Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

It seems everything in GURPS where 2 or more characters oppose each other there is a contest of skills. Why not for combat?

Wouldn't that solve the problem of very high skillls? A strike with the percision of 10 under(skill of 20 and rolling a 10) need the defender to equal or beat the sucesses.

I would have like to see 4th edition tackle having the sucess margin of a strike having some determining factor in the amount of damage done.


thoughts?

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Because defenses and attacks aren't on the same scale, so with very high skill, defenses would become irrelevant.

Admittedly, I think that Skill-4 for Parry or Block, instead of Skill/2+3, would work better.

As I see it, it would create a problem with very high skill where there isn't one now.

Okay, so instead of rolling damage, use the margin of success on the attack roll as the damage per die, to maximum of 6, critical hits get a minimum of 3 regardless of the actual margin.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Mainly because it gets silly, fast when modifiers come into play. Consider a trained attacker (skill 15) vs. an average defender (skill 10). If the attacker goes for the head (-5), he's suddenly the defender's equal. That makes no sense. One of the benefits of skill in real life is that you can reliably hit high-value targets.

GURPS implements skill-on-skill effects via Feint and Deceptive Attack.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Thanks for your reply Dr. Kromm...

I guess I was suggesting that defense NOT be some divisor of the skill- but the FULL skill... but I DO like the current system.

While there are multiple ways for an attacker to reduce the defense of his opponent- there is no apparent way to make his target harder to hit. I realize the target's(head, hand, eyes) size is a modifier against his attack roll, but it seems that, it is assumed, it is a perfect situation...

But that is not typically the case. The target is moving. So that head that should be -5 to hit is also 'bobbing' and 'weaving'. Maybe you'll say that if the defender is "all-out-defending" for +2 to his active defense it makes up for the lower defense, but it is easily overcome by a "deceptive attack" or "feint"...

I guess I'm suggesting the attacker have some penality because the situation is not optimal in combat. Currently, it would appear he is attacking a training dummy...

thoughts?

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

You have it reversed. GURPS already assumes a moving, difficult target. Out of combat, you get a big bonus to die rolls owing to the task being routine.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Ok, that makes sense... but then combat skills work entirely different than mundane skills- whose skill numbers assume the situation IS optimal and recieve penalties when it is not...right?

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

No, wrong. See Base Skill vs. Effective Skill (p. B171). Almost all skills work at +4 or better outside of adventuring situations. This is why an ordinary Joe can get a job with skill 10-12, and why most people really have only default level at most of the things they do.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

My VHDL programming, for example... I can write good code, but I almost never remember the structures and syntax necessary for VHDL as opposed to all the other languages I've used.

In a pinch, I probably couldn't write code that would work on first compile. At work, though, when I have time to think things out, improve the algorithms to work best for this languange as I go, and look up some syntax I forget, then I can put out quality work.

Thus, I probably wouldn't put my VHDL skill at better than 10 or so (50% accuracy on first try), even if my overall programming knowledge is higher. But, I can still get a job that includes this work.

In GURPS terms, having a non-adventuring situation means I could tell the GM that I work for four hours, with reference books available, and he gives me a +4 to my die roll. If I have to reprogram the firmware on a bomb in the two minutes before it goes off, I get no such bonus (and probably some penalties).

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

So when rolling for job success you would add a +4?

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Is the job roll at +4? B416 says nothing...

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

I don't even give a die roll for most of these situations. Much like the take 20 rule in the d20 system I assume that if you have a lot of time, it is not apressure situation and the desired result of the skill is average or better you just do it. However, under pressure or working on something difficult or unknown I would give the roll. This way, a doctor skill level 10 treats the common cold all the time with no real chance of critically failing, while if he encounters a disease that is not common or has to work on battlefield conditions then you roll.

I just like to get away from rolling everything and concentrate on story.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Why does the attacker have a better chance to hit? I agree with fire arms, but man to man it is different. When you learn a martial art you learn a lot of defense before you begin to learn your offense because if you are hit you lose. I think most trained combatatant's melee skills should have the defense at least as high or higher than his offense.

