08-03-2010, 02:42 PM | #31 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Basic Set Unarmed Combat boxing questions
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.
|
08-03-2010, 03:54 PM | #32 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Basic Set Unarmed Combat boxing questions
Quote:
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. |
|
08-03-2010, 05:48 PM | #33 | |
Join Date: Aug 2010
|
Re: Basic Set Unarmed Combat boxing questions
Quote:
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) |
|
08-03-2010, 10:41 PM | #34 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Basic Set Unarmed Combat boxing questions
Quote:
|
|
08-04-2010, 01:10 AM | #35 |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Basic Set Unarmed Combat boxing questions
Wait, real-world boxing rules forbid DWA? Why and how? How is it texted out?
Last edited by vicky_molokh; 08-04-2010 at 11:40 AM. |
08-04-2010, 05:13 AM | #36 | |
Join Date: Aug 2010
|
Re: Basic Set Unarmed Combat boxing questions
Quote:
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. |
|
08-04-2010, 08:52 AM | #37 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Basic Set Unarmed Combat boxing questions
Quote:
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
08-04-2010, 09:20 AM | #38 | |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: Basic Set Unarmed Combat boxing questions
Quote:
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! |
|
08-04-2010, 09:46 AM | #39 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dobbstown Sane Asylum
|
Re: Basic Set Unarmed Combat boxing questions
Quote:
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} |
|
08-04-2010, 10:08 AM | #40 |
GURPS Line Editor
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
|
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 DreamWidth [Just GURPS News] |
Tags |
basic set, boxing, rules question, two-handed combinations, unarmed combat |
|
|