Fatigue for Warriors

[Farmer]

Originally Posted by Emerikol

Hey guys,
What in the world do laser rifles have to do with non-magic using fatigue? I think this conversation has gotten derailed.

Using extra effort to use melee weapons to overcome people armed with them :-).

[RedMattis]

Originally Posted by Emerikol

Hey guys,
What in the world do laser rifles have to do with non-magic using fatigue? I think this conversation has gotten derailed.

A bit, yes.

The general idea that the more elaborate fatigue rules for warriors might be a nerf to melee fighters in a context that doesn't really need it is fairly relevant though.

Comparing a guy with a TL-appropriate melee weapon vs someone with a gun made for somewhat close-quarters situations generally favors the guy with the gun. Even more so where laser weapons are available since they are probably even stealthier than melee weapons.

I for one asked for people's experiences because I don't want to 'nerf' a cool type of character specialization which is in a bit of a weak position already (especially if they are strong brutes and not stealthy ninjas).

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Farmer

On your notes above, the TL10 armour would allow someone to close range.

Why do I want to get into close combat with this person? Why can't I jsut kill him with a powerful weapon at range in a swift and efficient fashion?

Obthisthread: FP expenditure for sprinting would be one possible use for warriors but would probably be normally avoided. :)

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Why do I want to get into close combat with this person? Why can't I jsut kill him with a powerful weapon at range in a swift and efficient fashion?

You'd generally need some sort of paradigm - game rules, technology, situation, etc - that made melee worthwhile. If melee is better against armor (or force fields, or precognition, or whatever flavor of protection characters have), and your foe is similarly protected to yourself, you may not have the means to reliably kill him at range. Or perhaps you need to not kill him (or risk collateral damage, such as if he's got an unstable reactor behind him), and melee is a better option for that. It's going to be pretty specialized, and in general require the GM to actively skew things such that melee is a good option.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Obthisthread: FP expenditure for sprinting would be one possible use for warriors but would probably be normally avoided. :)

Against ranged foes, Feverish Dodge is probably going to be the main thing you want to use your FP for, and limit movement to dashing between bits of cover if you need to close the distance (running in a straight line for the straight 15 seconds it takes to need to check for FP loss is a very good way to get ventilated, unless you're so heavily armored you can just ignore the enemies' attacks). Once they're close, however, Heroic Charge can be a good option to reach them and attack within a single round. Assuming you use Extra Effort, that is - without that rule, warriors tend not to get any real use out of FP during combat.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Farmer

Range and *speed* are factors, not just range, and also things like cover, environment, and other people perhaps suppressing while the melee approaches. Even bad shots pose a risk, meaning you might need to keep your head down. Then there's camouflage and stealth and flanking and diversions and distractions and so on.

All these except speed apply to the melee fighter too. As for speed, if they're coming right at you it doesn't matter. What's more, the RAW say you don't count speed for things moving at human-normal speeds, because it's included in the dodge check.

Ammunition. If you go full automatic (suppressing fire) you run out of ammo pretty quickly. And Rcl1 probably means lasers? Lasers are broken with Rcl and ACC.

Earlier you just said 'accuarcy' was broken... Lasers in UT have a fair amount of ammo, and automatic fire in GURPS is usually not suppressive.

Certainly. It should be an advantage most of the time. If it's an unassailable advantage all of the time, then I suspect something is broken.

It's very rare that melee is an advantage in combat you're prepared for today (and when you're not that usually means you're down to unarmed combat) outside of sentry removal (which isn't really 'melee'). Something's gone badly wrong for a RL combatant if it comes down to melee.

As to the OP - even without the optional parts of extra effort, FP still have a lot of use for physical tasks - many require burn them, and many allow burning more to do things better or faster. Having opportunities to spend fatique to gain a tactical advantage through climbing, etc., would be a way to make burning FP useful and interesting for 'non-powered' characters. However, I'd go with allowing and encouraging the optional extra effort options, as they provide a very direct way to spend FP to gain advantage.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by RedMattis

The general idea that the more elaborate fatigue rules for warriors might be a nerf to melee fighters in a context that doesn't really need it is fairly relevant though.

You could argue that realism demands it: swinging a sword is more tiring than pulling a trigger.

For balance/realism in low-tech though, if you used Cole's Last Gasp, the ready maneuvers you use to draw a bow also causes Action Point loss.

Obviously it shouldn't cost any fatigue to let go of something (ie loose an arrow) but it should probably use up AP to NOT loose the arrow.

As far as grappling, if you combine Last Gasp with Technical Grappling, you lose AP on active defenses to prevent someone doing a Break Free of one, but there doesn't seem to be a passive loss of AP if they're just acting (penalized) in spite of you.

