Some questions about 4E combat rules.

qchap · 01-03-2019, 12:22 PM

Hello, I have some questions about unclear parts of GURPS 4E rules. Sorry if my English is bad.

Some introduction: I have been played (and mastered) roleplaying games for about six years with different playgroups, but one of them (and our first) is the most dedicated. Most of our experience was in DnD 3.5, and about a year ago we decided to try the GURPS system (fourth edition, never played third). We loved it! This year we were playing not only gurps, and we had not so much playing time this year at total, so we played about 20-25 sessions of gurps. I mastered about 5 of them, and it was our first experience. Then our second master mastered all other sessions (all of which is one adventure, still in progress). Both of games are near-future. And all the time we played just with basic set, with some Martial Arts options.

So, we fell in love with the system, and now we want to completely move to the GURPS system and (almost) forget the old man DnD. We are planning to start a big fantasy sandbox campaign, much like most DnD ones. Our playstyle doesn’t forbid cinematic, but at the same time very realistic and gritty, DnD can’t support this. Thus, I started to learn GURPS books (and am going to learn almost all of them). Now I learned all the Basic Set and Martial Arts, and have read the most important books.

So far, I have a few things unclear. I tried to find it in official FAQ, but failed. I really think the questions are simple, and I could just get something wrong, but I have to ask them here.

So, first and the most important question: two weapon fighting. Some things are unclear to me here.

First, I think that fighting with two weapons is too attractive. If you are choosing between shield + weapon and two weapons, the decision is unclear, but if you are choosing between one (one handed) weapon and two, two are too attractive. You can just spend one point to the perk from Martial Arts and use both weapons as good as one, which not only give you dual weapon attack, but also give you twice of your parries, supported parry option, and some more. The only negative side is that you can’t grab something, which is irrelevant in combat (or, if it really relevant, you can just drop a weapon as a free action). All is just for one point for perk!

But, I believe, there were a lot of fighters with just one one-handed weapon, because fighting with two (even if the second is just wielded in hand without attacking) is awkward. Maybe I missed something? Or maybe I just wrong and it IS realistic?

Next, let’s assume we decided to have two weapons. What to choose? Let’s assume we want a fencer with rapier in main hand. History says that it would be realistic to either have no weapon in second hand (discussed above), have a buckler (it is not an option since we assumed two weapons), or have a Main-Gauche (so, it’s our option).

Ok, we decided to have a rapier in right hand and main-gauche in left. Let’s assume we have about 14 DX and mastered the Rapier at 16. If the only role of the main gauche is to parry, then we can just spend 4 points to have main-gauche at 16 and patty as good, as with a rapier.

Ok, not a lot of points, really. But if it is only to parry, it almost can’t be counted as second weapon, it is just some kind of shield (and, may be in this term, the buckler option will be better). So, if we want to strike with the second hand (or if we want not a knife main-gauche, but a e.g. shortsword in second hand), we have to spend a point to the perk, which leads us to total 5 points.

Ok, not much, but we have some problems: first, rapier is just mightier than our knife in the second hand; second, if something got wrong, and we have a rapier in the left hand and knife in the right, we are going to have some problems! Of course, ambidexterity is a solution to the second problem, but it gets us to 9 points total.

Now, we have an obvious decision – we’ll just have two rapiers! If we spend just one point for the perk, we’ll be able to attack and parry with both hand with all might of the main weapon. And it even solves the problem of changing hands – the weapons are the same! So, it always cheaper and always better. That means, that having two rapiers is strictly better than having main-gauche.

But I don’t think it’s realistic. There are very few fighters with two rapiers, comparing to main-gauche ones, or to ones just having one rapier and empty hand. Even in DnD, which is highly unrealistic, classic two weapon ranger most often wields one longsword and one shortsword, because it’s too difficult to fight with two long ones. And rules supported it. Many rangers even played with two shortswords, because it’s easier to have feats for just one weapon, and the character with two shortswords could be deadlier then with long and short one, and of course much stronger than two longsword ones. And a character with two not light weapons is hardly realizable. And if to mention, even good ranger with two shortswords almost always has less damage bonus to the second strike. And it is realistic! In DnD!

Here, in GURPS, if you want a classic ranger, it’s somehow strictly better to have two longswords. You even can easily make a character, easily slashing with two axes, even if his strength is just 11! He will strike as good, as one with single axe, but will be able to parry with the second at the same time! It’s highly unrealistic. And both blows will be equally strong. It’s seems for me as a hole in the rules, but maybe I am getting something wrong? Or maybe even it is realistic too?

So, it was the first question, and the second is a bit similar: choosing between one-handed and two-handed grips.

