08-22-2016, 04:25 PM | #11 | |
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vermont
|
Re: Incentivizing secondary attacks House Rule
Quote:
It would make sense (as a house-rule, or perhaps a perk) for Set-up Attacks to gain some sort of bonus for variety--a high followed by a low, a thrust followed by a cut, switching weapons, etc. Or, perhaps more sensibly, a penalty if the set-up attack is too similar to the attack it's setting up.
__________________
My ongoing thread of GURPS versions of DC Comics characters. |
|
08-22-2016, 04:38 PM | #12 |
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Helmouth, The Netherlands
|
Re: Incentivizing secondary attacks House Rule
I use the Multitasking rules from Spaceships p.50 (each action you take after the first suffers an extra -2).
I apply this rule to attacks and defenses too. So if You attack twice and then have to defend twice these are at 0, -2, -4, -6. Players now take more often the Wait or Evaluate instead of attacking as quickly and often as possible. They can take the penalties on their attacks but want to have their active defenses as high as possible. I'm still deciding whether attacks and active defenses are of the same category or not. If they use the same skill they definitely are. But Attack with Sword skill, Block with Shield skill and Dodge would suffer from a -4 per extra action. |
08-22-2016, 05:17 PM | #13 |
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
|
Re: Incentivizing secondary attacks House Rule
Found it. Christian's Serendipity Engine
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon |
08-23-2016, 04:30 AM | #14 |
Join Date: May 2009
|
Re: Incentivizing secondary attacks House Rule
I have had an idea, now someone else just needs to make it make sense.
First A makes an attack with X and B succeeds with defence Y. Now without making another action A sacrifices their ability to attack with X in order to penalised B's defence with Y. Should B be able to lower their further Defence of Y to penalise A's attack with X? I think this would help model a lot of things we see in cinema, blade-locks and sudden kicks or grabs. Would retroactive deceptive attack, -2 to to further attack for a -1 to further defences, work in this example?
__________________
Maxwell Kensington "Snotkins" Von Smacksalot III |
08-23-2016, 10:17 AM | #15 | |
Join Date: Dec 2012
|
Re: Incentivizing secondary attacks House Rule
Quote:
|
|
08-23-2016, 11:00 AM | #16 | |
Join Date: Dec 2012
|
Re: Incentivizing secondary attacks House Rule
Quote:
Probing Attack The attacker may make an attack with the same penalties to damage as a defensive attack. If the attack roll is successful, whether or not the defender succeeds in an active defense, roll a quick contest of the attackers Per based weapon skill verses the defender's DX or DX based weapon or shield skill (whichever is better). If the attacker succeeds in the quick contest, the attacker's next attack penalizes the defender's active defenses by -2, but only if the attacker makes an attack according to the following margin of success table: MoS of 1-2: attacker must attack with a different weapon/striker or the opposite end of the same weapon (a pommel strike following a blade attack, a butt strike following a spear thrust, etc.--must be significantly different part of the weapon, usually on the opposite end). Grapples are also appropriate follow-up attacks and may be armed grapples with the attacking weapon. MoS of 3-4: attacker must attack with any different part of the weapon. So any options from MoS 1-2 is appropriate, but following a swing with a thrust (or vise versa) or the back side of a double-bitted weapon also works. Special optional rule: a back edge attack with a two-edged sword after a swing is also appropriate, but suffers the same damage penalty as a defensive attack (simulating the weaker nature of the swing with a back edge). MoS of 5+ or critical success: any attack by the attacker following the probing attack reduces the defender's active defense by -2. |
|
08-23-2016, 11:49 AM | #17 | |
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
|
Re: Incentivizing secondary attacks House Rule
Quote:
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon |
|
08-23-2016, 12:00 PM | #18 | |
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Oklahoma City
|
Re: Incentivizing secondary attacks House Rule
This is how I'm handling it (plus some related extras):
Quote:
__________________
The Art of D. Raymond Lunceford, The Daniverse: Core Group Annex The Daniverse Game Blog |
|
08-23-2016, 01:25 PM | #19 |
Join Date: Dec 2012
|
Re: Incentivizing secondary attacks House Rule
Yes, and I like it. The solution I probably will go with will smply be to add a bonus of +2 to the setup attack contest for using an alternate weapon/striker/other end of the weapon for follow-up attack to simulate it being easier to set-up an attack from another angle. This was simply an alternative that focuses on sacrificing damage in the initial attack to find an opening (as opposed to skill) and also to represent the unpredictable nature of that opening in the flow of a fight. It was an attempt at a generalized, simple alternative to the Serendipity Engine DouglasCole linked to that forces the attacker to make different kinds of attacks to take advantage of openings.
|
08-23-2016, 01:37 PM | #20 | ||
Join Date: Dec 2012
|
Re: Incentivizing secondary attacks House Rule
Quote:
|
||
Tags |
active defense, house rule, multiple attacks |
|
|