The problem with feinting

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Actually with "Beats" I think it's less of problem. A beat is distinct and separate attempt to knock your opponent's weapon out of line, ideally yes that being out of line is then immediately capitalised by a follow on attack.

One other point to make a lot of feints and beats in are possibly done in combination with a wait thus allowing you to feint/beat and attack in quick succession, without having to absorb a load of rapid strike penalties etc

I guess there is a logical problem in that:
Turn 1- Attacker inflicts massive Beat on defender, defender is now off-balance and weapon is out of defensive line
- Defender *attacks normally*!
Turn 2- Attacker now takes advantage of defender's defenses being severely penalised

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by Anthony

This is something that occurred to me in the 'Attack is not opposed' thread: I'm not sure a feint, as GURPS defines the term, is a real maneuver.

The essence of a feint is that you do something that looks like a particular way of attacking, hoping to bait your opponent into reacting, at which point you make a different attack before your opponent has recovered from his initial response.

In GURPS, you recover from an attempted parry at the start of your turn (realistically, the time required is somewhat variable, but this isn't absurdly fast). Thus, in order to attack someone before they've recovered from your feint, you logically have to do it before the start of their next turn. Absent altered time rate, that means you need to be attacking twice during the same turn (which is not what a GURPS feint requires).

Now, we could rule that attacking twice is required, but it basically never makes sense to do rapid strike (feint, attack), because you could instead use a deceptive attack. Feint/Attack as an all-out attack is only superior to all-out (precise, deceptive) with a 9 point skill difference; with rapid strike you need a 13 point skill difference to come out ahead.

In reality, feints do get used between people of comparable skill; however, they don't seem to be what GURPS calls a feint. They're closer to what GURPS calls a deceptive attack, except a variable attack penalty is probably wrong; it's not really that much additional difficulty feint and attack, because at any point during the attack (including the initial feint) if the target doesn't respond appropriately you can convert whatever you're doing at the moment into the real attack.

How about feints representing slowly outmaneuvering your opponent in posture, weapon positions and weapon speeds etc., which if successful can give you a good opportunity to attack?

It might seem silly if such a slow struggle for an advantage isn't affected by for example one of the fighters having to parry attacks from a third party, but that is just not something the GURPS combat rules model. Having to parry additional attacks, also does not make it harder to parry the first attack against you between each of your maneuvers, the penalty only applies to the additional parry attempts.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Daigoro

I guess there is a logical problem in that:
Turn 1- Attacker inflicts massive Beat on defender, defender is now off-balance and weapon is out of defensive line
- Defender *attacks normally*!
Turn 2- Attacker now takes advantage of defender's defenses being severely penalised

Yeah in theory a beat should be both defensive and normal i.e if it going to negatively effect the targets next defence (because it move's their weapon out of line) it should effect the attack they make earlier than that as well!

I.e all beats should be defensive as well! Of course the different prerequisite actions for beats and defensive beats are an issue here.


But you get into game balance here, I guess.

In reality beats are bit odd in GURPS terms because they're conceptually akin to disarms (you are trying to hit your opponent's weapon in order to negatively effect your opponent option with that weapon). But they game out differently.

FWIW Technical Grappling has bit more on these.


However I guess relay its the same point about the abstract IGOUGO way the system games out vs. what it's actually trying to portray.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Andreas

How about feints representing slowly outmaneuvering your opponent in posture, weapon positions and weapon speeds etc., which if successful can give you a good opportunity to attack?

It might seem silly if such a slow struggle for an advantage isn't affected by for example one of the fighters having to parry attacks from a third party, but that is just not something the GURPS combat rules model. Having to parry additional attacks, also does not make it harder to parry the first attack against you between each of your maneuvers, the penalty only applies to the additional parry attempts.

You could rule that the QC for resisting a feint, counts as a defence use when it comes to making multiple defences. (although to be consistent with only having to makes defense attempts against successful attacks, I'd rule that only feint QCs where the one trying to feint made their roll would count for this). I.e part of overwhelming the defences of a target in such situations. It would also then follow that you get penalties for resisting more than one feint as well!

A couple of possible problems with this, though:

Which defence would you count as being used!

It might mean feint gets a bit over powered. if you can get a feint & attack into one turn it will be a double dip on effect on defending the attack. (although getting both feint & attack in one turn tends to require it's own trade off)

You could argue it's double dipping, as the negative effect on defence for a successful feint is the penalty defending the following attack!


It's just as it stands you can resist as many feints or even beats as you like as a free action in your turn, with no buliding consequence. Especially when those who are feinting or beating you are using up their attacks to do so.

maybe as a rebalance I would allowing people to retreat against feints (and get the retreat bonus on the QC)

[AlexanderHowl]

There are defensive feints as well as offensive feints. The default is an offensive feint because defense trumps offense in GURPS, by Martial Arts (p. 101) gives the rules for defensive feints (giving a penalty to attack rather than to defense).

[Glimmerman]

My thoughts about feints is that you are feinting to attack with one weapon (A), but you really are attacking with another weapon (B). You cannot benefit from Feint by attacking with weapon A after Feint.

Feinting to make a follow-up attack with "weaker" weapon (unarmed instead of armed, shield or knife instead of sword etc.) could give a bonus of +1 to initiate Feint. Now you have more reason to kick or slam your opponent instead of immediately trying poke holes with a sharp object.

[JoelSammallahti]

Yeah, since 4e added Deceptive Attack, I haven't used Feint. To me, it seems like just a clumsier mechanic to simulate the same thing.

[weby]

Originally Posted by JoelSammallahti

Yeah, since 4e added Deceptive Attack, I haven't used Feint. To me, it seems like just a clumsier mechanic to simulate the same thing.

Game mechanically they produce very different results. In general if the deceptive attack is not enough to bring down the defenders defenses down enough then the "lottery" of feints is better else deceptive. Though at really high defenses and fairly high attack skills(16+) "critical hunting" is a better option. As for critical hunting, it should be noted that feints also allow some critical hunting as on the actual attack you will use the full skill and not the lower skill.

[Daigoro]

Deceptive Attacks let you hit every round, where Feints work every second round. There are probably a few contrary break points, but at the high skill levels our games usually played at, DA's had a higher probability of hitting.... I think. Or was it the other way round??

[Anthony]

Feint isn't terribly useful unless you have a large skill advantage, or you want to follow it up with an attack that has major penalties for some other reason.