First, there is detailed rule to take two-handed weapon in one hand, but it’s not very clear to me what to do, if I want to take my one-handed weapon with two hands. Some weapons just have another stat line for this case, but the other haven’t. I think, I can grip my shortsword with two hands if I want, and strike should be stronger, but it should be more awkward. It’s partially described in Martial Art’s Defensive Grip, but I think I can have a weapon in two hands without a defensive stand, assumed there. And what if I want to use a one-handed axe (with STR 11) with two hands, while being a man with STR 10? I think STR requirements should be reduced.

Then, let’s assume we found the rule, letting to use shortsword two-handed. Or, let’s just take force sword, which (according to Martial Arts) can be used both in two hands or in one hand equally. The question here is what the difference between grips? Besides that, while one-handed, you have the second hand free. In what cases it would be profitable to wield force sword two handed?

The only positive side I thought up is parrying heavy weapons and resisting knocking a weapon away (which is not a thing with force sword, unless an opponent has it too). The negatives are more obvious: you have no free hand (for a shield, second weapon, or whatever) and can’t do the supported parry, which is very useful. But the description of force sword fighting style in Martial Arts says that it’s most commonly used in two hands. Why should I wield it two-handed? It seems that there should be some advantage (even besides +1 damage, described in defensive grip, which even can’t be applied to the force sword), but I don’t see it! Again, maybe I’m blind and missing something? Or is it realistic and ok, and I’m wrong?

I have some more less important and less related questions, but it’s already quite a lot of text for one topic, so I’ll ask them some time later.
Hoping to receive some help! Thank you!

Ulzgoroth · 01-03-2019, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qchap

Hello, I have some questions about unclear parts of GURPS 4E rules. Sorry if my English is bad.

Your English looks good, but please, for mercy's sake, put in some line breaks! That much close-spaced text is hard to deal with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by qchap

So, first and the most important question: two weapon fighting. Some things are unclear to me here.
First, I think that fighting with two weapons is too attractive. If you are choosing between shield + weapon and two weapons, the decision is unclear, but if you are choosing between one (one handed) weapon and two, two are too attractive. You can just spend one point to the perk from Martial Arts and use both weapons as good as one, which not only give you dual weapon attack, but also give you twice of your parries, supported parry option, and some more. The only negative side is that you can’t grab something, which is irrelevant in combat (or, if it really relevant, you can just drop a weapon as a free action). All is just for one point for perk! But, I believe, there were a lot of fighters with just one one-handed weapon, because fighting with two (even if the second is just wielded in hand without attacking) is awkward. Maybe I missed something? Or maybe I just wrong and it IS realistic?

Actually, there's a few other things you might want to do with a free hand. But if you don't mind discarding your second weapon in the moment, as you say, you can do them.

If you're using the Martial Styles framework introduced in Martial Arts, that adds a bit more of a tradeoff to the Off-Hand Training perk. But it is a good deal for one point to get an extra parry sequence. (Dual-Weapon Attack isn't that big a deal unless you spend points on it.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by qchap

Next, let’s assume we decided to have two weapons. What to choose? Let’s assume we want a fencer with rapier in main hand. History says that it would be realistic to either have no weapon in second hand (discussed above), have a buckler (it is not an option since we assumed two weapons), or have a Main-Gauche (so, it’s our option). Ok, we decided to have a rapier in right hand and main-gauche in left. Let’s assume we have about 14 DX and mastered the Rapier at 16. If the only role of the main gauche is to parry, then we can just spend 4 points to have main-gauche at 16 and patty as good, as with a rapier. Ok, not a lot of points, really. But if it is only to parry, it almost can’t be counted as second weapon, it is just some kind of shield (and, may be in this term, the buckler option will be better).

Why can't you strike with it? You've got the same skill with it as with your rapier. Sure, it has less damage and reach - but less reach is also its strength. You can use the short blade to deadly effect if pressed into close quarters where the rapier is unwieldy. This isn't an unrealistic concern - open hand plus knife isn't the best weapon set for open combat but it's a pretty good one for grabbing somebody and murdering them. And anybody with rapier+main gauche can convert to open hand plus dagger as, as you say, a free action...

A buckler is defensively superior, and can be used to some effect in a dual-weapon attack if it comes to that. But it isn't your friend in close combat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by qchap

Now, we have an obvious decision – we’ll just have two rapiers! If we spend just one point for the perk, we’ll be able to attack and parry with both hand with all might of the main weapon. And it even solves the problem of changing hands – the weapons are the same! So, it always cheaper and always better. That means, that having two rapiers is strictly better than having main-gauche. But I don’t think it’s realistic. There are very few fighters with two rapiers, comparing to main-gauche ones, or to ones just having one rapier and empty hand.

