Unarmed Parry Is Unarmed Block?

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by DangerousThing

I don't think it has changed much in all the years I've played GURPS.

That situation has not changed at all since Man to Man in 1985. Of course, there have been a few changes in thinking about how to represent the focus of specific fighting styles; e.g., the Boxing skill used to give a skill-based Dodge bonus, but now the Boxing style recommends higher Basic Speed for dodging . . . and you could essentially add back the Dodge bonus by tacking on Skill Adaptation (Boxing works as Acrobatics for Acrobatic Dodge). But the basic explanations of Block, Dodge, and Parry haven't changed at all.

[McAllister]

First, Otaku, your face is fine, no saving necessary.

Second, let's take this to it's logical conclusion. Let's assume that, for some reason, my arms are covered with a fantastic, nigh-invincible superscience forcefield and I have some bizarre Vow preventing me from wearing other armor.

1. The only benefit to my unarmed Parry is not taking damage? Compared to someone with an equal Karate skill and no arm protection, there's no way to take advantage of the forcefields and make it easier to take a blow on the arm? Is it ever possible to get a Defense Bonus from invincible arms? Surely an arm has a higher surface area than a DB +1 shield.

2. Now let's say my opponent is an acid-souled Mystic Knight, and since I know he wants to disfigure me and ruin my life with his corrosion damage, he wants to hit me in the face. Is there some mechanic for holding my arms in front of my face to protect it?

[Nereidalbel]

Originally Posted by McAllister

1. The only benefit to my unarmed Parry is not taking damage? Compared to someone with an equal Karate skill and no arm protection, there's no way to take advantage of the forcefields and make it easier to take a blow on the arm? Is it ever possible to get a Defense Bonus from invincible arms? Surely an arm has a higher surface area than a DB +1 shield.

You should be able to claim a DB from whatever device gives you that forcefield.

Originally Posted by McAllister

2. Now let's say my opponent is an acid-souled Mystic Knight, and since I know he wants to disfigure me and ruin my life with his corrosion damage, he wants to hit me in the face. Is there some mechanic for holding my arms in front of my face to protect it?

Aside from simple logic allowing you to say "I hold my invulnerable arm in front of my face," maybe on of the books dealing with martial arts covers protecting your face.

[Dalillama]

Originally Posted by McAllister

Surely an arm has a higher surface area than a DB +1 shield.

Why on earth would you think that? A DB +1 shield is something like this.

[McAllister]

Originally Posted by Nereidalbel

You should be able to claim a DB from whatever device gives you that forcefield.

Yes, I should, but that's not my point. New example: you know the X-man Colossus? He's just a guy who can turn his skin into super-strong metal. Let's say I take DR 100 (Hardened 2, Partial: Arms, Switchable) to be like an arms-only Colossus. Can I get DB from my arms then? What if I have some modified version of Growth (Partial: Hands)?

Originally Posted by Nereidalbel

Aside from simple logic allowing you to say "I hold my invulnerable arm in front of my face," maybe on of the books dealing with martial arts covers protecting your face.

You might think that, but I believe that defending the face is intended to be built into the -5 modifier to hit. I'm pretty familiar with Martial Arts and Technical Grappling, and I'm not aware of rules for protecting a hit location behind another hit location. Gladiator has rules for presenting the right or left half of your body while denying your opponent access to the other half, but that just makes some parts easier to hit and some harder; it doesn't cover taking a hit intended for one hit location on another location.

[Otaku]

First, so that I don't confuse anyone, I do get what is being said; the GURPS Active Defenses (and what they are named) doesn't always line up with common terms you would see elsewhere: an unarmed "block" really is just a "parry" as far as the system RAW is concerned. I'll still entertain some of the optional/homebrew rules being discussed and further investigate the mechanics, because I just like this kind of thing (as opposed to really not "getting" it).

Originally Posted by McAllister

First, Otaku, your face is fine, no saving necessary.

Second, let's take this to it's logical conclusion. Let's assume that, for some reason, my arms are covered with a fantastic, nigh-invincible superscience forcefield and I have some bizarre Vow preventing me from wearing other armor.

1. The only benefit to my unarmed Parry is not taking damage? Compared to someone with an equal Karate skill and no arm protection, there's no way to take advantage of the forcefields and make it easier to take a blow on the arm? Is it ever possible to get a Defense Bonus from invincible arms? Surely an arm has a higher surface area than a DB +1 shield.

2. Now let's say my opponent is an acid-souled Mystic Knight, and since I know he wants to disfigure me and ruin my life with his corrosion damage, he wants to hit me in the face. Is there some mechanic for holding my arms in front of my face to protect it?

One option that existed in 3e was the "Concentrated Defense". It first officially appeared in Roleplayer 27 and was printed in Compendium II on pages 62-63. The short version is that you could favor defending part of yourself (Head or Torso or Arms or Legs) for a +1 to +5 bonus at the cost of incurring the inverse penalty (so -1 to -5) for the other three areas. Smaller Hit Locations are lumped into the broader categories though a special rule does exist for the Vitals.

So... did I miss (or just haven't been exposed) to the 4e counterpart for this? It still isn't really what I was thinking of, but at least it provides an answer for McAllister's second question. If someone were to use the 4e equivalent (adapting it to 4e if there isn't an equivalent already), his guy with the invincible forearms can use a Concentrated Defense to protect his Head (which includes his face) at the risk of making his Torso, Arms, and Legs more vulnerable. If someone wants more complex rules, I could also see tweaking this so that you can force your opponent into working hard to attack anything but a specific area.

