Combat- Why not contests of skills?

[garyb]

It seems everything in GURPS where 2 or more characters oppose each other there is a contest of skills. Why not for combat?

Wouldn't that solve the problem of very high skillls? A strike with the percision of 10 under(skill of 20 and rolling a 10) need the defender to equal or beat the sucesses.

I would have like to see 4th edition tackle having the sucess margin of a strike having some determining factor in the amount of damage done.


thoughts?

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by garyb

It seems everything in GURPS where 2 or more characters oppose each other there is a contest of skills. Why not for combat?

Because defenses and attacks aren't on the same scale, so with very high skill, defenses would become irrelevant.

Admittedly, I think that Skill-4 for Parry or Block, instead of Skill/2+3, would work better.

Wouldn't that solve the problem of very high skillls?

As I see it, it would create a problem with very high skill where there isn't one now.

I would have like to see 4th edition tackle having the sucess margin of a strike having some determining factor in the amount of damage done.

Okay, so instead of rolling damage, use the margin of success on the attack roll as the damage per die, to maximum of 6, critical hits get a minimum of 3 regardless of the actual margin.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by garyb

It seems everything in GURPS where 2 or more characters oppose each other there is a contest of skills. Why not for combat?

Mainly because it gets silly, fast when modifiers come into play. Consider a trained attacker (skill 15) vs. an average defender (skill 10). If the attacker goes for the head (-5), he's suddenly the defender's equal. That makes no sense. One of the benefits of skill in real life is that you can reliably hit high-value targets.

GURPS implements skill-on-skill effects via Feint and Deceptive Attack.

[garyb]

Thanks for your reply Dr. Kromm...

I guess I was suggesting that defense NOT be some divisor of the skill- but the FULL skill... but I DO like the current system.

While there are multiple ways for an attacker to reduce the defense of his opponent- there is no apparent way to make his target harder to hit. I realize the target's(head, hand, eyes) size is a modifier against his attack roll, but it seems that, it is assumed, it is a perfect situation...

But that is not typically the case. The target is moving. So that head that should be -5 to hit is also 'bobbing' and 'weaving'. Maybe you'll say that if the defender is "all-out-defending" for +2 to his active defense it makes up for the lower defense, but it is easily overcome by a "deceptive attack" or "feint"...

I guess I'm suggesting the attacker have some penality because the situation is not optimal in combat. Currently, it would appear he is attacking a training dummy...

thoughts?

[Kromm]

You have it reversed. GURPS already assumes a moving, difficult target. Out of combat, you get a big bonus to die rolls owing to the task being routine.

[garyb]

Originally Posted by Kromm

You have it reversed. GURPS already assumes a moving, difficult target. Out of combat, you get a big bonus to die rolls owing to the task being routine.

Ok, that makes sense... but then combat skills work entirely different than mundane skills- whose skill numbers assume the situation IS optimal and recieve penalties when it is not...right?

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by garyb

Ok, that makes sense... but then combat skills work entirely different than mundane skills- whose skill numbers assume the situation IS optimal and recieve penalties when it is not...right?

No, wrong. See Base Skill vs. Effective Skill (p. B171). Almost all skills work at +4 or better outside of adventuring situations. This is why an ordinary Joe can get a job with skill 10-12, and why most people really have only default level at most of the things they do.

[Digren Kaellise]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Almost all skills work at +4 or better outside of adventuring situations. This is why an ordinary Joe can get a job with skill 10-12

My VHDL programming, for example... I can write good code, but I almost never remember the structures and syntax necessary for VHDL as opposed to all the other languages I've used.

In a pinch, I probably couldn't write code that would work on first compile. At work, though, when I have time to think things out, improve the algorithms to work best for this languange as I go, and look up some syntax I forget, then I can put out quality work.

Thus, I probably wouldn't put my VHDL skill at better than 10 or so (50% accuracy on first try), even if my overall programming knowledge is higher. But, I can still get a job that includes this work.

In GURPS terms, having a non-adventuring situation means I could tell the GM that I work for four hours, with reference books available, and he gives me a +4 to my die roll. If I have to reprogram the firmware on a bomb in the two minutes before it goes off, I get no such bonus (and probably some penalties).

[Skullcrusher]

Originally Posted by Kromm

No, wrong. See Base Skill vs. Effective Skill (p. B171). Almost all skills work at +4 or better outside of adventuring situations. This is why an ordinary Joe can get a job with skill 10-12, and why most people really have only default level at most of the things they do.

So when rolling for job success you would add a +4?

[Luther]

Originally Posted by Kromm

No, wrong. See Base Skill vs. Effective Skill (p. B171). Almost all skills work at +4 or better outside of adventuring situations. This is why an ordinary Joe can get a job with skill 10-12, and why most people really have only default level at most of the things they do.

Is the job roll at +4? B416 says nothing...