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.

[DreadDomain]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

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

But it would have been so easy to make defenses on the same scale as attacks.

Originally Posted by cmdicely

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

If both would be on the same scale, there wouldn't be any problem at *any* level. There is one now at high level (IMHO). See my previous post.

Originally Posted by cmdicely

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.

Hmmm... not a bad idea actually...

[garyb]

I think, and this may be flawed, a great combat skll should also be able to reduce the attacking skill of another character... thereby having a great swordsman make a child's ability to hit lessened... the opposite of Deceptive Attack...

On another note- an interesting rules I've tried in the last 2 weeks...
When a character misses an active defense roll(parry, dodge, or block) only by 1 I've reduced the damage by 2.

When a character misses an active defense roll by 2 I've reduced the damage by 1.

This demonstrates that while the defense did not prove fully sucessful it did lessen the damage by the mere act of defending...

In my time studying Ninpo(Ninjutsu) and Kendo there were MANY times that my defense was 'below-par' and I got whacked but by initiating a dodge or parry(which are really one- in Ninpo at least) I ABSOLUTELY lessened a blow that would have spoiled my day...

thoughts?

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by DreadDomain

But it would have been so easy to make defenses on the same scale as attacks.

Sure. And if you want to do it, you can just use, say, Skill-4 instead of Skill/2+3.

If both would be on the same scale, there wouldn't be any problem at *any* level.

I'm not entirely convinced that there wouldn't be any problem at any level, but if they are on the same scale, it is less unreasonable to use quick contests, true. OTOH, you have to modify a bunch of other rules that are adapted to the 2:1 scaling of attack vs. defense modifiers.

There is one now at high level (IMHO). See my previous post.

Okay, using that scenario, you have Master Swordsman (Skill 36) with Combat Reflexes, which gives a Parry of 22 (you seem to have left out the +3 that applies to all defenses). Does the fight take forever?

Probably not, if they are aggressive. Whoever attacks first does an All-Out Attack (Determined) to do a Deceptive attack, taking a -26 penalty to skill, which gives a -13 penalty to the defense roll, giving a 14 (36 + 4 - 26) effective skill against a 9 parry. Pretty good chance to get through. Possibly, both sides take a few Evaluate maneuvers first -- counting on their defense to protect them if the opponent jumps sooner, and hoping to get the drop on the opponent once they've boosted up a bit -- mybe two rounds for an additional -2 they can take to skill (-1 penalty to opponents parry) without reducing their chance of hitting.

Its a mistake to assume master swordsman just sit around and do Move and Attack maneuvers against each other.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

Sure. And if you want to do it, you can just use, say, Skill-4 instead of Skill/2+3.

The curious can even see an online essay on this very topic -- rolling defenses based on full skill -- with comments on the good, bad, and miscellanea of it. Written for 3e, but can be tweaked for 4e. The URL:

http://www.io.com/~tbone/gurps/fend.htm#Top

[DreadDomain]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

Sure. And if you want to do it, you can just use, say, Skill-4 instead of Skill/2+3.

Absolutely. I thought you meant contest of skills would not work because attacks and defenses are not on the same scale. I was just pointing out that it was just as easy to put them on the same scale as any other alteration.

Originally Posted by cmdicely

I'm not entirely convinced that there wouldn't be any problem at any level, but if they are on the same scale, it is less unreasonable to use quick contests, true. OTOH, you have to modify a bunch of other rules that are adapted to the 2:1 scaling of attack vs. defense modifiers.

Agreed. It may only mean that any modifiers to defenses have to be doubled but maybe there is some more far reaching implications. I didn't really look at it.

Originally Posted by cmdicely

Okay, using that scenario, you have Master Swordsman (Skill 36) with Combat Reflexes, which gives a Parry of 22 (you seem to have left out the +3 that applies to all defenses). Does the fight take forever?

I did forgot the +3.

Originally Posted by cmdicely

Probably not, if they are aggressive. Whoever attacks first does an All-Out Attack (Determined) to do a Deceptive attack, taking a -26 penalty to skill, which gives a -13 penalty to the defense roll, giving a 14 (36 + 4 - 26) effective skill against a 9 parry. Pretty good chance to get through. Possibly, both sides take a few Evaluate maneuvers first -- counting on their defense to protect them if the opponent jumps sooner, and hoping to get the drop on the opponent once they've boosted up a bit -- mybe two rounds for an additional -2 they can take to skill (-1 penalty to opponents parry) without reducing their chance of hitting.

You are right. Fortunately GURPS have build in ways to get around it now. But I am sure you realized Deceptive attack is only a way to take a non-relative contest and make it a relative contest. They had to include it because purely non-relative contests ultimately break at higher level.

