Evaluate useless? (from Why Wait)

[Polydamas]

Evaluate seems to always be inefficient when you are within Step + Reach of a ready opponent, unless your weapon is unbalanced or will become unready after you strike. It can be useful out of measure, or against an unsuspecting or helpless opponent, or when you absolutely need to make a difficult shot. (Realistically, if your chance of hitting in melee combat is 5 or less you probably shouldn't be attacking that target, so I don't think the “reduce chance of critical failure” argument is strong). Compared to the other manoeuevers, which are useful for skill 10-14 fighters in common situations, it looks very specialized.

It seems like this is tied into "what causes lulls" and how to teach gamers the full intricacy of the GURPS combat rules. And that Evaluate and Wait have a lot in common with each other.

Verjmigorn, a lot of your examples depend on optional rules in Martial Arts and the Basic Set and Tactical Shooting (Riposte, Feverish Defense, Per rolls to notice a weapon and defense penalties when attacked by a weapon you didn't expect). I think that shows that the basic version has problems.

The “it lets you parry with an unbalanced weapon” argument can be analyzed mathematically for different situations. It strikes me as fairly specialized (for example, many unbalanced weapons have balanced attack modes; and few opponents can Rapid Strike or risk an AoA (Double)).

Opponents with 3 or more points in Counterattack (making it better than Riposte) are rare, and the Riposte combat option has never been used in my campaign.

I'm not sure how often three turns of Evaluate, a Feint, and an Attack are better than three Attacks and two Feints. Looks like a statistical problem. In my experience, PCs rarely fight opponents with greatly superior skill (requiring the extra bonus on a Feint), because characters who often fight more skilled opponents tend to lose. And there are other options to deal with opponents with a high defense.

I'm impressed by that example of a 150-200 point character with Parry 18 against one opponent. (3 base, + 8 for skill 16, +1 Combat Reflexes, +3 for a DB 3 shield, +3 for fencing retreat)

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Verjmigorn, a lot of your examples depend on optional rules in Martial Arts and the Basic Set and Tactical Shooting (Riposte, Feverish Defense, Per rolls to notice a weapon and defense penalties when attacked by a weapon you didn't expect). I think that shows that the basic version has problems.

Agreed, Evaluate in the basic set is pretty much a worthless maneuver. I think Martial Arts makes up for it in a big way, however.

The “it lets you parry with an unbalanced weapon” argument can be analyzed mathematically for different situations. It strikes me as fairly specialized (for example, many unbalanced weapons have balanced attack modes; and few opponents can Rapid Strike or risk an AoA (Double)).

Oh it IS specialized. But as one of my Turkish Ghulam characters proved, using a Mace is a very fun thing when the average armor you face is mail. You get a big damage buff, and you ignore the armor. The problem is though that if you only have one active defense you rely on(I write off dodge for armored opponents, as you need lots of speed to make it reliable after the penalties from encumbrance), for example, your shield, a mace is a dangerous weapon for you to swing every turn.

Opponents with 3 or more points in Counterattack (making it better than Riposte) are rare, and the Riposte combat option has never been used in my campaign.

This is completely an issue of campaign preferences, I think. Which doesn't make it an invalid observation. But in several of my campaigns, counter-attackers and the like have been common.

I'm impressed by that example of a 150-200 point character with Parry 18 against one opponent. (3 base, + 8 for skill 16, +1 Combat Reflexes, +3 for a DB 3 shield, +3 for fencing retreat)

I also included Feverish defenses in that, for a Parry 20 vs one opponent, or Parry 18 without a fencing weapon. For a while I was big on creating fighters who were "ultimate defenders". Part of the joy of running little skirmish battles between groups of players is that you get to see some interesting character builds.

I'm not against buffing up Evaluate's advantages(as I've pointed out, I quickly houseruled it into waits that target a specific opponent, similar to Aim), I just take umbrage at comments that it's "useless".

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Seriously, Feint costs 6 points to max out. Those will likely be the best 6 points you'll ever spend in a character who fights small actions(1 on 1, 2 on 2, etc). ST is half as expensive as DX, and for low-tech melee fighters is a very important attribute. I don't think it's unreasonable to encounter some one with ST in excess of the DX score, or even your DX score.

Opponents with good ST are very common. On the other hand, GMs who have them Beat as a tactics are not... Beat is an optional rule from Martial Arts and it didn't even existed for the first few years of GURPS 4e.

So better hope your attacks land crits, or you might be in for an surprise. Also, If my defense levels are 16+, I crit with about the same regularity as you, so it comes down to a question of who crits first?

Actually, it doesn't, because a crit in defense is not as effective as a crit in attack, as I explained before...

