grappling torso w/ foot to dislodge impaling weapon from skull (Technical Goblining)

[Plane]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bamHVR5CoPw

There's also another interesting (albeit sorta spoiler for how GS turns the tables in a major fight in the hour-long special) tactic you see GS use involving sword vs shield.

It made me wonder a lot about GURPS shield mechanics and emulating this maneuver he does.

I think the standard rule is approximately "if your shield's DB makes the difference on any successful active defense then it takes the hit designated for you.

In this case though he's presenting the shield to cover himself (should prob be some penalty to hit his torso from front at least even if he opted to make no active defense at all) and it seems like the Goblin Paladin might actually be so arrogant/stong that it figures "I'll just stab right through your flimsy buckler with my magic sword and kill you".

B379's "Overpenetration and Cover" directs to B400's Overpenetration, and even though it's a subset of "Special Ranged Combat Rules" it seems easy enough to apply this common-sense stuff to melee too..

IE not just "an impaling arrow hit my shield" but "an impaling sword hit my shield" too.

"Ignore the cover and try to shoot right through it!" is in the column to left. You take -2 to hit just like if you were targeting a "half-exposed" bodypart.

I think what happens is either he misses, or because he had to telegraph to avoid missing, it was easy for GS to dodge the attack by making sure he wasn't where the sword's tip would end up once it got through.

- - -

You do see GS get injured but this is actually the blade of the sword slicing through his vambrace into his forearm as the sword angles through the shield... THAT is the part I don't really know how to emulate.

Part of that might be due to him doing a shift of his buckler's positioning as the sword goes through it so that the Goblin Paladin loses the proper positioning needed to easily pull his weapon backward (it's not perpendicular with his hand/wrist anymore)

Can anyone think of how to represent "the impaling weapon's cutting edge slices your forearm after it penetrates your shield and otherwise clears you" ?

I'm trying to remember if there's something in Low-Tech close to it.

I would assume w/ overpenetration if you miss maybe you could have some chance at a random hit location (to hit the arm) but I don't know how to represent the conversion to "but it's the edge doing thrust cutting, not the tip doing thrust impaling" which is what happens to slice through Goblin Slayer's low-budget Vambrace w/ the high-tier sword the super-strong Giant Goblin uses.

- - -

This type of thing might be some sort of "Grapple then Disarm" using weapons, but the quesiton is how to represent the grapple.

I know you can do a grapple w/ a weapon (presumably also w/ a shield) so it might be a Wait+Attack?

That along wouldn't require letting the sword penetrate the shield though: the whole idea of letting that happen is it should give you a huge advantage in grappling that sword compared to trying to use a shield to grapple a sword that isn't stuck in the middle of your buckler.

Which is part of why I'm thinking "the wound grapples your impaler" as a default makes a lot of sense. You could make it very easy to withdraw an impaling weapon when you're in control of the situation (ie stabbing a corpse) but not when a tactician like Goblin Slayer knows all he has to do rotate his impaled buckler before you pull back to throw your withdrawal out of alignment.

In this case the 'wound' is that of the buckler rather than the body.

Originally Posted by Varyon

It would be an application of the rules for Picks (and other sw/imp weapons), from B405. Thr/imp weapons like daggers normally don't get stuck, although they can if they are Barbed (LTC2:14; this isn't given as an option for daggers, however, but rather spears and the like).

I was thinking something like "a basic chance for everything" but then the classic 'stuck' weapons like swing/impale and barbed are much trickier to retrieve.

Like either you muscle them out with pure ST or need a lot of DX finesse to positon yourself right.

Originally Posted by Varyon

A campaign based on Goblin Slayer may well use some gritty houserules that result in non-barbed thr/imp weapons getting stuck (particularly on strikes to the Skull and Vitals), dulling or becoming unwieldy due to becoming caked with blood and fat as they are used, etc.

I don't know a lot about whether the skull gets weapons stuck easier than the torso (or the vitals) but if we based it somehow on the HP lost (as opposed to Penetrating Damage) then the higher wound multipliers would probably cover it.

