[Basic] Why do Slams hurt so much?

[Phil Masters]

A well-executed slam often seems to involve putting a hard, low-vulnerability part of the attacker (the shoulder, say) into a soft, vulnerable part of the victim (like the face or gut). I do feel that the GURPS slam rules make the process more hazardous for the attacker than it should be. It's a problem I've run into in demo games; players who are new to GURPS want to run into a fleeing opponent just to stop them or get them into combat, and discover that the game suddenly brings in a bunch of moderately fiddly rules to handle this commonplace situation, and inflicts damage on the PC as a reward for their efforts.

[chandley]

Originally Posted by JazzJedi

I think there is a small gap in the rules. You should be able to "absorb" damage from a slam the same way you do from a fall. I would say that an Acrobatics, DX, or Judo roll absorbs damage equal to the MoS of the roll.

I also allow Catfall, appropriately enough.

Originally Posted by Not

I may have missed it, but can you use your impaling striker to gore your target with a slam, instead of taking the brunt of the impact with your body? Perhaps using the couched lance rules?

Kromm has explicitly blessed this, and without limitations applied to it, strikers take _no damage from slams_.

This however, doesnt help our Jungle Cat. I have also ruled that pouncing predators dont use a basic Slam, they use a Flying Jump Kick (with Claws). I even give them Kicking and Flying Jump Kick techniques. It removes the risk of damage on a hit, keeps the ability to knock people around, and is generally more satisfying to me. This is RAW but cinematic, but suits me for pouncing cats just fine.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

I'd imagine absorbing damage from slamming into a target is more a function of relative SM (you're larger than the herbivorous prey you choose to slam into) and of having high ST, compared to how absorbing fall damage might work.

I guess it kind of is already, 1 point of slam damage to a 30 hp animal is relatively different compared to 1 point of damage to a 10 HP animal. There's also the point that large animals and DR tend to go hand in hand and a point or two of DR at this kind of damage level can make quite a difference (it also means head on butting dominance displays don't end in x4 injury mod wounds and death quite so often)

[GWJ]

IMO tiger/lion/leopard/cheetah-style pounce shouldn't be modeled with as a slam. This is more like jumping attack with grapple/takedown. Slam is rather for ramming buffalos, bulls, rhinoceros etc...

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

If you like you can rule that for result of MoS on the roll you reduce the damage you suffer (but beware of odd situations where targeting a person to slam becomes a way to survive falling long distances)!.

Another reasonable approach for animals is to give them a few points of limited DR against their own slam damage. Things that slam with their horns very often do have cushioning structures, and I'd expect anything that does this regularly to have evolved something to make the damage less symmetric.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by GWJ

IMO tiger/lion/leopard/cheetah-style pounce shouldn't be modeled with as a slam. This is more like jumping attack with grapple/takedown. Slam is rather for ramming buffalos, bulls, rhinoceros etc...

Quite. Slams are strikes, like punches or kicks, in GURPS. Pounce to grapple or pounce to takedown should probably invoke grappling rules. All-Out Attack (Double) for Grapple and Takedown, or Move (jump) and Attack are both appropriate here, I'd say.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Another reasonable approach for animals is to give them a few points of limited DR against their own slam damage. Things that slam with their horns very often do have cushioning structures, and I'd expect anything that does this regularly to have evolved something to make the damage less symmetric.

True, and I'd argue that some horns provid both striking and DR

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

A well-executed slam often seems to involve putting a hard, low-vulnerability part of the attacker (the shoulder, say) into a soft, vulnerable part of the victim (like the face or gut). I do feel that the GURPS slam rules make the process more hazardous for the attacker than it should be. It's a problem I've run into in demo games; players who are new to GURPS want to run into a fleeing opponent just to stop them or get them into combat, and discover that the game suddenly brings in a bunch of moderately fiddly rules to handle this commonplace situation, and inflicts damage on the PC as a reward for their efforts.

I have Brawling and Sumo Wrestling give a DR against the crushing damage self-inflicted in slams according to the usual rules in Technical Grappling for a Training Bonus. Fast progression for Sumo Wrestling, Average progression for Brawling.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

True, and I'd argue that some horns provid both striking and DR

Every official Minotaur build for 4e has included skull DR. I think it's all at 3 pts of DR because that comes out at a nice even and efficient point cost, but that could vary. It certainly seems a good number for bovines and whatever the name of the group sheep and goats are in - it's not cervids, that's deer, and they don't bonk heads quite the same way.

Most (verging on all) actual horns are going to involve a reinforced skull to mount the horns on.

Antlers are a different thing, but deer don't exactly have thin skulls - if you're going to go to all the effort of growing antlers to fight with, you don't let the other guy take you out by just whacking you between the antlers. It's probably a good investment too for those situations where rutting stags mistake things like trees for other stags :P

Actually out of all the animals in our weight category, I'm pretty sure humans win the no-prize for "least protective skull". I'm happy with giving deer a +1 skull DR just for being "not humans".

[Not]

Know what's weird? They've found some human skulls in French mass tombs that are thick enough to classify as diseased by today's standards, but are common enough perhaps to have been normal even a thousand years ago. It's not inconceivable that casual braining of passers-by might have put selective pressure on our species from the time of the ice age to the Middle Ages. Rousseau was right: agriculture and cities make us soft.