Using the above example, perhaps Mr. Magic Arms fights keeping his Arms prominently in front of him. Maybe this could give a penalty to attacking (as he is restricting how far he moves his arms away from their defensive position) and/or the bonus gained for defending everything else is much less than what is gained for defending one area at the cost of the other three (in this case +1 to everything else for a -3 to Defend the Arms).

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by Dalillama

Why on earth would you think that? A DB +1 shield is something like this.

I think a lot of people have the same issues with properly visualizing shields; their usage in the modern world is usually in portraying historical or fictional battles, where Rule of Cool often results in being too large or small for what a "realistic" result would require.

That being said, blocking with two arms (again, not sure if that is realistic at all but I see it a lot in fiction) would give approximately the same "coverage" as that buckler. I think that might be getting to the one angle I should have brought up sooner but didn't really grasp myself.

What really is "Blocking" and "Parrying"? I get it that Man-To-Man made them separate, and so its been that way for decades so I really am going uphill on this one. Still, when you get down to it, why is Blocking with a Shield not actually Parrying with a Shield? A "good" Block in 3e (again, 4e detailed descriptions aren't currently available to me) functioned like a Parry; in 4e isn't it similar to 3e in that when you make a Defense (including Blocking) by your DB (PD in 3e) that your shield takes the hit full on instead of deflecting most of the force?

I am again wondering if Block and Parry should be two Defensive Options with all Combat Melee skills that can reasonably justify them. Blocking with anything but a Shield would be foolhardy unless the item was intended to be just as disposable or was amazingly durable, but for really weak or amazingly strong attacks, better to let them hit my axe or my forearms than my face. Alternatively... maybe the system should just drop "Block" entirely and defending with a Shield is just a Shield Parry?

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Otaku

I think a lot of people have the same issues with properly visualizing shields; their usage in the modern world is usually in portraying historical or fictional battles, where Rule of Cool often results in being too large or small for what a "realistic" result would require.

That being said, blocking with two arms (again, not sure if that is realistic at all but I see it a lot in fiction) would give approximately the same "coverage" as that buckler. I think that might be getting to the one angle I should have brought up sooner but didn't really grasp myself.

What really is "Blocking" and "Parrying"? I get it that Man-To-Man made them separate, and so its been that way for decades so I really am going uphill on this one. Still, when you get down to it, why is Blocking with a Shield not actually Parrying with a Shield? A "good" Block in 3e (again, 4e detailed descriptions aren't currently available to me) functioned like a Parry; in 4e isn't it similar to 3e in that when you make a Defense (including Blocking) by your DB (PD in 3e) that your shield takes the hit full on instead of deflecting most of the force?

I am again wondering if Block and Parry should be two Defensive Options with all Combat Melee skills that can reasonably justify them. Blocking with anything but a Shield would be foolhardy unless the item was intended to be just as disposable or was amazingly durable, but for really weak or amazingly strong attacks, better to let them hit my axe or my forearms than my face. Alternatively... maybe the system should just drop "Block" entirely and defending with a Shield is just a Shield Parry?

Shield parry probably works, at a penalty depending on size.

[Dalillama]

Originally Posted by Otaku

That being said, blocking with two arms (again, not sure if that is realistic at all but I see it a lot in fiction) would give approximately the same "coverage" as that buckler. I think that might be getting to the one angle I should have brought up sooner but didn't really grasp myself.

I'm pretty sure that's the Cross Parry in MA, but I haven't got a copy of 4e MA yet and my 3e one's not handy atm.

What really is "Blocking" and "Parrying"? I get it that Man-To-Man made them separate, and so its been that way for decades so I really am going uphill on this one.

In GURPS, a Block is what you do with the Shield skill, and a Parry is what you do with another combat skill.

Still, when you get down to it, why is Blocking with a Shield not actually Parrying with a Shield?

Because you can put a shield between you and, e.g.a dragon's breath or a bunch of arrows, which you can't do with a weapon.

I am again wondering if Block and Parry should be two Defensive Options with all Combat Melee skills that can reasonably justify them. Blocking with anything but a Shield would be foolhardy unless the item was intended to be just as disposable or was amazingly durable, but for really weak or amazingly strong attacks, better to let them hit my axe or my forearms than my face.

That's what the weapon breakage rules and the unarmed parrying of armed attack rules are for.

Alternatively... maybe the system should just drop "Block" entirely and defending with a Shield is just a Shield Parry?

There's no pressing reason not to do that, really, but if it's been this way for 5+ editions (counting Man to Man as an edition) and ~30 years, I don't foresee it changing soon.

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Otaku

\
One option that existed in 3e was the "Concentrated Defense". It first officially appeared in Roleplayer 27 and was printed in Compendium II on pages 62-63. The short version is that you could favor defending part of yourself (Head or Torso or Arms or Legs) for a +1 to +5 bonus at the cost of incurring the inverse penalty (so -1 to -5) for the other three areas. Smaller Hit Locations are lumped into the broader categories though a special rule does exist for the Vitals.

The 4e Version of this is buried in GURPS Martial Arts: Gladiators. I don't remember the current rule very well.

Hopefully we'll see GURPS Technical Striking some day--that would be a good place to reprint this rule.