I just felt like writing this right now. It overlaps some other posts I've written, which I'll back-link to when I have a bit of time to pull them up.
A few of my players are very fond of "hit them in the hit points;" in other words, torso attacks. -0 to hit, no "wasted" damage, and pushing foes to -5 x HP is a certain way to get rid of them in the end. Nothing fancy, but it works.
It is a bit slow, though, and can turn mook aka fodder fights into slogs as you try to deal 6 x HP in injury x the number of foes. For a mere dozen foes with 12 HP each that's 840 injury . . . even at 3-4d + 10 that'll take a bit of time and usually multiple hits per target.
Add in worthy foes with higher HP and higher DR - say HP 18-20 and DR 4-6, and you're talking about an afternoon's gaming to defeat a bunch of foes.
How to deal with them more quickly? How to put them hors de combat efficiently? Or just how to render them ineffective as opponents?
Here are three ways to put foes in a bad way, quickly.
Sweep the leg! Limb shots are pretty good - legs, especially. They're only -2 to hit, and it takes only injury exceeding HP/2 to cripple the leg.
Where players tend to flub this one is both wanting a "cheap kill" by taking someone down with a leg shot, but also wanting an actual kill kill. In other words, crippling a leg can make a fighter much less effectiveness, but not totally ineffective in a fight. So it might just lower the target's defenses because they're prone or sitting, and limit their tactical movement, but not take them out entirely. It's a mobility kill, but not a kill.
For some foes, it's enough - they'll stay down if they lose a leg. For others, they'll do their best black knight impression and try to do you for that. And if you're going to murder them anyway, and they have reason to believe it (like, you do it to their friends earlier in the fight), what are the odds they'll just give up?
If your head comes away from your neck, it's over. Fatal shots do pretty well, obviously. Neck (-5) and Skull (-7) are excellent ways to drop a foe in a shot or two. Even if they don't take the guy out instantly, they can deal so much damage the foe will be making steady, penalized consciousness checks to keep fighting. Actually, Vitals (-3) attacks with high-damage impaling melee weapons are pretty uncommon in my experience. Guys doing 4d+10 don't like doing 2d+8, even if what gets through armor triples. But it's a good way to inflict a major wound on a foe with a penalty of -5 . . . and missing by 5 knocks you out. Even a moderate-to-high-HT foe is making a tough roll, here. The tougher targets means less Deceptive Attack to inflict on your foes, but if you get through, you have a better chance to end their ability to affect the fight.
If you love someone, better set them on fire. It only takes 2d fire damage to potentially set someone completely on fire - 10+ damage. You have a 50% chance of it with 3d. 4d is much more reliable, and will do it around 90% of the time. The foe will be fully engulfed in flame, which should keep them busy. It does have a tendency to ruin loot - if you're depending on selling their armor, clothes, and wooden weapons this is a bad idea. But it can reduce even an armored foe to uselessness as they try to put out the flames. 3+ damage will set something on fire, but 10+ is what you want - -3 to DX rolls and 1d-1 per second in damage. That'll add up quickly.
These are not the only ways to deal with foes, but all three have something in common - they make the foe much less able to affect the fight around them if not take them out entirely. They're worth considering when you want to win quickly.
Showing posts with label Melee Academy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Melee Academy. Show all posts
Monday, November 25, 2024
Wednesday, May 3, 2023
Melee Academy: Best Routes to Knockdown
What are the best ways to inflict Knockdown rolls on a foe in GURPS via injury? Information from Basic Set, p. 399-400, for GURPS, and Exploits, p. 60, for DFRPG.
If you need to render a foe stunned and knocked down, or unconscious, in a blow, here are your targets, from the best, to the good options, to the rest. All of these are negatively impacted by Injury Tolerance that affects the area - Unliving, Homogenous, and the various No (location) IT variants all make some or all less effective. Be careful. This guide assumes a human-like target with no special immunities.