Originally Posted by Varyon

Something like this isn't really represented well in GURPS, but is a common trope of a character swinging a weapon wildly about and preventing foes from getting too close. I'd say an attack like this would be easy to avoid - particularly with a Retreat - and while it can attack all three Front hexes, this is only if it doesn't connect or get Blocked/Parried, at which point the attack would end.

It also makes it a bit more difficult for enemies to close in and get an attack off, which might be able to justify a bonus to Parry.

I think something along the lines of "my weapon is occupying the hex in front of me, to enter that occupied hex you need to evade (MA71) the weapon even if I don't attack you" might cover it?

The issue though is of course it can't occupy all three front hexes at once, so there would be timing gaps a goblin could slip through if they were quick enough.

MA106 has what I think could be a baseline to this: Obstruction lets you (if you're willing to use up one of your parries) substitue your weapon skill for DX in a Quick Contest for Evade.

It's supposed to be "evade you from the front" but since when you grapple a weapon it's sort of an extension of you, I think it might be believable to apply this not just when "he's in my hex trying to get behind me" but also "he's in my weapon's hex trying to get behind the tip of my weapon".

That's one alternative way I could see representing it for someone who maybe doesn't have a fancy rapid-strike combination attack.

It would also give more flexibility to react to people who quickly enter into range (ie Move and Attack) since the only way to pre-emptively do Rapid Strike to pressure a Retreat would be a Wait+Attack, which you could not engage in if you were already using Attack to fend off goblins which were already in range.

Originally Posted by Varyon

Roughly, using the technique design system from Martial Arts, I could see it built something like the following:

Grants +1 to enemy defense: +2

You wouldn't want to make it too easy or they wouldn't bother retreating.

Originally Posted by Varyon

Special Drawback, Retreating Dodges get a further +1 to defense: +1

I like this part, although I don't know if we have precedent on how much of a benefit +1 should give. Maybe that should give them +2 or more, even?

This also raises the question: does it become obvious to your foes that their retreats would get the bonus?

Originally Posted by Varyon

Grants +1 to Parry, but only from the Front Hexes: -1

It's hard to imagine being more prepped to parry while you're wildly doing a bunch of attacks. I got more of a "committed attack" sense of "my weapon is the last thing I should be defending with" the way the staff is thrown about.

Originally Posted by Varyon

Special Benefit, attacks a second hex if the first is a miss or is Dodged*: -1
Special Benefit, attacks a third hex if the first two are misses and/or Dodged* : -1

I like these but I don't know how balanced something like this would be, this is way less expensive than -12 to all three attacks for a Rapid Strike combination.

Originally Posted by Varyon

this is something typically done by characters with low (or no) combat skill in fiction, so something with steep prerequisites and a high to-hit penalty would be, I feel, rather uncalled for. I could see -2 per Special Benefit (for a net -2) or maybe -3 each (for a net -4, meaning this would typically be done as a Telegraphic Attack), but certainly no higher.

Part of the question here is "when designing combinations, what is the basic penalty we should charge for being able to do a combination you've put no points into.

Like normally there's a perk to unlock special combinations...

If we allow "design combinations on the fly" you could always tailor-make them for a situation to optimize benefits/drawbacks so a large basic penalty would balance that out a bit, make it more workable if you're actually buying up the technique.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Plane

There's also another interesting (albeit sorta spoiler for how GS turns the tables in a major fight in the hour-long special) tactic you see GS use involving sword vs shield.

Yeah, I really liked the way he handled the mithril* sword when I read it in the manga. So, there's a sword with an edge that can cut through anything? Let it stab into your shield, then twist it so it gets stuck - done.

For doing this in GURPS, I'd probably call it a Stop Hit (MA108) that is either used to Disarm directly (if not using Technical Grappling) or used to initiate a grapple on the target's weapon to setup a later disarm (if using Technical Grappling). In either case, you'd be using Shield skill. The GM may well give a further bonus, provided the character both wins and succeeds at the subsequent Block, due to the cleverness of the setup - negating the penalty to Disarm makes sense in the first case, and in the second the GM may allow the character to use (some of) the Control Points generated by the weapon getting stuck in the shield (a stuck impaling weapon generates Control equal to its basic damage).

As for using the shield for cover, consider this suggestion by Kromm. You can read the main thread for a more complicated look at things, but I think Kromm's post nails things down fairly well, here.

