02-04-2012, 09:17 AM | #41 | |
Dog of Lysdexics
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Melbourne FL, Formerly Wellington NZ
|
Re: Encouraging different attacks
Quote:
Kromm's idea takes Evaluate's bonus and limits it to a random location in changed gives a flat penalty compatible to dual weapon attack's and is not an improvable technique Last edited by roguebfl; 02-04-2012 at 09:23 AM. |
|
02-05-2012, 06:57 AM | #42 | |
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Meifumado
|
Re: Encouraging different attacks
Quote:
I was mainly looking at this post, where they are discussing the 'narrative' meaning of the idea, not the original over-twinked technique which Figleaf originally came up with but then changed. And Kromm's idea does reduce Active Defenses, albeit only for certain types of attack and only when 'torso' is rolled, just not as much as Figleaf's did.
__________________
Collaborative Settings: Cyberpunk: Duopoly Nation Space Opera: Behind the King's Eclipse And heaps of forum collabs, 30+ and counting! |
|
02-05-2012, 09:00 AM | #43 |
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Re: Encouraging different attacks
Maybe this is just me, but I'd reverse the order the rolls on Kromm's table, especially if using the Carrot and Stick method. The AD bonus already gives a reason to mix up hit locations, so roll the other table first to mix up tactics, and then if the first roll is a 6 roll to see what body part opens up.
And if you're using Carrot and Stick, perhaps give Evaluate some special advantages over the other maneuvers. Like, on subsequent rounds, allowing a successful Per (or Per-based skill) roll to increase the bonus/penalty to a maximum of +/-3 (a failed roll loses an accumulated bonus). |
02-05-2012, 09:22 AM | #44 | |
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Verona, Italy
|
Re: Encouraging different attacks
Quote:
__________________
My Vanity Vent... |
|
02-05-2012, 09:46 AM | #45 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
|
Re: Encouraging different attacks
Quote:
Similarily, sword and target and sword and buckler often use shield strikes. In GURPS this is generally a bad idea, since the damage is low, but sometimes this is the best option in the complex situation of a real fight or sparring. The random hit location table can't make you chose to shield strike or pommel strike rather than swing or thrust.
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature |
|
02-05-2012, 10:00 AM | #46 |
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Land of the Beer, Home of the Dirndls
|
Re: Encouraging different attacks
Which would make the Random Opportunity Table worse than the random hit location table, so further putting the need for a successful extra roll to be able to use it in question.
|
02-05-2012, 10:49 AM | #47 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
|
Re: Encouraging different attacks
Huh? I don't understand what you mean. In Kromm's table, there is a 20% chance (1-5 on 1d after rolling 9 or 10 on 3d) that the opening will be a chance to grab, shove, slam, kick, strike with the off hand, strike with the pommel, or strike with the butt.
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature |
02-05-2012, 10:53 AM | #48 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Most definitely alone
|
Re: Encouraging different attacks
Going back to the original post, one thing I could suggest (from the information there), is: make sure you are giving the players those 'exploitable moments'.
Have the guy with a sword thrust at you, then step into close combat--so you might want to punch him instead of stepping out and then attacking with a sword. Have the fight on the edge of a cliff, so you can't step out of close combat with someone easily, so you need to punch him. Make sure the opposition has differing armor. If the guy you're fighting has lots of armor, but no helmet, that's a lot of incentive to go for the head. If he steps into close combat, then there's a little incentive to go for the head-butt or uppercut. If another guy has a helmet, you might maneuver around to take advantage of his No Peripheral Vision. Make sure the opposition has differing weapons. If one guy has a flail, you're going to not use those parries as much. If another guy has a weapon he has to ready after each strike, you might want to keep moving to his weapon side to attack. If another guy has a long weapon, you might want to keep moving up inside his reach. I don't have any problems with some of the other ideas suggested (though the most awesome ones also sound like more work). I do think, however, that it's worth looking at your own GMing style. If using a particular attack over and over IS the best strategy, then you can't really blame the PC's for taking it. Another idea (which just occurred to me) was to allow Evaluate to ignore -2 in penalties for a specific hit location. This option couldn't stack, like a regular Evaluate (since the person moves and presents different postures as the fight goes on). However, you could say "I'm looking for an opening to hit him in the jaw" and use an Evaluate, and remove -2 from the penalty to hit the jaw. I haven't tried that, since I just thought of it, but it would be a way to represent going for an opening without requiring any rolls to do so.
__________________
Build a man a fire and he's warm for the night. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. |
02-05-2012, 03:12 PM | #49 | |
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Land of the Beer, Home of the Dirndls
|
Re: Encouraging different attacks
Quote:
Or, to put it in list form: Pros of Kromm's Random Opportunity Table:
Cons of Kromm's Random Opportunity Table:
(The last item is basically the whole point of this thread, I just listed it as a con in a straight comparison.) I don't see a particular reason why you wouldn't give a roll on both tables as options to a player, without additional action, perk or skill requirements. (Not saying that you couldn't have techniques and/or perks that would tie in with this mechanic) |
|
02-05-2012, 11:15 PM | #50 |
GURPS Line Editor
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
|
Re: Encouraging different attacks
My table almost certainly needs testing, adjustment, etc. Count the words and divide by about 45; that's how many minutes it took me (c. 10). It's strictly off-the-cuff, and doubtless needs work.
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com> GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News] |
Tags |
kromm answer, maneuvers |
|
|