Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-19-2011, 01:45 PM   #11
roguebfl
Dog of Lysdexics
 
roguebfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Melbourne FL, Formerly Wellington NZ
Default Re: Some Focused Defense questions for playtesters

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
Sure you do. Just do a Wait like in other similar situations.
Which Utterly fails the reality test. stepping in CC you almost open yourself to such counters, not until you successfully there that you gain the CC advantage again reach 1 weapons, it just very hard to get there unharmed.
__________________
Rogue the Bronze Firelizard
Gerald Grenier, Jr. Hail Eris!
Rogue's Weyr
roguebfl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2011, 01:48 PM   #12
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: Some Focused Defense questions for playtesters

Quote:
Originally Posted by roguebfl View Post
Which Utterly fails the reality test. stepping in CC you almost open yourself to such counters, not until you successfully there that you gain the CC advantage again reach 1 weapons, it just very hard to get there unharmed.
Why? In reality, long-reach people usually are waiting for the unarmed person to approach. This smells of Attack of Opportunity too much, where people abstract typical wait tactics into free attacks.
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2011, 02:12 PM   #13
cmdicely
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Some Focused Defense questions for playtesters

Quote:
Originally Posted by roguebfl View Post
The point of the clarification is with out it you NEVER given the opptunity to smack them them before the step in.
Sure you are. You just Wait. Heck, the Stop Thrust version of Wait in the Basic Set is exactly and specifically a special tool for getting people as they come in with a thrusting weapon (the general version of Wait, though, works with any weapon.)

Further, the clarification can't exist for that reason because the clarification never helps you hit somebody on the way in, it only helps you defend against them once they've already stepped in.
cmdicely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2011, 02:18 PM   #14
cmdicely
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Some Focused Defense questions for playtesters

Quote:
Originally Posted by roguebfl View Post
Which Utterly fails the reality test.
No, it doesn't.

Quote:
stepping in CC you almost open yourself to such counters
Not merely "almost", you do open yourself up to attacks moving into CC. But preparing to offensively exploit a special opening produced by an action that an enemy might take on their turn is one of the things that a GURPS Wait is for.

Quote:
not until you successfully there that you gain the CC advantage again reach 1 weapons
Right, and the rules change that lets you defend as if it range 1 on the turn on which someone has moved into CC means that the person moving into CC doesn't even get that advantage once they have moved in.
cmdicely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2011, 09:40 AM   #15
Polydamas
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
Default Re: Some Focused Defense questions for playtesters

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
THat's the whole point. It is assumed that I grapple as I'm stepping into CC, and never stepping into CC and then grappling. OTOH, the defender is assumed to be stepping out of CC and then swinging against the would-be grappler. The interpretation of the order of events is asymmetric: somehow stepping forward is considered to take longer (effectively being a Full-Turn effect) than stepping backward (instant effect). What's worse, Retreating on the grappler's turn results in the defender not starting his turn in CC. However, if the Reach-C person does a Slip to get into CC on the swordsman's turn, guess what? The swordsman still didn't start his turn in CC.

And while theoretically having a wall behind the defender, or successfully grappling him, would prevent stepping/retreating out of CC, take note of these two facts: Retreating need not be directly backwards; having grappled the swordsman requires passing the grapple check, hoping the parry misses, and hoping the sword misses if the parry succeeds.

Things get worse when the CC character is a non-grappler. 'Knife should go into CC because swords are not CC weapons' was sound advice in the age of Basic Set. With the FAQ/MA addition, non-C weapons are disadvantaged only and only if the swordsman (etc.) is already immobile, which usually means he already got successfully attacked.
I still don't understand. The rule looks to me as if the defender parries as the attacker steps in. Generally, if you try to grab me and I have a weapon in hand, my weapon can reach your arm before you are in range to grapple. If you step in then extend your arm your body will be hit instead. If Pierre was standing with a ready sword, and Joe did a Move and Attack to grapple, it would not be realistic to forbid Pierre from parrying the grapple with his sword because by the time Pierre grapples he is already in Close Combat. I think the intent of the rule is that an unarmed fighter cannot grapple a ready armed one without risking being hit at least once.

