Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-08-2013, 12:03 AM   #231
Tuk the Weekah
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Default Re: Feints dominating fights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by makke View Post
In my rather high powered (~300 to 400 points) fantasy campaign there was absolutely no reason (besides me forbidding it) to not increase a skill further. After all, 20 points in a skill mean that I've got a feint skill that is five levels higher than yours, and therefore I will, in all likelihood, kill you quite fast.
(emphasis mine)

You opened this door. It's a fantasy campaign, man.

Shortsword @ DX-1 = 1 point
Weaken Will spell @ IQ-1 (incl prerequisites) = 2 points
Tickle spell @ IQ-1 (incl prerequisites) = 3 points.
Magery 1 = 15 points

Total: 21 points. PC2 has approximately 60 turns to whittle the writhing PC1 to death, while singing a lovely ditty or two. And, honestly, I'm not very good at this tactical combat stuff. There are lots of very subtile spells out there that can be hidden in a 300-point build that would make the skinny kid with the small falchion easily the most dangerous person in the arena (even if obvious magic is banned in arena combat).

I know I'm over by a smidge in cost; but you're cheating, too, by excluding all the different scenarios where feint isn't effective at all, and then saying that it is the nonpareil tactic in combat.

If anything in my game is the most effective tactic, then I need to change the parameters of what I'm doing, because I'm not holding up my end of the bargain as a GM.
Tuk the Weekah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 01:15 AM   #232
makke
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Germany, Leonberg
Default Re: Feints dominating fights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuk the Weekah View Post
There are lots of very subtile spells out there that can be hidden in a 300-point build that would make the skinny kid with the small falchion easily the most dangerous person in the arena (even if obvious magic is banned in arena combat).
That is the thing with magic: A well played and designed wizard is extremely powerful (and versatile) ('d rather go illusion or mind control btw -think Kusanagi vs Batou in Gits)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuk the Weekah View Post
If anything in my game is the most effective tactic, then I need to change the parameters of what I'm doing, because I'm not holding up my end of the bargain as a GM.
That is why I started this thread, you know? ;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
It depends on how many points you're working with. Feint is a Hard technique, which means the first level of it costs 2 points. If you have, say, Broadsword at DX for 2 points, it's not rational to invest 2 points in Feint at Broadsword+1 (or DX+1), because that same 2 points will raise Broadsword (and the default value of Feint) to DX+1, a broader benefit.
I guess my question was a bit flawed in some sense - with only 10 points in combat skills you are rather unlikely to buy any one technique up very much if at all. Therefore the question whether someone who would invest in feint is stronger or not doesn't really arise since you stil want to bring up basic stuff to acceptable levels first - as you've pointed out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnome View Post
Disallowing Feint as a technique cuts down on people dominating fights with Feint and easily beating the enemies that should be a challenge to beat. I think it's logical to disallow it for the same reason that you can't buy Deceptive Attack as a technique: it's one of the primary ways that fighters get past each other's defenses!
The problem with this is that you limit the options ppl have - by removing the technique you vastly decrease the usefulness of feints - true, that is what I am after but I don't want to remove it from the game either (I kind of like feints as a combat option after all). I fear that removing the technique makes the option too bad in high skill combats - but I will give it some thought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ismenis View Post
Some thoughts on what to do against feints, and the drawbacks of these counter measures:
1. Longer reach [...]
2. Disarming [...]
3. Combine 1 and 2[...]
I think you have a very good point there (doesn't solve the problem for unarmed combat tho since neither option is applicable there).

To sum the arguments up (please correct me in case I missed anything or got anything wrong) - you don't want to feint when
#1)you are better off simply attacking,
#2)you want to use some combat option that is not compatible to feint.

@1) This depends largely on the situation. I don't think there are ways to fight that generally don't benefit from feints besides those that fall under #2, are there?

@2) As far as I can see the only thing that falls under this category is disarming?
makke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 02:06 AM   #233
Tuk the Weekah
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Default Re: Feints dominating fights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by makke View Post
That is why I started this thread, you know? ;)
I meant move the goalposts, not devise another strategy to do exactly the same thing.

A thought: use the shield as the primary weapon, and the pointy thing only to clean up afterwards. Use Shield Rush techniques and bash your opponent with the shield. Use Shove rules to move your opponent around without causing damage, and use Tactics to herd your opponent into a defensibly unviable position--loose footing, insufficient maneuvering space, etc.* Your opponent's high weapon skill is irrelevant to their defence; if they try to parry, their weapon will have a 1 in 3 chance of breaking on your shield. [B. 376; the human body in a Shield Rush is a heavy weapon, B. 371.] Of course, you can use Deceptive Attack rules for Slams, Shield Rushes, and Shoves...