*The translation I read called it an aluminum sword. I suspect this is based on the theory Tolkien actually based mithril off of aluminum - it certainly wouldn't be the first direct reference to his works in the story (note the man who trained Goblin Slayer was a Rhea - a halfling - who made heavy use of riddles for training - indeed, some of the very same ones we saw used in Bilbo and Gollum's riddle "duel" IIRC - including a final riddle of "What's in my pocket" - the accidental riddle that won the game for Bilbo - and was named Burglar - Bilbo's role in Thorin's party).

Originally Posted by Plane

You do see GS get injured but this is actually the blade of the sword slicing through his vambrace into his forearm as the sword angles through the shield... THAT is the part I don't really know how to emulate.

I'd probably just let this be a case of Artistic License, as the wound didn't actually affect GS in any meaningful way. I suppose if his Block had MoS 0, the GM could rule things as a "graze" of sorts, perhaps applying Tip Slash damage to the character's arm. This - and indeed the whole maneuver - is something that should probably be done on a case-by-case basis rather than "let's come up with a whole sequence of rules to handle edge cases like this one."

Originally Posted by Plane

I don't know a lot about whether the skull gets weapons stuck easier than the torso (or the vitals) but if we based it somehow on the HP lost (as opposed to Penetrating Damage) then the higher wound multipliers would probably cover it.

I was thinking such a houserule might have it be that anything that goes through rigid DR (such as that on the Skull) risks getting stuck. Applying this to Vitals, despite the lack of DR there, would be on account of the ribs. I'd say basic damage would be more what you'd use if you have a damage-based chance of getting stuck, not Injury (you probably aren't much less likely to get a blade stuck in the Skull of a skeleton with IT:Unliving and IT:No Brain than in the skull of a living person, after all).

Originally Posted by Plane

MA106 has what I think could be a baseline to this: Obstruction lets you (if you're willing to use up one of your parries) substitue your weapon skill for DX in a Quick Contest for Evade.

Hmmm... there might be something workable there. Say that, with a Reach 1+ weapon, you can normally dictate a specific front hex (or specific line of hexes, for Reach 2+ weapons) your weapon covers, and the foe has to successfully Evade against you to get past (although a foe who manages to Evade there is treated as having Evaded you in general); if the foe fails to Evade, they get struck (and stopped, if thrusting). You can trade in the automatic hit to instead affect all front hexes within your weapon's Reach, but in this case if the foe fails to Evade he/she can opt to abort the attempt (which may mean not moving forward or moving forward and then jumping back).

Successfully holding back multiple foes should be at some sort of penalty, however - I'd be tempted to say the first foe is at +0, the second at -4, and the last at -8 (this matches the +0, -2, -4 for Parrying with a two-handed weapon). That probably makes it too difficult for Priestess to hold off three goblins, however, as her Staff skill is unlikely to be terribly high (assuming she's comparable to a Novice Smart Delver from Delvers to Grow, she'd likely only have Staff-11 or so, perhaps 12 or 13 due to her having accrued some experience).

Originally Posted by Plane

You wouldn't want to make it too easy or they wouldn't bother retreating.

I was thinking more that her attacks (indeed, the attacks of any character in such a situation in pretty much all media I've seen) look really easy to avoid, but that may just be her using Telegraphic Attack on account of her low skill.

Originally Posted by Plane

I like this part, although I don't know if we have precedent on how much of a benefit +1 should give. Maybe that should give them +2 or more, even?

+1 to all enemy defenses is +2 to skill in the design system. +1 to only Retreating defenses cannot give you any better than +1, and justification could be given to go lower - perhaps you need +2 to Retreats to get a +1 to skill.

Originally Posted by Plane

This also raises the question: does it become obvious to your foes that their retreats would get the bonus?

At a meta-level, yes. If a foe uses a Deceptive Attack, you should know what penalty you're dealing with, and if a foe uses Telegraphic Attack, you should know you have a +2 to defend. If the player (or GM in control of the NPC) choses not to capitalize on the bonus, you could say the character didn't realize Retreating would be extra-effective against this attack - or the character did know this, but opted not to Retreat for any number of reasons.

