Garrote: 'a skill shouldn't have a mandatory penalty attached'?..

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Is there still a "Binding" skill or power?

More to the point, wouldn't a Garrote attack really best be described as a grapple attack?

Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, a Garrote attack uses the "halve hit location penalties" rule from p.400 since to strangle someone you need grapple them by the neck.

I just consider the info on p.405 to be Kromm missing his logic roll. *grin*
It should really read "You must target the neck, at the usual -3 to grapple."

Hmm, maybe Kromm will eventually make his logic roll and allow it as an errata... ;p

[Kromm]

It's -5 in 4e because it was -5 in 3e, and 3e didn't make grabbing slowly any easier than striking swiftly. In fact, 3e didn't have hit locations for grappling at all, really. I suppose we could have made it -3, like a grapple, and not -5, like a strike . . . but everybody I've spoken with claims that wrapping people up with cords in a fight is more like striking owing to the moves used. I can't say, as I don't garrote people for fun, but it's not really an extra -2 that I lose sleep over.

[Pmandrekar]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I can't say, as I don't garrote people for fun....

It's too bad, too. Just one more thing that we fans would count in your favor :)

-P.

(Now, I may have given you a starting point :P )

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Kromm

It's -5 in 4e because it was -5 in 3e, and 3e didn't make grabbing slowly any easier than striking swiftly. In fact, 3e didn't have hit locations for grappling at all, really. I suppose we could have made it -3, like a grapple, and not -5, like a strike . . . but everybody I've spoken with claims that wrapping people up with cords in a fight is more like striking owing to the moves used. I can't say, as I don't garrote people for fun, but it's not really an extra -2 that I lose sleep over.

And what about the fact that it's the only weapon 'suffering' an Active Defense during a surprise attack?

[Kromm]

The target gets no active defense if you genuinely surprise him. The rules for active defenses assume he isn't surprised.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I can't say, as I don't garrote people for fun, but it's not really an extra -2 that I lose sleep over.

Now, I doubt many people lose sleep over the rules*, but consistency, that old hobgoblin, is still a lovely thing to have.

Any chance of the skill being re-evaluated** for a future publication, most likely some version of Covert Ops/Espionage/Special Ops? Just as an optional rule for those who like it as a grappling technique?

*OK, fine, some people do. And to be honest, I'm not sleeping all that well until Martial Arts and High-Tech are out. ;)
**Preferably by someone who does garrote people for fun. ;)

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Icelander

**Preferably by someone who does garrote people for fun. ;)[/SIZE]

I'd prefer the rules be done by someone who garrotes people professionally. The people who do it for fun develop bad habits. So I understand.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I'd prefer the rules be done by someone who garrotes people professionally. The people who do it for fun develop bad habits. So I understand.

But the people who do it professionally aren't exactly encouraged to speak much about it, are they? :)

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Icelander

But the people who do it professionally aren't exactly encouraged to speak much about it, are they? :)

That would be a very odd endorsement deal for brandname piano wire.
"Strong enough for a hitman but made for a baby grand."

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

That would be a very odd endorsement deal for brandname piano wire.
"Strong enough for a hitman but made for a baby grand."

"We've had no complaints from end consumers. Ever." ;)