I so not like the fact that degree of difficulty does not apply to combat. For instance, I try to lie I make an acting roll opposed by your detect lies skills. Heck, even most of grappling is contests.

I like the idea of contests of skills to determine hit and degree of hit. This way, you make a great defense it can lessen or eliminate the effects of a great hit.

The new rules about -2 attack for -1 defense helps, but it is not the solution. The solution is to make your rules follow the same logic throughout. GURPS needs to bring combat on par with the skill ststem and add this as an optional system.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Depends on the job. Most jobs, especially office jobs, I'd say yes, unless there was a high-stress deadline or something.

If you're a firefighter, though, your job is almost the definition of "adventuring conditions."

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

I disagree. Attacking is a lot easier than defending.
But then you would like to attack and be able to defend too... and things get difficult.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

yes, attacking is a lot easier. But shouldn't be easier to defend against an untrained opponent? Should a kung-fu master or a 7 year old hit the character, his defense is still the same; unless, of course, the kung-fu master feints, which consumes an action. Shouldn't a punch from the martial artist be harder to defend against than the 7 year old punch?

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

See page 343 "When to Roll":

"The GM should not require rolls for . . .

-Utterly trivial tasks, such as crossing the street, driving into town, feeding the dog, finding the corner store, or turning on the computer.

-Daily Work at a mundane, nonadventuring job."


And I can't find the page, but I remember reading where it said not to require a roll for attacking a sleeping or unconscious target. Just assume maximum damage, or that the target is killed if using a particularly lethal attack.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

I agree, but GURPS wasn't designed with the concept of margin of succes built-in.
Changing this would require a major rewrite, something I would LIKE to see.

However Steve Jackson isn't going to stop writing card games, and back to serious RPG work ;)

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

When you target a body part, there is a good chance that your attack will be lower than the defence especially if the other retreats and even more if he all-out defends at + 2.

Both karate 12, attack head 7 or less; other parries at 9 + maybe (3 +2) for a max 14
Both karate 20, attack head 15 or less; other parries at 13 + maybe (3 +2) for a max 18

So a low skill seems to be advantageous for the defender and a high skill for the attacker. You add high skill + deceptive attack and it is quite deadly. We have already tested the improved combat system with our 400 converted to 500 points characters in Kromm’s campaign and it went very very well. I am quite happy about it because IMO it has improved a lot of issues I had with gurps combat.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Which is the opposite of the new (and crappy if you ask me) Vampire The Requiem system. It all resumes to one single roll! Even damage!!! I think that's just plain wrong.

But in a game where if you don't feint you don't hit, this makes combat a lot longer. I don't have the 4th edition yet (should arrive next week), but if there's an easier way to reduce defense (someone mentioned a -1 defense per -2 to hit), it's certainly interesting. GURPS assumes you defense score is the score to defend against the child. It's be best you can do against the easiest possible enemy.

But all problems aside, I like the way it is with gurps. Can take some time (calculating by how much the chars made their feints and all, subtracting from defense, etc) but in the end, its fair and stimulates my players do say more than a boring "I'll hit him."

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

It depends.

The Kung Fu Master in the case above isn't really using his skill. He is using a punch very similar to the untrained student (7-year old girl is a little extreme for a reasonable example, I think.)

4th Edition has something called deceptive attack. It covers a very fast punch and all sorts of other things. As you mentioned, this is the -2 to skill which gives your foe -1 to defense.

So that Kung Fu Master, let's assume skill 20, can use his skill to punch for a difficult target (skull, effective skill 14) with very good chance of succeeding, but being parried even by a lesser student.

Or he can utilize his incredible Kung-Fu-Action-Movie speed and take -8 to his attack, aiming for the torso. Now, the student parries at -4, which will probably be a 6 or less for even a competant student.

To me, though, this creates something of the same situation Kromm wanted to avoid. The called shot to the head is easier to parry.

Logically, and I think realistically, the KFM is going to use a couple blinding attacks to the torso, cause some shock penalty, then take the student out with a chop to the noggin.

In fact, he could use Exrta Effort or Rapid Attack or both and do both in the same round, without much problem.

