Combat- Why not contests of skills?

[NiKe]

Originally Posted by Luther

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

Luther, I think you are confused.
Kromm saids induvidual skill rolls for single task, not job rolls in B516.

We have done many "tasks" in daily job, and the tasks are almost easy. A entire job isn't so.

[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.

[S41NT]

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.

Works very well, but you have to use it to its full power. The defenses are lower because they are absolute values. If your dodge is 10 then you dodge at 10 no matter how good the attack was. And that's why you have to feint. When I started with GURPS, the GM didn't tell us anything about feints. But it was ok, because the skill levels were low and we had a hard time parrying and dodging. In a high level game, you could never neglect feints. Combats would take forever!

[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

[The Speaker in Dreams]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

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.

True about it essentially replacing PD, but otherwise you express my sentiment exactly. There's nothing wrong ... it works, but it's not in line with everything else and so it stands out more.

:shrug: it certainly gets the job done, though.

Edit: tbone - love your site! Good stuff on it ... do you take submissions? I've a few things I've worked on for 3e that may be worth putting up. I doubt SJG would be into it since it's "dated" now with 4e.

[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.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by The Speaker in Dreams

Edit: tbone - love your site! Good stuff on it ... do you take submissions? I've a few things I've worked on for 3e that may be worth putting up. I doubt SJG would be into it since it's "dated" now with 4e.

Thank you! No, I have not posted others' submissions, other than bits offered for inclusion into my existing material. There are many options for low-cost or free hosting these days, so I'd like to see people post their original ideas on their own sites, each with its own focus, design, and so on. The more such fan-made material out there, the better -- that kind of diversity is great, IMO.

[lawman]

Originally Posted by Kromm

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.

It took me a while to fully understand this, and why this is different than just a contest of skills.

It is different than a contest of skills when you consider Hit Locations and the options available in 4th Edition, such as Rapid Strike.

With a called shot to the head, the penalty is -5. If you used a contest of skills, instead of the existing rules, the Expert (skill 15) is reduced to the level of the novice (skill 10), just as Kromm said.

The reason why this is silly, is because of how much the expert is reduced. Yes, the head is easier to defend, but how much easier. In the above example, the novice is able easily fend off blows to the head (assuming they hit at all). The expert should be penalized for aiming for the head, but how much is he penalized?

I think this is the silly part that Kromm mentioned.

However, I'm not sure deceptive attack relieves this much. First, we have to recognize that no one has said deceptive attack was meant to change this.

In the above example, the novice has a better chance to defend an attack against the head (assuming it hits) because he doesn't have to beat the expert's degree of success. However, the odds play out slightly different, but the end result appears to be basically the same, to me. I'm not an odds expert; this is merely a layman's appraisal.

Further, it seems to me that the current system makes more sense for ranged attacks. Either you dodge the projectile/aim or you don't dodge it. Where the contest of skills, seems more appropriate (with modifications to get rid of any silliness) for melee and close contests. This would be klunky, in my opinion. Especially since it seems to imply multiple hit location tables, too.

In the end, it seems to me that it all evens out. Either way, there are drawbacks that I don't like.