Other than the bonus to the attack roll. If you're equally matched with your opponent, 1 extra point against his skill in the QC could mean alot.

If you do the math, you'll see that 1 extra point in the QC of a Feint will rarely mean something. It will matter *only* if the defender makes his defense roll *exactly*. If he fails it, the extra point in the QC is wasted; if he succeeds by 1 or more, it's not enough...

And then the Evaluating counter-attacker knocks of several levels of your deceptive attack and you're swinging at skill 10. Smart move.

Perhaps I misunderstood something, but I thought that in your example, it was the counter-attacker's *opponent* who did the Evaluate, not the counter-attacker himself.

But in any case, were I GMing, I doubt you would know the man was counter-attacking without some using Body-language or Expert Skill(hopology). And guess what helps with those rolls?

If you GM "hiding the numbers", the combat will play out very differently.
If you don't, players will have to realize what's happening.
I am not saying that "hiding the numbers" is a bad GM choice, just that it is not the default assumption in GURPS.

Obviously you've never played a character who gets involved in a bar brawl and then gets knifed by a thug who he thought was unarmed. I also require observation rolls in battles to determine various different things. If you only make your game revolve around swinging a sword each turn, no wonder you don't like evaluate.

It seems to me you are assuming too much about my GM/playing style.
If I did make my game revolve around swinging a sword each turn, I wouldn't even bother about tactical options, would I?
In fact I like the subtlety of complex, detailed tactical fights, and usually players in my game make a wide use of clever movement, Feints, Targeted attacks, Slams and other tactics. That's exactly why I find Evaluate to be rarely used and rarely useful.

Strangely enough, I've run knights who used Maces and Morningstars to deadly effect. The Mace, for example, is an amazing weapon, one of the best options you have in TL2-3 for fighting armored opponents.

That's my fault, you (correctly) wrote "unbalanced" but I (uncorrectly) understood "unready", which is a different thing.

But you know what's funny about those numerically safe ideas? By probability, in professional football, going for the 4th down conversion is better than punting the ball away. Why don't more teams do that? Because you give up field position if you mess up on the conversion.

I know nothing about American football so I am afraid I can't understand what you are meaning :)

Your debate style is quite ugly and low-brow. I did not say anything of that sort. I said that I include evaluate in wait manuevers, much like Aim is included. Does this mean no one ever uses aim?

I apologize for my blunt debating. It is not easy to be precise yet tactful when you are debating in writing and in a foreign language.
I did not mean to be offensive. Yet, I do think some of your comments are not constructive.

In any case, you *did* say that you adopt a quite fundamental house rule about "Evaluate" in your games. This, IMHO, makes most of our debating meaningless because we are talking about two different things: I was trying to say that Evaluate is little useful in the RAW, and you were defending Evaluate because it is useful in your houseruled version of the RAW.

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Agreed, Evaluate in the basic set is pretty much a worthless maneuver. I think Martial Arts makes up for it in a big way, however.

I am glad we agree on something (Evaluate being worthless in the Basic Set). Respectfully, I suggest that is not only Martial Arts, but your own quite significant houserule (about Waits subsuming Evaluate) which makes up for it.
I do think your opinion on Evaluate would be somewhat different without the houserule in place.
Please consider this is not meant to be a "personal attack" in any way. I am dismissing what you say because it's you who said it, just because you happen to use a houserule which significantly changes the situation we are talking about.

[Verjigorm]

[QUOTE=Lupo;1099772]
If you do the math, you'll see that 1 extra point in the QC of a Feint will rarely mean something. It will matter *only* if the defender makes his defense roll *exactly*. If he fails it, the extra point in the QC is wasted; if he succeeds by 1 or more, it's not enough...[quote]

In practice, every thing you can do to tilt your odds in your favor is what you should do.

Perhaps I misunderstood something, but I thought that in your example, it was the counter-attacker's *opponent* who did the Evaluate, not the counter-attacker himself.

If I'm skilled at counter-attacking, and my fighting style is based upon deflecting your attack in such a way as to leave you open and vulnerable(which is a common tactic touched on by various different sources), then why would I attack every turn? Why would I not use evaluate to increase my resistance to deceptive attacks and feints, so that when you do attack, I will have the best odds for my tactics to work.

If you GM "hiding the numbers", the combat will play out very differently.
If you don't, players will have to realize what's happening.
I am not saying that "hiding the numbers" is a bad GM choice, just that it is not the default assumption in GURPS.