Best Options
Eye - Major wounds are easier because of a x4 injury multiplier. Unmodified knockdown roll on any injury; -10 (!) on a major wound. Very hard to target (-10) and only certain weapons can injury the brain to get that multiplier.
Skull - Injury multiplier is high (x4). Unmodified knockdown roll on any injury; -10 (!) on a major wound. Hard to target (-7), comes with native DR 2 and is often armored as well.
Good Options
Face - Unmodified knockdown roll on any injury that causes shock; -5 on a major wound. Hard to target (-5) but is less often armored well.
Vitals - Unmodified knockdown roll on any injury that causes shock; -5 on a major wound. Moderate to target (-3) but limited attack options; armored with Torso armor.
Groin - Humanoid males only. Unmodified knockdown roll on any injury that causes shock; -5 on a major wound. Moderate to target (-3), usually armored with Torso armor.
Other Options
The "Other" options all require a Major Wound to inflict a Knockdown roll, but do not provide improved injury multipliers (or reduce injury) or penalties to the roll.
Neck - Major wounds are easier as most attack forms have an improved injury multiplier. Only a major wound, no penalties to Knockdown roll. Hard to target (-5), covered with Torso armor.
Torso - Only a major wound, no penalties to Knockdown roll.
Arm, Leg, Hand, Foot - These can cause knockdown if crippled - the only way to inflict a Major Wound on a limb or extremity is also to cripple it. Reduced multipliers for impaling attacks.
So your best choices? Hit the eye, skull, face, or vitals. You have an increased chance of putting a foe down, lower thresholds to cause major wounds, and penalties on said rolls.
Finally, don't forget that High Pain Threshold and Low Pain Threshold modify knockdown rolls as well. And failure by 5 is a knockout, so any penalties you can stack on - pretty much only the ones above - are critical! It's hard to knock a foe out or kill them in GURPS, so do what you need to do to stack the rolls against the target with your choice of hit locations.
If you need to render a foe stunned and knocked down, or unconscious, in a blow, here are your targets, from the best, to the good options, to the rest. All of these are negatively impacted by Injury Tolerance that affects the area - Unliving, Homogenous, and the various No (location) IT variants all make some or all less effective. Be careful. This guide assumes a human-like target with no special immunities.
Best Options
Eye - Major wounds are easier because of a x4 injury multiplier. Unmodified knockdown roll on any injury; -10 (!) on a major wound. Very hard to target (-10) and only certain weapons can injury the brain to get that multiplier.
Skull - Injury multiplier is high (x4). Unmodified knockdown roll on any injury; -10 (!) on a major wound. Hard to target (-7), comes with native DR 2 and is often armored as well.
Good Options
Face - Unmodified knockdown roll on any injury that causes shock; -5 on a major wound. Hard to target (-5) but is less often armored well.
Vitals - Unmodified knockdown roll on any injury that causes shock; -5 on a major wound. Moderate to target (-3) but limited attack options; armored with Torso armor.
Groin - Humanoid males only. Unmodified knockdown roll on any injury that causes shock; -5 on a major wound. Moderate to target (-3), usually armored with Torso armor.
Other Options
The "Other" options all require a Major Wound to inflict a Knockdown roll, but do not provide improved injury multipliers (or reduce injury) or penalties to the roll.
Neck - Major wounds are easier as most attack forms have an improved injury multiplier. Only a major wound, no penalties to Knockdown roll. Hard to target (-5), covered with Torso armor.
Torso - Only a major wound, no penalties to Knockdown roll.
Arm, Leg, Hand, Foot - These can cause knockdown if crippled - the only way to inflict a Major Wound on a limb or extremity is also to cripple it. Reduced multipliers for impaling attacks.
So your best choices? Hit the eye, skull, face, or vitals. You have an increased chance of putting a foe down, lower thresholds to cause major wounds, and penalties on said rolls.