This is why I really do like the 4th edition rules so much more. More options to simulate the way things should work, in my mind.

For the 7 year old girl, I'd say her attack chance was so low, that defense isn't a problem.

btw, why was the Kung Fu Master fighting the 7-year old girl, again?

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

I would say it is correct because the head is smaller than the body, it is easier to protect. Less surface to defend. Having done karate for 5 years, I can say that it is easier to hit and not be parried by a debutant if you hit the body.

If you feint the body (simulated by feint or deceptive attack) and then attack the head, that’s another story.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Good point.

Actually, I think it makes sense for some locations to be easier to defend. I just meant that it went back to the situation Kromm seemed to warn against.

If we wanted to get complicated, wouldn't each hit location have a different bonus/penalty to defend. The head may be easier to defend, but the hands might be harder to defend. I find my legs harder to defend than my torso, etc.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

The 7-year old girl wouldn't give the Kung Fu Master her candy.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Exactly. Let's not forget that a 7 year old's DX is lower, too, so her defaults are going to be craptacular. If she manages to roll well enough to succeed, well, then she got lucky, just like her player did, and the Master is going to have to defend.

Did we forget to mention that she's a seven-year-old Felicia-series combat bioroid that emerged fully grown from a biogenesis tank?

Oops.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Hey, seven's pretty old in cat years.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

I think you are right and it could (not saying should) be more complicated to add some realism. I do not know all the thinking that Kromm and David did behind it but they took at least 2 years to deconstruct the system and they certainly went through those issues. In the end, it certainly came down to statistics and playability.

I must say that one of the things that was bugging me in 3E was that a skill 25 had to make a feint if he wanted to lower the defence of let say a skill 16. Now with deceptive attack, he could attack once at 19 for a –3 and still have a good chance to hit. Now if he is trained by a master, he could do rapid strike (feint) and then attack (deceptive attack). Let just say that in Kromm’s game, I am not the weapon master but I have seen it in use and it is quite deadly. WM don’t have 4 or 5 attacks anymore but the 2 or 3 they have are more deadlier and fights are shorter.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

I have yet to see such a thing; I can only imagine it in my head. But I love it.

Glad to hear it, recnamorceN ;)

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Do the numbers. Skill/2+3 is the base for a block, and once you count retreating (+3 for Boxing, Judi, or Karate) it's Skill/2+6. That means a Karate-12 guy (who, if he's an average person, has put 12 points into the skill - 2400 hours training - he's dedicated) has defence equal to his skill as long as he keeps backing away. Less dedicated people have higher defence than skill. My concern is more that defence is likely to be too high than too low - I expect any half-way competent character to manage defence-12 or more for their best defence, and Dodge-10-12 won't be unusual for PC-grade characters, I think.

IIRC Douglas Cole tried this back before G4 was announced, and found there to be some issues with play speed, and so on.

I looked at it, and decided I didn't like the likely effect on damage vs armour, and on gun-damage (which really is independant of the attacker's skill, aside from carefully aimed hits to vital locations - something GURPS already covers well).

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

But for that you can still make a regular feint, right? The feint move is still in the 4th edition, I guess.

Anyway, I really like the deceptive move idea. I really wanna see how it will work in play.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

I was part of that discussion w/ D Cole, and replied to him that it seemed strange that the -2 TH/-1 AD rule would cause any slowness of play. IIRC, he then reviewed the games in question, and allowed that the slowness actually stemmed from a handful of additional house rules he'd implemented at the same time, not the above rule.

There's no reason why the above rule would slow play; it's just a pair of modifiers like any other, with no bookkeeping between rounds -- and by addressing "unbeatable" defenses, makes combat run more *quickly*. I've spoken in favor of it for a long time, and am glad to see it in 4e.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Yes, you can still Feint. Also, you Evaluate which is yet another option.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Skill+4 might be an appropriate roll for some jobs, less so for others. Not all jobs are equally difficult.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

What does Evaluate do?