Originally Posted by Plane

It's hard to imagine being more prepped to parry while you're wildly doing a bunch of attacks. I got more of a "committed attack" sense of "my weapon is the last thing I should be defending with" the way the staff is thrown about.

My thought there was that it would be harder than normal to get an attack past the sweeping staff, and the character would already be well-positioned to Parry.

Originally Posted by Plane

Part of the question here is "when designing combinations, what is the basic penalty we should charge for being able to do a combination you've put no points into.

My suggestion was to make this a generally-available option, not a special, unique Technique. If you make a Technique into something that anyone can do at default, there's no need for a further penalty, because there's no Perk needed to do it in the first place.

Originally Posted by Plane

If we allow "design combinations on the fly" you could always tailor-make them for a situation to optimize benefits/drawbacks so a large basic penalty would balance that out a bit, make it more workable if you're actually buying up the technique.

I'd at least require a [5] Advantage to unlock the ability to design Techniques on the fly (although in some campaigns existing Advantages, like Trained by a Master or Weapon Master, could work without a price increase), and apply a -1 to any Hard Technique. Combinations don't need to be designed on the fly (with the exception of those that use two weapons to attack more than once, but I'd give those a pass), because Combinations are just Rapid Strikes that you can buy off the penalty for. Using such at default is... just doing a Rapid Strike.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Yeah, I really liked the way he handled the mithril* sword when I read it in the manga. So, there's a sword with an edge that can cut through anything? Let it stab into your shield, then twist it so it gets stuck - done.

For doing this in GURPS, I'd probably call it a Stop Hit (MA108) that is either used to Disarm directly (if not using Technical Grappling) or used to initiate a grapple on the target's weapon to setup a later disarm (if using Technical Grappling).

I'd say definitely the latter (TG) due to the dramatic delay, it wasn't an attack on the sword that instantaneously flung it away, you can see it struggle to regain control and seems like it actually let go voluntarily because it was the only way to retreat from GS' attack.

Until you let go of your weapon any CP applied to the weapon apply to your hand, which means half that CP apply to the rest of your body, and also prevent retreats.

Originally Posted by Varyon

The GM may well give a further bonus, provided the character both wins and succeeds at the subsequent Block, due to the cleverness of the setup - negating the penalty to Disarm makes sense in the first case, and in the second the GM may allow the character to use (some of) the Control Points generated by the weapon getting stuck in the shield (a stuck impaling weapon generates Control equal to its basic damage).

I don't know that the shield-user would be able to actually use the CP, nor if I applied involuntarily CP against a spear-user whose spear was stuck in someone's torso, to allow the torso's owner to spend that CP either.

To spend the CP is to lose them which would mean you could somehow extricate the spear while getting an advantage.

I don't think GS could so easily get the spear out of that shield (you actually just see him keep carrying the shield around until later, w/ the sword still stuck in it)

So it's more like "nobody owns the control points so nobody can spend them" so anyone who wants to lower them has to attack them.

Originally Posted by Varyon

As for using the shield for cover, consider this suggestion by Kromm. You can read the main thread for a more complicated look at things, but I think Kromm's post nails things down fairly well, here.

That's a pretty cool one I'll add it to my collection of shield possibilities.

One amendment I'd make to phrasing where it says "the usual effects of cover: an extra -2 to be hit" ... that's actually the effect of PARTIAL cover.

Normal cover (complete cover) is AFAIK not possible to get around.

I think it's fine if shields provide that so long as you make it "direction". IE if a buckler in front of the chest gives "complete cover to the chest from the centre-front hex, you make it partial cover (-2) if someone is attacking the chest from the front-left or front-right hexes.

If you go two facing shifts away from where the shield is oriented, then it probably shouldn't help at all, like for example if I hold a buckler in front of my face (complete cover from front-centre, -2 to hit my forehead from front-left or front-right) then there should be no penalty to hit the skull from the left-rear ("left"), right-rear ("right") or centre-rear ("rear") hexes.

You could of course hold your shield to protect the back of your skull (I think Atlas does that while fighting in Troy? Or maybe to protect his upper back?) but then conversely it shouldn't help w/ protecting your face.

