Do Feint and Deceptive Attack maneuvers produce cumulative defense penalties?

[Gudiomen]

Originally Posted by Midelvia

Thanks for the clarification.... I will follow the rules.

For the record.... I have players that will bend the rules until the scream but don't break... I get them back by doing the same to them when they are GM.

That being said.... I still don't want them to stack because I'm mean. ;) LOL

I'd avoid the "getting back" mentality when GM'ing or as a player. It's not GM vs. players, and they are all working towards a common goal: to have fun in the most distributed manner possible.

It's neither a question of "being mean" any alteration of the rules is going to change game balance. But your statement makes me think that your reasoning is that allowing cumulative feint penlaties favors the players in some way. It doesn't, their adversaries will have the same benefit. If their adversaries don't use their heads... well, maybe they should.

[Captain-Captain]

I find myself areeing with Toadkiller's reasoning. While it may be game legal I think I'll houserule that Deceptive attacks are cinematic alternate rules to feinting. One or the other and in realistic games, feints only.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by Captain-Captain

I find myself areeing with Toadkiller's reasoning. While it may be game legal I think I'll houserule that Deceptive attacks are cinematic alternate rules to feinting. One or the other and in realistic games, feints only.

Er. As I read Toadkiller's point, he was saying that stacking Feints was unrealistic, not combining Feints and Deceptive Attacks.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Captain-Captain

I find myself areeing with Toadkiller's reasoning. While it may be game legal I think I'll houserule that Deceptive attacks are cinematic alternate rules to feinting. One or the other and in realistic games, feints only.

Well please note that I don't think stacking Deceptive Attack with Feint is unrealistic at all! Stacking Feint on Feint is, or at least that is the overwhelming opinion of fighters and martial historians. But a Deceptive Attack can very easily be based on:

- sheer speed, where you trade some accuracy for a faster strike

- an odd line of attack that makes it difficult to defend, but also difficult to land a productive blow

- a truly "deceptive" attack based on attack in an expected location or breaking your timing.

Note that all of these logically and realistically can follow a Feint! I'm saying that if you Feint and then Feint again, realistically you're tossing away the first one and often undermining the second. But following a deceptive motion to get someone to open up or react predictably with a deceptive attack is perfectly realistic. It is the basis of what is known as Progressive Indirect Attacking (PIA), a term used extensively by Bruce Lee but based on long-known principles of fighting.

[Captain-Captain]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

Well please note that I don't think stacking Deceptive Attack with Feint is unrealistic at all! Stacking Feint on Feint is, or at least that is the overwhelming opinion of fighters and martial historians. But a Deceptive Attack can very easily be based on:

- sheer speed, where you trade some accuracy for a faster strike

- an odd line of attack that makes it difficult to defend, but also difficult to land a productive blow

- a truly "deceptive" attack based on attack in an expected location or breaking your timing.

Note that all of these logically and realistically can follow a Feint! I'm saying that if you Feint and then Feint again, realistically you're tossing away the first one and often undermining the second. But following a deceptive motion to get someone to open up or react predictably with a deceptive attack is perfectly realistic. It is the basis of what is known as Progressive Indirect Attacking (PIA), a term used extensively by Bruce Lee but based on long-known principles of fighting.

Sheer speed is best represented by rapid attack or upwards on the multiple attack chain, not as deceptive which pretty much includes faking out your oppoent so it does overlap with the Feint mechanic.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Captain-Captain

Sheer speed is best represented by rapid attack or upwards on the multiple attack chain, not as deceptive which pretty much includes faking out your oppoent so it does overlap with the Feint mechanic.

Not according to GURPS Martial Arts, which discusses what a Deceptive Attack is. Plus, a very fast attack might be your only attack. Say, for a cinematic example, the straight punch Lee uses vs, Ohara in the duel in Enter the Dragon, or for more real-world examples a single jab, single-finger eye poke, or a sharp fast kick. They're all mean to defeat the opponent's defenses by sheer speed, and often as not are not followed by any other strike. So calling them "Rapid Strikes" or multiple attacks is really not a good way to model them.

You're welcome to do what you want in your own games, of course. But the intention behind Deceptive Attack isn't a non-stacking alterntive to Feint, but rather a way to model the various methods a fighter has for using his own skill to attempt attacks that are more difficult to fend off. As Sean said, you're not worse off for having Feinted the guy before you try to hit him with something he'd be hard-pressed to stop if he didn't fall for the Feint.

