Should Evaluate be worth +2?

[Railstar]

Originally Posted by philosophyguy

The Evaluate maneuver seems underpowered in combat. Compare two options: take an Evaluate maneuver and then attack, versus attack and then attack again on your next turn.

I wouldn't mind boosts to Evaluate, but I think that is the wrong option to compare it to: Attack and then Attack again is actually limited to a fairly specific set of circumstances – namely that you are already standing within weapon reach, something I would not recommend doing longer than necessary.

Think of what other options you can compare it to. For instance, standing outside of range – you can use Evaluate on anyone you could Move-And-Attack against, so compare it with some of the other options in those circumstances.

Move-and-Attack = -4 to hit, max skill of 9, -2 defences.

Move-and-Attack (slam) = normal attack skill, but probably less damage than your weapon, has a chance of hurting or knocking down you, and still -2 defences. Also, if they Dodge, you rush past them, meaning they could turn and attack you from behind on their next turn.

All-Out Attack = decent attack options, but if it doesn't work then no defence at all next round.

All of those options seem very risky to me, since they leave you exposed to a hit immediately after. The one with the fewest risks has a severe attack penalty, making it still a very unreliable option. The cautious choice would be to slowly step closer while Evaluating for +1 (up to +3 if you keep at it) from a position of relative safety.

Essentially Evaluate is what you do when you do not want to risk being the one to rush in first and lower your defences. Evaluate also makes the risk of the other guy rushing in first even higher, because the attack they expose themselves to by rushing in will have the bonus from Evaluate.

At high skill, Evaluate remains useful for offsetting penalties for your first attack – such as from Deceptive Attack, or aiming for the weapon hand, or a Disarm if you want to stay outside the reach of their weapon.

If you stand and Evaluate from 1 hex away, it's a bad idea. But if you start Evaluating from 5 hexes back, it becomes a much more sensible option.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Dingle

in the case of low point games with skill ~14, medium shields, and combat reflexes, retreating defenses are close to combat skill.
In this case, at least one of feint or evaluate is worth it as the chances of hitting without them are low.

Evaluate followed by feint has a good chance of turning the evaluate bonus into a defense penalty, which in turn leads to a decisive hit.

Yes this is pretty much my experience, evaluate is used by those with professional level of skills rather than those with heroic levels. (unless teh later is doing something exceptional or sneaky)

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Railstar

Essentially Evaluate is what you do when you do not want to risk being the one to rush in first and lower your defences.

This is my impression from watching the sorts of things people cite as a need for Evaluate -- boxers dancing around in the ring instead of punching away. I'm ignorant of martial arts, but this looks to me as much as not wanting to give the opponent an opening as anything else. You might model that by having defenses lowered when you attack.

And in a way, they already are. If those boxers are skipping around All-out Defending, then if one of them switches to Move and Attack, he has relatively less defense. (The defender's AoD is still in place from the previous turn; he defends, then on his turn also changes to Attack, but this counter-attack is against the attacker's regular defense.)

Holding back instead of constantly attacking isn't because you're building up a better attack; it's because most people are naturally risk-averse, even combatants.

The incentive to be the first to attack is external to the combat mechanics. It's the three-minute timer ticking away when you're behind on points, or the desire of the challenger to dethrone the champion, which means he has to take a risk to make something happen, or just the fact that they're there to box and they get bored.

The last point is artificially high, and extremely so, for players in a game context. Also, there's the "PCs are supposed to win" factor, which tends to reduce the perceived risk of attacking. If you're better than your opponent, or at least think you are, then you're more likely to take the risk of wading in first and taking that first hit.

[fula farbrorn]

one thing i was looking at, was having the players/NPCs roll VS will at -2, if they make the roll they get to attack freely, if they fail they can choose any action thats not a attack, and on a 18 they have to step out of the combat if feasible

[philosophyguy]

Thank you for the detailed suggestions. I just posted a question about fatigue rules recently and The Last Gasp was suggested there as well. Can someone give me a summary that's slightly deeper than the teaser text for the Pyramid issue? In particular, I'm wondering about the Action Point system because I'm looking for ways to simplify my games, and that sounds like it would be another detail to keep track of.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by philosophyguy

In particular, I'm wondering about the Action Point system because I'm looking for ways to simplify my games, and that sounds like it would be another detail to keep track of.

It won't simplify them. It is another detail to track.

It also runs somewhat counter to an ACTION! playstyle, though I do keep poking at it to see if I can figure out how to force it to work for me (I tend to run ACTION!).

[Railstar]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

This is my impression from watching the sorts of things people cite as a need for Evaluate -- boxers dancing around in the ring instead of punching away. I'm ignorant of martial arts, but this looks to me as much as not wanting to give the opponent an opening as anything else. You might model that by having defenses lowered when you attack.

