Judo is a striking skill

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Varyon

one would think there would be a mention of Judo (Sport) not teaching the strikes Judo does (seeing as strikes beyond sweeps - which I don't count as "strikes" in GURPS terms - are disallowed in competition).

I don't know that every possible application of a combat skill is necessarily something you were specifically taught to do, but more like a general ability you get from the training.

Like for example, when using Judo instead of DX to keep your balance after a shove, that wouldn't necessarily mean Judoka practice getting shoved from all directions to gain that ability, I see it as just a general proficiency that they have.

Or for example, using the Parry ability against kicks or a specific weaopn: that doesn't necessarily mean that Judoka actually practice parrying kicks, just that they practice parrying and that gives a general flexibility of parrying that is adaptable to many scenarios.

Or like, knowing Boxing allows you to target the foot or the groin, but that doesn't mean a boxer actually practices hitting the foot or the groin, but his accuracy in targeting torsos/faces can be adapted there.

So in that sense I could see how, even if a judoka didn't practice throwing punches/elbows/knees/kicks (in the sense that 'punch' can be an elbow using arm or 'kick' can be a kick using arm, instead of hand/foot) perhaps their general bodily awareness could allow them to put their limbs where they want their limbs to go?

Originally Posted by Varyon

The nail in the coffin, of course, is Kromm explicitly stating the DX substitution doesn't apply to strikes

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

A specific rule does say so, which the OP quoted. And the 'particular' cases don't change the general case.

Originally Posted by Varyon

Kromm was responding to a question about the very rule we are discussing here.

I think the most disambiguating aspect of that answer (kind of wish Vicky had dated when she got those PMs...unclear how far prior to 30 Jan 2015 that answer was received...) is that Kromm actually gives us the format of what "a specific rule" would look like:

Originally Posted by Kromm to Vicky in 2015 or maybe 2014

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.

Since we know there IS a "list of allowed skills" for punching (albeit this is found in the Basic Set weapon section, it isn't given a "technique" entry in like kicking is) as well as Pummeling/Kicking, the lack of Judo in that list seems to speak against it.

However... if Judo WERE to be listed, but only worked in close-combat, what would we expect it to look like?

For example
B231/MA75 for Kicking: "Defaults: Brawling-2 or Karate-2."

If the author wanted to list a default for judo, but ONLY in respect to close combat (ie won't work at reach 1) would it look like this?

"Defaults: Brawling-2 or Karate-2; or Judo-2 in Close Combat only"

- - -

This is not a complete picture though, because the Judo text was never interpreted to "it defaults to Judo and I can buy it up as a technique". Judo subbing for DX is not defaulting for Judo, so we would not actually expect to see Judo listed like this.

Notably: DX itself is also missing from B231/MA75. If you were ONLY reading those 2 writeups for kicking, you would be unaware that you could kick at DX-2 if you lacked an unarmed combat skill.

This is why I think the key here is actually the Melee Weapon Table on B271. It includes THREE categories which actually aren't given names (like Axe/Mace preceding them, or Broadsword following them).

I'd call them the "Brawler categories" because that's the first word in the trio's respective headings and responsible for it's alphabetical placement. Er... well except in the first case Boxing preceding Brawling...

But anyway what's common to them is all 3 cover punches/kicks/bites which can be done with Brawling or with DX, with options to use Boxing/Karate for punches or Karate for kicks.

- - -

Probably the weirdest thing is the 3rd table, since I'm wrong in saying it's just bites... The "Brawling or DX" table also includes 2 weapon-ish-things-which-maybe-don't-count-as-weapns-I'm-not-sure which are "Blackjack or Sap" and "Stun Gun".

Stunguns/Blackjacks can strike at DX, making them weirdly accurate to other weapons used by untrained people. The most generous defaults which can otherwise be enjoyed are DX-4 for Garrotte/Knife/Shield. Even a should-be-simple-to-weirld "Light Club" defaulted to DX-5.

This was ultimately fixed of course by GURPS Martial Arts introduction of DX-1 default "Pummeling" which could be used by NEARLY everything. Instead of a thrust+1 crush at -4 to hit, a person could use a light club at "thrust crushing" (like brass knucks) which made them better than the thrust-1 for a punch (tied with barefoot kick damage) but still inferior to the +1 thrusting damage (plus "swing" options) you got if using the "Broadsword" skill to wield a Light Club.

There are exceptions. "the butt of a reach C or 1 melee weapon" is the criteria for non-sword weapons (apparently you can hit with the handle of ANY sword) so in theory reach 2+ weapons are still out of luck.

B272 "reach 4" lance is definitely out, for example (you can't 'pummel' with a lance)
B273 "reach 2,3" long spear would also be out, I think.

I can't find any other besides those 2 in basic set, all the other weapons seem to have "reach 1" options which would allow pummeling.

- - -

"Reversed Grip" (MA111 also) seems like it might be a solve to allow Pummeling with a reach 2,3 Long Speer though. Not 100% sure though. Reverse Grip is allowed with C/1/2 weapons but I'm not sure if you consider a Long Spear reach 2 (allowed) or reach 3 (disallowed) for this purpose.

