Active defenses as modifiers

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Anthony

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

I forget that sarcasm doesn't carry well through text.

My point was that:

GURPS RAW:

You have to figure all of those modifiers, add them to your defense, and roll the dice after every successful attack

Active Defense as a modifier to attack rolls:

You have to figure all of those modifiers, add them to your defense, divide by three, and subtract them from the attack roll, for every single attack

Saving a couple of seconds rolling dice after successful attacks by adding an extra math step to every attack, regardless of result, doesn't seem productive. It also messes with a lot of interesting options (Telegraphic Attack gives a +4 to attack in exchange for a -0.67 to attack?).

[harlandski]

Thank you for the discussion and ideas everyone!

Originally Posted by benz72

If it is indeed quicker, how much time did you save?

As Varyon said:

Originally Posted by Varyon

I'd imagine you'd just write what your Defense Modifier is on your sheet ahead of time, then when someone attacks you just see if their MoS was enough to soak the penalty. So if you have Block 15, Parry 12, and Dodge 9, you just note that you impose a -5 to hit with a Block, -4 with a Parry, and -3 with a Dodge.

Thanks also to Varyon for doing the maths, it's also and interesting idea how to make a linear modifier.

Originally Posted by Tinman

Also, does you modifier let me choose to retreat or fp defense?

Yes, as ravenfish said my idea is that the defender would still get the choice, and should decide before they are attacked. I totally get it that people might like the defense rolls too.

Originally Posted by Otaku

You may wish to check out an article from Roleplayer 23 (included in Compendium II):

This sounds very interesting, I will definitely follow it up.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I came into the hobby in the late 70s with a _lot_ of combat in Chivalry & Sorcery 1e which worked a lot like this. It was nice when you were the more skilled fighter that it was more difficult to be parried or dodged.

I would love to try Chivalry & Sorcery one day.

Originally Posted by Rupert

In Runequest 2 at least a successful attack could damage the parrying weapon or possibly smash through a shield.

This sounds like a cool limitation on parrying & shield blocking.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I came into the hobby in the late 70s with a _lot_ of combat in Chivalry & Sorcery 1e which worked a lot like this. It was nice when you were the more skilled fighter that it was more difficult to be parried or dodged.

Yes, basically I am trying to get around the slogfest, though I take benz72's point that tactics can also get around this.

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.

And thanks for the list of cases where you would need to recalculate, RyanW!

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by RyanW

It also messes with a lot of interesting options (Telegraphic Attack gives a +4 to attack in exchange for a -0.67 to attack?).

Telegraphic attack is not an interesting option, it's a false choice. In any case, I wasn't commenting on any specific implementation of active defenses as modifiers, I was talking about the concept in more general terms. The specific option proposed by the OP is bad (odds of hitting between two equally skilled combatants should generally be nearly constant), but that doesn't mean RAW lacks problems.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by harlandski

T


I would love to try Chivalry & Sorcery one day.

The version that's easy to get now is the Fifth edition. It's very different but you can get a pdf through DriveThrough RPG easily enough. Also, if you're serious there's a relatively active Facebook group.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Telegraphic attack is not an interesting option, it's a false choice. In any case, I wasn't commenting on any specific implementation of active defenses as modifiers, I was talking about the concept in more general terms. The specific option proposed by the OP is bad (odds of hitting between two equally skilled combatants should generally be nearly constant), but that doesn't mean RAW lacks problems.

Telegraphic Attack is useful when up against a foe who currently cannot defend (it gives you another +4 to work with, which makes a low-skill character pretty much guaranteed to hit while a high-skill character can turn that into a more valuable hit location), and also if your skill drops below the optimal 13/14 mark (although you should allow for a "partially Telegraphic Attack," for +2/+1) from Shock, targeting a valuable hit location, using an unfamiliar weapon, etc. There can also potentially be cases where getting a potential hit is worthwhile even if the foe is most likely to defend - it can help set up an ally's attack later in the round (getting the enemy to "use up" a defense imposes a -5 - or renders them unusable - to later Blocks, -4 to later Parries, and if using the optional rule from MA a -1 to later Dodges), if you're using a particularly heavy weapon or one with Destructive Parry (like a Force Sword) against a foe who is primarily reliant on Parries (they've either got to use their low Dodge - albeit at +2 - or risk damaging/breaking their weapon), etc.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Telegraphic Attack is useful when up against a foe who currently cannot defend.

I didn't say it was useless, I said it was a false choice. An interesting choice involves a tradeoff, and telegraphic attack doesn't do that, it's either straight up superior (target has low or no defenses) or straight up inferior (target has high defenses) so the only interesting decision making is in guessing what category your target fits in to. The same problem exists for deceptive attack.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I didn't say it was useless, I said it was a false choice. An interesting choice involves a tradeoff, and telegraphic attack doesn't do that, it's either straight up superior (target has low or no defenses) or straight up inferior (target has high defenses) so the only interesting decision making is in guessing what category your target fits in to. The same problem exists for deceptive attack.

Ah, my apologies, I misunderstood you. But I still don't agree that it's a false choice. There is a trade-off involved with DA/TA, although mathematically there is indeed typically only one "right" choice - but in play a "wrong" choice can sometimes wind up better than the "right" choice. Mathematically, playing the lottery is a horrible idea... and yet people do win large sums of money from it from time to time. Not going overall-optimal can be a similar gamble (albeit one with much better odds). Sure, dropping skill down to 14 gives a better overall chance of hitting, but if you roll a 5, 6, 15, 16, or 17, you would have been better off keeping your skill at 16 (the above are Success, Success, Failure, Failure, and Critical Failure, respectively, with skill 14; they would be Critical Success, Critical Success, Success, Success, Failure with skill 16). Because it doesn't affect the chance of a Critical Success, Telegraphic Attack isn't quite as good when you go beyond optimal, although it would still improve the last three results by a step. Or compare with dropping your skill all the way down to 10 - you've got a higher chance of a whiff (and thus an overall lower chance of a connecting hit), but if you manage to roll a 10 or lower that additional -2 to defense may make the difference on if you hit or miss.