03-24-2015, 05:50 PM | #41 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: [MA] Retreat to Slip behind
I am somewhat inclined to change most 'no defense' situations to 'defend at -4'. Probably including All-Out Attack. The basic problem is that no defense at all is a bit too high a penalty. Consider two skill 18 combatants with combat reflexes (parry 13)
Frontal Attack: deceptive attack -2 is 16 vs 12 (32%), deceptive attack -6 is 12 vs 10 (38%). A skull attack is 11 vs 13 (11.7%) Side Attack: deceptive attack -2 is 16 vs 10 (54%), deceptive attack -4 is 14 vs 9 (47%). A skull attack is 11 vs 11 (25%) Rear Attack: a telegraphic rapid strike is two attacks at 16 against no defense, a telegraphic skull attack is one attack at 17 against no defense. Either way, 98% hit probability. Overall, the rear attack is nearly 4x better than the side attack, while the side attack is only 50-60% better than the front attack. |
03-24-2015, 06:03 PM | #42 |
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Behind You
|
Re: [MA] Retreat to Slip behind
I've kind of felt the same way, except I'd have gone a higher negative. It's mostly the all-out attack gets no defense scenario that bugs me.
|
03-25-2015, 09:30 AM | #43 | |
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Heartland, U.S.A.
|
Re: [MA] Retreat to Slip behind
Quote:
If we assume a linear progression, then one could argue that you may take a +1 to hit for every -1 to your defense that you're willing to give up. We could simply have a Determined Attack option (like Telegraphic Attack [MA113]) and drop the All-Out Attack (Melee) Determined and Committed Attack (Melee) Determined maneuvers. Determined Attack (Melee) Replaces the rules for All-Out Attack (Melee) Determined [B365] and Committed Attack (Melee) Determined [MA99-100]. For every +1 to your attack, you accept a -1 to your defenses. Additionally, you may not use the weapon or body part you used to attack with to defend at all, and you may not retreat. EDIT: See posts below for good ideas to include restrictions in movement aw well. It will surprise me not a bit to learn I'm not the first to suggest this.
__________________
Last edited by Captain Joy; 04-05-2015 at 07:10 PM. Reason: added fine print, added "option" and "maneuvers" |
|
03-25-2015, 09:34 AM | #44 | |
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vermont
|
Re: [MA] Retreat to Slip behind
Quote:
__________________
My ongoing thread of GURPS versions of DC Comics characters. |
|
03-25-2015, 09:48 AM | #45 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [MA] Retreat to Slip behind
Quote:
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
03-25-2015, 09:56 AM | #46 | |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: [MA] Retreat to Slip behind
Quote:
It might be appropriate to allow characters to take -2 to defense for +1 Step. This would set a half-move All Out Attack at something like -8 to defense - +4 to attack gives -4, +2 Steps gives another -4. Again, you'll want to cap it - half Move (typically +2 Steps) is probably the limit here. |
|
Tags |
martial arts |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|