Finally, don't forget that High Pain Threshold and Low Pain Threshold modify knockdown rolls as well. And failure by 5 is a knockout, so any penalties you can stack on - pretty much only the ones above - are critical! It's hard to knock a foe out or kill them in GURPS, so do what you need to do to stack the rolls against the target with your choice of hit locations.
Thursday, December 23, 2021
DF Felltower & Weapon Talents & Master at Arms
The excellent Delvers to Grow has a talent called Master at Arms.
It's a very, very good idea. I won't sum it up here, because you should buy the book if you want the details. Suffice it to say that it is a combat talent.
I'm tempted to use it for DF Felltower, but I do think it is potentialy a little broad for DF Felltower. You get just a bit too much for the price, perhaps.
Here are two alternatives I put in front of my players to consider:
#1:
Melee Weapon Mastery (10/level)
Prereq: 3+ Melee Weapon skills at 4 points or more each.
+1/level to all Melee Weapon skills, limit 4 levels
(Possibly open to all templates, probably open only to Barbarians, Knights, Holy Warriors, Martial Artists, Ninja)
#2:
Melee Mastery (10/level)
10/level for +1 to all Melee Weapon & unarmed combat skills
Prereq: 4+ Melee or Unarmed skills at 4 points each.
(Limited to Knight, Barbarian, Holy Warrior)
- Might we just use Master at Arms as written? Yeah, maybe. But Master at Arms gives a bit too much - anyone with Brawling, Wrestling, Shield or a ranged weapon, any one Fast-Draw, and one melee weapon is better off investing in MaA than upping those seperately pretty quickly. That bothers me a bit. Also, it bothers me that Martial Artists and Ninja, who most benefit from it and are most thematically "anything is lethal in my hands," are blocked from it.
- I'm open to a modified MaA with a more limited pool of benefits - maybe not on Fast-Draw, for example, which seems like a too-useful throw-in, or something like that.
- This opens up a larger talent - perhaps 15/level for all combat skills (great for Martial Artists and Ninja) and 5/level for all ranged combat skills (potentially useful for any fighter type, although likely to see little use.)
- Why not Swashbucklers? Because they're a one-note template. They should be specializing in swords, and taking A Sword's A Sword if they want to broaden out their sword coverage. They don't need to be buying a broad talent for non-sword weapons.
- The prereqs for #2, above, might just as easily be the same as those for MaA.
- I'm not sure what I'll go with, but I do like the idea of things that encourage broader skill development.
It's a very, very good idea. I won't sum it up here, because you should buy the book if you want the details. Suffice it to say that it is a combat talent.
I'm tempted to use it for DF Felltower, but I do think it is potentialy a little broad for DF Felltower. You get just a bit too much for the price, perhaps.
Here are two alternatives I put in front of my players to consider:
#1:
Melee Weapon Mastery (10/level)
Prereq: 3+ Melee Weapon skills at 4 points or more each.
+1/level to all Melee Weapon skills, limit 4 levels
(Possibly open to all templates, probably open only to Barbarians, Knights, Holy Warriors, Martial Artists, Ninja)
#2:
Melee Mastery (10/level)
10/level for +1 to all Melee Weapon & unarmed combat skills
Prereq: 4+ Melee or Unarmed skills at 4 points each.
(Limited to Knight, Barbarian, Holy Warrior)
- Might we just use Master at Arms as written? Yeah, maybe. But Master at Arms gives a bit too much - anyone with Brawling, Wrestling, Shield or a ranged weapon, any one Fast-Draw, and one melee weapon is better off investing in MaA than upping those seperately pretty quickly. That bothers me a bit. Also, it bothers me that Martial Artists and Ninja, who most benefit from it and are most thematically "anything is lethal in my hands," are blocked from it.
- I'm open to a modified MaA with a more limited pool of benefits - maybe not on Fast-Draw, for example, which seems like a too-useful throw-in, or something like that.
- This opens up a larger talent - perhaps 15/level for all combat skills (great for Martial Artists and Ninja) and 5/level for all ranged combat skills (potentially useful for any fighter type, although likely to see little use.)
