Combat- Why not contests of skills?

[S41NT]

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.

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!

[The Speaker in Dreams]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

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.

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.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by The Speaker in Dreams

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.

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.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by garyb

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

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.

[garyb]

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?

[Kromm]

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.

[garyb]

Originally Posted by Kromm

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.

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?

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by garyb

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?

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.

[stilleon]

Originally Posted by Kromm

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.

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.

[Luther]

Originally Posted by stilleon

I think most trained combatatant's melee skills should have the defense at least as high or higher than his offense.

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.