It's not, though two-rapier fighting is not unattested. Part of it is the problem of GURPS discouraging investing more than a few points in multiple skills. Part of it is the reach problem above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by qchap

You even can easily make a character, easily slashing with two axes, even if his strength is just 11! He will strike as good, as one with single axe, but will be able to parry with the second at the same time! It’s highly unrealistic. And both blows will be equally strong. It’s seems for me as a hole in the rules, but maybe I am getting something wrong? Or maybe even it is realistic too?

I don't see why it particularly isn't. It's a terrible weapon choice for most purposes, because you definitely want a shield instead of that off-hand axe in almost any circumstances...

Remember, Dual Weapon Attack (unless you've spent points on it) is usually weak.

Quote:

Originally Posted by qchap

So, it was the first question, and the second is a bit similar: choosing between one-handed and two-handed grips.
First, there is detailed rule to take two-handed weapon in one hand, but it’s not very clear to me what to do, if I want to take my one-handed weapon with two hands. Some weapons just have another stat line for this case, but the other haven’t. I think, I can grip my shortsword with two hands if I want, and strike should be stronger, but it should be more awkward. It’s partially described in Martial Art’s Defensive Grip, but I think I can have a weapon in two hands without a defensive stand, assumed there. And what if I want to use a one-handed axe (with STR 11) with two hands, while being a man with STR 10? I think STR requirements should be reduced.

Look for a two-handed stat line. I can't find my GURPS Martial Arts right now, but Low Tech has just such a line for the basic Axe - with, indeed, ST 10 instead of 11 and 1 more damage.

If there is no such line, the implication is indeed that the weapon is not handy to grip with two hands, and you need to use Defensive Grip if you insist on doing so. Your shortsword definitely does fall under this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by qchap

Then, let’s assume we found the rule, letting to use shortsword two-handed. Or, let’s just take force sword, which (according to Martial Arts) can be used both in two hands or in one hand equally. The question her is what the difference between grips? Besides that, while one-handed, you have the second hand free. In what cases it would be profitable to wield force sword two handed? The only positive side I thought up is parrying heavy weapons and resisting knocking a weapon away (which is not a thing with force sword, unless an opponent has it too). The negatives are more obvious: you have no free hand (for a shield, second weapon, or whatever) and can’t do the supported parry, which is very useful. But the description of force sword fighting style in Martial Arts says that it’s most commonly used in two hands. Why should I wield it two-handed? It seems that there should be some advantage (even besides +1 damage, described in defensive grip, which even can’t be applied to the force sword), but I don’t see it! Again, maybe I’m blind and missing something? Or is it realistic and ok, and I’m wrong?

Obviously nothing is realistic about force swords, but I can't help with this because I cannot find my copy of Martial Arts.

Maz · 01-03-2019, 04:23 PM

Just to clarify a couple of rules regarding Two-Weapon Fighting:

Dual Weapon attack.
You make a special attack, attacking with both weapons simultaneously.
This however gives a penalty of -4 to both attacks! And another -4 to attack with your off hand (which is the penalty you can buy off for the perk you mention). To compare with D&D TWF you could write it like this: -4/-8. (So -4 to attack with main hand, -8 for off hand). Getting the perk reduce this to -4/-4.
The target however also gain -1 to defense, but see stuff like Dual Weapon Defense.

In a cinematic game you can buy the Dual-Weapon Attack technique to buy off the -4/-4 penalty. But you have to specialize by weapon (or pair of weapons). since it's a Hard Technique. This would cost 6 pts to buy off completely. However if people have access to Dual-Weapon-Attack, their targets should have access to Dual-Weapon-Defense. Which let you parry both attacks. (see Martial Arts p.83 for details).

----

Extra Attack
You can also buy Extra Attack. This allow you to make an extra attack with a different weapon. At -4 for using you off hand, but again ,that can be bought off with the perk).

----

Other ways to simulate "two-weapon fighting" is to use Rapid Strike or All-Out-attack:Double. However those also allow you to simply attack twice with the same weapon.

qchap · 01-03-2019, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

please, for mercy's sake, put in some line breaks! That much close-spaced text is hard to deal with.

Oh, ok, sorry for that, fixed it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

If you're using the Martial Styles framework introduced in Martial Arts, that adds a bit more of a tradeoff to the Off-Hand Training perk. But it is a good deal for one point to get an extra parry sequence. (Dual-Weapon Attack isn't that big a deal unless you spend points on it.)

So, yeah, my point is that it is really good deal. And I think that Dual-Weapon Attack is a big deal too, even without spending points, if to speak about masters with level about 20.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Why can't you strike with it? You've got the same skill with it as with your rapier.