- Why not Swashbucklers? Because they're a one-note template. They should be specializing in swords, and taking A Sword's A Sword if they want to broaden out their sword coverage. They don't need to be buying a broad talent for non-sword weapons.
- The prereqs for #2, above, might just as easily be the same as those for MaA.
- I'm not sure what I'll go with, but I do like the idea of things that encourage broader skill development.
Thursday, December 16, 2021
Melee Academy: Expanded Melee Weapon Defaults for GURPS
I don't think it's actually possible to learn to fight in one way, without learning enough to help you fight in others.* The fact is many concepts, principles, and abilities overlap.
Fechtbuchen and Japanese martial arts schools are a good example of this - you don't spend X years working on unarmed, then X years working on swords, then X years working on spears, then X years on knives - taking 4X years. You spend X years on swords, then fraction-of-X on spears, then even-smaller-fraction-of-X on knives, etc. - and you learn much of it concurrently. Or you learn unarmed for X years, then when you add weapons you find the odd choices of the unarmed moves are actually perfectly sensible if you expect to be armed, instead or in addition. The footwork overlaps (if it's not actually identical, which it often is). The fight awareness overlaps. The principles are exactly the same. You don't re-learn it all from scratch. There may be differences between culturally different styles, but within a culture, or a broader system, it's rare that you aren't better off with some basis of combat training when you learn another.
GURPS goes a ways towards this with defaults - but really, all weapons should default to all weapons in some fashion.
A quick-and-easy fix for this is to give every melee weapon a default to every other melee weapon at -5 if they don't have one already.
This effectively makes a weapon skill a substitute for DX for most weapon skills.
For example: Conrad is DX 13, with Broadsword+6, for Broadsword-19.
That gives Conrad Broadsword-19, Shortsword-17, Rapier-15, and all other melee weapon skills-14.
Any holes in this I'm seeing?
I think this may go a short distance toward addressing a larger issue. In my opinion unfortunately, GURPS also assumes skill development is linear. A guy with 8 points to spend can learn Broadsword at DX+2, or Broadsword at DX+1 and Spear at DX+1. But that same guy with 48 points to spend on weapons who puts it all in Broadsword gets Broadsword @ DX+11. If the guy wants two weapons, say, Broadsword and Spear, those 48 points split evenly get DX+5 in each skill. Nice, but he's substantially better off in actual play if he does the former, and needs to put in real work to make the latter approach make any sense at all.
But in real life, it's much easier to get from "beginner" to "very good" in a series of weapons, even 2-3-4 of them, than it is to get extremely advanced in just one. It should be easier to get multiple skills to DX+5 than one skill to DX+11. Learning more takes more and more time, it is harder and harder to find practice that is challenging enough to improve you, and even those improvements are marginal and mostly show only against other masters . . . sometimes. The longer you spend on something, the longer the time you need to spend for each increment of improvement. High-level practicitioners of styles are often the ones who most benefit from cross-training in another style, which, in GURPS, is merely taking points from the style you want to actually improve unless the core skills are all identical. All that does is make "cross-training" taking Broadsword from someone who calls it the blade something different.
I don't have an easy solution for this. It's something that is more systemic.
* I realize that there are differences between styles, stances, etc. I could go on forever about them, but for all of the differences in footwork, fist positioning, stick usage by style and length, etc., etc., there are fundamental similarities. It can be hard to teach another, different stylist not to use what they know from another style in this one, but it's not like it's harder to teach an expert than a newbie . . . it's just different. I reject the idea that knowing too much of X messes up related skill Y. You wouldn't take someone who speaks a couple languages and say they should struggle more to add a third than it is for a new learner to learn a second.