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

It's like Aim, but for melee weapons. You get a bonus to skill if you hold back for a couple of seconds to figure out how exactly you are going to launch your next attack.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

It's described as the Melee combat equivalent to Aim; it "gives a +1 to skill for the purpose of an Attack, Feint, All-Out Attack, or Move and Attack made against that opponent, on your next turn only. You may take multiple, consecutive Evaluate maneuvers before you strike, giving a cumulative +1 per turn, to a maximum of +3" (4e Basic Set, pg. 365).

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

When rolling to see, "Can Joe go into the office and prepare a spreadsheet of the company's accounts receivable?", you'd roll at +4. It's a simple, routine skill, with a success/failure result.

When rolling for job success, you don't need to add +4. You don't need to mess with any of the Difficulty Modifiers, because whether you succeed or fail, you still do your job just fine. You're not rolling for any one task -- you're simulating a month's worth of work. So, basically, you're just checking for crits.

IOW, the "failure doesn't matter" part replaces the need for a +4 modifier for job success rolls.

(And yes, failure matters for freelance jobs, but even then, it just means you make a bit less. And you'll notice that most freelance jobs are actually a lot more difficult than the steady ones, so that's fair, too.)

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

In my mind, being able to hit the head once every two try on average while your opponent can only hope to hit *you* once every two time is a tremendous advantage. The kind of advantage that a well-trained soldier would get over an average Joe. So I believe your example makes perfect sense.

In real life, an opposed skill is always relative. Even if expert swordman can touch everytime normal Joe (like in your example if the torso is "aimed"), that same expert swordman will hit a lot less often against a clone expert. Now this seems to work perfectly in GURPS but if you think about it the other way around, expert swordman can almost always parry average Joe but can only parry expert clone 50% of the time. Then you realize in GURPS it doesn't matter if your opponent is good or not (I am not bringing feint into the equation there) if you have a 13 parry, you will have 13 against everybody may he be abysmally poor or a sword wizard. This is exactly why GURPS needs the feint maneuver.

But then we can try to push the enveloppe. What about master swordman (skill 36 with a parry at 19 with Combat Reflexes) battles master clone? This fight will drag on forever even with feints. I mean on a feint, if the attacker wins by 5, the defender still has 14 to parry. If he doesn't retreat.

On a relative system, it would matter because expert sworman versus espert clone (skill 15-) or master swordman versus master clone (skill 36-) would still get a 50% odd of hitting and whatever difference in skills (your skill is 4 higher than mine) would always mean the same along the line.

Edit because a post made me realize I didn't talk about deceptive attack here. My bad.

Then GURPS 4e brings Deceptive attack. I will not talk about it much because I already did in a following post on this same thread. With a Deceptive attack an attack/defense contest becomes a contest of skills (the defender must succeed by more than the attacker) except that the attacker decide before hand by how much he must succeed. So I am a little bit surprise that you believe contest of skills for combat "silly" and that they "make no sense" since you (or maybe Pulver) felt necessary to include just that option.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

But it would have been so easy to make defenses on the same scale as attacks.

If both would be on the same scale, there wouldn't be any problem at *any* level. There is one now at high level (IMHO). See my previous post.

Hmmm... not a bad idea actually...

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

I think, and this may be flawed, a great combat skll should also be able to reduce the attacking skill of another character... thereby having a great swordsman make a child's ability to hit lessened... the opposite of Deceptive Attack...

On another note- an interesting rules I've tried in the last 2 weeks...
When a character misses an active defense roll(parry, dodge, or block) only by 1 I've reduced the damage by 2.

When a character misses an active defense roll by 2 I've reduced the damage by 1.

This demonstrates that while the defense did not prove fully sucessful it did lessen the damage by the mere act of defending...

In my time studying Ninpo(Ninjutsu) and Kendo there were MANY times that my defense was 'below-par' and I got whacked but by initiating a dodge or parry(which are really one- in Ninpo at least) I ABSOLUTELY lessened a blow that would have spoiled my day...

thoughts?

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Sure. And if you want to do it, you can just use, say, Skill-4 instead of Skill/2+3.