To be a little bit more fair, a master swordaman is unlikely to take a AoA against one of his peer because if he is parried or if he doen't make enough damage, the opponent will have his full skill to aim whatever location. Let's say he uses a Deceptive Attack (and thus making the contest a relative one) to bring his skill to 10 (-26 to his attack). His opponent will end-up with 22-13+1(I would expect a master swordman to retreat on such and attack) so 10 to parry. Ten versus ten, does it make sense? I believe it does but effectively had to make this contest a "contest of skill" (since the defender has to succeed by more to win the contest) in order to make it work.

Then, to get over the top, what about skill 100 versus skill 100? The atacker will deceptively attack at -90 so the defender will end up with (54-45+1) 10! You see, it works. Why? Because deceptive attack transform the attack/defense as contest of skill and because contest of skills make perfect sense.

Originally Posted by cmdicely

Its a mistake to assume master swordsman just sit around and do Move and Attack maneuvers against each other.

I was not assuming that but I was oversimplifying to show the flaws of non-relative rolls versus relative rolls at their basis.

[S41NT]

Note that if both attack and defense are made againts 10- the attacker has a 25% chance of hitting, which is very important.

Let me show you some math about the deceptive attack thing. Suppose both the attacker and the defender have the same skill leve, combat reflexes AND they retreat when defending.

REGULAR ATTACK: RA = x
REGULAR DEFENSE: RD = (x/2) + 5 ---> 3 + 1 from combat reflexes + 1 for retreating

Suppose now that the attacker makes a deceptive attack and chooses to have his skill roll reduced TO y

DECEPTIVE ATTACK ROLL: DAR = y ---> 2 < y < x
DEFENSE PENALTY: DP = (x - y)/2

Now to the defense:

DEFENSE AGAINTS DECEPTIVE ATTACK: DDA = (x/2) + 5 - (x - y)/2
=> DDA = 5 + y/2


This is very interesting! So if the attacker chooses to attack at 10 (you example), the defender defends at 10 too. If the attack is made at 12, the defender is at 11. But is the attacker roll is 8, the defense roll is 9 (attack roll < defense roll). The chances of the defender not being hit are allways higher than 50% (actually higher than 70%) AND the skill level does NOT matter. This can allow someone to calculate the best chance of hitting!!!

Aaaaand here it is (For both attacker and defender at the SAME skill level) a table relating the to hit roll with the chance of actually hitting:

To Hit --- chance of hitting
08 --- 16.2%
10 --- 25%
12 --- 27.8%
14 --- 24,6%
16 --- 15.9%

12 is the winner!!! :o) So no matter your skill level, if you make a deceptive attack at 12 you maximize your chances). There are a few flaws with the math because of uneven skill levels, but it won't be too different.

Someone could make the math taking the skill diference into account. I'm going out now. If no one posts till I come back, I'll do it.

[The Speaker in Dreams]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

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.

Now THIS is a darn cool idea! I like it very much - I think I'll have to implement it when I get a chance to see how it plays out. I've always wanted to try a margin of success - damage system in GURPS, but never could quite figure how to manage it. This ought to do quite nicely.

As for the thread and GURPS Attack/Defense stuff - since 3e I've never much cared for the all or nothing, really low defense score compared to the much higher skills. It doesn't sound like 4e did much to address this, although +3 is better than the straight 1/2, but still - I don't like the idea. Sure it's all or nothing, but it just feels ... ugly.

A while back I worked out a way to do straight contest of skill for all combat and it worked out just fine. It's essentially in-line with the way most other skills work (ala: contest) and works just fine for any relative degree of skill involved. The HIGH combat guy vs. the LOW combat guy is still far more likely to end to advantage of the HIGH comabat guy. Compared to the straight all or nothing defense roll, it sort of keeps exceptions to (a) lucky rolls and (b) closeness in skill. Sure there are all kinds of fancy maneuvers, etc - even in 4e, but that doesn't keep the combat resolution from just being ugly in that one regard. I never liked it much in 3e, and I don't think I'll adopt 4e's flavor of it either. Probably means I'll have to spend a little more time disecting it when I get ready to run to find out how my original approach will be impacted (I predict very little impact) by the 4e additions to combat.

I never had any complaints from players running it this way - it was almost always a guaranteed way to skew things towards the players and important NPC's only since they're pretty much the only ones to get high skill levels really.

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by The Speaker in Dreams

As for the thread and GURPS Attack/Defense stuff - since 3e I've never much cared for the all or nothing, really low defense score compared to the much higher skills. It doesn't sound like 4e did much to address this, although +3 is better than the straight 1/2, but still - I don't like the idea. Sure it's all or nothing, but it just feels ... ugly.

Really, the +3 is about the same as the old straight 1/2 -- remember that 3E had PD which added to defenses.

But otherwise, yeah, I understand where you are coming from. I've gotten to the point where I'm convinced that the official way works pretty well, but it just seems inelegant.