Why is shock capped at −4 in 4e?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

TDMs:

So once you reach a certain point of skill, shock becomes significant less relevant. Instead of backing off and taking an AOD, you're looking at tactics like, "Make this next attack a non-deceptive thrust to the torso instead of a deceptive swing to the neck." This might be reasonable for a 4HP hit but for a 11HP hit? I don't think so, unless you have the superhuman pain tolerance that is HPT.

If you were in a fight where your prior challenge level was -0, that would be true, but it seems appropriate: if the Great Master is fighting some hapless bar brawlers and has the shocking misfortune (extreme die result) to get stabbed, they just grit their teeth and keep putting them down without interruption because fundamentally what they're doing is just not a challenge.

If, on the other hand, the Great Master is actually in a fight where to participate effectively they need to be eating -6 in penalties, well, that extra -4 suddenly changes things.

(If you're making swings to the neck, it suggests your opponent's defensive abilities are seriously outmatched or outmaneuvered.

...Also the tactics shift you proposed is at least a 7 point modifier change... so it's quite possible somebody who is throwing deceptive attacks to the neck could in fact pull off basic attacks to the torso when subject to 11 points of expanded shock penalty.)

Originally Posted by VIVIT

For long time I've felt that GURPS has needed a mechanic for the momentary "soft stun" after being hit. Shock is partially sufficient for this purpose, but not totally. If it were uncapped, or even if it had a higher cap, like −10, it would be sufficient.

So you'd already decided your answer, here?

[VIVIT]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

If you were in a fight where your prior challenge level was -0, that would be true, but it seems appropriate: if the Great Master is fighting some hapless bar brawlers and has the shocking misfortune (extreme die result) to get stabbed, they just grit their teeth and keep putting them down without interruption because fundamentally what they're doing is just not a challenge.

That sounds like HPT, not high skill.

If, on the other hand, the Great Master is actually in a fight where to participate effectively they need to be eating -6 in penalties, well, that extra -4 suddenly changes things.

Sure, modifiers are relative. But note that this also applies to a lesser fighter totally negating the shock penalty simply by making the attack telegraphic. If that's a viable option (e.g., after you just took an AOA (Strong)). You just got absolutely walloped, barely passed your stun check, and you can still land a standard attack just as reliably as if you had only taken 4 hits. Is a boxer going to throw a straight-in-counterpunch right after being wobbled?

(If you're making swings to the neck, it suggests your opponent's defensive abilities are seriously outmatched or outmaneuvered....Also the tactics shift you proposed is at least a 7 point modifier change...

I didn't check the numbers; I was just throwing out an example. My point is that, if your effective skill is high, a −4 at worst means "choose a different attack", not, "yikes, back off, AOD".

so it's quite possible somebody who is throwing deceptive attacks to the neck could in fact pull off basic attacks to the torso when subject to 11 points of expanded shock penalty.)

At an effective skill of 8 or 9. Not hopeless odds, but still pretty good incentive to back off and AOD.

So you'd already decided your answer, here?

I’ve decided what to do instead, but I'm still curious why the change was originally made.

[kenclary]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

Is a boxer going to throw a straight-in-counterpunch right after being wobbled?

Quite possibly yes.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

That sounds like HPT, not high skill.

Well then you need to toss the whole shock system and the pain afflictions, because with or without the cap they say that you can substitute skill for pain tolerance as long as you're not stunned.

Originally Posted by VIVIT

I didn't check the numbers; I was just throwing out an example. My point is that, if your effective skill is high, a −4 at worst means "choose a different attack", not, "yikes, back off, AOD".

So there's two things here. One is you're dead set on the right answer being that after you get hurt, you should always need to go on the defensive for a turn. I don't and won't agree.

The other is that...no, "choose a different attack" isn't necessarily a reasonable option on the table. I don't know whether you're intentionally assuming that the shocked character is punching down in a big way, but that is what you're doing. If they're fighting a peer opponent with high active defenses, giving up four points of deceptive attack could easily cut your chances of landing a hit in half. Much like the "incentive to back off" you seemed to think was good enough below...

(In such a fight you can't afford to target small hit locations unless you can't afford not to because everywhere else is armored.)

Originally Posted by VIVIT

At an effective skill of 8 or 9. Not hopeless odds, but still pretty good incentive to back off and AOD.

Can't say that from the information stated. Deceptive Attack is unbounded and so are cinematic master skill levels. -7 is the minimum penalty for a deceptive attack to the neck. But it could easily have been -9 or -11 or even -13 instead.

Originally Posted by VIVIT

I’ve decided what to do instead, but I'm still curious why the change was originally made.

As a historical question about a rules decision, it seems likely that only a tiny handful of people could speak to that.

[Varyon]

Another consideration - the higher shock penalties can get, the more you are incentivized to get High Pain Tolerance. If the highest shock penalty is -4, HPT is a decent trait; if there is no cap, such that you might be looking at -10 or more, HPT is arguably a no-brainer.

[VIVIT]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

So there's two things here. One is you're dead set on the right answer being that after you get hurt, you should always need to go on the defensive for a turn. I don't and won't agree.

No, what I'm dead set on is that there should exist a certain amount of hurt such that you need to go on the defensive for a turn, and that this game dynamic shouldn't stop existing simply because you are very skilled.

