Retreating dodge

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Celti

So throw two opponents at him, forcing him to choose which one he has a bonus to defend against;

You chose a very bad example to support your opinion.

Having to confront multiple opponents will make Dodges and Retreating Dodges way MORE powerful and important than before.

Even an extremely skilled but slow swordman (skill 20, with only 4 of Speed, the kind of guy you'll never picture dodging attacks), will have to resort to Retreating Dodge on the second attack.
If he's surrounded by lots of opponents, his best possible defense sequence is: Parry the first attack @13; Dodge (retreating) the second attack @10; Parry the third attack @9; Dodge subsequent attacks @7.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Try it with Committed Attack instead. Take the first step, attack, and use the second step to press the attack if the target retreats or to fly-out if they do not.

We could list dozens of tricks and strategies that somewhat lessen the mighty power of Retreating Dodges, but this does not seem to be the point...
TheMorten is not complaining that Retreating Dodges are unstoppable; he's complaining that a Retreating Dodge too often appears to be the best option.
And IMHO, he's quite right. When you have to devise special strategies to counter the supposedly "lowest" and "least trained" defense, it might indicate that something is wrong...

That would be like saying: "give to your PCs Enhanced Parry, Weapon Master and a huge, heavy shield... that will make Retreating Dodge appear less powerful."

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Lupo

We could list dozens of tricks and strategies that somewhat lessen the mighty power of Retreating Dodges, but this does not seem to be the point...

My point was that what a martial artist thinks of as "pressing the attack" is a GURPS Commited Attack. A ordinary Attack represents a more static fighting style, with a more "grounded" stance that makes pursuit difficult.

TheMorten is not complaining that Retreating Dodges are unstoppable; he's complaining that a Retreating Dodge too often appears to be the best option. And IMHO, he's quite right.

Retreating is helpful in real fights too, especially against an opponent that's unwilling to chase you.

[kenclary]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Retreating is helpful in real fights too, especially against an opponent that's unwilling to chase you.

Quoted for truth. Real fights are full of movement, especially retreats. And lots of dodging, even when you could parry.

[munin]

Some discussions by Kromm about overcoming defenses may be useful.

[Kromm]

Remember that retreating means backing up. Yes, you often have three hexes to choose from, and in principle this means you can circle. In practice, unless you forgo ever attacking or your foe doesn't know about Move and Committed Attack maneuvers, a single enemy can always maneuver so that you have to circle the other way next time, forcing you back in a kind of zigzag. As well, those three hexes won't all be open every time. In a one-yard-wide aisle at S-Mart, or when hopping between one-hex stones in a rushing river, you may be constrained to a single, straight avenue of retreat, or have no avenue of retreat.

Setting that aside, fights are generally for territory or objectives. If you move away from the doorway, you give up the protection it affords your flanks. If you move away from the Princess, she might get stabbed. And if you move away from the guys crossing the bridge you're guarding, you're abandoning your post!

These observations highlight how the attacker can press his advantage: He can step on his attack so that your only legal retreats are where he wants you to go. Or he can opt to take the step(s) his offensive maneuver allows after he makes his attack roll, occupying the ground he wants or getting into a position to force you back onto ground of his choosing. This can accelerate the backed-into-a-bad-place and driven-away-from-the-doorway effects I mentioned. If you end up on bad footing, you might suddenly be at a penalty on all defenses and on movement.

Multiple attackers are an especially big deal in the above cases. Two enemies can reduce the number of hexes you have open in the first place, nearly always preventing circling and, if speedy, possibly preventing retreating at all. If one forces you to give up a doorway or to circle away from that wall that would otherwise block your retreat, then the other can now flank you, even dart in behind. And even if you can retreat, see both attackers, and possibly circle, you only get a bonus against one of them. Sure, you can use your big Parry score against one and then roll vs. Dodge at +3 against the other. For most realistic warriors, though, this isn't as good as rolling just once against that big Parry with +1 for a retreat. Two rolls is two shots at failure, and Parry+1 is generally better than Dodge+3.

The point is that in interesting combat situations – the sort that heroic tales and RPGs are about – backing up forever often won't be practical, and sometimes won't be possible.

I didn't even get into Reach. Long weapons can make retreating unwise. To beat a sword with a dagger, a spear with a sword, or a polearm with a spear, you must constantly close the gap. If you don't – if you give even a yard of ground – you can find yourself in a position where you can be attacked but not attack. To correct that, you'll have to spend a turn on Move, and if he attacks in response and you retreat, and then he steps back after attacking, all that was for nothing. Against multiple foes with long weapons, retreating is actively suicidal, as this gives them the luxury of fanning out such that engaging any of them means you'll get stabbed in the flank or back. Survival depends on charging one guy aggressively and making him fall back to where his allies can't support him.

Finally, note that retreating is merely an abstraction on a combat map. Reading it as "moving backward at X yards/second" leads to illogical outcomes. Hexes are discrete units while movement is continuous, and stepping into the next hex may well be a matter of shifting one's location by a few inches across the hex boundary, or even shifting one's center of mass that much while leaving one's leading foot planted. You still don't want your center of mass pushed through a wall or dropped off a cliff, but reading the record-keeping movement of a counter on a map as actual large-scale movement is dodgy at best.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Lupo

When you have to devise special strategies to counter the supposedly "lowest" and "least trained" defense, it might indicate that something is wrong...

