Recently, discussion of "maximize at 16" versus "maximize Deceptive Attack" was going on. Douglas Cole even ran the numbers on efficient use of raw skill and criticals vs. Deceptive Attack.
But there is an easy way to make sure that using Deceptive Attack isn't a strangely exact science.
GURPS Basic Set, p. 370, has a simple suggestion for making Deceptive Attack less of a dial-the-perfect-odds option. It suggests fixing Deceptive Attack at -4 to hit, -2 to the defender's active defenses. It's nominally to speed play.
But it also has a marked effect on fights. You can't adjust your Deceptive Attack level to either get the most you can while still hitting the "perfect" odds to get through defenses, or while staying at skill 16 to maximize critical hits and minimize critical misses. Still, it might be worth having two levels of Deceptive Attack. The following is an (as yet untested) optional rule.
Deceptive Attack may be performed at either of two levels. The first level (Deceptive Attack) is -4 to hit, but gives your opponent a -2 to any defenses against your attack, should it hit. The second level (Very Deceptive Attack) is -8 to hit, but gives your opponent a -4 to any defenses.
Optionally, GMs may wish to remove the skill minimum, and allow anyone to attempt a Deceptive Attack or Very Deceptive Attack. It's unlikely to succeed unless the attacker's skill is high.
Why -8? A variety of reasons. One is the Task Difficulty Modifier table, which caps out at -10. So -10 would be the theoretical max, and since -8 is double the penalty of the first fixed level of Deceptive Attack.
This would also mean, for highly skilled fighters, that aiming for specific locations or using Rapid Strikes or techniques at default would be more common. You would cap out Deceptive Attack at -8/-4, so you'd have some play beyond that to spend on techniques and hit location penalties. This would also be true if you didn't tier the Deceptive Attack, and just stayed with the single fixed level. It would certainly speed play on the tabletop, and it would limit the precision min-maxing you get with a fully flexible Deceptive Attack.
I like fast. Fast is good. Vryce's player might be upset that he loses that extra -1 though.
ReplyDeleteI'm just putting it out there, not saying we'd use it. Vryce's Trademark move is faster - I already know before his turn what the chances are to defend against him, because he uses it at least 9 times out of 10.
DeleteI like it for the fast as well. We've got super-coders in the group I play with, so they have a neat homemade macro that automatically adjusts your DA to a net skill of 16 if you have "surplus" skill left, but for everything else, I still like it. Hell, I might even like it as a simple checkbox.
ReplyDeleteIf you're not attached to the symmetry, -4 and -10 levels for -2/-5 to defend work for "workhorse normal penalty" and "impossibly deceptive attack."
It also might partially answer the question of "Why would I ever invest in the Counterattack technique."
I prefer the symmetry, because why -4 and -10? It's giving up symmetry for not much gain IMO. -10 puts it even further out of reach, for a level of Deceptive Attack that's rarely required, and knocks off a good 2 points worth of hit location penalties you could be defraying. Basically I see -8 as "fits within the TDS notional limitation of -10, and is a simple doubling of the original fixed penalty" as two good reasons, and "-10 fits within the TDS notional limitation" as one good reason, and two is better than one.
DeleteHonestly, even having two fixed levels makes use of techniques, hit location hunting, and so on less likely, because you need skill 24 to max out at a 16, or skill 20 to max out at a 12. 26 and 22, if you prefer the -10 level.
"It also might partially answer the question of "Why would I ever invest in the Counterattack technique.""
People who claim Counterattack isn't good haven't seriously looked at what putting 5 points in that technique does for you. I thought the main question was, why Counterattack instead of Deceptive Attack, and the reason is, if you buy it off, it's pretty damn effective.
I like Doug's suggestion for -4 and -10 as the two levels.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if it I should try it in MATG but I bet Ted would complain.
People who really like to min-max will complain.
DeleteOne solution is to have fixed levels, but allow variable levels if bought as part of a Trademark Move. So you can have -3 Deceptive Attack, say, but only by making it your go-to move, spending a point on it, and then telling the GM ahead of time. It changes from a turn-by-turn optimization to a pre-game "I think this will usually be best" optimization.
I was about to suggest alternate level for trademark moves (TMs), given TMs speed up play and generally already do include hit locations.
DeleteI was about to suggest alternate level for trademark moves (TMs), given TMs speed up play and generally already do include hit locations.
DeleteAre rapid strikes less common? My impression is that against a normal parry or block defense it's better than DA.
ReplyDeleteRapid Strikes are the basic default option for fighters in my games - even the guys without Weapon Master. But they aren't exclusive options - the top front-line fighter in our game uses a Trademark Move that's a Rapid Strike, solidly deceptive as well.
DeleteIt depends on the character, too. My imbued knight with the Knight! skill preferred to do One Big Hit: enough DA to bring the skill down to 10 or 11 and all the imbuements he wanted on the attack. Destiny points meant that he didn't miss, massive DA meant the attack went through, and only a single attack mean that he wasn't burning precious FP twice.
DeleteRapid Strike Feint/Strike was really common from most of the other people, especially WM who bought up the Feint technique and had high skill to start. But if you're a skill 16-18 guy without WM, rapid strike penalties are pretty crippling and you need some other way to contribute.
Imbuements - and per-attack FP costs - change everything, honestly. Especially cases where power costs are paid on a successful attack, but not on a miss, it's better to gamble as much as you can on a single strike. Using Doug's "Last Gasp" rules would do much the same, or making a character with a Melee spell as his main attack form.
DeleteSince my gamers don't get access to Imbuements and we don't use Last Gasp, Rapid Strike is the way to go.
Besides, the assumption with "one massive hit down to 10 skill" is that you've got one target. It's a rare fight in my games where you have only one guy to pound on.