Combat- Why not contests of skills?

[stilleon]

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.

I don't even give a die roll for most of these situations. Much like the take 20 rule in the d20 system I assume that if you have a lot of time, it is not apressure situation and the desired result of the skill is average or better you just do it. However, under pressure or working on something difficult or unknown I would give the roll. This way, a doctor skill level 10 treats the common cold all the time with no real chance of critically failing, while if he encounters a disease that is not common or has to work on battlefield conditions then you roll.

I just like to get away from rolling everything and concentrate on story.

[stilleon]

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.

Why does the attacker have a better chance to hit? I agree with fire arms, but man to man it is different. When you learn a martial art you learn a lot of defense before you begin to learn your offense because if you are hit you lose. I think most trained combatatant's melee skills should have the defense at least as high or higher than his offense.

I so not like the fact that degree of difficulty does not apply to combat. For instance, I try to lie I make an acting roll opposed by your detect lies skills. Heck, even most of grappling is contests.

I like the idea of contests of skills to determine hit and degree of hit. This way, you make a great defense it can lessen or eliminate the effects of a great hit.

The new rules about -2 attack for -1 defense helps, but it is not the solution. The solution is to make your rules follow the same logic throughout. GURPS needs to bring combat on par with the skill ststem and add this as an optional system.

[jSarek]

Originally Posted by Luther

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

Depends on the job. Most jobs, especially office jobs, I'd say yes, unless there was a high-stress deadline or something.

If you're a firefighter, though, your job is almost the definition of "adventuring conditions."

[Luther]

Originally Posted by stilleon

I think most trained combatatant's melee skills should have the defense at least as high or higher than his offense.

I disagree. Attacking is a lot easier than defending.
But then you would like to attack and be able to defend too... and things get difficult.

[S41NT]

yes, attacking is a lot easier. But shouldn't be easier to defend against an untrained opponent? Should a kung-fu master or a 7 year old hit the character, his defense is still the same; unless, of course, the kung-fu master feints, which consumes an action. Shouldn't a punch from the martial artist be harder to defend against than the 7 year old punch?

[Digganob]

See page 343 "When to Roll":

"The GM should not require rolls for . . .

-Utterly trivial tasks, such as crossing the street, driving into town, feeding the dog, finding the corner store, or turning on the computer.

-Daily Work at a mundane, nonadventuring job."


And I can't find the page, but I remember reading where it said not to require a roll for attacking a sleeping or unconscious target. Just assume maximum damage, or that the target is killed if using a particularly lethal attack.

[Luther]

Originally Posted by S41NT

yes, attacking is a lot easier. But shouldn't be easier to defend against an untrained opponent? Should a kung-fu master or a 7 year old hit the character, his defense is still the same; Unless of course the kung-fu master feints (which requires an action...). But shouldn't a plain punch coming from a martial artist be more difficult to defend then the 7 year old punch?

I agree, but GURPS wasn't designed with the concept of margin of succes built-in.
Changing this would require a major rewrite, something I would LIKE to see.

However Steve Jackson isn't going to stop writing card games, and back to serious RPG work ;)

[Recnam Orcen]

When you target a body part, there is a good chance that your attack will be lower than the defence especially if the other retreats and even more if he all-out defends at + 2.

Both karate 12, attack head 7 or less; other parries at 9 + maybe (3 +2) for a max 14
Both karate 20, attack head 15 or less; other parries at 13 + maybe (3 +2) for a max 18

So a low skill seems to be advantageous for the defender and a high skill for the attacker. You add high skill + deceptive attack and it is quite deadly. We have already tested the improved combat system with our 400 converted to 500 points characters in Kromm’s campaign and it went very very well. I am quite happy about it because IMO it has improved a lot of issues I had with gurps combat.

[S41NT]

Originally Posted by Luther

I agree, but GURPS wasn't designed with the concept of margin of succes built-in.

Which is the opposite of the new (and crappy if you ask me) Vampire The Requiem system. It all resumes to one single roll! Even damage!!! I think that's just plain wrong.

But in a game where if you don't feint you don't hit, this makes combat a lot longer. I don't have the 4th edition yet (should arrive next week), but if there's an easier way to reduce defense (someone mentioned a -1 defense per -2 to hit), it's certainly interesting. GURPS assumes you defense score is the score to defend against the child. It's be best you can do against the easiest possible enemy.

But all problems aside, I like the way it is with gurps. Can take some time (calculating by how much the chars made their feints and all, subtracting from defense, etc) but in the end, its fair and stimulates my players do say more than a boring "I'll hit him."

[lawman]

yes, attacking is a lot easier. But shouldn't be easier to defend against an untrained opponent? Should a kung-fu master or a 7 year old hit the character, his defense is still the same; unless, of course, the kung-fu master feints, which consumes an action. Shouldn't a punch from the martial artist be harder to defend against than the 7 year old punch?

It depends.

The Kung Fu Master in the case above isn't really using his skill. He is using a punch very similar to the untrained student (7-year old girl is a little extreme for a reasonable example, I think.)

4th Edition has something called deceptive attack. It covers a very fast punch and all sorts of other things. As you mentioned, this is the -2 to skill which gives your foe -1 to defense.

So that Kung Fu Master, let's assume skill 20, can use his skill to punch for a difficult target (skull, effective skill 14) with very good chance of succeeding, but being parried even by a lesser student.

Or he can utilize his incredible Kung-Fu-Action-Movie speed and take -8 to his attack, aiming for the torso. Now, the student parries at -4, which will probably be a 6 or less for even a competant student.

To me, though, this creates something of the same situation Kromm wanted to avoid. The called shot to the head is easier to parry.

Logically, and I think realistically, the KFM is going to use a couple blinding attacks to the torso, cause some shock penalty, then take the student out with a chop to the noggin.

In fact, he could use Exrta Effort or Rapid Attack or both and do both in the same round, without much problem.

This is why I really do like the 4th edition rules so much more. More options to simulate the way things should work, in my mind.

For the 7 year old girl, I'd say her attack chance was so low, that defense isn't a problem.

btw, why was the Kung Fu Master fighting the 7-year old girl, again?