I'm not entirely convinced that there wouldn't be any problem at any level, but if they are on the same scale, it is less unreasonable to use quick contests, true. OTOH, you have to modify a bunch of other rules that are adapted to the 2:1 scaling of attack vs. defense modifiers.

Okay, using that scenario, you have Master Swordsman (Skill 36) with Combat Reflexes, which gives a Parry of 22 (you seem to have left out the +3 that applies to all defenses). Does the fight take forever?

Probably not, if they are aggressive. Whoever attacks first does an All-Out Attack (Determined) to do a Deceptive attack, taking a -26 penalty to skill, which gives a -13 penalty to the defense roll, giving a 14 (36 + 4 - 26) effective skill against a 9 parry. Pretty good chance to get through. Possibly, both sides take a few Evaluate maneuvers first -- counting on their defense to protect them if the opponent jumps sooner, and hoping to get the drop on the opponent once they've boosted up a bit -- mybe two rounds for an additional -2 they can take to skill (-1 penalty to opponents parry) without reducing their chance of hitting.

Its a mistake to assume master swordsman just sit around and do Move and Attack maneuvers against each other.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Luther, I think you are confused.
Kromm saids induvidual skill rolls for single task, not job rolls in B516.

We have done many "tasks" in daily job, and the tasks are almost easy. A entire job isn't so.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Now THIS is a darn cool idea! I like it very much - I think I'll have to implement it when I get a chance to see how it plays out. I've always wanted to try a margin of success - damage system in GURPS, but never could quite figure how to manage it. This ought to do quite nicely.

As for the thread and GURPS Attack/Defense stuff - since 3e I've never much cared for the all or nothing, really low defense score compared to the much higher skills. It doesn't sound like 4e did much to address this, although +3 is better than the straight 1/2, but still - I don't like the idea. Sure it's all or nothing, but it just feels ... ugly.

A while back I worked out a way to do straight contest of skill for all combat and it worked out just fine. It's essentially in-line with the way most other skills work (ala: contest) and works just fine for any relative degree of skill involved. The HIGH combat guy vs. the LOW combat guy is still far more likely to end to advantage of the HIGH comabat guy. Compared to the straight all or nothing defense roll, it sort of keeps exceptions to (a) lucky rolls and (b) closeness in skill. Sure there are all kinds of fancy maneuvers, etc - even in 4e, but that doesn't keep the combat resolution from just being ugly in that one regard. I never liked it much in 3e, and I don't think I'll adopt 4e's flavor of it either. Probably means I'll have to spend a little more time disecting it when I get ready to run to find out how my original approach will be impacted (I predict very little impact) by the 4e additions to combat.

I never had any complaints from players running it this way - it was almost always a guaranteed way to skew things towards the players and important NPC's only since they're pretty much the only ones to get high skill levels really.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Really, the +3 is about the same as the old straight 1/2 -- remember that 3E had PD which added to defenses.

But otherwise, yeah, I understand where you are coming from. I've gotten to the point where I'm convinced that the official way works pretty well, but it just seems inelegant.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Works very well, but you have to use it to its full power. The defenses are lower because they are absolute values. If your dodge is 10 then you dodge at 10 no matter how good the attack was. And that's why you have to feint. When I started with GURPS, the GM didn't tell us anything about feints. But it was ok, because the skill levels were low and we had a hard time parrying and dodging. In a high level game, you could never neglect feints. Combats would take forever!

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

The curious can even see an online essay on this very topic -- rolling defenses based on full skill -- with comments on the good, bad, and miscellanea of it. Written for 3e, but can be tweaked for 4e. The URL:

http://www.io.com/~tbone/gurps/fend.htm#Top

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

True about it essentially replacing PD, but otherwise you express my sentiment exactly. There's nothing wrong ... it works, but it's not in line with everything else and so it stands out more.

:shrug: it certainly gets the job done, though.

Edit: tbone - love your site! Good stuff on it ... do you take submissions? I've a few things I've worked on for 3e that may be worth putting up. I doubt SJG would be into it since it's "dated" now with 4e.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Absolutely. I thought you meant contest of skills would not work because attacks and defenses are not on the same scale. I was just pointing out that it was just as easy to put them on the same scale as any other alteration.