This would lead to poeple moving their "cover location" (not just body part, but location-respective part) during battle, and motivate opponents to circle a shield-user to attack from angles of partial cover.

Originally Posted by Varyon

*The translation I read called it an aluminum sword. I suspect this is based on the theory Tolkien actually based mithril off of aluminum - it certainly wouldn't be the first direct reference to his works in the story (note the man who trained Goblin Slayer was a Rhea - a halfling - who made heavy use of riddles for training - indeed, some of the very same ones we saw used in Bilbo and Gollum's riddle "duel" IIRC - including a final riddle of "What's in my pocket" - the accidental riddle that won the game for Bilbo - and was named Burglar - Bilbo's role in Thorin's party).

I never knew that about mithril, pretty subtle

I didn't know the sword could cut/impale anything either, maybe that's just mentioned in the manga? The film just seems to act like it's a superior metal that the goblins wanted because their metals were so shoddy. It probably does have limitations though I think it's better than even average human metals or else Goblin Slayer just tends to buy the cheapest stuff since he loses weapons all the time.

Originally Posted by Varyon

I'd probably just let this be a case of Artistic License, as the wound didn't actually affect GS in any meaningful way.

It could have if it were poisoned, which goblins do a LOT with their blades. I think GS got lucky in this case because that's more your common goblin tactic while the Goblin Paladin is probably so arrogant he doesn't bother w/ poisoning.

Originally Posted by Varyon

I suppose if his Block had MoS 0, the GM could rule things as a "graze" of sorts, perhaps applying Tip Slash damage to the character's arm.

LT114 has some alternate rules for Improvised Shields regarding "when you make the roll by the DB" situations

Instead of it always being "the shield is hit for damage" if you need to rim-grasp an improvised shield lacking a handle there's a 1 in 6 chance of "hand is hit instead of the shield"

I'm pretty sure you're only allowed to use the Buckler skill in this case too because that's the only shield held by the hand, using a book or frying ban ala "I have soemthing strapped to my foreamr" doesn't make much sense.

It says this requires 2 hands which doesn't cover the situation of "I hold up the DB1 heavy book 1-handed to block the arrow" but I'm thinking maybe it could be fine to house rule via the One Hand disadvantage to allow that at -2 to DX (-1 to block)

- -

Now in the case of MoS 0, you definitely made your roll by the DB (just barely) but this is still meant to hit only the shield in case of your standard "has a handle" shield.

Even in the case of rim-grasping a no-handle buckler (ie heavy book, chair or table) the odds of a hand getting hit are pretty low (1 in 6)

T-bone's Ten Tweaks (pyramid 3/34 pg 28) "grazes" already has this type of thing happen in "failure by 1" on defense rolls, so that seems like enough.

Failing to block usually means that the attack will strike it's originally intended target. IE it gets there before the shield gets in the way.

What I think we're looking at is any success up to DB (that's one thing which never happens using the effective DB 0 made possibly by T-bone's "Shields and Size" which could use some reworking) or some other situation which causes the shield to be hit (an intentional attack through complete cover for example) might still allow the forearm to be hit prior to the original target (for example: an opponent trying to stab through a shield to hit the skull)

This would make a lot more sense with a traditional "strapped to forearm shield" (ie if it penetrates your shield, if it hits dead-center it's also have to penetrate your forearm to get to your skull) than with bucklers.

For some reason I thought GS was using a buckler but rewatching the vid clip it's indeed strapped to his forearm.

I'm thinking one way to resolve this (since it is possible to penetrate the outside of a large shield with nothing behind it and avoid the forearm) might be to use something like "attacking into a close combat" rules to see if you randomly hit the forearm behind the shield or not.

In the case of GS, that secondary roll to hit could be considered a "success by zero" graze.

I hadn't remembered it until now but T-bone has this rule for grazes which I think reflects it:

Change piercing or impaling damage to cutting (similar to the Tip Slash from GURPS Martial Arts, p. 113).

The only thing I think needs consideration here is this treats "graze from an impaling sword with no cutting edge" identically to "graze from a sword with a cutting edge" which feels quite off: grazes from cutting swords should probably hurt more.

