Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-22-2021, 02:19 PM   #1
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Optional Rule: Feint and Attack

Over in the "How do you hurt a good fighter?" thread, Anthony made the following observation:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Feint in 4e is only useful if you're fighting someone significantly worse than you where you need to stab them in the eye to hurt them. Against someone with comparable skill to you, one feint plus one attack is pretty much always worse than attacking twice.
This made me wonder, how can we make Feint a more useful option? Skipping the tangents that brought me to it (including That Other Game's "Improved Feint" Technique), this is what I came up with; I posted it in the other thread, but feel it would be better off split into its own, rather than clutter that one up.

The mechanics are fairly simple: if you turn an attack into a Feint (see Martial Arts where this was introduced), this grants a +2 to your attacks for that Maneuver. You may trade in a Step to boost this to +4, or if using a Maneuver that allows for at least half Move, can trade in said half Move to boost it to +6 instead (optionally, 1/4 Move - round up - can be traded in to make it +4, like a Step). These bonuses are halved - to +1, +2, and +3, respectively - if you have a trait like Trained by a Master or Weapon Master that halves Rapid Strike penalties (the bonuses are meant to decrease the penalty, not result in a net bonus to hit).

There are some situations that call for a further examination here, however. First off, what if someone gets multiple attacks per Maneuver for reasons other than Rapid Strike? This would be the case for someone with Extra Attack, or using Dual Weapon Attack (or Multi Weapon Attack*, for characters with more than 2 arms). On one hand, it doesn't seem appropriate to give a bonus to the other attacks. On the other hand, such characters would be discouraged from using Feint, due to what Anthony observed in the other thread - they're better off making two attacks than trading one in for a Feint.

I see a few options here. One is to state that, once you reach +0 to hit, the above bonuses are halved, to +1, +2, and +3, respectively (if already halved due to TbaM/WM, don't reduce it further). Mechanically, this incentivizes the use of Feint, as you get a bonus to each roll (the Feint and the Attack). Narratively, the character is able to focus more on each of the Feint and the Attack because the Feint is eating up less of their time (feints are faster than normal strikes).

An alternative option is to just let the bonuses be. In this case, you don't halve the bonuses for TbaM/WM. This has the same mechanical and narrative effects as above, just a bit more pronounced. Honestly, I'm leaning toward this, albeit with a further caveat - the bonus to the Attack(s) must be "spent" on Techniques and/or Deceptive Attack (or its cousin, Setup Attack) or any excess is lost (so no net bonus, but you can trade in the virtual bonus for additional effects). The bonus to the Feint just works as-is.

Another consideration is for if someone wants to throw multiple Feints. Honestly, a further +2 to all Feints and Attacks for that Maneuver is probably fine, although I think the bonus for reduced movement shouldn't be multiplied (so it's just a further +2 or +4, not a further +2 or +4 per Feint). As for the mechanical effect of throwing multiple Feints, I'd say use the best result of the contest, with a further -1 to the target's defenses for each additional victory. So, say someone opts to do a 4-attack Rapid Strike, but trades in the first 3 strikes as Feints. Normally each attack would be at -18, but the 3 Feints gives +6, boosting this to -12. If the character wins one Feint by 4, one by 3, and loses one, his foe is at -5 (-4 was the best result, further -1 for the other victory) to defend.

If the character has invested in the Feint Technique, this only affects the Feint attempt(s), it doesn't (directly) improve the attack. You can invest in a specific Feint-and-Attack Combination, however, to buy off the penalties (which can give a net bonus to Feint, but not to Attack).

The GM might want to consider allowing the bonuses for reduced movement to be available without making a Feint. I don't think this will really break anything, but it is likely to make characters more likely to stand their ground rather than constantly making Steps (including to make up for Retreats) during combat (and it favors offense over defense - in addition to discouraging Retreats, it means in cases where the characters aren't moving around they're at +2 to hit, which likely corresponds to a -1 to defense for their foe). Whether or not that's desirable is up to the GM/group.

Finally, if someone wants to do Feint the "normal" way - Feinting one round, attacking the next - such a Feint is at +2 (or +4, or +6).

*As an aside, I feel using a flat -4 to hit for any number of weapons for a Multi Weapon Attack is wrong. I'd be inclined to say MWA is actually -2 per attack (including the first) - someone with four arms can attack with all four at once, at -8. The MWA Technique applies to any number of arms, but cannot result in a net bonus - someone with six arms MWA at Default+6 is at +0 if using 2 or 3 arms, -2 for 4 arms, -4 for 5 arms, and -6 to attack with all 6.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnome View Post
This all seems a bit unnecessary since we have Deceptive Attacks, but for another similar alternative see Setup Attacks, from Pyramid #3/52, "Delayed Gratification."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
That's one explanation for deceptive attack. 4e basically fixed feint by introducing a replacement.
(Note these are replies to my suggested system from the original thread)

With this in play, you can still describe a Deceptive Attack as actually being a quick feint followed by a strike; the difference is mechanical, not narrative. DA is sort of the "quick and dirty" method to do a feint-and-attack, trading an attack penalty for a guaranteed defense penalty, while my suggestion allows the player to take a bit of a gamble (and is more useful against less-skilled foes).

As for Setup Attacks, I actually came up with a "fix" for Feints using that before, as can be seen here. I'm inclined to combine the systems, honestly, which would give a +4 to the Feint, but use different mechanics to work things out (rather than a Quick Contest, you either take a penalty to the Feint to impose a penalty to the target's next defense or use a fraction of your MoS to do the same, but the target gets a defense against the Feint, and depending on how well they do this can reduce or even eliminate the defense penalty).