Fechtbuchen and Japanese martial arts schools are a good example of this - you don't spend X years working on unarmed, then X years working on swords, then X years working on spears, then X years on knives - taking 4X years. You spend X years on swords, then fraction-of-X on spears, then even-smaller-fraction-of-X on knives, etc. - and you learn much of it concurrently. Or you learn unarmed for X years, then when you add weapons you find the odd choices of the unarmed moves are actually perfectly sensible if you expect to be armed, instead or in addition. The footwork overlaps (if it's not actually identical, which it often is). The fight awareness overlaps. The principles are exactly the same. You don't re-learn it all from scratch. There may be differences between culturally different styles, but within a culture, or a broader system, it's rare that you aren't better off with some basis of combat training when you learn another.
GURPS goes a ways towards this with defaults - but really, all weapons should default to all weapons in some fashion.
A quick-and-easy fix for this is to give every melee weapon a default to every other melee weapon at -5 if they don't have one already.
This effectively makes a weapon skill a substitute for DX for most weapon skills.
For example: Conrad is DX 13, with Broadsword+6, for Broadsword-19.
That gives Conrad Broadsword-19, Shortsword-17, Rapier-15, and all other melee weapon skills-14.
Any holes in this I'm seeing?
I think this may go a short distance toward addressing a larger issue. In my opinion unfortunately, GURPS also assumes skill development is linear. A guy with 8 points to spend can learn Broadsword at DX+2, or Broadsword at DX+1 and Spear at DX+1. But that same guy with 48 points to spend on weapons who puts it all in Broadsword gets Broadsword @ DX+11. If the guy wants two weapons, say, Broadsword and Spear, those 48 points split evenly get DX+5 in each skill. Nice, but he's substantially better off in actual play if he does the former, and needs to put in real work to make the latter approach make any sense at all.
But in real life, it's much easier to get from "beginner" to "very good" in a series of weapons, even 2-3-4 of them, than it is to get extremely advanced in just one. It should be easier to get multiple skills to DX+5 than one skill to DX+11. Learning more takes more and more time, it is harder and harder to find practice that is challenging enough to improve you, and even those improvements are marginal and mostly show only against other masters . . . sometimes. The longer you spend on something, the longer the time you need to spend for each increment of improvement. High-level practicitioners of styles are often the ones who most benefit from cross-training in another style, which, in GURPS, is merely taking points from the style you want to actually improve unless the core skills are all identical. All that does is make "cross-training" taking Broadsword from someone who calls it the blade something different.
I don't have an easy solution for this. It's something that is more systemic.
* I realize that there are differences between styles, stances, etc. I could go on forever about them, but for all of the differences in footwork, fist positioning, stick usage by style and length, etc., etc., there are fundamental similarities. It can be hard to teach another, different stylist not to use what they know from another style in this one, but it's not like it's harder to teach an expert than a newbie . . . it's just different. I reject the idea that knowing too much of X messes up related skill Y. You wouldn't take someone who speaks a couple languages and say they should struggle more to add a third than it is for a new learner to learn a second.
Wednesday, December 30, 2020
GURPS Combat Skill/Defense Caps - Part III - Addendum
I almost forgot to specific note on Part III - maximum defense.
Maximum defense?
Even with a skill cap and a DB cap, it's possible to push defenses so high only a critical matters.
The maximum defense you can get with Skill 25 is Parry 15, +1 for CR, +3 for Enhanced Defenses, and +6 for DB (before Retreat and conditional modifiers.) That's a 25 to hit, and a 25 to defend. Skill 30 allows for a 28.
If the maximun penalty you can inflict without special techniques is -8 (Feint, VDA), that reduces the 25 to a 17, and a 30 to a 22.
Therefore it might be useful to have, instead of a DB maximum, a defense maximum. Set to, say, 20, no points in excess of 20 count, no matter the source. Cap at 20 before penalties. So Skill 25 guy above actually has a 25, maxes at 20, which is a 18 vs. a DA, 16 vs. a VDA, 14 and 12 if Feint is added in. Retreat still matters against very skilled foes, and you are discouraged from wasting points on advantages and skill points that simply cannot usefully add to your defenses.