I meant it without Off-hand Training, it would have -4 to strike.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Sure, it has less damage and reach - but less reach is also its strength. You can use the short blade to deadly effect if pressed into close quarters where the rapier is unwieldy. This isn't an unrealistic concern - open hand plus knife isn't the best weapon set for open combat but it's a pretty good one for grabbing somebody and murdering them. And anybody with rapier+main gauche can convert to open hand plus dagger as, as you say, a free action...

Ok, I got the point, in such situations knife is better. But I still think that two rapiers are still better (but, not as strictly as I thought), if you are not planning close combat. If you are forced to it - reversed grip helps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I don't see why it particularly isn't. It's a terrible weapon choice for most purposes, because you definitely want a shield instead of that off-hand axe in almost any circumstances...

Yes, I didn't mean that it would be especially unbalanced or great in combat. But even the thing that not too strong man can reliably fight with two axes seems not very realistic to me.

Ok, let’s just take two longswords or even two bastard swords. This combination is obviously unrealistic and hard to handle. But nothing stops you with it in GURPS, and it could even be effective. Two bastard swords give you additional parries, while having two mighty weapons.
Even without Dual-Weapon Attack (which is good on high levels, and could be bought just for 5 points otherwise), you have an option to Move and Attack and still parry with another sword, or Committed Attack for the same effect.

So, if your DX is 14, and you have broadsword 16 in your main hand, buying a shortsword for the left costs 4 + 1 = 5. Buying a second broadsword costs just 1, and if you spend 5 more (to total of 6), you can have a Dual-Weapon Attack. So, for one-point difference you get your second weapon mightier and get an additional attack with it. So, by this rules, most two-broadsword fighters are stronger, then broad+short ones. Of course, the second is stronger in close combat, but the first will kill him earlier with his two broadsword attacks. I don't see it realistic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Look for a two-handed stat line. I can't find my GURPS Martial Arts right now, but Low Tech has just such a line for the basic Axe - with, indeed, ST 10 instead of 11 and 1 more damage.

If there is no such line, the implication is indeed that the weapon is not handy to grip with two hands, and you need to use Defensive Grip if you insist on doing so. Your shortsword definitely does fall under this.

Ok, I got this point, missed it in Low-Tech. Thank you!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Obviously nothing is realistic about force swords, but I can't help with this because I cannot find my copy of Martial Arts.

Of course force swords don't exist, but if to assume that they do, you definitely can think about them in a realistic way, I suppose.

There is nothing special with force swords in MA, except that it mentions, that you can wield it in one or two hands, and that two-handed grip is preferred, without stating why.

Nevertheless, thank you for your answer!

So, If I understood correctly, there is no solution to this questions in official rules? If it so, it would be useful if someone would share his homebrew solutions for such problems.

qchap · 01-03-2019, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maz

Just to clarify a couple of rules regarding Two-Weapon Fighting:

Dual Weapon attack.
You make a special attack, attacking with both weapons simultaneously.
This however gives a penalty of -4 to both attacks! And another -4 to attack with your off hand (which is the penalty you can buy off for the perk you mention). To compare with D&D TWF you could write it like this: -4/-8. (So -4 to attack with main hand, -8 for off hand). Getting the perk reduce this to -4/-4.
The target however also gain -1 to defense, but see stuff like Dual Weapon Defense.

In a cinematic game you can buy the Dual-Weapon Attack technique to buy off the -4/-4 penalty. But you have to specialize by weapon (or pair of weapons). since it's a Hard Technique. This would cost 6 pts to buy off completely. However if people have access to Dual-Weapon-Attack, their targets should have access to Dual-Weapon-Defense. Which let you parry both attacks. (see Martial Arts p.83 for details).

----

Extra Attack
You can also buy Extra Attack. This allow you to make an extra attack with a different weapon. At -4 for using you off hand, but again ,that can be bought off with the perk).

----

Other ways to simulate "two-weapon fighting" is to use Rapid Strike or All-Out-attack:Double. However those also allow you to simply attack twice with the same weapon.

Thank you for your answer! Those rules were similar to me, and my goal wasn't to simulate DnD's TWF. I just want to understand how to make realistic weapon combinations to be more effective (or just cheaper) than unrealistic ones. So that a person with two broadswords wouldn't be strictly better (by being costly) than a classic broadsword + shortsword ranger. Or a single-rapier swashbuckler vs two-rapier one.

Maz · 01-03-2019, 04:37 PM

Regarding "why have an empty hand".

In war people did not have an empty hand. They had a shield in their other hand like sensible soldiers/mercenaries. And so should you in GURPS.