One compromised I can see here: the "halve basic damage" of a T-bone graze from an impaling attack might be ignored in the case of graze from impaling w/ a cutting edge. That gives impale+cutting weapons an advantage in grazes.

- -

"Paladin strikes through the shield, hits the forearm but misses the skull" could basically be that you made the roll to hit the cover but the -2 to hit stuff through cover resulted in a miss... or just that GS managed to dodge, since he didn't actually need to expend "Block" as his active defense at all (having already positioned the shield to provide cover)

As far as "hits the forearm" I'm thinking basically that you should roll "attacking into a close combat" to hit a forearm after detemrining if you hit that shield (and overpenetrated it) but before seeing if it hits the skull.

If it misses the forearm, you calculate going after the skull as usual.

If it hits however then I would imagien you'd allow that to add to the cover DR of damage applied to the skull.

Grazes however might be another story since you don't actually have to impale the entire forearm (only cut alongside it)

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Varyon

This - and indeed the whole maneuver - is something that should probably be done on a case-by-case basis rather than "let's come up with a whole sequence of rules to handle edge cases like this one."

Kek, "edge" cases.
Yeah I guess when you see interesting stuff animated there's often more than one way to interpret what's going on, usually I just look for "how can I explain what contacts what"

Originally Posted by Varyon

I was thinking such a houserule might have it be that anything that goes through rigid DR (such as that on the Skull) risks getting stuck. Applying this to Vitals, despite the lack of DR there, would be on account of the ribs.

Ribs are one of those cases where I thought about maybe allowing people to target vitals at a lower penalty if you attack "through the ribs" but need to penetrate "rib DR".

If we assume the -2 of "partial cover" is built into the -3, then to attack "through cover DR of 2 for bone" at vitals would only be -1 to hit though?

There could also be exceptions like narrow edge weapons (ie a knife, not a thick spearhead or lance) where one strikes "between the ribs" to ignore DR, but that's about as tricky as "from underneath the ribs" (the usualy means I'd assume you ignore DR by to hit things in the chest cavity) so the usual -3 sounds right

Originally Posted by Varyon

I'd say basic damage would be more what you'd use if you have a damage-based chance of getting stuck, not Injury (you probably aren't much less likely to get a blade stuck in the Skull of a skeleton with IT:Unliving and IT:No Brain than in the skull of a living person, after all).

It might depend on "is the DR a thing" I guess, like if you have DR from a forcefield it's not likely to stuff stuck in it (or maybe it is but you can turn it off to get it loose?)

I guess with worn DR like a helmet you could have stuff like "my brains/skull/helmet are in concert stuck on this weapon" though with "it's only stuck in my helmet" situations (doesn't penetrate the DR but gets stuck in the DR that stopped it) you might just remove the helmet to get the weapon off you, as an alternative to detaching the weapon from the helmet.

Originally Posted by Varyon

Hmmm... there might be something workable there. Say that, with a Reach 1+ weapon, you can normally dictate a specific front hex (or specific line of hexes, for Reach 2+ weapons) your weapon covers, and the foe has to successfully Evade against you to get past (although a foe who manages to Evade there is treated as having Evaded you in general);

I was thinking something like "one evade context per hex traveled" IE if you evade the tip of the lance you might still run into the non-pointy side of it in subsequent hexes

Originally Posted by Varyon

if the foe fails to Evade, they get struck (and stopped, if thrusting).

The question as to whether "failed evade means contact" is one that came up in a mock combat I did a couple years ago w/ Eric the Red. I think that's the basic rule (and we were debating whether it means collision damage, since in this case we were both unarmed)

One idea I recall coming up was something like "treat it like a successful attack on both, but give both a chance to dodge"

IE if you're trying to evade someone but can't do it, instead of being forced to collide with them, if you can't get past them you have the option to try and back off (dodge) so you don't collide.

I guess if that's allowed you might also allow a parry, in which case you do have contact but don't need to worry about collision damage.

Originally Posted by Varyon

You can trade in the automatic hit to instead affect all front hexes within your weapon's Reach, but in this case if the foe fails to Evade he/she can opt to abort the attempt (which may mean not moving forward or moving forward and then jumping back).