This kind of rule puts a bounded limit on overall defense keeps everyone potentially vulnerable, and means multiple defenses always have some cost. It also nicely allows for PCs who aren't very skilled to pile up DB to keep themselves alive by alternate means. It also gets rid of the issue of people exceeding the maximum skill through Grace spells or potions or Heroic Feats to raise defenses - it simply doesn't matter.
I'd put this limit in before Feverish Defense, if you're using Extra Effort in Combat.
Maximum defense?
Even with a skill cap and a DB cap, it's possible to push defenses so high only a critical matters.
The maximum defense you can get with Skill 25 is Parry 15, +1 for CR, +3 for Enhanced Defenses, and +6 for DB (before Retreat and conditional modifiers.) That's a 25 to hit, and a 25 to defend. Skill 30 allows for a 28.
If the maximun penalty you can inflict without special techniques is -8 (Feint, VDA), that reduces the 25 to a 17, and a 30 to a 22.
Therefore it might be useful to have, instead of a DB maximum, a defense maximum. Set to, say, 20, no points in excess of 20 count, no matter the source. Cap at 20 before penalties. So Skill 25 guy above actually has a 25, maxes at 20, which is a 18 vs. a DA, 16 vs. a VDA, 14 and 12 if Feint is added in. Retreat still matters against very skilled foes, and you are discouraged from wasting points on advantages and skill points that simply cannot usefully add to your defenses.
This kind of rule puts a bounded limit on overall defense keeps everyone potentially vulnerable, and means multiple defenses always have some cost. It also nicely allows for PCs who aren't very skilled to pile up DB to keep themselves alive by alternate means. It also gets rid of the issue of people exceeding the maximum skill through Grace spells or potions or Heroic Feats to raise defenses - it simply doesn't matter.
I'd put this limit in before Feverish Defense, if you're using Extra Effort in Combat.
GURPS Combat Skill/Defense Caps - Part III - Putting it Together & Miscellaneous Issues
This is Part III of a 4-part series on combat skill caps, defense caps, and fixed feint/deceptive attack rules. It's going to connect to DF in Part IV, but these rules should work perfectly well in straight-up GURPS and are intended for potentially broad application.
Part I
Part II
Part IV
Let's look at a combined offense and defense, and related issues.
Putting it Together
Defenses are based on skills, so setting the offensive limit
Let's run some numbers and see if I like what I see.
Aaron A. Aardvark has Broadsword-16, Combat Reflexes, Shield-14, and a Medium Shield (DB 2), and Speed 6 (and Unluckiness, but that's neither here nor there.) He has Parry 12 + 2 DB = 14, Block 11 +2 DB = 13, and Dodge 9 + 2 DB = 11 with No Encumbrance.
He faces his opposite number, Betty Basher, with Axe/Mace-18, Combat Reflexes, Shield-14, and a Medium Shield (DB 2), but only Speed 5.5. She uses a knobbed club to avoid Parry U. She has Parry 13 + 2 DB = 15, Block 11 + 2 DB = 13, and Dodge 8 + 2 DB = 10 with No Encumbrance.
Aaron can crit-fish against Betty for a 3-6 critical on 16 or less. Betty defends with Parry 15, 16 with Retreat.
He can use Deceptive Attack for a 12 or less, but Betty defends with a Parry 15, 16 with Retreat, or 13 and 14 after the -2.
He can Rapid Strike with two 10s, and if both hit Betty defends at a 15 and a 13 (16 and 14 with Retreat.)
Aaron can also Feint Betty, but 16 vs. 18 gives him less than 50% odds of gaining an edge. It's not a smart play but it could work. If it does, he can both crit-fish at a 16 and force Betty to defend at an 11, 12 with Retreat. If that somehow works, that 12 or less Deceptive Attack is mighty tempting but risky.
Betty can crit-fish against Aaron with a 3-6 critical on an 18 or less - 17 and 18 still miss, of course. He can't hairsplit Deceptive Attack. Aaron defends with Parry 14, 15 with Retreat.
