01-24-2007, 09:52 AM | #1 |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Garrote: 'a skill shouldn't have a mandatory penalty attached'?..
Greetings, all!
I remember somebody quoting Kromm's words that it is bad design to have a skill that is always used at a penalty. Yet, garrote is exactly that sort of skill. Even when assuming AoA (which is not always wise to do, even for a backstab), it comes up with a net penalty. Shouldn't it have a built-in Hit Location attached or something? After all, according to RAW, the only thing the skill allows one to do is strangling the neck. No frontal attacks, no parries, no disarms, nothing. Isn't that too harsh for 200 hours? Thanks in advance to all who answer! |
01-24-2007, 10:11 AM | #2 |
Aluminated
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: East of the moon, west of the stars, close to buses and shopping
|
Re: Garrote: 'a skill shouldn't have a mandatory penalty attached'?..
It may typically be used at a penalty, but it can't be a built-in penalty, since necks won't always be the same size. Using a garrotte against, say, a bear or a pixie gives a different penalty than using it against a human. Better to do what the rules say, which is to apply the appropriate penalty for attacks on the neck.
The lack of parry and other abilities might be regarded as a problem, but on the other hand, if you do succeed, a garrotte is a pretty nasty weapon, so one could likewise argue that it balances out. That said, a case could be made for making Garrotte a technique based on an unarmed combat skill rather than a skill in itself.
__________________
I've been making pointlessly shiny things, and I've got some gaming-related stuff as well as 3d printing designs. Buy my Warehouse 23 stuff, dammit! |
01-24-2007, 11:33 AM | #3 |
GURPS Line Editor
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
|
Re: Garrote: 'a skill shouldn't have a mandatory penalty attached'?..
When people quote me, they really need to get it right. Generally, I preface such remarks with, "As much as possible . . .". In this case, it's impossible to avoid the penalty. This weapon is used for just one thing, and that's an attack on a body part that always gives a penalty to hit. Consistency demands that two DX/E skills useful for striking in combat -- say, Brawling and Garrote -- both suffer the same hit-location penalty.
Note also that the assumption is that you're attacking an unaware victim from behind. He'll normally be surprised, so it's safe to use All-Out Attack (Determined) for +4, and you'll normally be sneaking up, so you'll have time to Evaluate for +3. That's a net +2.
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com> GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News] |
01-24-2007, 11:44 AM | #4 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Garrote: 'a skill shouldn't have a mandatory penalty attached'?..
Quote:
|
|
01-24-2007, 11:47 AM | #5 | |
GURPS Line Editor
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
|
Re: Garrote: 'a skill shouldn't have a mandatory penalty attached'?..
Quote:
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com> GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News] |
|
01-24-2007, 11:51 AM | #6 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Garrote: 'a skill shouldn't have a mandatory penalty attached'?..
Quote:
Though I'm still unsure as to the pricing of Garrote with all its relative simplicity (i.e. it covers about the same amount of actions as a single Technique). Why was it not done as such, just out of curiosity? |
|
01-24-2007, 11:54 AM | #7 | |
GURPS Line Editor
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
|
Re: Garrote: 'a skill shouldn't have a mandatory penalty attached'?..
Quote:
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com> GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News] |
|
01-24-2007, 12:21 PM | #8 | |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: Garrote: 'a skill shouldn't have a mandatory penalty attached'?..
Quote:
And related, would it be legal to Evaluate (described as sizing up the neck of your opponent and planning where to put your knife) and then make a AoA Double, Grappling attack and Brawling strike for which you don't use an Evaluate bonus, saving it for the stab in the next round. To summarise, can one save up the Evaluate for the real attack in the next round and not waste it on a strike which is only meant to distract and stun?
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
|
01-24-2007, 12:23 PM | #9 | |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: Garrote: 'a skill shouldn't have a mandatory penalty attached'?..
Quote:
I could see an argument for Garotte being a Hard Technique defaulting to Wrestling-6. That would make it relatively expensive to learn, but still make veteran wrestlers better at it than just anyone.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
|
01-24-2007, 12:29 PM | #10 |
MIB
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire
|
Re: Garrote: 'a skill shouldn't have a mandatory penalty attached'?..
Why not default the Garrote skill to Wrestling-x? Granted, I have no idea if (and why) it is any different than choke hold or its ilk (but I am pretty sure I have a point or two in brawling and I don't think it can be a technique to default to Brawling).
Cheerio!
__________________
My wife's music site, LadyObscure is for the prog/metal heads... |
Tags |
garrote |
|
|