MA112 mentions "butt strikes" if "effective reach is 1" (meaning it began as reach 2, effective 1 after -1 to reach effect of Reversed Grip) strike with full weapon skill instead of pummeling (DX-1 or brawling/karate) and non-crushing weapons do their normal thrust damage MINUS one (and also not enjoying the usual +1 reversed grip gives to thrust) as crushing instead of impaling.

Does anyone know if the answer as to whether or not Reversed Grip is usable on the 2,3 Long Spear was answered?

- - -

Seems like there's no solve at all for the lance... which is weird because you'd think you could just smack with the middle of a lance as a blunt weapon. Like I don't get why you couldn't Reverse Grip a reach 4 weapon using similar rules as reach 2: just hold it in the midle and it counts as reach 2 in 2 directions?

"Slams with Long Weapons" (MA112) seems like it might be the option if you wanted to do Crushing damage with a lance (since you can't Pummel or use Reverse Grip), since it's open to "reach2+" with no upper limit. Can anyone think of another option?

B204 also mentions lances can't parry... I'm picturing someone holding a 12-foot pole and trying to block attacks with it though. How do we cover that? As awkward as it would be, I'd rather have that than nothing if someone was trying to chop me with an axe or a wolf was trying to bite me.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Kromm was responding to a question about the very rule we are discussing here. Here is the specific uFAQ entry - note Vicky's question (which, to be fair, hasn't been stated in the thread) was

This leaves things rather unambiguous, although I can see how without that context it may have been less clear.

I am well aware of the quote and its context. I don't think it changes what I said.

[Donny Brook]

It is important to note that in the uFAQ, Kromm used quotes around the key types of situations where Judo cannot sub for DX. I did a word search in Basic set and Martial Arts and found the following instances:

"DX or Sumo Wrestling" appears under Sumo on B223, and Shove on B372.

"DX, Brawling, or Sumo Wrestling" appears under Slam on B371.

"DX, Brawling, Sumo Wrestling, or Wrestling" appears twice under Grab and Smash on MA118.

Given that Kromm quoted specific phrases that appear under specific rules, it does not seem like he meant that to be extrapolated to other usages such as the listings in the weapons table(s).

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Given that Kromm quoted specific phrases that appear under specific rules, it does not seem like he meant that to be extrapolated to other usages such as the listings in the weapons table(s).

Except that he preceeded those three examples with the phrase:

"if a rule explicitly lists the allowed skills – like [X], [Y], or [Z]"

The word "like" is a qualifier, it means he's using a set of examples, not creating an exhaustive list. He also did not call out those three specific rules, as you did, he chopped them off as examples. If he had meant the three specific examples you mentioned and nothing more, he would not have said "like" he'd have said "these three specific exceptions."

Originally Posted by Kromm

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.

e.g. "A character should have some combat skills - like Brawling, Broadsword, or Guns (Pistol)"
This does not rule out OTHER combat skills, it sets up an example list.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

Except that he preceeded those three examples with the phrase:

"if a rule explicitly lists the allowed skills – like"

The word "like" is a qualifier, it means he's using a set of examples, not creating an exhaustive list. If he had meant the three specific examples you mentioned and nothing more, he would not have said "like" he'd have said "these three specific exceptions."

'Like' defines the category. UNlike things are excluded.

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

'Like' defines the category. UNlike things are excluded.

How is:
"Boxing, Brawling, Karate, or DX"
completely UNlike:
"DX, Brawling, Sumo Wrestling, or Wrestling"

They are both explicit list of allowed skills defined by a rule. That one rule is in the form of a table and the other a written paragraph is irrelevant.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

How is:
"Boxing, Brawling, Karate, or DX"
completely UNlike:
"DX, Brawling, Sumo Wrestling, or Wrestling"

They are both explicit list of allowed skills defined by a rule. That one rule is in the form of a table and the other a written paragraph is irrelevant.

I feel like one of us is missing the other's point.

Kromm's quote means Judo is excluded as a sub for DX in the category of cases where a specific rule sets out specific skills for it along with DX. He defined that category with examples which my post above (#53) tracks down.

Uses of Judo to sub for DX that are not within that excluded category are okay.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

I am well aware of the quote and its context. I don't think it changes what I said.

I was attempting to give you the benefit of the doubt but... you're honestly saying that, when asked about the "Judo substitutes for DX in CC" rule, he called out that it did not apply to strikes, but meant it actually does apply to strikes, because he said "unless a specific rule says so," and the rule he was being asked about was a specific rule? Really?

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Uses of Judo to sub for DX that are not within that excluded category are okay.

And I am saying that the Weapon Tables are 1) a rule or set of rules and 2) the lists of allowed skills on the Weapon Tables match the examples for a limited list of skills which Kromm used. Thus, the Weapons Tables listings exclude the use of a Judo substitution because those list explicitly exclude Judo from them (except for the one entry on Low-Tech, p. 67).

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

And I am saying that the Weapon Tables are 1) a rule or set of rules and 2) the lists of allowed skills on the Weapon Tables match the examples for a limited list of skills which Kromm used.

I am saying that view is mistaken because Kromm used quotes around the types of rules he meant,and in doing so excluded things he didn't mean. Those rules are different from weapon tables, being both very specific and having passages that match the actual quotes.