And in a way, they already are. If those boxers are skipping around All-out Defending, then if one of them switches to Move and Attack, he has relatively less defense. (The defender's AoD is still in place from the previous turn; he defends, then on his turn also changes to Attack, but this counter-attack is against the attacker's regular defense.)

Holding back instead of constantly attacking isn't because you're building up a better attack; it's because most people are naturally risk-averse, even combatants.

The bulk of my martial arts training is extremely aggressive, with such teachings as "strike and then rush upon him whether you hit or miss" and "all wisdom loathe the one forced to defend" - so I would be pretty strongly against having defences lowered by an attack, since the idea is to move behind your weapon so it creates a path of safety by attacking.

On the other hand, actually trying to hit someone who is ready for you on the first try is very difficult. And once you've committed to the attack, they are in a position to attack you.

Building up a better attack is perhaps not something consciously done, but if you have a few seconds before striking you get to do subtle things like have your balance adjusted to the attack you wish to make, be in the guard position you want to throw your strike from, and even just have picked out your target. In the moment when blows are being struck it can be difficult to manage all those at once. So the attack bonus is definitely appropriate.

Being risk-averse is a very good point though. I remember a lot of swordfights that involved trying to bind or beat aside the opponent's weapon from too far away to attack their body (something kind of criticised a lot in HEMA circles but still a tempting option when the alternative is stepping into striking distance) - something probably simulated by a Disarm attempt at fairly low skills, in the hopes of making their weapon unready when you step in to attack.

Or you get lots of Feint and Step (back), where they throw the feint and since it doesn't work (failed to win the quick contest), the attacker steps back out of range of his opponent (especially if the opponent also Retreated in response to the Feint). The idea being nobody wants to engage without doing at least something first to reduce the risk of being hit back.

GURPS tends to treat Attack as the 'default' option in combat, but real-life certainly doesn't, I think Martial Arts emphasises in several styles relying on Defensive Attacks until a foe is down or otherwise vulnerable, then a Committed or All-Out Attack.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

It won't simplify them. It is another detail to track.

It also runs somewhat counter to an ACTION! playstyle, though I do keep poking at it to see if I can figure out how to force it to work for me (I tend to run ACTION!).

There's a tiny box meant for GMs in there that might be adaptable.

you can also try to really, really forget about tracking. Every time you attack, grab a token. When your tokens equal your HT, you can't act. Spend a FP and get back HT/2. Evaluate and get back 1d/2; Do Nothing and get back 1d.

Or some such. The key bit is to encourage pauses in the action and to accumulate FP in a way that makes you want to conserve that resource.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

There's a tiny box meant for GMs in there that might be adaptable.

Yes. Which is why I keep poking at it.

Just for someone looking for 'K.I.S.S.', The Last Gasp ain't gonna fit.

Or some such. The key bit is to encourage pauses in the action and to accumulate FP in a way that makes you want to conserve that resource.

Which is where I'd prefer to use it: A game where in resource tracking in general is more important. Say a post-apoc with limited supplies, Fatigue becomes another supply that must be weighed and measured. In most games I run the PCs simply either have the resources they need, or the theme of the session is (re)acquiring those resources.

I don't much bother even with ammo tracking as a rule.


My current problem is either I run a campaign in which I start tracking everything (and weather the griping) or I ease them (the Players) into 'resource tracking' slowly, one resource at a time.

Which is actually what I'm doing with the current game. They began with no resources (their very memories missing) and have within the first two sessions acquired those and as much other resources as they'd ever need. Now it's time to leave the Vault and I start tracking stuff. Their first issue will be water as none of them have Survival skills (I love my Players sooo much some times. One of them even mentioned it OOC last game "Hey... I just noticed none of us has Survival and we're about to head out into the wastes... are we all gonna die?" The response from his Uncle was "Don't worry, our characters will survive. They might not want to survive... but they will.").

So yes, I am contemplating at some point giving The Last Gasp a go in this campaign. If the Players take to it, I'll keep it (though I run ACTION!, the rush-lull of real fights is something I've wanted to get into my games for awhile).

[kabson]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

So yes, I am contemplating at some point giving The Last Gasp a go in this campaign. If the Players take to it, I'll keep it (though I run ACTION!, the rush-lull of real fights is something I've wanted to get into my games for awhile).

I've been looking at The Last Gasp recently. I like the concept, but seems like a lot to track. There are some suggestions for 'simplifying' it on the Gaming Ballistic blog: http://gamingballistic.blogspot.tw/2...implified.html

And Archon Shiva has a good take with 'Breath Points': http://archonshiva.com/blog/spire/?p=218