In roleplaying, one should never assume information that your character wouldn't know, just because you as a player know. Just because you *know* the enemy fighter is using counter-attack, doesn't mean your character knows. For your character to know would require style familiarity and observation actions to identify the style, which should require Observation and Hopology rolls for the character to successfully identify the style being used. I'd also consider allowing Tactics rolls to also identify likely maneuvers of an opponent.

A similar analogy is that if I'm GMing a game and throw a monster with a well known vulnerability to the players, but something which is not well known or which their characters should be ignorant of, I will intervene as a GM and forbid them from using that knowledge to influence their player characters actions. There are exceptions and conditions to this(for example, if one player is a Pyromaniac, I would probably say it'd be in character to try and burn a troll/zombie/etc), but in general, a "Good" GM shouldn't allow the players to take advantage of out of character knowledge.

It seems to me you are assuming too much about my GM/playing style.
If I did make my game revolve around swinging a sword each turn, I wouldn't even bother about tactical options, would I?

I can only infer that which you suggest. By emphasizing the statistical superiority of attack over evaluate, and the rapid dismissal of options to make Evaluate more effective, as presented in the gurps rules supplement most suited for melee combat, that you do not run games where evaluate will be effective.

In fact I like the subtlety of complex, detailed tactical fights, and usually players in my game make a wide use of clever movement, Feints, Targeted attacks, Slams and other tactics. That's exactly why I find Evaluate to be rarely used and rarely useful.

Again, then perhaps this is a problem with your style of GMing. I'm not saying you're having Bad Wrong Fun, but that your own particular style of play de-emphasizes the manuever.

My experience with "arena" scenerios(with two players running eith single characters, or small numbers of characters against each other) has lead to a need for the GM to act as a referee and intercede where out of character knowledge has been abused. For example, in the arena game, I required players to submit their planned turn in advance and secret, so neither side could unfairly abuse out of character knowledge("Oh, rob's setting up a super arm-lock parry, I'll just make a deceptive attack at full penalty", or he's All-out defending, so I'll feint this turn) which can greatly skew the gameplay and ruins the point of the whole exercise.

And when the Tournament launched off, the Skill 10 deceptive attack(i.e. eating all your skill, down to 10) was very powerful. Then someone figured out the evaluate/counter-attack tactic, and the Skill 10 went down badly, as Evaluate rapidly compromises that tactic. If your players never encounter an opponent who punishes them for recklessly attacking then they will never use tactics that can circumvent that problem.

I know nothing about American football so I am afraid I can't understand what you are meaning :)

The analogy is that while "going for it" on the 4th down is statistically more secure, professional football coachs rarely do, and instead punt the ball. Punting is the safe bet, and conservative, while risky 4th down conversions, even if statistically shown to be successful, carry a great deal of negative risks along side them. This analogy can become more complex, but the simple part of it is that what is always statistically more successful doesn't work in practice, especially when the statistical analysis is limited and incomplete, which I think just comparing the percentage of success between attacking and evaluating in a vacuum is.

I apologize for my blunt debating. It is not easy to be precise yet tactful when you are debating in writing and in a foreign language.
I did not mean to be offensive. Yet, I do think some of your comments are not constructive.

I don't buy this, Lupo. Your English is fine enough that I've been able to understand you, for about 6 or more years now. And I'm sure that in Italy, it's still considered rude and bad form to debate someone by created hyperbolic statements and then attributing to the person whom you are debating. In fact, I think there might even be a latin term for it. Just own it, we can agree not to use that method of debate and continue.

In any case, you *did* say that you adopt a quite fundamental house rule about "Evaluate" in your games. This, IMHO, makes most of our debating meaningless because we are talking about two different things: I was trying to say that Evaluate is little useful in the RAW, and you were defending Evaluate because it is useful in your houseruled version of the RAW.

And again, I'll point out that I have seen evaluate, separate of wait, used in my games. Or rather, that Waiting is not always Evaluating. In this case, as I mentioned earlier, I do require a bit more precise trigger for waits than the basic set assumes. This is due to experience with a number of situatiosn where players have abused wait(for example waiting until their opponent launches an all-out attack, and then attacking them, so that their attack doesn't have to deal with the enemies defenses).

Due to my, ahem, somewhat onerous restrictions to the wait maneuver, Evaluating as a separate maneuver has still been well utilized, especially in the "player vs player "scenarios".

But, perhaps you could give it a try and you'll find your players performing alot more evaluate/wait options, and evaluate will have a greater utility(which, I assumed is what we are here to discuss). I don't like giving too much benefit to evaluate, because I'm leery of allowing the "do-nothing" sort of actions too much utility and power. The Wait mechanic in general has proven notably abusive in past.

I've also had problems with Wait and Aim as well, with players who have used the fact that aim is subsumed into wait. This was actually the origin for my original strict requirements for waits, rather than evaluate.