That'd work if not using my idea to allow abort-attempts on failed contests...

Another might just be something like rapid strike : you can "obstruct" multiple hexes within your weapon's reach, but you're -6 to weapon skill to resist Evade in the Quick Contest.

Originally Posted by Varyon

Successfully holding back multiple foes should be at some sort of penalty, however - I'd be tempted to say the first foe is at +0, the second at -4, and the last at -8 (this matches the +0, -2, -4 for Parrying with a two-handed weapon).

Yeah, or the -4 for Dual Weapon Attack, that'd work too.

Originally Posted by Varyon

That probably makes it too difficult for Priestess to hold off three goblins, however, as her Staff skill is unlikely to be terribly high (assuming she's comparable to a Novice Smart Delver from Delvers to Grow, she'd likely only have Staff-11 or so, perhaps 12 or 13 due to her having accrued some experience).

she might be using All-Out Defense : Determined Parry, in which case a +2 to parries could work like a +4 to Staff to counter Evade in the Quick Contest

That should probably work in reverse too: if you're using a Committed Attack w/ your staff that -4 to parry with your staff would probably be an effective -8 to skill to resist Evade in the Quick Contest.

Though I could see grounds to ignore it in that case since you could be assumed to already have your weapon aimed at whoever you just committed-attacked.

In the case of All-Out Attack: Determined (+4 to staff to hit) that makes me wonder if you can still get an automatic "my staff is in the way" defense for people you just attacked to try and evade past your attacking weapon.

Originally Posted by Varyon

I was thinking more that her attacks (indeed, the attacks of any character in such a situation in pretty much all media I've seen) look really easy to avoid, but that may just be her using Telegraphic Attack on account of her low skill.

Yeah I don't think she was really focused on "strike so quickly the goblin can't avoid me" kind of Deceptive Attack in that situation. She probably is content with "the goblins are just concerned enough about my low ST that they will dodge and back away from me, and delay in killing me long enough that GS gets up behind them".

That ultimately doesn't work since one goblin (due to the +2 to defend) manages to score a Grabbing Parry, resulting in her wasting one of her precious daily (D&D style limit) spells on a mere Blinding Flash to get it to back off.

Originally Posted by Varyon

+1 to all enemy defenses is +2 to skill in the design system. +1 to only Retreating defenses cannot give you any better than +1, and justification could be given to go lower - perhaps you need +2 to Retreats to get a +1 to skill.

At a meta-level, yes. If a foe uses a Deceptive Attack, you should know what penalty you're dealing with, and if a foe uses Telegraphic Attack, you should know you have a +2 to defend.

I guess one issue with this is if I'm a sword-master doing a -20 to skill "-10 to defend" deceptive attack, if people understand what I'm doing automatically they'll just opt not to waste their defense against me and take the hit.

Maybe a compromise might be to make some kind of perception check modified by the defense modifier? IE you can Vision+2 to perceive it's a Telegraphic Attack, or Vision-10 to perceive it's a deceptive attack?

At some extreme level of deceptive attack representing super-speed it makes me wonder if you'd actually perceive the attack coming at all though. A fast enough (deceptive enough attack) should eventually becoming invisible/surprise if you think about it, using 'deception is speed' interpretation of Deceptive Attack.

Pyramid 57's "dodge this" had something along those lines:

"if a Perception roll with this modifier would require a critical success (4 or less), assume you can’t see the projectile"

To emulate a thrown knife or baseball (-6 modifier) via Deceptive Attack, since you can't reduce effective skill below 10, requires skill 16.

To get "my deceptive attack thrust with my sword is as fast as a bullet" (emulating a -14 to hit on the speed/range table) would require an effective skill of 24, while light-speed (-50 speed multiplier) would require a combat skill of 60 to do a deceptive attack that fast.

[Plane]

(part 3 of 3, sorry had to split due to char limit)

Originally Posted by Varyon

If the player (or GM in control of the NPC) choses not to capitalize on the bonus, you could say the character didn't realize Retreating would be extra-effective against this attack - or the character did know this, but opted not to Retreat for any number of reasons.

A bit handwavey. It's fine if there are tactical reasons for that (ie they remember there is a wall/ally behind them and a retreat would cause a collision) but whether they realize it ought to depend on Per/IQ.