The reason you often see people not having a shield in fiction is mostly because a shield is big and cumbersome and so you don't wear it around town and might not have it at hand when traveling from place to place. But the sword was socially acceptable (in some places) to have at your side. Even inside the city. So if trouble happens, the sword is always there, the shield not so often.

So no as a "D&D character build" there is no reason to "waste a hand" and neither would a historical character.

However there are plenty of reason to end up with an empty hand, and many uses for it.
Apart from the reason I mention above an empty hand is good for:
Holding a torch. Caves, dungeons, old ruins, sewer tunnels and generally any place worth exploring do not have indoor lightning and so you have to bring your own. Unlike D&D where the 'caster' always have a handy Light spell, you have to bring your own.

Climbing, or merely holding on. Outright climbing usually require both hands. But often you need a free hand to hold unto a rope or railing.

Using other equipment. This might be alchemeical elixirs, holy symbols, magical components or amulets and so on. But can also be more mundane stuff like a 10' pole, or some such.

Grabbing. As Ulzgoroth mentioned. This can be a very effective combat-strategy in GURPS. Especially to grab the other persons shield or weapon (like a spear- or axe-shaft).

Casting spells. In GURPS usually require hand gestures unless you are very powerful.

Anaraxes · 01-03-2019, 04:41 PM

Dual-Weapon Attack allows either or both hands to be unarmed, so that's not an advantage belonging only a two-weapon fighter.

Most period manuals teach punching and grappling moves in conjunction with the weapon work. An unarmed skill is commonly recommended on the forum for serious melee combatants -- though I do often see gaming groups overlooking that option, whether because the unarmed and close combat rules are unfamiliar, or they're just too used to hacking down enemy trees via HP ablation to bother.

As for many fighters using one weapon and an empty hand, I can't think of any historical examples in actual military use preferring that setup, and very few dual-weapon soldiers instead of two-handers or one+shield. No doubt there were a lot of people occasionally fighting with just one weapon, but that's because that's all they were carrying. You might get into a rapier-only scrap with some Capulets, but in that situation you're also theoretically peaceful (and if you were laying for those Capulets, you might well be more heavily armed). Musketeers are more likely to have that pistol or main-gauche in their off-hand -- and pirates are generally planning for their combats.

Carrying two weapons in social situations is that much more awkward and cumbersome, and if you're not expecting a fight, why would you bother, especially when the weapons are more symbolic and fashion statements than actual weapons (kind of like the way men in the modern-day equip one silk pocket square instead of a stack of cotton handkerchiefs)? If you're trained in weapon + shield, you certainly won't bother lugging a shield around unless you expect a fight, because they're big and heavy. Real life behavior isn't always about optimum game-mechanical combat performance. Cinematic behavior like Douglas Fairbanks or Errol Flynn playing Robin Hood is even more often about what looks cool on screen than it is about maximally effective fighting technique. Context matters for your expectations.

Ulzgoroth · 01-03-2019, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qchap

So, yeah, my point is that it is really good deal. And I think that Dual-Weapon Attack is a big deal too, even without spending points, if to speak about masters with level about 20.

Is requiring a second defense actually worth more than giving an additional -1 to the enemy's defense from Deceptive Attack, in that context?

Quote:

Originally Posted by qchap

I meant it without Off-hand Training, it would have -4 to strike.

Hmm...I thought that wasn't the case, but Basic says it is. Whether I'm mistaken or there's an adjustment in Martial Arts I, again, cannot check.

Quote:

Originally Posted by qchap

Ok, I got the point, in such situations knife is better. But I still think that two rapiers are still better (but, not as strictly as I thought), if you are not planning close combat. If you are forced to it - reversed grip helps.

You're going to have to reverse grip pretty fast to avoid being stabbed a bunch.

Also note that in the real world, rapiers were weapons for street fighters and courtiers. Two rapiers might make sense for a duelist - but would be terrible to wear all day and not at all what you want if somebody jumps you in an alley.

That said, depending on how your dungeons work, it might indeed make sense for dungeoneers. But bear in mind that what dungeoneers do has little correspondence to historical practices!

Quote:

Originally Posted by qchap

Ok, let’s just take two longswords or even two bastard swords. This combination is obviously unrealistic and hard to handle. But nothing stops you with it in GURPS, and it could even be effective. Two bastard swords give you additional parries, while having two mighty weapons.
Even without Dual-Weapon Attack (which is good on high levels, and could be bought just for 5 points otherwise), you have an option to Move and Attack and still parry with another sword, or Committed Attack for the same effect.

Did Martial Arts change the Move and Attack rule from "can't parry" to "can't parry with the weapon you attacked with"?