I think there are a number of ways a GM can make evaluate a useful and effective maneuver, without changing the basic maneuver itself.

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

If I'm skilled at counter-attacking, and my fighting style is based upon deflecting your attack in such a way as to leave you open and vulnerable(which is a common tactic touched on by various different sources), then why would I attack every turn? Why would I not use evaluate to increase my resistance to deceptive attacks and feints, so that when you do attack, I will have the best odds for my tactics to work.

Yes, you are right, that sounds likely.

In roleplaying, one should never assume information that your character wouldn't know, just because you as a player know. Just because you *know* the enemy fighter is using counter-attack, doesn't mean your character knows. For your character to know would require style familiarity and observation actions to identify the style, which should require Observation and Hopology rolls for the character to successfully identify the style being used.

Ok, that's your style of play, but it's not the only one and arguably it's not standard.
All GMs keep their players from abusing Out-of-character knowledge, but most GURPS GM in a tactical fight will make all combat rolls "openly" and allow players to "game" the fight (quite similarly to a chess or Bloodbowl game, if you see what I mean).
For example in the rules the GM is supposed to make perception rolls secretly, not other rolls... even Feint rolls (which arguably are better kept secret / rolled at the last moment) are, by default, resolved openly and right away (it is only in Martial Arts that is suggested the GM makes Feint rolls in secret and/or makes them right before the attack).

I am not saying that your style is wrong, actually it can be very fun; I am just saying that I assumed we were talking about "default" GURPS with open combat rolls. If rolls and penalties are hidden, the feel of the combat will be different and many maneuvers will be more or less effective.

A similar analogy is that if I'm GMing a game and throw a monster with a well known vulnerability to the players, but something which is not well known or which their characters should be ignorant of, I will intervene as a GM and forbid them from using that knowledge to influence their player characters actions.

The analogy is similar but not identical, it's one thing to allow players to "cheat" about in-game knowledge (which I don't!) it's another thing to agree to play combat openly withouth hiding rolls and modifiers.
E.g. when an NPCs makes a Deceptive attack, I announce so to the player and I declare the Deceptive penalty.
You probably just say "the enemy attacks" and then penalize the player's defense roll after he rolled. Both approachs are valid, of course, I just prefer the first as I believe it's simpler and fairer.
Probably it's just that my approach in that particular matter is more "gamist", while your is more "simulationist".

I can only infer that which you suggest. By emphasizing the statistical superiority of attack over evaluate, and the rapid dismissal of options to make Evaluate more effective, as presented in the gurps rules supplement most suited for melee combat, that you do not run games where evaluate will be effective.

One could say that you exaggerated my statement to prove your point... just as you (rightly!) accused me of doing before. It's not a big deal.

I don't buy this, Lupo. Your English is fine enough that I've been able to understand you, for about 6 or more years now.

You don't buy that I was not deliberately trying to be offensive?
I was using an hyperbole to make my point, but I can assure that I did not mean to offend you. That's why I apologized.

My English is fine enough, but you'll know very well that *in writing*, over the internet, many subtleties of communication get lost; if we were speaking, it would be easier for me to use an hyperbolic statement in a nicer/ more joking way, without sounding like a "ugly, low-brow" debater.

And I'm sure that in Italy, it's still considered rude and bad form to debate someone by created hyperbolic statements and then attributing to the person whom you are debating.

[just kidding] Is your referral to my nationality a racist attempt to discredit my credibility as a debater? That's called an ad hominem attack in Latin :P [/just kidding]

I think there are a number of ways a GM can make evaluate a useful and effective maneuver, without changing the basic maneuver itself.

I agree! I also think that when a GM needs to use a "number of ways" to make a maneuver useful and effective, that's probably an indicator that said maneuver is, by default, less useful and less effective than others maneuvers.
I never heard of a GURPS GM having to enforce 'table rules' nor a particular style of play to make, say, Feint or Judo Parry useful and effective :)

All techniques/maneuvers/advantages in GURPS can be made effective; some, though, are born effective, and those who don't, would not suffer from a little "powering up".
Some of us improve Evaluate a little bit, others use a style of play which emphasize Evaluate, these are different ways to achieve a similar goal.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Lupo

Ok, that's your style of play, but it's not the only one and arguably it's not standard.
All GMs keep their players from abusing Out-of-character knowledge, but most GURPS GM in a tactical fight will make all combat rolls "openly" and allow players to "game" the fight (quite similarly to a chess or Bloodbowl game, if you see what I mean).