* "At GM's discretion, a successful roll might even provide clues to immediate enemy plans. To outmaneuver enemy units, you must win a Quick Contest of Tactics with their leader. All of this only applies when you lead a group small enough that you can give each warrior orders personally" [B.224]. It is perfectly possible to flank a single opponent all by yourself. You just need the skill. If you can't manage the chain of command of you, then you probably should ditch the sword & take up knitting.
Tuk the Weekah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2020, 09:12 AM   #234
JazzJedi
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Default Re: Feints dominating fights?

I didn't read every post in this long thread, so apologies if something like this has already been proposed. In my game we use feints a little differently than RAW. In my games, a successful feint provokes a defensive reaction from the target - meaning the target should defend against the feint as if it were a normal attack. This can have lots of unintended consequences, such as forcing a retreat, multiply parry/block penalties, requiring a weapon to ready again after a parry, etc.

A successful feint also gives a cumulative -1 to the target's next defense against a real attack, if done on your next turn. This makes it more like a setup attack (from Martial Arts), and is cumulative with a setup attack. If combined with a Rapid Attack (Feint then Attack), the second attack may have a penalty to hit (from the Rapid Attack), but the target will have the multiple defense penalty and an extra -1 for a successful feint!

This rule seems to match my group's real world experience a bit more accurately (we have a lot of seasoned martial artists and soldiers in our group), and tempers the potentially overwhelming nature of feints. It is a bit more mechanically complex, but no more than setup attacks.
JazzJedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2020, 04:32 AM   #235
bocephus
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Default Re: Feints dominating fights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnome View Post
I'll reiterate my aforementioned fix, since you seem to be hunting for one: outlaw the Feint technique. If your skill is significantly higher than your opponent, you might still consider a Feint, but it's just another tool in your belt along with Deceptive Attacks, flanking, etc. But hey, if you're more highly skilled, you should be able to win!
Disallowing Feint as a technique cuts down on people dominating fights with Feint and easily beating the enemies that should be a challenge to beat. I think it's logical to disallow it for the same reason that you can't buy Deceptive Attack as a technique: it's one of the primary ways that fighters get past each other's defenses!
In my House Rules I simply don't allow it to be higher than the base skill. It doesn't track to me that you can "pretend to be skill 17" for a feint when you are in fact only skill 15.

I allow Feint as an IQ Avg Skill default IQ-4, I see it more as a skill that is developed to learn to take advantage of your weapon skills vs. your opponents weaknesses. I also rationalize that a smarter fighter would be better able to apply it than a stupid one. I dont see it as a trained weapon technique/muscle memory , I see it as improvisation. Your feint can never exceed the weapon skill you are applying it to but it applies to all weapon types you know at all times at weapon skill or Skill level which ever is lower.

The rest of the techniques have always made sense to me as written (but I dont have/use martial arts so no comment there)

This is of course my table, and I just prefer to have it that way.

I have noticed is that there has been no discussion about Animal intelligence fights. If your fighting a pack of wolves, a mother bear and cub, etc... feint just isnt that extraordinary. Also I believe that you have to be able to recognize the feint as an attack for it to have a large modifier. If you do some elaborate feint against a dog trying to attack you its just gonna see you waving a metal bit about, which might be distracting to the animal but its not going to react significantly different to if you had actually tried to stab it and missed.

I havent gone so far as to say that different fighting styles wouldnt recognize the threat, I see feint as figuring out how to communicate an implied threat and then doing something else. I just dont think an animal intelligence would perceive the "implication" except in its most basic form.

It does what it does, and retreat is pretty solid reaction for fight with multiple mooks, you cant pursue your successful feint mod on mook1 cause he backed up and you will end up with two mooks behind you if you pursue him. Feint really only earns its "overpower" status when you can pretend to have a higher skill than you do, and your target stays toe to toe with you or you have extra attacks per round which is a very spendy one sided advantage in a 150pt (-40 -5) char.

In higher point starting characters like 300pt or supers type campaigns your going to see this more often, I just dont run those type of starting characters. And rare is the player that forgoes 30pts of gradual advancement to save up to purchase something that big. I would allow it for someone that had committed to that (would be at least 18 sessions at my table or maybe 13ish for a consistently exceptional roleplayer) but they would be struggling to contribute to the group for those last few sessions.

Im also using a new scale of skill advancement in my current campaign but as it recently started I havent seen it in action yet. (skill progression 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 22, 29, 37, 46, 56 [basically Im scaling one point per level and not capping point requirements]) this could cause some differences to combat techniques later in the campaign but I wont really know till I play test it through.

