Active defenses as modifiers

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by benz72

I've seen the slogfest argument before, and taken it seriously, but every time I look into it more deeply I come across a failure to utilize terrain and tactics to change the dynamics of the fight.

Problem is the enemy will also try to utilize terrain and tactics to change the dynamics in their favor, and that usually cancels out.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Problem is the enemy will also try to utilize terrain and tactics to change the dynamics in their favor, and that usually cancels out.

Terrain is generally symmetrical in effect. The Mythbusters even showed that with better tactics Obi Wan's "high ground" would have made little difference. :)

Terrain (most likely artificial terrain like insides of buildings) can limit tactics (like no retreats) but that's the only thing that comes to my mind right now.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by benz72

I've seen the slogfest argument before, and taken it seriously, but every time I look into it more deeply I come across a failure to utilize terrain and tactics to change the dynamics of the fight. I get that the default attack-defend-damage loop can get boring and crit fishing is dull, but suggest that we generally do have good options to make fights interesting without actually changing the rules.

Again, with equally-skilled combatants, you're looking at around a 45% chance of a hit, which isn't a slogfest - it's close to one out of every 2 attacks hitting. That changes as the target's defense goes up, of course - against a foe with a +1 to defenses, you're looking at around a 34% chance (one-in-three), with +2 it's around a 24% chance (one-in-four), with +3 it's around a 15% chance (one-in-seven), and with +4 it's around an 8% chance (one-in-twelve). But then a slogfest is kind of the expectation of equally-skilled combatants wielding large shields anyway - the whole point of shields is to prevent you from getting hurt! With combatants who aren't equally skilled, the more-skilled one will have an easier time than the above values - skill 14 vs skill 12 gives around a 57% chance of a hit, 14 vs 10 is around 67%, 14 vs 8 is around 76%, and 14 vs 6 is around 83%. Needing to target somewhere other than the Torso also serves to drop the attacker's effective skill, which will make it take longer to score a hit - but then trying to hit someone in the head should take longer to score a hit than just going after the Torso.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Again, with equally-skilled combatants, you're looking at around a 45% chance of a hit, which isn't a slogfest

Until you have combat reflexes, retreats, and shields.

[Tinman]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The main incentive for doing something like this is streamlining: GURPS combat with can turn into quite a slog of failed attacks (this is particularly common when using shields) so cutting down on the number of rolls will cut speed things up. There's other ways of accomplishing the same thing, though (changing combat to a quick contest, for example).

Doesn't sound like it would help. If the resulting modifiers make it easier to hit then you are nerfing defenses. If it doesn't nerf defense, then combat will take just as long.

While I understand that combat can be a grind sometimes, I agree with benz72, it's often about tactics. Also, often it's a lack of teamwork. PCs attacking one-on-one instead of ganging up vs tough opponents.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Tinman

Doesn't sound like it would help. If the resulting modifiers make it easier to hit then you are nerfing defenses. If it doesn't nerf defense, then combat will take just as long.

Even if hit probability doesn't change, one roll takes less time than two. I would tend to argue for increasing hit probability as well (this mostly makes initiative more important, it's otherwise just fewer rolls for the same outcome).

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by harlandski

... being able to reduce the opponent's defense via feint etc...

There is very little point to it, especially as you're dividing the defenses by 3. That means any reduction is also being divided down by 3...

And making an attack is almost always better than Feinting.

Originally Posted by ravenfish

I don't see why it wouldn't- you declare them when the opponent attempts his attack roll rather than after it succeeds, and they penalize his attack roll rather than benefiting your defense roll.

Because it's divided by 3 and rounded down, which means unless you at a cusp where a +1 (or 2) would matter, there is no point. Frex, if you have a Parry of 15 with your Broadsword, there is no point in Retreating, except to add distance between you and your foe for next turn.

Originally Posted by benz72

I've seen the slogfest argument before, and taken it seriously, but every time I look into it more deeply I come across a failure to utilize terrain and tactics to change the dynamics of the fight. I get that the default attack-defend-damage loop can get boring and crit fishing is dull, but suggest that we generally do have good options to make fights interesting without actually changing the rules.

This is a true. Been doing this for 35 years now, and the only time I've seen slugfests is on featureless flat terrain and in fights where tactics (like 'gang up on him') are pointless (because you're probably already doign all that and it's just a "whittle them down faster than they can smash us down" fight - in other words, designed to be boring).

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Until you have combat reflexes, retreats, and shields.

... which is why I also explored defense bonuses between +1 (CR) and +4 (CR + Large Shield). And, of course, the entire purpose of a defense bonus is to make it take longer for you to get hit, so the fact it makes it take longer for you to get hit is things working as intended.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Even if hit probability doesn't change, one roll takes less time than two. I would tend to argue for increasing hit probability as well (this mostly makes initiative more important, it's otherwise just fewer rolls for the same outcome).

You just write down the modifier on your character sheet. As long as you either never fight with a shield or always fight with the same sized shield, never get flanked or stunned and have to defend with a penalty, never retreat, All-Out Defend or use a defensive grip that gives you a bonus, and never have anything else that applies any temporary modifiers to skill and/or defense, it saves loads of time.

The very thing that GURPS defenses add to combat (tactical decisions matter) turns into an extra math step added to every attack, hit or miss.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by RyanW

You just write down the modifier on your character sheet. As long as you either never fight with a shield or always fight with the same sized shield, never get flanked or stunned and have to defend with a penalty, never retreat, All-Out Defend or use a defensive grip that gives you a bonus, and never have anything else that applies any temporary modifiers to skill and/or defense, it saves loads of time.

The very thing that GURPS defenses add to combat (tactical decisions matter) turns into an extra math step added to every attack, hit or miss.

You do not need two die rolls for any of those things.