The other is that...no, "choose a different attack" isn't necessarily a reasonable option on the table … If they're fighting a peer opponent with high active defenses, giving up four points of deceptive attack could easily cut your chances of landing a hit in half.

You have it backwards there. High active defenses are the ad-hoc assumption. Not everyone capable of hurting you is going to have high defenses! What if it's a mook who gets a critical hit?

Yes, if you introduce other penalties, that −4 can be made to matter. But should that be necessary? Should it really be impossible to force a skilled fighter onto the defensive through shock alone, no matter how much damage you deal? Should a simple Telegraphic Attack really be enough to completely negate the shock of any injury that doesn't leave you stunned on the ground? Those are the consequences of capping shock at −4!

[kenclary]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

No, what I'm dead set on is that there should exist a certain amount of hurt such that you need to go on the defensive for a turn, and that this game dynamic shouldn't stop existing simply because you are very skilled.

I wouldn't expect any game action, short of basically incapacition (in part or in whole), to be able to force an opponent's maneuver.

Often, getting hurt makes you fight harder (raises the stakes), not turtle up. If you want them to turtle up, use a Feint or such (and win it, by a lot).

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

You have it backwards there. High active defenses are the ad-hoc assumption. Not everyone capable of hurting you is going to have high defenses! What if it's a mook who gets a critical hit?

Then the mook is still toast. That's what happens when a mook fights a master. Working as intended.

Originally Posted by VIVIT

Yes, if you introduce other penalties, that −4 can be made to matter. But should that be necessary? Should it really be impossible to force a skilled fighter onto the defensive through shock alone, no matter how much damage you deal? Should a simple Telegraphic Attack really be enough to completely negate the shock of any injury that doesn't leave you stunned on the ground? Those are the consequences of capping shock at −4!

I literally do not see a reason why not.

(Also, Telegraphic Attack is ruinous. I'm pretty sure the only circumstances where it makes sense are against a target that can't or almost can't defend, or when your attack is near-hopeless anyway.)


As for whether that should be necessary for there to be a bunch of penalties in play...it already is. It's not necessary because it's important to make shock matter, it's necessary because it's required to make the high skill matter. If you're in a situation where just swinging at -0 is all you need, having skill 20+ is worthless.

[VIVIT]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Then the mook is still toast. That's what happens when a mook fights a master. Working as intended.

A mook who just almost knocked said master's lights out (major wound, HT roll succeeded, not stunned)! The master stumbles backward (knockback) but keeps his footing (DX roll success, not knocked over). Unfortunate, but it happens sometimes. How do you expect the master to respond in the situation?

I expect the master to assume a defensive stance for a moment as he regains his balance. Then, when Sully Suckerpunch gets cocky and goes in for another attack, the master is ready for it, defends cleanly, and counterattacks at full strength. I do not expect the master to immediately rush back in. That's what novices do, and it gets them clobbered. The mook is still toast, but his lucky hit made a difference in the details of how the fight played out.

I literally do not see a reason why not.

Hopefully, the above example illustrates why not: fights are more interesting when getting hit disrupts your momentum.

As for whether that should be necessary for there to be a bunch of penalties in play...it already is. It's not necessary because it's important to make shock matter, it's necessary because it's required to make the high skill matter. If you're in a situation where just swinging at -0 is all you need, having skill 20+ is worthless.

Yes, penalties are necessary to make high skill levels meaningful. But if that's the case, then why should the contribution of shock be limited to −4?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

A mook who just almost knocked said master's lights out (major wound, HT roll succeeded, not stunned)! The master stumbles backward (knockback) but keeps his footing (DX roll success, not knocked over). Unfortunate, but it happens sometimes. How do you expect the master to respond in the situation?

I expect the master to assume a defensive stance for a moment as he regains his balance. Then, when Sully Suckerpunch gets cocky and goes in for another attack, the master is ready for it, defends cleanly, and counterattacks at full strength. I do not expect the master to immediately rush back in. That's what novices do, and it gets them clobbered. The mook is still toast, but his lucky hit made a difference in the details of how the fight played out.

You're trying to make a master fighting one mook into an involved fight scene. That's not what a mook is.

If a master gets hit by a mook and knocked back (but not stunned or down) I'd be more likely to expect them to proceed to rapid-strike two other mooks that are near where they landed. (-4 shock, -3 rapid strike with WM/TBAM, still allows for solid attack rolls with master-level skills!) Because when you're in a melee with mooks you need to remove threats rapidly.

Or if they're fighting with allies and just got knocked out of a position they need to cover, I'd expect them to aggressively push back to where they're needed rather than leaving their ally exposed...

Originally Posted by VIVIT

Hopefully, the above example illustrates why not: fights are more interesting when getting hit disrupts your momentum.

Momentum doesn't exist in GURPS combat.

Originally Posted by VIVIT

Yes, penalties are necessary to make high skill levels meaningful. But if that's the case, then why should the contribution of shock be limited to −4?

Shock cannot usefully contribute to that necessity, since it's sporadic and you can only tolerate a rather small amount of it in total before you lose. (Unless you're a fast regenerator without high pain threshold, I suppose.)