Last edited by bocephus; 01-02-2020 at 05:45 AM. Reason: had to go back and read my own house rules and clarify
bocephus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2020, 05:17 AM   #236
evileeyore
Banned
 
evileeyore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 100 hurricane swamp
Default Re: Feints dominating fights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bocephus View Post
In my House Rules I simply don't allow it to be higher than the base skill. It doesn't track to me that you can "pretend to be skill 17" for a feint when you are in fact only skill 15.
A Feint isn't "pretending" to any skill level, it's pretending to make an attack while being prepared to take advantage of the opening when your opponent moves to defend against that attack.

I'll grant you, that is neither here nor there about why you should or shouldn't allow Feint Technique to go above base skill.

To me, I either allow Deceptive Attacks, or Feints, not both. It depends on the wants of the campaign as to which I prefer.
evileeyore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2020, 07:41 AM   #237
bocephus
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Default Re: Feints dominating fights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by makke View Post
Hi,

in one of the books there is the statement that there is a certain level after which it is not effective to increase a given skill. I've made the experience that this is certainly not true for (armed) combat.
makke
First I should have replied to your starting post so I may be restating a little what I already posted.

I think the statement is B172 If you are a “master” in your field, you might be tempted to increase your skill levels ad infinitum. However, a true master has a detailed understanding of every aspect of his calling, best represented by stopping at a masterful level (20 to 25) in the “main” skill and branching out into several “subsidiary” skills. An extreme level (anything over 25) in one skill tends to be excessive and unbelievable – nd is frequently less useful than a lesser level combined with one or more subsidiary skills.

I have embraced this by creating a slightly different scale for skills that doesnt cap, but skill level costs dont cap either. Raising a skill 10points would cost 56cp in my current setting (you pay 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc)

I don't like the way skills scale after you have invested 12cp it becomes progressively more unrealistic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by makke View Post
In my rather high powered (~300 to 400 points) fantasy campaign there was absolutely no reason (besides me forbidding it) to not increase a skill further. After all, 20 points in a skill mean that I've got a feint skill that is five levels higher than yours, and therefore I will, in all likelihood, kill you quite fast.

Besides that "everyone increases the level of combat skills as fast as possible" no other combat technique but doing a feint followed up by an attack was ever (successfully) used. Several ppl came up with different styles but it either broke down to a feint + attack or was quickly annihilated. This seems to me rather boring... is this the way real fights work?
makke
If your campaign centers around surviving combat and the only options are to fight then this is sort of what you have to expect. The players are min/maxing to defeat your encounters AND/OR you are not giving your NPCs the same capabilities forcing them to find other ways to win than head to head confrontation.

At that level there is so much magic, monster variation, and subtlety that is possible for the GM to use because you dont have to worry about one-shoting a party to a nasty trap or a critical fireball. Now I am making some assumptions, first that you wish the players to be working together and that you are taking time to encourage people to need to be more than tanks (I don't mean a TANK healer, a TANK caster, a TANK rogue, a TANK necro, etc).

I can honestly say that I have seen more issues with my Mage over using Shape Earth to make impromptu forts to rest in basically negating low level wandering monsters or mook groups to get uninterrupted sleep, or shoot from cover.

Feint hasn't come into play because I don't allow it higher than weapon skill, and at my table Feint is an IQ-Avg skill not a technique. Feint is a thinking fighters ploy, not for "Brutes". Thats where I think RAW have gone wrong IMO. My Ogres dont use it because it requires thought, if its just a technique then all my monsters will use it as well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by makke View Post
So to sum it up. I got the impression that fights very much on all levels (gming a 75cp-campaign at the moment and it seems to happen again) are largely dominated by feints. The person with the highest feint skill wins (there are exceptions of course - like Knife vs plate armor which is not going to work whatever your feint skill is) and therefore everyone has got the feint-technique maxed. I'm interested in your experiences - does this happen in your campaigns, too? Is this intended? And what to do against a high skill high feint-technique fighter (besides forbidding/limiting it or having a higher feint skill...) ?

Thank you in advance,
makke
Im running a 150pt campaign and I have to be honest, Im not sure what all your players are fighting at 75pts?? Is this a city/sewer/urban kinda thing where you really only encounter humanoids? I would say only 30% of the encounters have thus far involved intelligent humanoids and those are largely the group of mooks variety with a leader that is a challenge.

Are the bulk of your encounters resolved by the sword? That could be part of the problem as well, if you arent giving them any other options to resolve scenarios, at my table "murder hobos" gather reputation fairly fast and get handled by organized resistance in most permanent ways.

Fantasy has potions, herbs, magic, creatures, monsters, gods, demons, dragons, magic weapons, magic technology, magic traps, mind control, floating cities... I cant see how Feint can overbalance all of that if you are giving the rest of the world the same chance to win.