So... thoughts from the Hive Mind?
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2021, 02:59 PM   #2
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Optional Rule: Feint and Attack

Honestly, I would just delete feint, while feinting does exist it doesn't really exist on a timescale compatible with it being a GURPS maneuver (the whole point of a feint is getting inside your opponent's OODA loop, which in GURPS terms is "they don't get a turn between the feint and the actual attack"), and deceptive attack works fine for sub-turn feints.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2021, 05:17 PM   #3
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Optional Rule: Feint and Attack

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Honestly, I would just delete feint, while feinting does exist it doesn't really exist on a timescale compatible with it being a GURPS maneuver (the whole point of a feint is getting inside your opponent's OODA loop, which in GURPS terms is "they don't get a turn between the feint and the actual attack"), and deceptive attack works fine for sub-turn feints.
I can see that as an option. I think there’s a place for an alternative mechanic that allows for more personalization (via the Feint Technique, as well as Perks allowing you to do it - and the similar Ruse - with non-combat skills), it’s just that as it stands, it’s something of a trap.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2021, 06:11 PM   #4
Refplace
 
Refplace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Yukon, OK
Default Re: Optional Rule: Feint and Attack

Improving the Feint technique, especially with Technique Mastery seems pretty good to me. Catch is you may not know how good the other guy is.
__________________
My GURPS publications GURPS Powers: Totem and Nature Spirits; GURPS Template Toolkit 4: Spirits; Pyramid articles. Buying them lets us know you want more!
My GURPS fan contribution and blog:
REFPLace GURPS Landing Page
My List of GURPS You Tube videos (plus a few other useful items)
My GURPS Wiki entries
Refplace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2021, 06:37 PM   #5
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Optional Rule: Feint and Attack

Quote:
Originally Posted by Refplace View Post
Improving the Feint technique, especially with Technique Mastery seems pretty good to me. Catch is you may not know how good the other guy is.
Well, considering the cost to get Feint to its absolute maximum of skill+6 costs [8] ([5] to get Feint to skill+4, [1] for Technique Mastery, [2] to boost it to skill+6), which would be enough to boost your skill by +2, this means you're basically comparing having the ability to do a Feint at +6 and then an Attack at +0 (or +0/-6 if doing it the same turn, or +3/-3 doing it the same turn with TbaM/WM) to doing two Attacks at +2 each (or -4/-4, or -1/-1) and having a general +1 to Parry. I suspect the two Attacks at +2 each will typically win out, although I may be mistaken - two characters with equal investment in the skill, but one going for maximizing Feint while the other goes for general skill, the former Feinting the latter will impose, on average, a -4 to Parry, which is functionally a -3 considering the latter has a relative +1 to defense.

My suggestion would make Feint be a more competitive option (in addition to encouraging doing the Feint and Attack the same round). Without giving up your Step (or if allowing either option to give up the Step for +2), it makes the above comparison be +8/+0 (or +2/-4, or +5/-1) vs two Attacks at +2 each (or -4/-4, or -1/-1). It's not a huge difference - just +2 to each of Feint and Attack if doing them both on the same turn - but may help tip the scales.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2021, 07:22 PM   #6
tbone
 
tbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Optional Rule: Feint and Attack

A small thing I've table-tested a little:

If the attacker succeeds on the feint roll but the Feint itself fails, let the action count as Evaluate.

The idea is to give the thwarted attacker a small "consolation prize" for probing defenses. Your Feint may have failed (because your roll succeeded but the defender's succeeded by more), but your probing counts as a second of studying the foe (i.e., Evaluate).

(Another idea comes to mind just now, which I haven't played: Do the above even if the Feint succeeds. That is, a successful Feint hands the target a defense penalty and hands the attacker a second of Evaluate.)

The freebie Evaluate isn't a huge benefit, but it boosts Feint a bit without any new mechanics. Also, to me it feels like a realistic way to run Evaluate itself: an unskilled fighter will cautiously use normal Evaluate (no skill roll needed), while a skilled fighter will Evaluate by actively probing and faking (i.e., in the form of a Feint).

It's an easy idea to try out at the table, should anyone find it interesting –
__________________
T Bone
GURPS stuff and more at the Games Diner: http://www.gamesdiner.com

Twitter: @Gamesdiner | RSS: here ⬅︎ Updated RSS link | This forum: Site updates thread (occasionally updated)

(Latest goods on site: GLAIVE Mini levels up to v2.4. Update to melee weapon design tool, with more example weapons and commentary.)
tbone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2021, 08:51 PM   #7
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Optional Rule: Feint and Attack

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone View Post
If the attacker succeeds on the feint roll but the Feint itself fails, let the action count as Evaluate.
I've never been very fond of the Evaluate Maneuver, but this merging of Feint and Evaluate manages to simultaneously elevate both of them. I think I'd go with the variant where any successful Feint counts as an Evaluate, just so we can avoid odd situations where you turn out to have been better off if the foe had succeeded well enough to eliminate the defense penalty (while this shouldn't happen with the bonus to hit - -1 to the foe's defense is generally worth more than +1 to hit, at least so long as the foe doesn't opt for an All Out Attack or similar - the bonus against hostile Feints and Deceptive Attacks could well make a significant different.

However, one of my (unstated) objectives in this thread is to incentivize doing the Feint and the Attack during the same Maneuver, to avoid all the oddities that crop up from them occurring on separate turns, and gaining the benefits of Evaluate does the opposite. Well, unless you allow a character who Feints and Attacks in the same Maneuver to gain the benefits of an Evaluate (the attack bonus only to later Attacks in this Maneuver, but the defensive bonuses until the start of the character's next turn), but that feels... off.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
deceptive attack, feint, setup attack

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.