Rolls is one thing, but combat manueuvers are quite another. Hiding it from players when their foes Attack, Move or All-Out Attack is very much a house-rule and it is one that fundamentally changes many of the assumptions that underlies GURPS combat.

All-Out Attack is significantly less risky if opponents have no way of knowing that your defences are down for a second, for example. For one thing, it removes the 'automatic' +4 bonus for Telegraphic Attack that ensures that AoAs are usually swiftly followed by ugly beatdowns in regular GURPS games.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to tracking situational awareness in combat, far from it. I enjoyed the discussion of it during the Tactical Shooting playtest and use the rules developed there in all my games.

But in those rules, and, I believe, in reality, ascertaining the manuever taken by a single opponent in a duel, on an arena floor, which you are focusing on, is not difficult. It is, in fact, only slightly harder than spotting said opponent. It's only possible to fail on a critical failure on a Per roll, even for relative novices. As such, it's usually not worth the bother to roll it.*

Simply put, anyone who is battle-savvy enough not to use the rules in MA for untrained combatants knows the difference between someone keeping up his guard and someone who is completely defenceless. By the same token, combatants can tell when a weapon is out of position for a Parry (after an attack by a Parry 0U weapon, after a Committed Attack or Move and Attack, etc.) or when an opponent cannot retreat (ditto except for U weapons).

Cases where they misjudge such things are handled abstractly by the penalties they suffer after a successful Feint or Deceptive Attack. Or by Critical Misses. Or a slight misjudgement could be a narrative justification for a simple miss.

*After all, GMs generally don't roll Per + 10 (for the 'in plain side' modifier) to determine if PCs see the barman when they go to order drinks.

[jacobmuller]

Is RAW Evaluate:
Representative of the tactics used by high-skill "fighters" and therefore logically ineffective for low-skill fighters?
Or
is it a way to even the odds for a low-skill v's a high-skill, ie hope you'll live long enough to benefit from the +3?

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by jacobmuller

Is RAW Evaluate:
Representative of the tactics used by high-skill "fighters" and therefore logically ineffective for low-skill fighters?
Or
is it a way to even the odds for a low-skill v's a high-skill, ie hope you'll live long enough to benefit from the +3?

I'm pretty sure the math doesn't work out for that as long as your effective skill is 6 or above, and as long as you are already in range and have a balanced weapon which remains ready after an attack. Eg. if your skill is 6, you can have a 9% chance of hitting every turn, a 16% chance every second turn, a 26% chance every third turn, or a 37% chance every fourth turn (with three turns of Evaluate). If your skill is 10, you have a base 50% chance of hitting, rising to only 83% with three turns of Evaluate. Though if you are using the optional rules from MA, the bonus to resist Feint and Deceptive Attack might save the low-skilled character.

It also seems that skilled duelists and sports fighters often spend time circling and Waiting or Evaluating.

[jacobmuller]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

It also seems that skilled duelists and sports fighters often spend time circling and Waiting or Evaluating.

Always seems like a long series of feints and defensive attacks in the hopes of a critical success. Perhaps evaluate before attempting a combo or rapid strike.
From all this, I get the impression that evaluate is for situations where normal levels of skill aren't enough.
Evaluate may not be a devastating option but neither are a particular variety of vending machine product: better to have and not need than need and not have; but having don't mean you'll ever need:) I'm starting to associate house-rules and "fantasy" LOL

And, lest anyone take offence at the above, I have 28 pages/ 18,000 words of house-rules.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by jacobmuller

Always seems like a long series of feints and defensive attacks in the hopes of a critical success. Perhaps evaluate before attempting a combo or rapid strike.
From all this, I get the impression that evaluate is for situations where normal levels of skill aren't enough.
Evaluate may not be a devastating option but neither are a particular variety of vending machine product: better to have and not need than need and not have; but having don't mean you'll ever need:) I'm starting to associate house-rules and "fantasy" LOL

And, lest anyone take offence at the above, I have 28 pages/ 18,000 words of house-rules.

Well, think of it this way, a Telegraphic Attack gives you a +4 to hit coupled with a +2 to defend, if you're giving up an attack to Evaluate it should be able to land as well as that Telegraphic Attack, just without that big a bonus to defend.

My suggestion would be to triple the effect of Evaluate but have it be spread out by default* in both attack and defense bonuses as such:

Evaluate 1 second: +1 to hit, -1 to defend (or +3 to hit)
Evaluate 2 seconds: +2 to hit, -2 to defend (or +6 to hit)
Evaluate 3 seconds: +3 to hit, -3 to defend (or +9 to hit)


That would make Evaluate be just a tad weaker than an AoA, but much more viable than it currently is.


*Of course there's nothing stopping someone using a DA, even with an AoA...