target.

Right. You don't get the +4 for "stationary target" (also due to non stressful situation) ... But since he neither defends nor attacks (he doesn't move), you don't have to defend yourself and, so, you can easily get the +4 for all-out attack.

+4 for all-out attack and +3 for three turns of evaluate maneuver still make a +7.

[Plane]

Stationary is a weird concept. Obviously anyone who takes a step or makes an attack isn't stationary, but what about someone standing up and taking a Do Nothing? Or a psychic just standing there using a Concentrate to put up a Mind Shield and not making any kind of step?

You could say that making any kind of active defence (even if it fails) means you're non-stationary, but then what about people who can't make them, like people using All-Out Concentrate (GURPS Psionics Powers) or people who get surprise-attacked while standing guard (they fail their Hearing roll so they don't get a chance to dodge).

Where's the +4 described?

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Plane

Where's the +4 described?

I don't really know. I read about it here or there in the forum and always considered it as the bonus for situations without stress. That kind of situations is described in Basic set, Characters, Meaning of Skill Levels, Probability of Success, page 171 (especially the example about a day-to-day flying). You can also read about them in High-Tech, page 85, Plinking vs. Combat Shooting.

But, personally, I use only that bonus for peaceful training with a cardboard target, a punch bag or the likes ...

For living human target who may be stationary for a while but who can still suddenly attack if they are not knocked-out by the first blow, I prefer using the all-out attack modifier, as said above.

Now, Lord Azagthoth may have a reference that I didn't read.

[Lord Azagthoth]

I have to look it up but it came to my attention during a session when someone wanted to kick in a door and moments before that, when someone wanted to take a snipershot at a guard standing still in front of that same door (half asleep and totally unaware). In about 2 hours, I'm at my work where I can look it up.

[Rupert]

I think the "+4 for a stationary target" is actually a 3e thing. The closest 4e has is the instruction to use a +4 to hit when throwing a grenade, etc. at the ground (B414, box). As a 1-yard hex is SM-2 for length +2 for shape for a net SM+0 it follows that the +4 to hit is, as in 3e, for attacking an absolutely stationary object. In 3e it was also used to attack an unaware person, but in 4e that's covered by Telegraphic Attack (or, pre-MA, by taking three Evaluates).

[Lord Azagthoth]

Originally Posted by Rupert

I think the "+4 for a stationary target" is actually a 3e thing. The closest 4e has is the instruction to use a +4 to hit when throwing a grenade, etc. at the ground (B414, box). As a 1-yard hex is SM-2 for length +2 for shape for a net SM+0 it follows that the +4 to hit is, as in 3e, for attacking an absolutely stationary object. In 3e it was also used to attack an unaware person, but in 4e that's covered by Telegraphic Attack (or, pre-MA, by taking three Evaluates).

Must be it. Three of the four players are used to play 3e.