High defenses in 4th edition

[Tom H.]

I'm into DFRPG right now, but like to entertain tangents that are hard to contain to that forum's focus.

Interestingly, in DFRPG, you are encouraged to play the monster hoards more simply without getting "fancy" i.e. Deceptive Attack and Feint among others.

While I don't "play" as much as I fantasize I would, I ran a session at a con back in Feb.

The main battle ended up with 6 Humongous Spider's vs. 6 DFRPG PC's.

We ran out of time, and I thought I underestimated the spider's capability, because one PC was hurting and another negative after just a few rounds (a 2d imp fang can be dangerous with a good damage roll on a lightly armored character.)

I recently decided to finish the whole combat on my own to determine the "legacy" of the adventure. Sure enough the PC's came back due mainly to their strong defenses even in the face of the spiders' 15 attack skill.

One very successful tactic that I used for the PCs was with the spiders "hurting themselves" vs. strong PC parries.

A spider's bite is not considered a weapon, therefore a successful parry is allowed a free hit (with success roll) to its vulnerable face.

So there's a case for a superior defense also winning the battle . . . until the spider wises up.

For sure, these are just monsters. DFRPG does encourage smart NPC fighting when appropriate or for "bosses."

Out of curiosity, does anyone want to hazard a connection between IQ and the use of Deceptive Attack?

These Humongous Spiders (described as more extrovert hunters) possessed IQ 4. I wouldn't think that would support Deceptive Attack unless it was considered more instinctual.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Tom H.

Out of curiosity, does anyone want to hazard a connection between IQ and the use of Deceptive Attack?

A good way to do it is to make an IQ based combat roll. If successful, the NPC understands what good tactic to use (Deceptive Attack, All-out Attack ...). That's one roll more but it is still quite quick.

[Daigoro]

Unfortunately, fishing for crits is probably the more viable method, remembering that skill 16 increases your crit chance to 6.

A 6 or less occurs 9.3%, so the chance of getting one in 2 attacks is [1-((1-0.093)^2)] = 17.7%, with the benefit that it bypasses the opponent's defence, so it doesn't matter what their defense score is. Therefore with attack 14 vs defense 12, you're probably better off going with two Telegraphic Attacks for skill 18, defense 14, thus avoiding the defender's crit chance going up, instead of two rounds of Feint + Attack.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Tom H.

Out of curiosity, does anyone want to hazard a connection between IQ and the use of Deceptive Attack?

IMO, if a critter is smart enough to have high combat skill, it's smart enough to use that combat skill effectively.

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by Tom H.

Out of curiosity, does anyone want to hazard a connection between IQ and the use of Deceptive Attack?

These Humongous Spiders (described as more extrovert hunters) possessed IQ 4. I wouldn't think that would support Deceptive Attack unless it was considered more instinctual.

I wouldn't worry about low IQ preventing DAs. If you check out Martial Arts p111, What is a Deceptive Attack?, it says a DA could be from an abrupt change of vector (the spider twists its head at the last moment), a weird attack angle (the spider's leg comes in unexpectedly) or sheer speed.

The way an animal DAs could well be different to the way a human does, but either is viable. You could allow a Style Familiarity perk against animal opponents that reduces the DA defence penalty by 1 if you think it's something that characters could study and prepare for.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Anthony

IMO, if a critter is smart enough to have high combat skill, it's smart enough to use that combat skill effectively.

Not necessarily. Its high combat skill may be due to pure instinct. And it may always use the same tactics, without even thinking at it.

To make beasts combat tactics more realistic, I warmly recommend Rory Fansler's article, Animal Combat Styles, in Pyramid 3/111, Combat 2, pages 26-29.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Gollum

Not necessarily. Its high combat skill may be due to pure instinct.

Deceptive attack can be instinct too.

Originally Posted by Gollum

And it may always use the same tactics, without even thinking at it.

That just means it doesn't adjust its tactics all that much. I consider 'deceptive attack' to incorporate all the methods by which high speed and skill can make it hard on a defender, most of which are not particularly clever.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Tom H.

...

Out of curiosity, does anyone want to hazard a connection between IQ and the use of Deceptive Attack?

These Humongous Spiders (described as more extrovert hunters) possessed IQ 4. I wouldn't think that would support Deceptive Attack unless it was considered more instinctual.

Originally Posted by Anthony

IMO, if a critter is smart enough to have high combat skill, it's smart enough to use that combat skill effectively.

Yep.

Also if nothing else the description "What is a deceptive attack" in MApg111 states that Deceptive attacks can easily be a range of things including just attacking v.fast or at an angle that's hard to defend against. (Edit, which you just said, sorry crossed posts)

Plenty of real life attacks in nature are based off that

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Gollum

Not necessarily. Its high combat skill may be due to pure instinct. And it may always use the same tactics, without even thinking at it.

To make beasts combat tactics more realistic, I warmly recommend Rory Fansler's article, Animal Combat Styles, in Pyramid 3/111, Combat 2, pages 26-29.

It might be instinct (but It's also experience as well), but either way its doesn't really matter. If high skill can come from instinct (even if only partly) than so can Deceptive attacks, or techniques come to that.


If I was going to try and model an animals fighting style that heavily relies on a couple of instinctual tactics to the exclusion of others, I would have a relatively low combat skill, and have maxed out techniques and/or technique mastery.

(I think that article makes the point about animals with TM?)

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

The important thing to remember: in real life “defense is to offense as 3 is to one”... and it’s true.

However the defender sacrifices the tactical and sometimes strategic initiative.

In GURPS terms, the opponent who all out defends and constantly retreats can’t defend an objective or person, can’t hold an ally’s flank, can’t end the fight except by surrender or fleeing the field and EVENTUALLY an attack will get thru.

That’s pretty close to real life.

...as detailed above, in game terms, there are several ways to reduce the “near perfect” defense.

However, your NEAR perfect defense is giving your opponent a PERFECT defense... you can’t hit them at all... so in the long run, you lose.

Yep good post about the actual context of fighting. The paradox of defence