Not really.

Historically, most studied fighting was about special strategies to counter enemy reach and mobility – not about parrying and dealing with parries. In certain times and places, the very existence of the parry was semi-mythical. Most combat consisted of both sides pressing with what GURPS would call a Committed Attack whilst defending with a shield, the resulting -2 to Block offset by shield DB. The rest was All-Out Attacks, relying on armor to survive.

In the absence of suitable shields and armor, the instinctive defense, where one was taken, was to void – to step aside, to dodge. It took a lot of drilling to get troops not to retreat when dodging attacks. Retreating is a natural and logical reaction from the point of view of one warrior's survival. It's the single most reliable defensive action. However, it's bad for the survival of one's mates, who now have a hole in their line. Being in a phalanx or a pike square took discipline because one was giving up the retreat in return for pure offense with a weapon ill-suited to parrying.

The need to counteract parries came with the enhanced parrying ability of light civilian swords. This is why GURPS gives fencing weapons +3 to defend on the retreat instead of just +1. In short, GURPS moves the strategies needed to deal with retreating onto the more studied defense, Parry. Not surprisingly, this is historically when you started to see what GURPS calls the Riposte and Stop Hit, too. However, this picture isn't consistent with how most fighting was done with most weapons. (Longsword and staff fighting being notable exceptions as well, each with its own defensive benefits in GURPS.)

Really, the problem is that gamers have come to see fighting as a direct contest of arms: "My offensive weapon ability vs. his defensive weapon ability, and my defensive weapon ability vs. his offensive ability, until one of us screws up and gets hit." That isn't most fighting, aside from fencing. And "fencing" is etymologically related to "defence" for good reason: it was uncharacteristic of most fighting in this regard, and noteworthy for its unusual focus on defending with the weapon.

In fact, most fighting was more like this: "My offensive weapon ability vs. his ability either to use a shield or to duck and run away, and my ability either to use a shield or to duck and run away vs. his offensive ability, until one of us screws up and gets hit." This is why many weapons were used without thought to parrying (e.g., the lance) or thrived despite the negative effect that parrying would have on them (e.g., the macuahuitl and even most katanas). It's also why armor was worn and shields were carried. At the transition point between this sort of fighting and fencing, you still have heavy focus on esquive relative to parry, and on secondary parrying weapons. If GURPS has an error, it's treating the rapier as a good parrying weapon, not allowing the retreating dodge to be effective.

That's a long digression, but it amounts to: "Most weapon training was not about parrying or dealing with parries, but about striking first. Most defense was about blocking or, absent a shield, dodging. Retreating was taken as read, and had to be actively trained out of many fighters because it was individually supremely effective but collectively supremely disruptive."

In GURPS terms, what this means is not that Block and Dodge, and the retreat bonus, should depend much on weapon skill, or that dealing with enemy weapon skill should be the primary focus of weapon skill. What it means is that most fighters should either invest in Shield or make sure they have good DX, HT, and Basic Speed to go with their weapon skill. It also means that they should pick maneuvers and combat options that limit the other guy's ability to defend himself with these very same things.

Parrying is cool and all, but not really the most important defense. The most important defense is getting out of the way, which is dodging + retreating. And this remains most important even when you're very good at parrying; you want to parry + retreat. As GURPS gets right, dodging is the most versatile defense, good against everything (melee, thrown, and missile); then comes blocking (melee, thrown, and slow missile, and only from certain sides); and last comes parrying (melee and thrown, only from certain sides, and subject to weight limits). That's doubtless annoying for those who like pure blade-on-blade fencing, but it's realistic.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by TheMorten

The rules state that the character can retreat in any direction that would take him further away from the attacker. That allows the character to form a circle even in quite small indoor locations.

Does it also allow you to change facing? I know you can change facing on the Step part of your own move, but on defense? If you can't change facing on a retreat (IDHMBWM) that cuts the 'retreat in a circle' thing down a bit.

I guess my most fundamental problem with this rule is that it inherently makes the defender (moving backwards) more mobile than the attacker (moving forwards).

The attacker is equally mobile, no? Since he gets the same step options on a retreat that the defender does? Both can (and in an equal duel, will) use mobility to their fullest advantage. I don't know that this is a bug.

This does not seem in line with the way the human body works. If you are in close combat with a sword (vs. a guy with a dagger), you can take a step then wait for the opponent to follow on his subsequent attack, and then retreat - allowing you to move 2 yards backwards in a single second, with no penalties to attacks or defence.

Retreating out of close combat, I believe is more difficult than retreating from non-close melee combat. Need to check books, but I think this may be covered already, since close combat has special rules.

[Grouchy Chris]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Does it also allow you to change facing? I know you can change facing on the Step part of your own move, but on defense? If you can't change facing on a retreat (IDHMBWM) that cuts the 'retreat in a circle' thing down a bit.

B391: "You may change facing by one hexside, if you wish, as you retreat."

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Retreating out of close combat, I believe is more difficult than retreating from non-close melee combat. Need to check books, but I think this may be covered already, since close combat has special rules.

B392: "You can retreat (see p. 377) in close combat, if you aren't being grappled. Simply step out of close combat and into any of the three hexes on your side of the close-combat hex. This gives the usual bonus to your active defense roll."