Build Assistance: Forcing Opponents to Stay in Close Combat

[Anders Gabrielsson]

Originally Posted by Kazander

You're not harshing my buzz, Anders, but you clearly see it differently than I do. I really don't see that there is any relation between ability description and ability effect--it's the effect you pay points for, and that's what I'm really to figure out how to accomplish.

I understand that, and that's usually my philosophy as well, but the effect still has to make sense in some way, it has to represent something.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'm not advocating total loss of defenses, especially now that we have the Close Combat Technique.

I didn't say you were, I'm just saying that's why it changed.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

A good way to avoid the problem (but a slow one) would be to use rules similar to the way GURPS Spaceships handles movement:
people put vectors designating the hexes towards which they are moving, and then movement is resolved for all combatants. So either they're both at Reach 1 for a given point in time, or they're both at Reach C.

This is a great way to handle a one-on-one fight with rules-savvy players in a detail-oriented game. It'll break down fast, IMO, in a big multi-person fight. It works okay in big fights in Spaceships but Spaceships fights tend to be brief and to the point. GURPS melee fights a little less so IME.

The Step-and-Wait solution is also less than optimal because it means it's better to step and wait for your opponent to do something than to decisively step up and strike them when you have the chance. That seems a very rules-oriented solution. What does it simulate, exactly? How it more realistic than what we have now? "I step up, wait a split-second to see what he does, and then stick him with my knife - NOW he's unable to parry with that sword and he's penalized by the shield."

I'm not entirely sure what you want as a solution - something that inflicts full penalties on someone in close combat even on the turn you entered? Then just ignore the FAQ and do that. Something that inflicts some penalties but not others? You can easily do that too. Finally, you can apply some level of penalties - half, perhaps, since you didn't start your turn in close combat and he's probably moving away - based on the ones under "Long Weapons in Close Combat" on pg. MA117. Half makes sense because otherwise C reach weapons are killers as long as the wielder is within reach of C reach on his turn, which doesn't really reflect reality very well. But it does give them some benefits from closing in on someone and pressing them. That works out to a -1 parry (instead of a -2) for a reach 1 sword, for example, and gives them a mild penalty to DX for a shield (-1 for a medium or large). That at least echos reality and has verisimilitude, which the Wait one doesn't, to me.

For the OP, just grapple the guy. Otherwise I'm not sure what the explanation is for a hands-free grapple.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

[ . . . ]I'm not entirely sure what you want as a solution - something that inflicts full penalties on someone in close combat even on the turn you entered? Then just ignore the FAQ and do that. Something that inflicts some penalties but not others? You can easily do that too. Finally, you can apply some level of penalties - half, perhaps, since you didn't start your turn in close combat and he's probably moving away - based on the ones under "Long Weapons in Close Combat" on pg. MA117. Half makes sense because otherwise C reach weapons are killers as long as the wielder is within reach of C reach on his turn, which doesn't really reflect reality very well. But it does give them some benefits from closing in on someone and pressing them. That works out to a -1 parry (instead of a -2) for a reach 1 sword, for example, and gives them a mild penalty to DX for a shield (-1 for a medium or large). That at least echos reality and has verisimilitude, which the Wait one doesn't, to me.

For the OP, just grapple the guy. Otherwise I'm not sure what the explanation is for a hands-free grapple.

Yeah. OP: How about Rules Exemption (Ignore FAQ on When Close Combat Starts)?
Prerequisite: C-compatible skill and at least one maxed out Close Combat technique.

[Brandy]

This guy has a step of two, and he can split that up before and after he attacks (Campaigns, p. 368). If he starts at reach 1, he steps into close combat, attacks, and then he can step after the retreating foe, ending in the same hex.

It is reasonable that such a fast attacker, moving forward as fast as the defender can retreat (his two-hex Step keeps up with the defender's retreat-plus-attack-and-step-backwards, provided the attacker doesn't retreat when he is attacked) would be able to fight at his chosen distance? Am I not seeing correctly how this would play out?

Even if not grappling the retreating foe, is it reasonable to rule that if you are able to make Close Combat attacks against an opponent in successive turns that you ought to count as "in close combat"?

This still wouldn't trigger on the first attack, just on the subsequent ones, and is only possible because the attacker has a move of 10+ (and therefore a 2-hex Step) and is choosing *not* to retreat when he is attacked.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Yeah. OP: How about Rules Exemption (Ignore FAQ on When Close Combat Starts)?
Prerequisite: C-compatible skill and at least one maxed out Close Combat technique.

Personally I prefer to make blanket rules changes for something that's as big as this. It gives one less fiddly exemption to worry about. YMMV.

[Jabani]

I still haven't been able to find a real-life technique that does something like this without physically grappling the opponent and/or grabbing the opponent's weapon.

I know this isn't handless, but what about sticky hands from JKD? You're not grappling but rather staying in contact; your hands/wrists are on his. If the opponent footworks out (a Step back) and you feel this (not easy, admittedly, but definitely possible with a lot of practice), you step with him and maintain contact.

Of course, he's free to pull his hands away so that you can't maintain contact and feel when he's moving, but then you just hit him in the face :).

(Also, this may not be based on pure vanilla JKD; the people I've seen do this and who have taught me changed a lot of stuff in the art, as is common with many such groups. For example, this would be really hard to do in straight Wing Chun, as the footwork isn't so mobile).

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

Well, I'd model a knife fighter who wraps his arms around people to keep them from escaping by giving him a good grappling skill and just grappling people. But I'm a simple guy. :)

That's not what the OP is trying to do though, AFAICT. He wants the ability to magically stick to the target without grappling, I think.

[Sam Baughn]

If you can Stun your opponent before engaging him, or otherwise cripple his defences for a moment, you can use a Scissors Hold to grapple him hands-free and prevent him getting away while you stab him to death.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Jabani

I know this isn't handless, but what about sticky hands from JKD?

I know it, and I've done it - it's called chi sao. I'm not convinced it works as a "grapple." For how GURPS models it, check Martial Arts page 62 for Sensitivity skill (which models the "I know what you're going to do" aspect of chi sao, and on pages 203-204 for a "realistic" way to model it using perks and limitations, discussed under Wing Chun.

In short I don't think chi sao helps you hold onto people and interfere with them; you need to actually grapple them. If you accept the technique as functional, use the Wing Chun version (limited Sensitivity) and use it to enhance your grappling.

[Jabani]

Hmm. That's fair. I think that the first part of the OP's request - for an ability that maintains close combat - sticky hands does that, but as he wants something to maintain a grapple, yeah, sticky hands is not going to help there. Too flowing and not manipulative enough.

Interestingly, we had one guy fight in a tournament a long time back against a judo player, and the guy just kept on using sticky hands to prevent the judo player from grabbing him. They tell me it was hilarious to watch :).