Also, remember that one-handed weapon + open hand is not a legitimate choice of arms if you are not planning to use the free hand for grappling. So a 'clean' sword fight with sword in off hand vs. no sword in off hand is not a reasonable comparison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by qchap

So, if your DX is 14, and you have broadsword 16 in your main hand, buying a shortsword for the left costs 4 + 1 = 5. Buying a second broadsword costs just 1, and if you spend 5 more (to total of 6), you can have a Dual-Weapon Attack. So, for one-point difference you get your second weapon mightier and get an additional attack with it. So, by this rules, most two-broadsword fighters are stronger, then broad+short ones. Of course, the second is stronger in close combat, but the first will kill him earlier with his two broadsword attacks. I don't see it realistic.

There is little in GURPS that favors a Broadsword+Shortsword fighter, it's true, but I can't say that I see that as a serious problem. Broadsword + Shortsword doesn't seem to be at all common except in (A) D&D dual-wielders with martial proficiency and (B) Samurai, loosely speaking on the weapon identification. And most of them may not have dual-wielded those.

Maz · 01-03-2019, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qchap

I just want to understand how to make realistic weapon combinations to be more effective (or just cheaper) than unrealistic ones. So that a person with two broadswords wouldn't be strictly better (by being costly) than a classic broadsword + shortsword ranger. Or a single-rapier swashbuckler vs two-rapier one.

Just to be clear. You seem to equate "realistic" with "How it is in D&D". Wich, is not correct.

It is not "realistic" that a broadsword+shortsword is easier to use than two broadswords. That's a D&D-thing (and so is the distinction of broadsword and shortsword).
Historically people have been using two rapiers. One rapier and a maingauche. One rapier. One smallsword. Two small swords and any other combination. But almost all of this for duels... not war. Not 'for adventuring'.

You can make houserules to make it so if you wish, pretty easily.

-----

But to get back on track. It seems your main concern isn't really "realisme" but more "play-balance". Which I actually think is a good idea.

Note that another way to make multiple-attacks is with Rapid Strike. Here you get 2 attacks at -6/-6. but you can do them with one weapon. And there are Combination-attack techniques to buy off that penalty too.

mr beer · 01-03-2019, 04:56 PM

Shields are very useful, +2 DB is a large bonus for defence.

A guy with weapon skill 14 and Combat Reflexes has Parry 11, which is 62.5%. Shield takes that to 13 or less which is 83.76%. Makes it more than twice as likely to succeed.

You also get an extra defence in the form of a Block.

Sword and board is a perfectly viable combination in GURPS and not underpowered compared to a weapon in each hand IMO.