Despite what cmdicely says its not any more of a D&D 3e attack of opportunity than a parry is: all maneuvers incorporate an element of "Wait: If someone attacks me and hits, Dodge, Parry, or Block".

I just posted three examples of fights where the players had limited ability to Retreat, Sidestep, or Slip.
__________________
"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
Polydamas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2011, 09:51 AM   #16
Polydamas
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
Default Re: Some Focused Defense questions for playtesters

Thanks Gold & Appel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc View Post
A rapier is still a big, long thing in a denied hand... It would be pretty awkward to try to stick somebody with the pointy end who was in CC with you, IMHO.
The trouble is that I have used a 48” sword in Close Combat while grappling a thousand or so times. The stance looks a lot like the Roman stance with sword and shield. I'd say its significantly more awkward than a knife at that range, so a -4 penalty to skill seems reasonable, but I wanted to confirm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc View Post
That seems really awkward, too... the whole point of a cross parry is to meet the attack squarely with both arms and the whole of your upper body strength, right? I could see it working against a flank attack from the side the front of your torso is facing, but otherwise not so much IMHO.
Any idea why they didn't write that? Gamers being gamers, even if you only use this rule for gladiator games some retarius is going to try to use his dagger and trident at the same time then have to Cross Parry a shield strike. I have no idea whether there are cross parries which work with a refused side ... that's what SJ Games gets volunteer researchers for!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc View Post
In gladiatorial combat (as with many other types), the shield is also a weapon. It seems fairly reasonable to me for a guy with a large shield and armor on his shield arm to lead with that arm and rely on his sword parry + DB for defense.
But the whole point of refusing the sword hand is the bonus it gives to defend with the shield hand (and lets you keep the vulnerable sword arm somewhere safe). My impression of ancient combat is that the shield was used to defend and create openings and the spear or sword was used to strike. Not to mention that parrying too many shield strikes with a shortsword will get you a broken sword ...

Does that meet a reality check from people who have trained with gladiatorial arms? I have trouble envisioning a situation where one can move a shield 2” to bash a thigh, but not move it 2” to knock aside a thrust.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc View Post
Additional Note: While we did discuss Deny Left and Deny Right, we mostly seemed to agree that they worked as-is and spent more time on the authors' Deny Lower idea, which was eventually ruled to be more appropriate for sport wrestling and kind of irrelevant to deadly combat (outside of special cases such as fantasy minotaurs).
Would that be a stance like Salvator Fabris recommended with the torso and head leaning far forward?
__________________
"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
Polydamas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2011, 10:14 AM   #17
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Some Focused Defense questions for playtesters

I seem to recall reading that under certain circumstances you could follow a character trying to back out of close combat out-of-turn. Which is the right solution to the problem of easy disengagement, I think...it's not hard to step clear if you're not grappled, but your opponent can keep crowding you.

But I can't find it. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2011, 10:18 AM   #18
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: Some Focused Defense questions for playtesters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polydamas View Post
I still don't understand. The rule looks to me as if the defender parries as the attacker steps in. Generally, if you try to grab me and I have a weapon in hand, my weapon can reach your arm before you are in range to grapple. If you step in then extend your arm your body will be hit instead. If Pierre was standing with a ready sword, and Joe did a Move and Attack to grapple, it would not be realistic to forbid Pierre from parrying the grapple with his sword because by the time Pierre grapples he is already in Close Combat. I think the intent of the rule is that an unarmed fighter cannot grapple a ready armed one without risking being hit at least once.

Despite what cmdicely says its not any more of a D&D 3e attack of opportunity than a parry is: all maneuvers incorporate an element of "Wait: If someone attacks me and hits, Dodge, Parry, or Block".

