Combat- Why not contests of skills?

[Recnam Orcen]

Originally Posted by lawman

So that Kung Fu Master, let's assume skill 20, can use his skill to punch for a difficult target (skull, effective skill 14) with very good chance of succeeding, but being parried even by a lesser student.

Or he can utilize his incredible Kung-Fu-Action-Movie speed and take -8 to his attack, aiming for the torso. Now, the student parries at -4, which will probably be a 6 or less for even a competant student.

To me, though, this creates something of the same situation Kromm wanted to avoid. The called shot to the head is easier to parry.

I would say it is correct because the head is smaller than the body, it is easier to protect. Less surface to defend. Having done karate for 5 years, I can say that it is easier to hit and not be parried by a debutant if you hit the body.

If you feint the body (simulated by feint or deceptive attack) and then attack the head, that’s another story.

[lawman]

Originally Posted by Recnam Orcen

I would say it is correct because the head is smaller than the body, it is easier to protect. Less surface to defend. Having done karate for 5 years, I can say that it is easier to hit and not be parried by a debutant if you hit the body.

If you feint the body (simulated by feint or deceptive attack) and then attack the head, that’s another story.

Good point.

Actually, I think it makes sense for some locations to be easier to defend. I just meant that it went back to the situation Kromm seemed to warn against.

If we wanted to get complicated, wouldn't each hit location have a different bonus/penalty to defend. The head may be easier to defend, but the hands might be harder to defend. I find my legs harder to defend than my torso, etc.

[Eljay451]

Originally Posted by lawman

btw, why was the Kung Fu Master fighting the 7-year old girl, again?

The 7-year old girl wouldn't give the Kung Fu Master her candy.

[jSarek]

Originally Posted by lawman

For the 7 year old girl, I'd say her attack chance was so low, that defense isn't a problem.

Exactly. Let's not forget that a 7 year old's DX is lower, too, so her defaults are going to be craptacular. If she manages to roll well enough to succeed, well, then she got lucky, just like her player did, and the Master is going to have to defend.

btw, why was the Kung Fu Master fighting the 7-year old girl, again?

Did we forget to mention that she's a seven-year-old Felicia-series combat bioroid that emerged fully grown from a biogenesis tank?

Oops.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by jSarek

Did we forget to mention that she's a seven-year-old Felicia-series combat bioroid that emerged fully grown from a biogenesis tank.

Hey, seven's pretty old in cat years.

[Recnam Orcen]

Originally Posted by lawman

Good point.

Actually, I think it makes sense for some locations to be easier to defend. I just meant that it went back to the situation Kromm seemed to warn against.

If we wanted to get complicated, wouldn't each hit location have a different bonus/penalty to defend. The head may be easier to defend, but the hands might be harder to defend. I find my legs harder to defend than my torso, etc.

I think you are right and it could (not saying should) be more complicated to add some realism. I do not know all the thinking that Kromm and David did behind it but they took at least 2 years to deconstruct the system and they certainly went through those issues. In the end, it certainly came down to statistics and playability.

I must say that one of the things that was bugging me in 3E was that a skill 25 had to make a feint if he wanted to lower the defence of let say a skill 16. Now with deceptive attack, he could attack once at 19 for a –3 and still have a good chance to hit. Now if he is trained by a master, he could do rapid strike (feint) and then attack (deceptive attack). Let just say that in Kromm’s game, I am not the weapon master but I have seen it in use and it is quite deadly. WM don’t have 4 or 5 attacks anymore but the 2 or 3 they have are more deadlier and fights are shorter.

[lawman]

Originally Posted by Recnam Orcen

I think you are right and it could (not saying should) be more complicated to add some realism. I do not know all the thinking that Kromm and David did behind it but they took at least 2 years to deconstruct the system and they certainly went through those issues. In the end, it certainly came down to statistics and playability.

I must say that one of the things that was bugging me in 3E was that a skill 25 had to make a feint if he wanted to lower the defence of let say a skill 16. Now with deceptive attack, he could attack once at 19 for a –3 and still have a good chance to hit. Now if he is trained by a master, he could do rapid strike (feint) and then attack (deceptive attack). Let just say that in Kromm’s game, I am not the weapon master but I have seen it in use and it is quite deadly. WM don’t have 4 or 5 attacks anymore but the 2 or 3 they have are more deadlier and fights are shorter.

I have yet to see such a thing; I can only imagine it in my head. But I love it.

Glad to hear it, recnamorceN ;)

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by stilleon

Why does the attacker have a better chance to hit? I agree with fire arms, but man to man it is different. When you learn a martial art you learn a lot of defense before you begin to learn your offense because if you are hit you lose. I think most trained combatatant's melee skills should have the defense at least as high or higher than his offense.

Do the numbers. Skill/2+3 is the base for a block, and once you count retreating (+3 for Boxing, Judi, or Karate) it's Skill/2+6. That means a Karate-12 guy (who, if he's an average person, has put 12 points into the skill - 2400 hours training - he's dedicated) has defence equal to his skill as long as he keeps backing away. Less dedicated people have higher defence than skill. My concern is more that defence is likely to be too high than too low - I expect any half-way competent character to manage defence-12 or more for their best defence, and Dodge-10-12 won't be unusual for PC-grade characters, I think.

The new rules about -2 attack for -1 defense helps, but it is not the solution. The solution is to make your rules follow the same logic throughout. GURPS needs to bring combat on par with the skill ststem and add this as an optional system.

IIRC Douglas Cole tried this back before G4 was announced, and found there to be some issues with play speed, and so on.

I looked at it, and decided I didn't like the likely effect on damage vs armour, and on gun-damage (which really is independant of the attacker's skill, aside from carefully aimed hits to vital locations - something GURPS already covers well).

[S41NT]

To me, though, this creates something of the same situation Kromm wanted to avoid. The called shot to the head is easier to parry.

But for that you can still make a regular feint, right? The feint move is still in the 4th edition, I guess.

Anyway, I really like the deceptive move idea. I really wanna see how it will work in play.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by Rupert

IIRC Douglas Cole tried this back before G4 was announced, and found there to be some issues with play speed, and so on.

I was part of that discussion w/ D Cole, and replied to him that it seemed strange that the -2 TH/-1 AD rule would cause any slowness of play. IIRC, he then reviewed the games in question, and allowed that the slowness actually stemmed from a handful of additional house rules he'd implemented at the same time, not the above rule.

There's no reason why the above rule would slow play; it's just a pair of modifiers like any other, with no bookkeeping between rounds -- and by addressing "unbeatable" defenses, makes combat run more *quickly*. I've spoken in favor of it for a long time, and am glad to see it in 4e.