Agreed. It may only mean that any modifiers to defenses have to be doubled but maybe there is some more far reaching implications. I didn't really look at it.

I did forgot the +3.

You are right. Fortunately GURPS have build in ways to get around it now. But I am sure you realized Deceptive attack is only a way to take a non-relative contest and make it a relative contest. They had to include it because purely non-relative contests ultimately break at higher level.

To be a little bit more fair, a master swordaman is unlikely to take a AoA against one of his peer because if he is parried or if he doen't make enough damage, the opponent will have his full skill to aim whatever location. Let's say he uses a Deceptive Attack (and thus making the contest a relative one) to bring his skill to 10 (-26 to his attack). His opponent will end-up with 22-13+1(I would expect a master swordman to retreat on such and attack) so 10 to parry. Ten versus ten, does it make sense? I believe it does but effectively had to make this contest a "contest of skill" (since the defender has to succeed by more to win the contest) in order to make it work.

Then, to get over the top, what about skill 100 versus skill 100? The atacker will deceptively attack at -90 so the defender will end up with (54-45+1) 10! You see, it works. Why? Because deceptive attack transform the attack/defense as contest of skill and because contest of skills make perfect sense.

I was not assuming that but I was oversimplifying to show the flaws of non-relative rolls versus relative rolls at their basis.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Note that if both attack and defense are made againts 10- the attacker has a 25% chance of hitting, which is very important.

Let me show you some math about the deceptive attack thing. Suppose both the attacker and the defender have the same skill leve, combat reflexes AND they retreat when defending.

REGULAR ATTACK: RA = x
REGULAR DEFENSE: RD = (x/2) + 5 ---> 3 + 1 from combat reflexes + 1 for retreating

Suppose now that the attacker makes a deceptive attack and chooses to have his skill roll reduced TO y

DECEPTIVE ATTACK ROLL: DAR = y ---> 2 < y < x
DEFENSE PENALTY: DP = (x - y)/2

Now to the defense:

DEFENSE AGAINTS DECEPTIVE ATTACK: DDA = (x/2) + 5 - (x - y)/2
=> DDA = 5 + y/2


This is very interesting! So if the attacker chooses to attack at 10 (you example), the defender defends at 10 too. If the attack is made at 12, the defender is at 11. But is the attacker roll is 8, the defense roll is 9 (attack roll < defense roll). The chances of the defender not being hit are allways higher than 50% (actually higher than 70%) AND the skill level does NOT matter. This can allow someone to calculate the best chance of hitting!!!

Aaaaand here it is (For both attacker and defender at the SAME skill level) a table relating the to hit roll with the chance of actually hitting:

To Hit --- chance of hitting
08 --- 16.2%
10 --- 25%
12 --- 27.8%
14 --- 24,6%
16 --- 15.9%

12 is the winner!!! :o) So no matter your skill level, if you make a deceptive attack at 12 you maximize your chances). There are a few flaws with the math because of uneven skill levels, but it won't be too different.

Someone could make the math taking the skill diference into account. I'm going out now. If no one posts till I come back, I'll do it.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Thank you! No, I have not posted others' submissions, other than bits offered for inclusion into my existing material. There are many options for low-cost or free hosting these days, so I'd like to see people post their original ideas on their own sites, each with its own focus, design, and so on. The more such fan-made material out there, the better -- that kind of diversity is great, IMO.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

It took me a while to fully understand this, and why this is different than just a contest of skills.

It is different than a contest of skills when you consider Hit Locations and the options available in 4th Edition, such as Rapid Strike.

With a called shot to the head, the penalty is -5. If you used a contest of skills, instead of the existing rules, the Expert (skill 15) is reduced to the level of the novice (skill 10), just as Kromm said.

The reason why this is silly, is because of how much the expert is reduced. Yes, the head is easier to defend, but how much easier. In the above example, the novice is able easily fend off blows to the head (assuming they hit at all). The expert should be penalized for aiming for the head, but how much is he penalized?