01-03-2019, 12:22 PM	#1
qchap Join Date: Jan 2019	Some questions about 4E combat rules. Hello, I have some questions about unclear parts of GURPS 4E rules. Sorry if my English is bad. Some introduction: I have been played (and mastered) roleplaying games for about six years with different playgroups, but one of them (and our first) is the most dedicated. Most of our experience was in DnD 3.5, and about a year ago we decided to try the GURPS system (fourth edition, never played third). We loved it! This year we were playing not only gurps, and we had not so much playing time this year at total, so we played about 20-25 sessions of gurps. I mastered about 5 of them, and it was our first experience. Then our second master mastered all other sessions (all of which is one adventure, still in progress). Both of games are near-future. And all the time we played just with basic set, with some Martial Arts options. So, we fell in love with the system, and now we want to completely move to the GURPS system and (almost) forget the old man DnD. We are planning to start a big fantasy sandbox campaign, much like most DnD ones. Our playstyle doesn’t forbid cinematic, but at the same time very realistic and gritty, DnD can’t support this. Thus, I started to learn GURPS books (and am going to learn almost all of them). Now I learned all the Basic Set and Martial Arts, and have read the most important books. So far, I have a few things unclear. I tried to find it in official FAQ, but failed. I really think the questions are simple, and I could just get something wrong, but I have to ask them here. So, first and the most important question: two weapon fighting. Some things are unclear to me here. First, I think that fighting with two weapons is too attractive. If you are choosing between shield + weapon and two weapons, the decision is unclear, but if you are choosing between one (one handed) weapon and two, two are too attractive. You can just spend one point to the perk from Martial Arts and use both weapons as good as one, which not only give you dual weapon attack, but also give you twice of your parries, supported parry option, and some more. The only negative side is that you can’t grab something, which is irrelevant in combat (or, if it really relevant, you can just drop a weapon as a free action). All is just for one point for perk! But, I believe, there were a lot of fighters with just one one-handed weapon, because fighting with two (even if the second is just wielded in hand without attacking) is awkward. Maybe I missed something? Or maybe I just wrong and it IS realistic? Next, let’s assume we decided to have two weapons. What to choose? Let’s assume we want a fencer with rapier in main hand. History says that it would be realistic to either have no weapon in second hand (discussed above), have a buckler (it is not an option since we assumed two weapons), or have a Main-Gauche (so, it’s our option). Ok, we decided to have a rapier in right hand and main-gauche in left. Let’s assume we have about 14 DX and mastered the Rapier at 16. If the only role of the main gauche is to parry, then we can just spend 4 points to have main-gauche at 16 and patty as good, as with a rapier. Ok, not a lot of points, really. But if it is only to parry, it almost can’t be counted as second weapon, it is just some kind of shield (and, may be in this term, the buckler option will be better). So, if we want to strike with the second hand (or if we want not a knife main-gauche, but a e.g. shortsword in second hand), we have to spend a point to the perk, which leads us to total 5 points. Ok, not much, but we have some problems: first, rapier is just mightier than our knife in the second hand; second, if something got wrong, and we have a rapier in the left hand and knife in the right, we are going to have some problems! Of course, ambidexterity is a solution to the second problem, but it gets us to 9 points total. Now, we have an obvious decision – we’ll just have two rapiers! If we spend just one point for the perk, we’ll be able to attack and parry with both hand with all might of the main weapon. And it even solves the problem of changing hands – the weapons are the same! So, it always cheaper and always better. That means, that having two rapiers is strictly better than having main-gauche. But I don’t think it’s realistic. There are very few fighters with two rapiers, comparing to main-gauche ones, or to ones just having one rapier and empty hand. Even in DnD, which is highly unrealistic, classic two weapon ranger most often wields one longsword and one shortsword, because it’s too difficult to fight with two long ones. And rules supported it. Many rangers even played with two shortswords, because it’s easier to have feats for just one weapon, and the character with two shortswords could be deadlier then with long and short one, and of course much stronger than two longsword ones. And a character with two not light weapons is hardly realizable. And if to mention, even good ranger with two shortswords almost always has less damage bonus to the second strike. And it is realistic! In DnD! Here, in GURPS, if you want a classic ranger, it’s somehow strictly better to have two longswords. You even can easily make a character, easily slashing with two axes, even if his strength is just 11! He will strike as good, as one with single axe, but will be able to parry with the second at the same time! It’s highly unrealistic. And both blows will be equally strong. It’s seems for me as a hole in the rules, but maybe I am getting something wrong? Or maybe even it is realistic too? So, it was the first question, and the second is a bit similar: choosing between one-handed and two-handed grips. First, there is detailed rule to take two-handed weapon in one hand, but it’s not very clear to me what to do, if I want to take my one-handed weapon with two hands. Some weapons just have another stat line for this case, but the other haven’t. I think, I can grip my shortsword with two hands if I want, and strike should be stronger, but it should be more awkward. It’s partially described in Martial Art’s Defensive Grip, but I think I can have a weapon in two hands without a defensive stand, assumed there. And what if I want to use a one-handed axe (with STR 11) with two hands, while being a man with STR 10? I think STR requirements should be reduced. Then, let’s assume we found the rule, letting to use shortsword two-handed. Or, let’s just take force sword, which (according to Martial Arts) can be used both in two hands or in one hand equally. The question here is what the difference between grips? Besides that, while one-handed, you have the second hand free. In what cases it would be profitable to wield force sword two handed? The only positive side I thought up is parrying heavy weapons and resisting knocking a weapon away (which is not a thing with force sword, unless an opponent has it too). The negatives are more obvious: you have no free hand (for a shield, second weapon, or whatever) and can’t do the supported parry, which is very useful. But the description of force sword fighting style in Martial Arts says that it’s most commonly used in two hands. Why should I wield it two-handed? It seems that there should be some advantage (even besides +1 damage, described in defensive grip, which even can’t be applied to the force sword), but I don’t see it! Again, maybe I’m blind and missing something? Or is it realistic and ok, and I’m wrong? I have some more less important and less related questions, but it’s already quite a lot of text for one topic, so I’ll ask them some time later. Hoping to receive some help! Thank you! Last edited by qchap; 01-03-2019 at 03:37 PM.

