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

[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.