If Feint is a problem for you as GM, deal with it. Try a small change to start, maybe dont allow feint to go above weapon skill and cost 2pts, thats it. See if that resolves your issue sufficiently. If not you can steal my solution, which also give melee a reason to not dump IQ as a stat. Link it to Will or Perception if you want to make it more "affordable", I have considered this a couple times but its never really come up from a player so I havent bothered to mess with it yet.

The opportunities are endless, but at the end of the day a char skilled at melee is generally gonna win melee. Just like the Mage is gonna win at AE damage, and the archer will win range damage. The GM should always be able to convince players there are better places to put points by making the world such that other than melee skills have value.

Last edited by bocephus; 01-02-2020 at 07:46 AM. Reason: fixed quotations
bocephus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2020, 10:30 AM   #238
Humabout
 
Humabout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Default Re: Feints dominating fights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bocephus View Post
First I should have replied to your starting post so I may be restating a little what I already posted.

I think the statement is B172 If you are a “master” in your field, you might be tempted to increase your skill levels ad infinitum. However, a true master has a detailed understanding of every aspect of his calling, best represented by stopping at a masterful level (20 to 25) in the “main” skill and branching out into several “subsidiary” skills. An extreme level (anything over 25) in one skill tends to be excessive and unbelievable – nd is frequently less useful than a lesser level combined with one or more subsidiary skills.

I have embraced this by creating a slightly different scale for skills that doesnt cap, but skill level costs dont cap either. Raising a skill 10points would cost 56cp in my current setting (you pay 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc)

I don't like the way skills scale after you have invested 12cp it becomes progressively more unrealistic.



If your campaign centers around surviving combat and the only options are to fight then this is sort of what you have to expect. The players are min/maxing to defeat your encounters AND/OR you are not giving your NPCs the same capabilities forcing them to find other ways to win than head to head confrontation.

At that level there is so much magic, monster variation, and subtlety that is possible for the GM to use because you dont have to worry about one-shoting a party to a nasty trap or a critical fireball. Now I am making some assumptions, first that you wish the players to be working together and that you are taking time to encourage people to need to be more than tanks (I don't mean a TANK healer, a TANK caster, a TANK rogue, a TANK necro, etc).

I can honestly say that I have seen more issues with my Mage over using Shape Earth to make impromptu forts to rest in basically negating low level wandering monsters or mook groups to get uninterrupted sleep, or shoot from cover.

Feint hasn't come into play because I don't allow it higher than weapon skill, and at my table Feint is an IQ-Avg skill not a technique. Feint is a thinking fighters ploy, not for "Brutes". Thats where I think RAW have gone wrong IMO. My Ogres dont use it because it requires thought, if its just a technique then all my monsters will use it as well.




Im running a 150pt campaign and I have to be honest, Im not sure what all your players are fighting at 75pts?? Is this a city/sewer/urban kinda thing where you really only encounter humanoids? I would say only 30% of the encounters have thus far involved intelligent humanoids and those are largely the group of mooks variety with a leader that is a challenge.

Are the bulk of your encounters resolved by the sword? That could be part of the problem as well, if you arent giving them any other options to resolve scenarios, at my table "murder hobos" gather reputation fairly fast and get handled by organized resistance in most permanent ways.

Fantasy has potions, herbs, magic, creatures, monsters, gods, demons, dragons, magic weapons, magic technology, magic traps, mind control, floating cities... I cant see how Feint can overbalance all of that if you are giving the rest of the world the same chance to win.

If Feint is a problem for you as GM, deal with it. Try a small change to start, maybe dont allow feint to go above weapon skill and cost 2pts, thats it. See if that resolves your issue sufficiently. If not you can steal my solution, which also give melee a reason to not dump IQ as a stat. Link it to Will or Perception if you want to make it more "affordable", I have considered this a couple times but its never really come up from a player so I havent bothered to mess with it yet.

The opportunities are endless, but at the end of the day a char skilled at melee is generally gonna win melee. Just like the Mage is gonna win at AE damage, and the archer will win range damage. The GM should always be able to convince players there are better places to put points by making the world such that other than melee skills have value.
Makke posted that 8 years ago.
__________________
Buy My Stuff!

Free Stuff:
Dungeon Action!
Totem Spirits

My Blog: Above the Flatline.
Humabout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2020, 11:39 AM   #239
bocephus
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Default Re: Feints dominating fights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Humabout View Post
Makke posted that 8 years ago.
Wow, I totally missed that. I just read the whole thread for the first time and never noticed that.

Even worse I was all excited cause I saw that he was fairly close to where I am and thought I might have had a chance to connect with another Gurps GM... hoepfully he sees my PM.
bocephus is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
combat rules, feints

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.