[roguebfl]

Yep on good example I use in Fencing, is an Feint on an angle they are unsure on how much they need to defend [I'm a lefty it which makes this easy on anyone but some who has a regualry lefty sparing partner]

when they over comit themselves [Feint] I follow it wit a Quick Strike in the Open Area, before they can recover [Decpetive Attack]

[mcv]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

Realistically, though, this just doesn't work. Following a feint with a tricky attack is one thing, but following a feint with a feint isn't very effective. You can very easily nullify your feints - you've wasted the first one to follow it up with another.

Not true. I've done double and triple feints with nunchakus, and they're very effective. It was in "do" sports-style competition, and feints were necessary to score clean hits. I can still remember a very nice maneuver where I first feinted at his face or chest, then at his leg, and finally scored a very beautiful hit on the top of his head.

I have no idea if the penalties stacked, or if I just sensed that my initial feint wasn't good enough to sufficiently lower his defense, and therefore had to try again, which is also a very valid reason to do multiple feints in a row.

Ofcourse if they stack, each feint still carries the risk that it fails, so if you do too many feints in a row, you do risk losing the penalty you've built up.

You've created a gap, caused a reaction, forced an interruption in rhythm - and then tried to do that same thing again. It won't help you. Far from not expecting the attack in the least, he's very likely to be exceptionally on guard for it - you've telegraphed your intentions now matter how tricky your feints are, they're ultimately clearly feints...you didn't attack him.

But eventually you will. Once he thinks everything is a feint, you can hit him.

I've heard the "get them so off-balance they can't defend" logic to stacked feints, but the overwhelming evidence I found from fighting manuals, discussions with fighters, books on the martial arts, and observations and participations in fights, is that following a feint with another feint merely wastes the first one, it doesn't make the second more likely to succeed or the defender less able to defend. Often, it encourages him to concentrate on defense until you're finished messing around (AOD in game terms) or just womp on you since you're clearly not about to whack him (Usually an Attack, but can also be an AOA).

If you're opponent doesn't attack you, that's just as much a win as a successful attack on him.

I agree that a good feint, meaning a big defense penalty, should always be followed up by an attack. Not doing so would allow him to recover. But a bad feint (or a good yet unsuccessful feint) should be followed up by a better feint. No use in wasting an attack if the opponent still has his defense ready. So I think that would mean feints shouldn't stack.


mcv.

[mcv]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Going fake-fake-fake-fake-... is pretty silly. It's a good way to let the other guy know that you think you are t3h h4wt at fighting and are trying to feint him. A bit like the scene in some martial-arts movies where the showoff does all kinds of crazy moves while his opponent just stares at him like he's an idiot.

That's not a feint, that's just showing off. A real feint is not some fancy swing, it's something that could have been an attack, but is broken off and followed with another attack just when the defender is already committed to a defense to the first attack.

I can imagine two experenced fighters with excellent defenses constantly feinting at each other by footwork and shifting their weight and not even swinging a weapon at all. Then, when one of them reacts just a bit too strongly to one of those subtle feints, his opponent takes advantage of it and makes a real attack.

What's not properly reflected in GURPS combat rules is that an attack, [i]any[/] attack, leaves you open to a counter attack. People who don't want to be hit, only attack when they know their attack will work and their opponent can't counter immediately.

Going fake-tricky attack-fake-tricky attack-... is effective.

Only when the fake was effective. After a bad fake, you might want to do a better fake instead of committing to a real attack. (Although GURPS carries no real penalty for committing to an attack, I believe.)

I agree that feints shouldn't stack, but not every feint is automatically successful.


mcv.

[Kromm]

@mcv: What Peter and I are saying isn't "every feint is effective." We're saying that neither the person doing a feint nor the person receiving it really knows a darned thing. Did you really fake him out, or is he playing along to suck you in? Did he really miss, or was that a fake? It's a mind game, and short of reading minds, you don't know . . . so it's often a good idea to throw an attack, just to keep the other guy honest. Obviously, if you believe you can read the other guy or sense his chi, none of this will ring true. But it's the baseline assumption in GURPS, unless you actually have special, rubber-realism abilities.

It's crucial to note that:

1. You can do feint after feint in GURPS. It isn't in any way forbidden. All that's forbidden is to have the first feint lower the target's skill against the second feint, and so on -- or for successive feints to give additive penalties. You can certainly feint away until you roll well and feel confident, and only then attack. But only that last, good feint will matter.
   
   
2. Feints aren't merely fakes. I was sloppy in my usage. As far as GURPS is concerned, any ploy done preparatory to an attack in order to make it harder for your target to defend is a "feint." Any strategy used during an attack in order to make it harder for your target to defend is a "Deceptive Attack." You are free to choose one item but only one item from each of these two categories.