02-08-2013, 07:54 AM | #21 |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: Slam and Shield Rush rules broken!
In my experience, most unarmed forms of attack are effectively very low damage attacks with Double Knockback. Slams and Shoves are even less damaging than punches and kicks, in terms of penetration or tissue damage, but deliver even more momentum to knock the target back and down.
If the knockback rules were adjusted to account for whether it's affecting the center of mass or somewhere else (as Push Kick does, for example), as well as accounting for the direction the target is facing and the security of his footing, I think it would be possible to resolve slams with the same mechanism as other unarmed attacks.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
02-08-2013, 08:01 AM | #22 |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
|
Re: Slam and Shield Rush rules broken!
I wouldn't discount the effect of trying to maneuver with a mattress on your (lack of) ability to keep on your feet, either. Not strictly encumbrance as bulk, but it's still going to inhibit you from being nimble, and if it makes you top heavy, and then a 20-odd lb angry cat kicks off a wall and hits you above your unusually high centre of gravity (which you are not familiar with being that high), it's going to make "staying on your feet" worse.
As a GM I'd be improvising some penalties for a very unusual situation. Combine that with some unlikely but technically possible rolls and someone can totally land on their butt.
__________________
All about Size Modifier; Unified Hit Location Table A Wiki for my F2F Group A neglected GURPS blog |
02-08-2013, 08:02 AM | #23 |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
|
Re: Slam and Shield Rush rules broken!
A little more on topic: An idea is having some of the slam damage end up as FP damage. Half? Have DR subtract from HP damage first, then FP damage.
__________________
All about Size Modifier; Unified Hit Location Table A Wiki for my F2F Group A neglected GURPS blog |
02-08-2013, 05:16 PM | #24 |
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France
|
Re: Slam and Shield Rush rules broken!
It would introduce something that is done in other some roleplaying games: a difference between lethal damage (ordinary one) and stunning damage (shock due form slam, here). But it's an idea that is worth being tested...
Another naive one: why not using the rule as written and just adding the difference of SM as bonus to the damage done by the bigger character (not as true damage; only for the comparison)? For two humans or characters of the same size, it wouldn't change anything. Simple. But when a rat would want to slam down an elephant, things would be much harder for the rat! |
02-08-2013, 05:27 PM | #25 | |
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oregon
|
Re: Slam and Shield Rush rules broken!
Quote:
|
|
02-08-2013, 09:19 PM | #26 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Medford, MA
|
Re: Slam and Shield Rush rules broken!
Quote:
Part of my justification comes from the way velocity is conserved once you enter enhanced move. But really the reason why I do it is two-fold: 1) It eliminates the slow slam problem, and 2) it means that you can calculate basic slam damage at character creation and save time in play. Win-win all around. That is the only slam rule I've used so far and it works really well. Though I think I'll add the BL upper limit restriction. |
|
02-08-2013, 09:45 PM | #27 | |
Untagged
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
|
Re: Slam and Shield Rush rules broken!
Quote:
I just wouldn't like mass and strength to be the entirety of slams.
__________________
Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check. |
|
02-08-2013, 10:08 PM | #28 | |
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oregon
|
Re: Slam and Shield Rush rules broken!
Quote:
|
|
02-08-2013, 10:35 PM | #29 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Medford, MA
|
Re: Slam and Shield Rush rules broken!
Quote:
So |
|
02-09-2013, 01:05 AM | #30 |
Join Date: Nov 2012
|
Re: Slam and Shield Rush rules broken!
In real life, the success of any slam/shield rush move is going to be predicated, not on the opponent's ST, but on preventing the opponent from utilizing their ST.
Let's use the (North American) football example. Even in the big hit of offensive vs. defensive lines, we're not talking raw ST-on-ST matchups here. Offensive linesmen are fighting for upper body leverage and keeping themselves square to the rusher, while the defensive lineman is either trying to pull a skills move, like a swim or a cut move, or a "power" move, which is really about leverage (having a lower centre of gravity than the opponent) and hitting them off-square (unbalancing them by attacking one side or the other). Knocking people down involves hitting them high (ie: your centre of gravity is significantly higher than theirs at impact, or is on an upward trajectory at impact) with sufficient force to flip their legs forward, or hitting them low (ie: your centre of gravity is significantly lower than theirs, or is on a downward trajectory) and pulling their upper body forward by forcing their lower body backward. If two bodies collide with equivalent centres of gravity, they are more likely to lock or bounce back, with both remaining upright, than for either to fall down. Slams are about skill, leverage, and balance, not ST. You are, in fact, using your body as a lever. If the target can deploy their full strength to oppose the slam, they've already won. The only change I would make to the current rule is that part where the rules force you to make a second roll if you succeeded in your first roll. The whole point of a slam/rush is to knock your opponent off-balance and, hopefully, to the ground. It's not about doing direct damage; it's about making the opponent vulnerable to other, more deadly, attacks. I slam you to the ground with my shield so that I can bring all the force of my body down on your vitals with my pointy stick-thing, not for the aesthetic pleasure of seeing you on the turf. (Unless you are a QB, in which case it is pleasing to see you in your natural resting position.) I would be open to allowing a modifier to the attack roll for ST differential, and perhaps relative velocity; but damage would only come into play in cases where crits were rolled (for either the attacker or defender). |
Tags |
houserules, rules, rush, shield, slam |
|
|