I think this is the silly part that Kromm mentioned.

However, I'm not sure deceptive attack relieves this much. First, we have to recognize that no one has said deceptive attack was meant to change this.

In the above example, the novice has a better chance to defend an attack against the head (assuming it hits) because he doesn't have to beat the expert's degree of success. However, the odds play out slightly different, but the end result appears to be basically the same, to me. I'm not an odds expert; this is merely a layman's appraisal.

Further, it seems to me that the current system makes more sense for ranged attacks. Either you dodge the projectile/aim or you don't dodge it. Where the contest of skills, seems more appropriate (with modifications to get rid of any silliness) for melee and close contests. This would be klunky, in my opinion. Especially since it seems to imply multiple hit location tables, too.

In the end, it seems to me that it all evens out. Either way, there are drawbacks that I don't like.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

It isn't the same thing, however. First, it's not random -- you pick a fixed margin ahead of time, in effect setting the "stakes" for the combat. Second, the penalty assessed applies to active defense, not to skill.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

Yes, I made that distinction somewhere in one of my posts. If fact, I quite like that it is a conscious choice. More tactical choice to the attacker.

Deceptive attack was a very good addition (at least I don't remember this option in 3e) but it was a necessary one. In fact, Deceptive attack is a given as soon as your effective skill is 18 or higher. I don't see any reason not to use it beyond that point. I am not sure it it is good or bad.

Only because GURPS makes a difference between skill and defense. But effectively, the effect is the same.

In any case, like I said, my surprise was in the "silly" and "makes no sense" expletive while mentioning "Deceptive attack" almost in the same breath (:-))

What about range attacks? Is there a way for the attacker to diminish the active defense in that case? If not, the problem remains the same if the defender has a high dodge. I agree though I have a hard time to picture a "deceptive" range attack... Look, it can only be a cinematic rule, something to provide for it in high powered games. I didn't find any in Basic Set 1 or 2.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

I just wanted to say today I got back to this issue and made a very very simple matlab program (LOL) to calculate the probability os an attack hitting (the attacker being successfull and the defender not) considering just the skill difference and the toHit chosen by the attacker (supposing the rest of his skill goes to a deceptive attack.

I don't have a good place to post the pretty 3d surface the script generates, but I will post the maximum possible chance of hiting a blow for each difference in skill :)

The difference is added to the attacker, so +10 means the <attacker skill> is 10 + <defender skill>

Difference :: Best to hit :: probability

-10.0000 8.0000 0.0241
-9.0000 9.0000 0.0349
-8.0000 10.0000 0.0465
-7.0000 9.0000 0.0608
-6.0000 10.0000 0.0810
-5.0000 11.0000 0.1013
-4.0000 10.0000 0.1295
-3.0000 11.0000 0.1619
-2.0000 12.0000 0.1919
-1.0000 11.0000 0.2344
0 12.0000 0.2779
1.0000 13.0000 0.3142
2.0000 12.0000 0.3705
3.0000 13.0000 0.4190
4.0000 12.0000 0.4631
5.0000 13.0000 0.5237
6.0000 14.0000 0.5669
7.0000 13.0000 0.6210
8.0000 14.0000 0.6721
9.0000 15.0000 0.7069
10.0000 14.0000 0.7601


I was a bit affraid of posting this because if it becames common knowledge, the game looses something, cause everybody will allways use the best value. But i thought you experts of this forums could find it interesting. If you think its a bad thing, please tell me and I will erase this table :o)

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

I don't know. Most GMs probably don't show players their NPC opponents' character sheets.

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

I wouldn't worry too much - the table suggests that for most skill ranges about 12 is the best, and I suspect that's what most people's gut feeling would've settled on anyway (mine certainly did).

Re: Combat- Why not contests of skills?
 

I guess you are right... And it only goes higher than 15 for HUGE skill difference, like 15 - 20. Which makes sense like you said.

I find it curious that the balance is not in a single contest, but in the combat as a whole. Defending is easier, even if your skill is 4 levels higher (46%). But when you defend, its a LOT easier, with the enemy's best shot having 13% chance of hiting.