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 08-03-2010, 03:42 PM   #31
vitruvian
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Basic Set Unarmed Combat boxing questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
That's comparing apples and orchards. You could buy off the DWA default, buy two more levels of base skill, and still have only spent 13 points.
True, but my point was that unless a skill level 4 levels higher than you currently possess is also deemed cinematic, you can still be as good at that DWA as if you'd been allowed to buy up the technique, it'll just cost you more - plus you'll have the choice of foregoing the DWA and knocking 2 levels off your enemy's defense, and lots of other options. So deeming buying certain techniques up as cinematic doesn't do much to prevent their use if they can be used at default and skill levels aren't capped.
vitruvian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 04:54 PM   #32
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Basic Set Unarmed Combat boxing questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
True, but my point was that unless a skill level 4 levels higher than you currently possess is also deemed cinematic, you can still be as good at that DWA as if you'd been allowed to buy up the technique, it'll just cost you more - plus you'll have the choice of foregoing the DWA and knocking 2 levels off your enemy's defense, and lots of other options. So deeming buying certain techniques up as cinematic doesn't do much to prevent their use if they can be used at default and skill levels aren't capped.
Well, yes and no.

Having, say, DWA-14 isn't cinematic for the very reason you note (though DWA-18 might be!).

But the ability to invest in DWA changes the tradeoffs. A realistic character with skill 18 and DWA at a default of 14 is making a significant trade-off when they make a DWA rather than a single-weapon attack. A cinematic character with skill 14 and DWA-14 (and OHWT) is strongly incentivized to use that DWA all the time.

And DWA is relatively decent at default. Some high-penalty techniques are basically useless unless improved, because even if you have enough skill to pull them off you could do something better with it.
__________________
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 08-03-2010, 06:48 PM   #33
Streacer
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Default Re: Basic Set Unarmed Combat boxing questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollum View Post
It is clear for Karate. It is explicitly written in the description of this skill:“(at no -4 fir the off-hand)”. But it is not for Boxing and Brawling…

Having said that, the rule about handedness say “This [the -4] does not apply to things you normally do with your “off” hand, like using a shield”. Bowers and brawlers normally use their off-hand to punch or parry.
The difference between a boxer's left-handed parry and a shield-users shield is that not only does the shield normally go on the off-hand -- it does NOT normally go on the right hand. It's not a case of "you can do it with your left hand" but a case of "this is specifically a left-handed thing."


It is far from clear to me. The full sentence actually reads "Roll against Karate to hit with a punch (at no -4 for the “off” hand), or Karate-2 to hit with a kick." which sounds like some kind of special benefit only for the basic Karate attack. It says absolutely nothing about parrying, or for that matter Karate-based techniques other than basic punching, such as Exotic Hand Strike or Eye-Pluck, which you might reasonably assume require sufficient dexterity to be handedness-reliant. The paragraph in the Karate description which actually addresses defense (parrygraph?) mentions that you can parry two different attacks (as opposed to say, wrestling) and the special retreat/weapon bonuses, but nothing about off-hand penalties.

None of the other obvious logical examples or rules sections give any hint whatsoever that Unarmed combat is assumed to be Ambidextrous combat, take for example the section Parrying with the off-hand, B376: "You parry with your “off” hand . . . OR with a weapon held in it, at -4 to skill" [caps added] stating right out that unarmed parries are subject to off-hand penalties! If there were an exception, why wouldn't they come right out and say it like they repeatedly do with the weapon or thrusting exemptions?

Given the otherwise generally thorough nature of GURPS I would have to assume that the odd lack of explicit rules in the Basic Set indicates that unarmed combat works the same as armed combat (and everything else) with regard to handedness. I mean, this is the same game that ships stock with a "Vermiform, Octopod, Cancroid, Ichthyoid, and Arachnoid Hit Location Table".


At least, that is what I would argue in a courtroom. I will grant that it is quite possibly an error, and most people seem to agree that unarmed combat is intended to be ambidextrous. For all I know the rule got flipped back and forth during revisions or some old house rule got so popular it just became adopted with no documentation. But it really is very unclear to those who didn't have it as common knowledge already... taking 'Harsh Realism For Unarmed Fighters' as the most explicit reference, you'd have to get through nearly 700 pages (BS + MA) just to finally stumble across an off-hand sentence in the optional-rules sidebar of a supplement. That barely qualifies as canon much less strict RAW.

(I don't particularly care either way I just felt like typing a bit)
Streacer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 11:41 PM   #34
vitruvian
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Basic Set Unarmed Combat boxing questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Streacer View Post
But it really is very unclear to those who didn't have it as common knowledge already... taking 'Harsh Realism For Unarmed Fighters' as the most explicit reference, you'd have to get through nearly 700 pages (BS + MA) just to finally stumble across an off-hand sentence in the optional-rules sidebar of a supplement. That barely qualifies as canon much less strict RAW.
Nope. Since it's an optional rule for imposing handedness penalties on unarmed combat skills, we know that the default was always meant to be no such penalties. If Martial Arts (which is of course the best RAW for this subject) had presented an optional rule for waiving handedness penalties, then we'd know that they were meant to be in force for such skills by default.
vitruvian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 02:10 AM   #35
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: Basic Set Unarmed Combat boxing questions

Wait, real-world boxing rules forbid DWA? Why and how? How is it texted out?
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
The Eye of Eclipse Phase. A Discord server focusing on Roleplaying, Sci-Fi, Transhumanism, and discussion of other assorted topics, from tech to boardgames, from politics to philosophy.