Perhaps in both cases (keeping a bow drawn, keeping an opponent grappled) there could be per-second loss of AP depending on the amount of force you're exerting relative to your ST.

I also like the idea of consuming less AP with reduced-ST attacks. If I have striking ST 20 and it costs me 1 AP to hit at that level of force then if I wanted to do some light ST 2 tap then maybe the GM just charges me 0.1 AP ?

What I like about that is it gives incentive to strike at lower ST levels to conserve energy, rather than going between full-strength blows and complete cessation to recover AP.

[Farmer]

I really need to play in some of these games where all the combat occurs at such ranges. The average engagement range for police with firearms is 6-8 feet.

Sure, infantry in an open field will be several hundred yards, but mostly not with personal weapons. Urban combat is likely to be within 35 yards on average.

So, yeah, carry guns. For sure. Even then you may need to be dodging and running and jumping and moving around with effort, potentially carrying loads. But you're also likely to encounter opponents at much shorter ranges, either by design or by chance.

Of course, the original post mentioned non-spell casters. Not that many guns in a fantasy game, usually, and typically not lasers with high RoF and low Rcl.

So in the original context, relying on a bow, bolas, slings, spears, javelins, blow darts, etc., isn't likely to be effective and using FP has numerous advantages to improve melee. But even in a modern or sci fi context, there is no need for melee to be "weak". It is situational, but that's not the same thing no matter how much folks apparently want to blast away at long range (might as well just use drones :-) ).

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Farmer

I really need to play in some of these games where all the combat occurs at such ranges. The average engagement range for police with firearms is 6-8 feet.

Do you have a source for that? The numbers I've seen give it as 5-7 yards, or "under 7 yards".

Sure, infantry in an open field will be several hundred yards, but mostly not with personal weapons. Urban combat is likely to be within 35 yards on average.

For infantry it's almost all under 300 yards/metres in major conventional wars. In places and wars like the recent one in Afghanistan and Iraq ranges tend to be 'long' (hundreds of metres) or 'short' (a few tens of metres as you fight in and around buildings). That's why we see the competing requirements for short and handy carbines and for small arms with effective ranges of 600-800m, both in the same general issue weapon.

So, yeah, carry guns. For sure. Even then you may need to be dodging and running and jumping and moving around with effort, potentially carrying loads. But you're also likely to encounter opponents at much shorter ranges, either by design or by chance.

Of course, the original post mentioned non-spell casters. Not that many guns in a fantasy game, usually, and typically not lasers with high RoF and low Rcl.

So in the original context, relying on a bow, bolas, slings, spears, javelins, blow darts, etc., isn't likely to be effective and using FP has numerous advantages to improve melee. But even in a modern or sci fi context, there is no need for melee to be "weak". It is situational, but that's not the same thing no matter how much folks apparently want to blast away at long range (might as well just use drones :-) ).

I would argue that melee does not need help in a fantasy game vs missile weapons. It takes a lot of points and the right build to make an archer that competes with a melee specialist, and you can largely forget it for a crossbowman. Your best bet is probably to first buy very fast movement and never, ever go anywhere where someone can close on you without you noticing and being able to move away - terrian that, as you've noted, isn't at all common.

The biggest advantage a missile specialist probably has is that they can outrange non-missile spells. The downside is that anti-missile spells have absolute effect except vs magic-immune missiles (meteoric iron in Dungeon Fantasy).

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Farmer

I really need to play in some of these games where all the combat occurs at such ranges. The average engagement range for police with firearms is 6-8 feet.

Sure, infantry in an open field will be several hundred yards, but mostly not with personal weapons. Urban combat is likely to be within 35 yards on average.

GURPSwise does anyone know the major differences between pistols/rifles? Like is it just the Acc statistic?

I was under the impression that the difference between pistol/rifle for long-range sniping is HUGE. Maybe it's not a big gap in Basic Set but only rifles can use the advanced big-delay snipe rules in High-Tech/Tactical Shooting?

[Farmer]

Originally Posted by Plane

GURPSwise does anyone know the major differences between pistols/rifles? Like is it just the Acc statistic?

I was under the impression that the difference between pistol/rifle for long-range sniping is HUGE. Maybe it's not a big gap in Basic Set but only rifles can use the advanced big-delay snipe rules in High-Tech/Tactical Shooting?

Accuracy, range, caliber of rounds (often) and how powerful they are, 2 hands versus 1, accessories (scopes and so on). RoF sometimes comes into it (mostly depending on TL). Ammo capacity, too. Bracing options also come into it.

Yes, for long ranges, a pistol is nothing compared to a rifle (particularly a purpose built sniping rifle).