01-03-2019, 04:23 PM	#3
Maz Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Denmark	Re: Some questions about 4E combat rules. Just to clarify a couple of rules regarding Two-Weapon Fighting: Dual Weapon attack. You make a special attack, attacking with both weapons simultaneously. This however gives a penalty of -4 to both attacks! And another -4 to attack with your off hand (which is the penalty you can buy off for the perk you mention). To compare with D&D TWF you could write it like this: -4/-8. (So -4 to attack with main hand, -8 for off hand). Getting the perk reduce this to -4/-4. The target however also gain -1 to defense, but see stuff like Dual Weapon Defense. In a cinematic game you can buy the Dual-Weapon Attack technique to buy off the -4/-4 penalty. But you have to specialize by weapon (or pair of weapons). since it's a Hard Technique. This would cost 6 pts to buy off completely. However if people have access to Dual-Weapon-Attack, their targets should have access to Dual-Weapon-Defense. Which let you parry both attacks. (see Martial Arts p.83 for details). ---- Extra Attack You can also buy Extra Attack. This allow you to make an extra attack with a different weapon. At -4 for using you off hand, but again ,that can be bought off with the perk). ---- Other ways to simulate "two-weapon fighting" is to use Rapid Strike or All-Out-attack:Double. However those also allow you to simply attack twice with the same weapon.

01-03-2019, 04:37 PM	#6
Maz Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Denmark	Re: Some questions about 4E combat rules. Regarding "why have an empty hand". In war people did not have an empty hand. They had a shield in their other hand like sensible soldiers/mercenaries. And so should you in GURPS. The reason you often see people not having a shield in fiction is mostly because a shield is big and cumbersome and so you don't wear it around town and might not have it at hand when traveling from place to place. But the sword was socially acceptable (in some places) to have at your side. Even inside the city. So if trouble happens, the sword is always there, the shield not so often. So no as a "D&D character build" there is no reason to "waste a hand" and neither would a historical character. However there are plenty of reason to end up with an empty hand, and many uses for it. Apart from the reason I mention above an empty hand is good for: Holding a torch. Caves, dungeons, old ruins, sewer tunnels and generally any place worth exploring do not have indoor lightning and so you have to bring your own. Unlike D&D where the 'caster' always have a handy Light spell, you have to bring your own. Climbing, or merely holding on. Outright climbing usually require both hands. But often you need a free hand to hold unto a rope or railing. Using other equipment. This might be alchemeical elixirs, holy symbols, magical components or amulets and so on. But can also be more mundane stuff like a 10' pole, or some such. Grabbing. As Ulzgoroth mentioned. This can be a very effective combat-strategy in GURPS. Especially to grab the other persons shield or weapon (like a spear- or axe-shaft). Casting spells. In GURPS usually require hand gestures unless you are very powerful.

01-03-2019, 04:41 PM	#7
Anaraxes Join Date: Sep 2007	Re: Some questions about 4E combat rules. Dual-Weapon Attack allows either or both hands to be unarmed, so that's not an advantage belonging only a two-weapon fighter. Most period manuals teach punching and grappling moves in conjunction with the weapon work. An unarmed skill is commonly recommended on the forum for serious melee combatants -- though I do often see gaming groups overlooking that option, whether because the unarmed and close combat rules are unfamiliar, or they're just too used to hacking down enemy trees via HP ablation to bother. As for many fighters using one weapon and an empty hand, I can't think of any historical examples in actual military use preferring that setup, and very few dual-weapon soldiers instead of two-handers or one+shield. No doubt there were a lot of people occasionally fighting with just one weapon, but that's because that's all they were carrying. You might get into a rapier-only scrap with some Capulets, but in that situation you're also theoretically peaceful (and if you were laying for those Capulets, you might well be more heavily armed). Musketeers are more likely to have that pistol or main-gauche in their off-hand -- and pirates are generally planning for their combats. Carrying two weapons in social situations is that much more awkward and cumbersome, and if you're not expecting a fight, why would you bother, especially when the weapons are more symbolic and fashion statements than actual weapons (kind of like the way men in the modern-day equip one silk pocket square instead of a stack of cotton handkerchiefs)? If you're trained in weapon + shield, you certainly won't bother lugging a shield around unless you expect a fight, because they're big and heavy. Real life behavior isn't always about optimum game-mechanical combat performance. Cinematic behavior like Douglas Fairbanks or Errol Flynn playing Robin Hood is even more often about what looks cool on screen than it is about maximally effective fighting technique. Context matters for your expectations. Last edited by Anaraxes; 01-03-2019 at 05:22 PM.

01-03-2019, 04:56 PM	#10
mr beer Join Date: Mar 2013	Re: Some questions about 4E combat rules. Shields are very useful, +2 DB is a large bonus for defence. A guy with weapon skill 14 and Combat Reflexes has Parry 11, which is 62.5%. Shield takes that to 13 or less which is 83.76%. Makes it more than twice as likely to succeed. You also get an extra defence in the form of a Block. Sword and board is a perfectly viable combination in GURPS and not underpowered compared to a weapon in each hand IMO.