Force Sword Techniques -

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Of course, sure. My point is not "No, you can't do that," only "You can't do that RAW" (meaning "Rules as written.")

Fair enough. I personally don't think of rules for superscience devices as RAW, which is probably where that disconnect came from.

Originally Posted by Mailanka

The practitioner would have to focus mostly on dodge as his defense, but keeping the blade off would greatly enhance feinting, though it would be difficult to strike that way (you cannot see where the blade is, so you're striking blind, after a fashion. Probably apply a penalty, and a technique to get around that)

I hadn't even considered the aspect of "striking blind." An experienced swordsman typically has a pretty good idea of where his weapon is without looking at it (Wild Swing penalties and the like are for not being able to see the enemy, not your weapon), although something "massless" like a force sword might be a good deal harder to keep track of. I'd say a penalty when swinging the weapon would be in order, but probably not for "thrusting" - that is more like shooting a gun from the hip, albeit at extremely close range. I could see maybe a Bulk penalty there, although force swords would probably be Bulk -1 at worst.

All said, for balance and a nod to realism, it might be appropriate to impose a -2 or -4 penalty to do this, but allow a single Perk to buy that off.

Originally Posted by Mailanka

The real advantage of fighting with your blade on all the time, in addition to it being easier to see where you're attacking, is that it's much safer to parry with.

Yeah, requiring the activation roll as a defense followed by an actual Parry would model that well. So with my suggestions that would be something like a roll against (Fast Draw +4)/2+3 followed by (Force Sword)/2+3, needing to succeed on both, as opposed to only needing to do the latter. The above penalty could also be applied here (you activate your weapon in time, but it isn't actually in line to Parry).

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Varyon

All said, for balance and a nod to realism, it might be appropriate to impose a -2 or -4 penalty to do this, but allow a single Perk to buy that off.

I'd make it a technique, and apply a similar penalty to all defenses, or the defense against feints, or both. So, perhaps, -4 to hit but -2 to defense. But, of course, the masters of this style will have learned to compensate for that and understand intuitively where they'll be hitting (thus, have bought up the technique).

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Fair enough. I personally don't think of rules for superscience devices as RAW, which is probably where that disconnect came from.

Rules that are Written.... o_O

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

I think the problem is technological. That is, when you ignite a lightsaber, it takes a second to go "pshhht" and go to its full length. You can't flick it on and off and on in less than a second not because you can't hit the switch that fast (you can), but because the blade won't react that fast (like you can't turn a computer on and off and on in less than a second).

So you have two options: Either you get a better force sword (hence the increased cost), or you houserule "even more cinematic forceswords." nly in the latter case could a perk work, it's sort of a Rule Option perk, kinda like taking the silencer perk or the infinite ammo perk.

Maybe, but the quickness of how the blade forms depending on the drama of the scene - at least from what I remember. I haven't watched the movies in a good long while.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

Maybe, but the quickness of how the blade forms depending on the drama of the scene - at least from what I remember. I haven't watched the movies in a good long while.

Yes, as but Malinka points out the OP doesn't want Star Wars answers he wants GURPS RAW Force Sword answers. With the Force Sword as written, and no changes or additions, the techniques that involve on/off switching aren't really viable.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Yes, as but Malinka points out the OP doesn't want Star Wars answers he wants GURPS RAW Force Sword answers. With the Force Sword as written, and no changes or additions, the techniques that involve on/off switching aren't really viable.

I'm pretty sure that's what I provided in my original post. By RAW, the Force Sword takes a Ready maneuver to switch on or off. By RAW, Fast-Draw (Force Sword) is a viable skill which would reduce the time to Ready a Force Sword by one second. One Ready maneuver = one second. So Fast-Drawing a Force Sword like that allows you to activate it as a Free Action. Unless I'm severely missing something.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

I'm pretty sure that's what I provided in my original post. By RAW, the Force Sword takes a Ready maneuver to switch on or off. By RAW, Fast-Draw (Force Sword) is a viable skill which would reduce the time to Ready a Force Sword by one second. One Ready maneuver = one second. So Fast-Drawing a Force Sword like that allows you to activate it as a Free Action. Unless I'm severely missing something.

It lets you draw it and switch it on as free action. The description in Ultra-Tech still says that it takes a second to form a coherent blade. That's a technical limitation that doesn't seem to affected by your awesome Iajitsu technique.

This is like any other mechanical limitation on Fast-Draw. You can fast draw a musket ball, and a powder apostle and cut off a second but it still takes a long time to load a smoothbore matchlock.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Rules that are Written.... o_O

Yes, rules about superscience devices are indeed Rules As Written. When I think RAW, however, I don't think "Rules As Written," I think "not house rules." I don't consider superscience devices that function differently than the default assumption as "house rules" so much as a slightly different take on the technology, just as I wouldn't consider fully ablative or completely nonablative force screens (or calling "Force Screens" as "Forcefields") as house rules. It's just a quirk with the way I think, perhaps.


Wait a minute... there's more!

So, most of the Sith stuff is just tactics, so I'll ignore those. The Dark Rift is a Dual Weapon Attack (well, really more a two-weapon Rapid Strike, but I think that should use -4 instead of -6) - the first is probably a Setup Attack, the second is uses Trakata. For Blazing Supernova, the spinning should probably use Acrobatics for a Setup (like how upthread I suggested Trakata using Fast Draw for a Setup) rather than RAW Spinning Attack. After this you can either do a Setup Attack and follow up with a second with the other hand, or you can do a Rapid Strike to attack and, assuming a Parry, follow up with Bind Weapon so your foe can't Parry the next attack.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

It lets you draw it and switch it on as free action. The description in Ultra-Tech still says that it takes a second to form a coherent blade. That's a technical limitation that doesn't seem to affected by your awesome Iajitsu technique.

This is like any other mechanical limitation on Fast-Draw. You can fast draw a musket ball, and a powder apostle and cut off a second but it still takes a long time to load a smoothbore matchlock.

Originally Posted by B274

This is an energy blade. Take a Ready maneuver to activate/deactivate.

But it doesn't say that in the Basic Set, so there is a conflicting description. Usually, the latter book is correct - but that makes doing some of the speedy draw tricks with force swords impossible. You can Fast-Draw the sword from your belt as a Free Action, but you have to wait a second to use it. That doesn't smell right to me. Time to call in the PTB, you think SP?

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Yes, rules about superscience devices are indeed Rules As Written. When I think RAW, however, I don't think "Rules As Written," I think "not house rules." I don't consider superscience devices that function differently than the default assumption as "house rules" so much as a slightly different take on the technology, just as I wouldn't consider fully ablative or completely nonablative force screens (or calling "Force Screens" as "Forcefields") as house rules. It's just a quirk with the way I think, perhaps.

It's a "house rule" because it's a deviation from the "Rules as Written." They're not inferior, they're not worthy of derision. We all have house rules, even the illustrious editors of this game. GURPS is lovingly built to accommodate house rules. But they still need to be noted, lest we have confusion (for example, I have thoroughly house ruled Ripostes and used them that way for so long that I had forgotten that they were a house rule and embarrassed myself in a martial arts discussion as I praised the virtue of ripostes).

Another popular house rule for force blades is to allow Power Blow to double their damage.