I just posted three examples of fights where the players had limited ability to Retreat, Sidestep, or Slip.
The argument 'but your body will be hit instead' should apply to all other Reaches. Examples:

Claws (C) vs. Staff (1,2): Claws move from 1 to C and wants to attack Staffer. Staffer parries at no penalty. If Claws wants to move first and then attack, staffer suddenly gets a free attack?
Knife (C) vs. Staff (1,2): Knifer moves from 1 to C, and wants to attack the Staffer. Staffer defends at no penalty. If knifer steps first and attacks then, what happens?
Long Knife (C,1) vs. S (1,2): K moves from 3 to 2. Should the staffer get a free attack again?
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2011, 01:24 PM   #19
cmdicely
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Some Focused Defense questions for playtesters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polydamas View Post
I still don't understand. The rule looks to me as if the defender parries as the attacker steps in.
Which is the only case in GURPS where the parry occurs at a different range for the defender than the range at which the attack is launched by the attacker, and there is no justification or need for this special case rule, and, further, it completely negates the realistic utility of using Slip to close distance followed by a CC attack on your turn for attackers using reach C attacks against a defender with a Reach 1 weapon.

Quote:
Generally, if you try to grab me and I have a weapon in hand, my weapon can reach your arm before you are in range to grapple.
Even more generally, if you try to attack me with any weapon, and I have a longer weapon, I can reach you before you are within range to attack me.

But, again, that's one of the things the Wait maneuver explicitly addresses. You don't need a special rule for it.

In general, the movement that occurs with an attack maneuver can happen either before or after the attack, but the attack happens at a particular range at which the defender and attacker are treated equally. If the defender wants to use a weapon to hold an opponent off and strike their body to prevent them from closing range to attack, the defender Waits. There is no need for a special rule.

Quote:
If you step in then extend your arm your body will be hit instead.
If the defender chooses to attack you as you step in. Which is exactly what a Wait is for.

Quote:
If Pierre was standing with a ready sword, and Joe did a Move and Attack to grapple, it would not be realistic to forbid Pierre from parrying the grapple with his sword because by the time Pierre grapples he is already in Close Combat.
Yes, it would. A preemptive "parry" before an attack is launched isn't a parry, its an attack. To do that before the opponent moves in, attack on your turn. To do it in response to the opponent moving in, before they attack, do a Wait.

Quote:
I think the intent of the rule is that an unarmed fighter cannot grapple a ready armed one without risking being hit at least once.
An effect which the rules already model perfectly fine without a special case rule treating reach C as reach 1 for the defender on the turn it is first moved into without doing the same at any other reach.

OTOH, with the special case rule, the person with the reach 1 weapon can attack at reach 1, have the grappler slip the attack and close, and still get a full parry when the grappler attacks even though the grappler started at Reach C, since the weapon-wielder started their turn at Reach 1.

Quote:
Despite what cmdicely says its not any more of a D&D 3e attack of opportunity than a parry is
Why are you attributing an argument to me that I never made?

My argument is that it is complication that isn't necessary to model anything, and is needlessly inconsistent with the treatment of like circumstances. It is added complexity that makes the combat rules worse.

I never said anything about D&D 3e AoO in relation to this. That was vicky_molokh.
cmdicely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2011, 07:04 PM   #20
Polydamas
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
Default Re: Some Focused Defense questions for playtesters

Vicky, I think understand now. Part of the problem is how to map the three "watching and waiting" manoeuvers (AoD, Evaluate, Wait) into the real world to decide what situations it is reasonable to assume that the defender is Waiting. I can't dig up any Kromm posts discussing why the rule changed (did it change? I don't have my 3e books to hand) between 3e and 4e, and I can think of a case for either version, and this is off topic, so I will leave it be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
I seem to recall reading that under certain circumstances you could follow a character trying to back out of close combat out-of-turn. Which is the right solution to the problem of easy disengagement, I think...it's not hard to step clear if you're not grappled, but your opponent can keep crowding you.

But I can't find it. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
I think its a Committed Attack with two steps. You can step into Close Combat, attack, then step after the defender if he retreats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmdicely
Why are you attributing an argument to me that I never made?

My argument is that it is complication that isn't necessary to model anything, and is needlessly inconsistent with the treatment of like circumstances. It is added complexity that makes the combat rules worse.

I never said anything about D&D 3e AoO in relation to this. That was vicky_molokh.
Yes, I see. My apologies.
__________________
"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
Polydamas is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
focused defense, gladiators, maneuvers, martial arts, martial arts: gladiators

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.