Judo is a striking skill

[Plane]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

If punching, kicking, etc. was meant to default to Judo, the techniques would have the default listed in Basic and Martial Arts. Since Judo is not a valid default for those techniques, they do not default to Judo.

The counter-argument to that aligning with MrFix's interpretation would be that only universal (always applicable) defaults are listed, and that Judo is a situational (close combat only) application for punches/kicks which would not apply to punching/kicking at reach 1.

Originally Posted by MrFix

this only covers DEFENSES against an attack.
The attacker still counts as in close combat if he enters it on his turn, and can still make Reach C attacks (which is hallmark of being in close combat).
The DEFENDER is permitted to defend as if the attacker wasnt, but attacker himself is not penalized at all.

Attackers with long weapons are penalized if they step+stab instead of stab+step (-4 per yard of maximum length) so it's a "favors defenders" type setup here, is what I meant.

Allowing judo guys to potentially have higher skill attacking doesn't favor defenders, so "delay until they begin the turn close to give them that benefit" somewhat resembles the delay in applying defensive limitations.

[cptbutton]

Originally Posted by Anders

I suspect we are not dealing with "how does judo work" but "what do the rules say". I don't think this was ever Kromm's intent.

As I recall, way back when the GURPS rules explicitly said that Karate was any kind of martial arts trained striking, and Judo was any kind of martial arts defense.

Part of this is the era. Back in the 1980s the general public in the US might have heard of judo and karate, but any other martial art was something only people very interested in the subject would have even heard of.

[RyanW]

From the uFAQ:

Originally Posted by Kromm

[Judo] covers DX rolls required by grappling, sure, and also DX rolls to keep your footing or for just about any other utility purpose in close combat. The line is drawn when strikes (punches, kicks, shoves, slams, etc.) or equipment (readying, dropping, or using) get involved. Under those circumstances, Judo cannot replace DX unless a specific rule says so. In particular, if a rule explicitly lists the allowed skills – like "DX or Sumo Wrestling," "DX, Brawling, or Sumo Wrestling," or "DX, Brawling, Sumo Wrestling, or Wrestling" – Judo works only if it's called out on the list. For lists of the basic attacks covered by each unarmed skill, see Offensive Techniques (Martial Arts, p. 90).

[MrFix]

Originally Posted by Plane

The counter-argument to that aligning with MrFix's interpretation would be that only universal (always applicable) defaults are listed, and that Judo is a situational (close combat only) application for punches/kicks which would not apply to punching/kicking at reach 1.


Attackers with long weapons are penalized if they step+stab instead of stab+step (-4 per yard of maximum length) so it's a "favors defenders" type setup here, is what I meant.

Allowing judo guys to potentially have higher skill attacking doesn't favor defenders, so "delay until they begin the turn close to give them that benefit" somewhat resembles the delay in applying defensive limitations.

You're coming to the wrong conclusions.

The penalty is there because they are in close combat, not because of any sort of desire to help the defender. Reach above C gives -4 in close combat. That's why Attacker has it, because he is in close combat.

If he wasnt in close combat, he wouldn't get the penalty.

Hence, if he gets the close combat penalty - he's in close combat.

If stepping and attacking puts you in close combat, you can Judo Punch since it's a punch in close combat.

Even better, using your wrong interpretation, you wouldnt be able to attack with boxing punch or knife because they're reach C - attacks that happen in Close Combat, they cannot happen outside of Close Combat without special options. In any situation that you can make a C-range Knife attack or Boxing punch, you can make Judo Punch.

You're simply reading it wrong.

Even worse, you're assuming because Judo SL is higher than DX, it should be penalized somehow, as if Judo isnt a hard skill that you spend a lot of points on to get DX+1 or DX+2. That is wishful thinking to make the defender's life even easier and has no RAW reason to unfold, or balancing need for that.

[Sorenant]

Kromm recommends striking and grappling skills separately here so even if you could make a good case about striking with Judo skill, I'd say the spirit of the rule says otherwise.

[MrFix]

Originally Posted by Sorenant

Kromm recommends striking and grappling skills separately here so even if you could make a good case about striking with Judo skill, I'd say the spirit of the rule says otherwise.

Kromm also excludes straight up DX punch/kick, despite it being a thing in GURPS. That does not cancel the fact that you can punch/kick at DX, or that Judo allows you to use Judo SL instead of DX for all close combat rolls.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by MrFix

Kromm also excludes straight up DX punch/kick, despite it being a thing in GURPS. That does not cancel the fact that you can punch/kick at DX, or that Judo allows you to use Judo SL instead of DX for all close combat rolls.

So you're just completely ignoring my post, then?

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by MrFix

Am I going nuts?

No, but I think you're trying to split hairs so that you can be "right" about this. There are many places that the rules make a distinction between striking skills (Boxing, Brawling, & Karate) and grappling skills (Judo, Wrestling, & Sumo Wrestling). This can be seen from the descriptions of the individual skills all the way through dozens of template that instruct you to take one from each category to Kromm posting about it in a post linked in this thread. It can also be seen in no weapon table entry explicitly listing Judo as being usable to make a strike.

Pretty much everything I have just mentioned you've already brushed off when other people mentioned it. If you don't want to listen to other people and let your players use Judo to strike then, fine, nobody's going to Judo punch your door down to stop you. But if you want others to agree with you, despite the RAW being contrary to that position, it's not likely to happen. And if you want to be argumentative just to be argumentative then please, just, please don't.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by MrFix

Veryon, you're falling into the most classic GURPS pitfall and blunder - "I have IRL experience with something that means I can judge how it works in GURPS".

Perhaps, but mentioning my personal experience was simply a case of giving further evidence (I actually added that in just before posting, although obviously nobody could tell that given it shows up rather early in my discussion), and the meat of my post was how Judo seems to work in GURPS, particularly in Martial Arts where, if there were the intent that Judo be used for striking, one would certainly expect it to show up in, say, the discussions of all the styles that include Judo.

I'll also note that using personal experience of how something seems to work is probably more useful than using a strictly legalistic reading of the rules, particularly if all the other evidence makes the interpretation that aligns with personal experience seem more likely to be the intent than the strictly legalistic reading.

Originally Posted by MrFix

Another argument for it not being a bug is that Judo already has non-grappling uses. Namely, you can roll Judo to breakfall to survive a fall or a car crash - just like Acrobatics.

Nobody has stated that Judo is only useful for grappling alone - indeed, my post referenced sweeps (which are neither strikes nor grapples) from it's description in Martial Arts, and of course the mention of close combat DX rolls would be unneeded if it were only useful for grappling. We certainly aren't arguing against the Basic Set rule about Judo being used for close combat DX rolls - we're just arguing that the intent doesn't appear to have included strikes in that category. I think post #13 puts the nail in that particular coffin. A quick bit of Googling finds that this is the entry from the uFAQ that quote was taken from, in case you're worried it was being quoted out of context.

[swampthing]

I'm surprised this thread is still going on.