Last edited by vicky_molokh; 08-04-2010 at 12:40 PM.
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 06:13 AM   #36
Streacer
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Default Re: Basic Set Unarmed Combat boxing questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
Nope. Since it's an optional rule for imposing handedness penalties on unarmed combat skills, we know that the default was always meant to be no such penalties. If Martial Arts (which is of course the best RAW for this subject) had presented an optional rule for waiving handedness penalties, then we'd know that they were meant to be in force for such skills by default.
Purely for the sake of being pedantic, I will retort that they are optional rules for imposing additional handedness penalties above and beyond the normal "-4 to skill" one would expect to see, rather than a straightforward clarification of the issue. So really, one can interpret this however they wish depending on their currently established opinion.

Also, the quality of Martial Arts notwithstanding, you can hardly argue that something as fundamental as unarmed combat skill rolls wouldn't best be covered by the Basic Set. It's not like we're talking about some specialized cinematic rules in a 3rd party campaign... this is the type of issue Dai Blackthorne (tm) might face given the proper dice rolls.
Streacer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 09:52 AM   #37
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Basic Set Unarmed Combat boxing questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Streacer View Post
Purely for the sake of being pedantic, I will retort that they are optional rules for imposing additional handedness penalties above and beyond the normal "-4 to skill" one would expect to see, rather than a straightforward clarification of the issue. So really, one can interpret this however they wish depending on their currently established opinion.
No, there's no way anyone looking at the rules in question could draw that conclusion if they paid attention to the text. The very beginning of the Harsh Realism for Unarmed Fighters box is: "The Basic Set treats unarmed combat favorably: there's no "off" hand,...."
__________________
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 08-04-2010, 10:20 AM   #38
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: Basic Set Unarmed Combat boxing questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Streacer View Post
But it really is very unclear to those who didn't have it as common knowledge already... taking 'Harsh Realism For Unarmed Fighters' as the most explicit reference, you'd have to get through nearly 700 pages (BS + MA) just to finally stumble across an off-hand sentence in the optional-rules sidebar of a supplement. That barely qualifies as canon much less strict RAW.
It is both canon and RAW. What it is not is easy to find, but that has no bearing on canonicity.

The RAW situation is that you have two choices. Either you assume that all unarmed fighters have enough training to use both hands with equal facility or you use the harsher rule that anyone who wants to be able to do that has to buy a special Perk for every unarmed skill with which he has such training.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 10:46 AM   #39
PK
Assistant GURPS Line Editor
 
PK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dobbstown Sane Asylum
Default Re: Basic Set Unarmed Combat boxing questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Streacer View Post
Also, the quality of Martial Arts notwithstanding, you can hardly argue that something as fundamental as unarmed combat skill rolls wouldn't best be covered by the Basic Set. It's not like we're talking about some specialized cinematic rules in a 3rd party campaign... this is the type of issue Dai Blackthorne (tm) might face given the proper dice rolls.
What you're saying here is, "If the Basic Set doesn't clearly state that unarmed combat is ambidexterous, then there's no way the rules could intend for unarmed combat to be ambidexterous," which is really saying, "It's impossible that the creators of the Basic Set could have intended to say something and yet not made it clear."

Now, while I'm certain that Kromm, David, Steve, and Andrew are all genuinely pleased that you hold them in such high esteem, I'm equally certain that none of the four are infallible. They're all great guys, and worthy of being called gaming gurus, but they can certainly make minor oversights. This is one of them. Fortunately, Martial Arts came along and made a great platform for plenty of clarifications and extra detail.
__________________
Reverend Pee Kitty of the Order Malkavian-Dobbsian (Twitter) (LJ)

MyGURPS: My house rules and GURPS resources.

#SJGamesLive: I answered questions about GURPS After the End and more!
{Watch Video} - {Read Transcript}
PK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 11:08 AM   #40
Kromm
GURPS Line Editor
 
Kromm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
Default Re: Basic Set Unarmed Combat boxing questions

Just to be clear: There is no "off" hand in unarmed combat in GURPS. The Basic Set failed to make this as clear as it could have, hinting at it in a few skill descriptions but not generalizing it. Martial Arts makes it far clearer. Claiming that there is an "off" hand for the purposes of unarmed combat is fine as a house rule, but definitely not what the entire body of rules published to date supports.
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com>
GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games
My LiveJournal [Just GURPS News][Just The Company]
Kromm is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
basic set, boxing, rules question, two-handed combinations, unarmed combat

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 07:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.