Maybe instead of raw per or IQ you could do a weapon/combat roll based on those instead of DX? Success meaning "I realize a retreat would give an extra bonus".

Originally Posted by Varyon

My thought there was that it would be harder than normal to get an attack past the sweeping staff, and the character would already be well-positioned to Parry.

I think I get what you mean (links back to my prior mention of Committed Attack).

So I'm thinking that both All-Out Defense: Determined parry (+2 to parry = +4 to skill) and also Committed Attack (+2 to skill) should give bonuses in using your weapon to Obstruct to resist Evade in the Quick Contest

You're not supposed to be able to parry at all with a weapon you used for a Committed Attack though. MA100 is more extreme than I remembered, for some reason I thought it was -4 instead of -2 to defend, but it's actually "cannot parry with the hand(s) he used to attack" so I was remembering it wrong.

Obstructing Evade is technically different from a parry (even though it uses up a parry) so I could see that being different, possibly. If it were allowed it should probably only work against that singular foe you attacked.

TG22's "One Foe" might also have some kind of application here:

You may combine One Foe with All-Out Attack.
If so, you still lose your active defenses,
but you may make resistance rolls in Quick Contests against that foe at -4
(instead of an automatic failure)

Besides AOA, Committed Attack is also a situation of "you lose your active defenses" but in a limited sense (you only lose Parry, and only with the attacking arm).

It sounds like with AOA you normally could not stop Evade with your DX but One Foe allows it.

"Use up a parry to do a non-parrying action to substitute Skill for DX" is basically what we're talking about here...

In this case if it were allowed you'd be losing something you have no use for anyway (number of parries per turn with that weapon) so it seems like an exploit...

Maybe subbing the Weapon Skill for DX shouldn't cost a parry except when you need to relocate the weapon to a different hex to do so? That would still allow it to be done by people using AOA or Committed, but only if using the weapon to Obstruct the Evade of a foe traveling from the hex you just attacked. You'd still be out of luck trying to Obstruct the Evade of attackers coming in from other hexes.

Originally Posted by Varyon

My suggestion was to make this a generally-available option,
not a special, unique Technique.
If you make a Technique into something that anyone can do at default,
there's no need for a further penalty,
because there's no Perk needed to do it in the first place.

I guess my only concern is the more "general options" we introduce for free, the less incentive we have for people to buy Special Technique perks to design custom non-universal techniques, since the default options already cover a wider spanse of ground.

Originally Posted by Varyon

I'd at least require a [5] Advantage to unlock the ability to design Techniques on the fly (although in some campaigns existing Advantages, like Trained by a Master or Weapon Master, could work without a price increase), and apply a -1 to any Hard Technique.

Sounds like something we could cover under Modular Abilities. But since they need to spend time rearranging points, they couldn't instantly call upon different techniques.

Even w/ enough Reduced Time to change Modular Abilities down to "free action" that's still something you can only swap once per turn (multiple point rearrangemnts per turn might need something like Rapid Fire using Warp as precedent) and only at the start of turn, unless you allow something like 'Power Dodge' to use 'free action' ability during opponent's turn in reaction to them.

Originally Posted by Varyon

Combinations don't need to be designed on the fly (with the exception of those that use two weapons to attack more than once, but I'd give those a pass), because Combinations are just Rapid Strikes that you can buy off the penalty for. Using such at default is... just doing a Rapid Strike.

checking MA80 you're right except where it allows a 3-attack rapid strike if you spend a point on the combination (normal non-combination rapid-strikes are limited to 2 attacks)

Two-attack combinations seem pretty unattractive to me. You have a huge drawback on that 2nd attack (+3 to defend if 1st is defended against) plus an overall defensive problem (+1 to defend against if you keep using it) and combos are "Hard" techniques, you need TWO character points to buy off that first -1 to hit.

Even at the most expensive, improving your overall weapon skills is 4/level so you'd be paying half that and getting all those bonuses to attacker defenses plus limited target selection, it's just not a good deal.

In the very least I think combinations ought to be average techniques so it's a fixed 1pt per -1 you buy off. Even then it's hard to think of them as a good deal.