She can use Deceptive Attack for a 14 or less, forcing Aaron to defend at a 12, 13 with Retreat.
She can Rapid Strike for a pair of 12s, and if both hit, Aaron defends at 14, 15 with Retreat, and then 13, 14 with Retreat.
She can Feint Aaron, and with an 18 vs. a 16 she's got reasonable odds of success, althought not great. A success, though, can really turn the fight - Aaron defends at 10, 11 with Retreat . . . and it's easy enough to attack with Deceptive Attack to put this to 8, 9 with Retreat.
What if Aaron has Broadsword-24, instead? That's Parry 16 + 2 DB.
Aaron can Deceptive Attack at the Very Deceptive Attack level (needs a new name) on a 16 or less; this criticals on a 3-6, and Betty has to defend at an 11, 12 with Retreat.
Aaron can Rapid Strike for two 18s, or make the Deceptive as well for two 14s. If they both land, Betty has a 15 and a 13, or a 13 and an 11, if both are also Deceptive.
Aaron can Feint Better, and 24 vs. 18 means it's very likely to succeed. Betty has an 11 and a 9, or that followed by a Very Deceptive Attack forces to Betty to defend at 7 and 5.
All of that seems okay to me - the fixed Feint and fixed Deceptive Attack levels seem reasonable and workable. High skill still matters, a lot, but you don't really get to finagle it as well, so the defender still has a shot to defend.
I think I like the fixed numbers. I also think the skill cap of around 25-30 is probably a workable max, too, depending on the game.
Miscellaneous Issues
Race to the Cap!
It's quite possible that people will race to the maxima. I feel the best way to deal with this is to make it a soft maximum on skill. Flat cost until the cap, and then a rising cost - double or even triple cost per level afterward. It's easily done with an Unusual Background if you don't like directly messing with skill costs, or want it to keep scaling up for each additional level.
Do you still need a DB cap?
I'd say yes. Although it's hard to get past DB 3 in Basic Set without supernatural aid or superscience, it's easy to get high single digits with GURPS Magic in play. The theoretical maximum of DB 19 calculated here is still possible, after all, and that's really in any game using the basic magic system and extended spellcasting for Magery above 3.
If active defense is limited, then it's logical to try to maximize your defense bonus any way possible.
Having a cap - I suggesed 8 DB - is reasonable. I also like the idea of Option 3 - best source - and DB means contact effects - Option 2. And I like DB from magical effects not working close combat.
In any case, preventing DB from rising above 6-8 has the nice effect of saying that defenses should probably reach around 16, and very high ones - thanks to DB, advantages, and skill - can't get much higher than 30 . . . 31-33 with Retreat . . . if everything is maxed out and skill caps at 30. Capping at 25 skill would make it more like a 6 DB cap and a 25 maximum Parry or Block before Retreat or weapon-based defensive bonuses. Look at the examples above - give either of them DB 5-6 instead of DB 2 and most of the value of the options are reduced. Give them DB 8-10+ and it's basically over. Equally, though, toss in Blur and it suddenly matters, even to Aaron with skill 26, as it changes options since crit-fishing is just one viable strategy. Equally, it's not critical to give out Shield to everyone because it's harder to really surpress defenses past a certain point.
Overall: I think the defenses that spill out of the likely skill levels are okay, here, and that a Defense Bonus cap is worth it. I don't like a fixed cap, really, athough it's simple compared to the other options. The option of "best source" makes a fair bit of sense, though it suffers from some logical holes, like Shield spells suddenly being mostly useless on shield-using fighters and two swords being the all-around best option for defenses if you have a Shield-casting buddy or can cast it yourself.
I think the numbers here show that you can still keep Feint and Deceptive Attack relevant with the more limited, fixed versions, and with a skill cap, so long as you also mind a maximum of DB in some fashion.
It's the Points, Stupid!
Not that anyone has been that blunt, but it's come up in the comments. And it's a broader game design question - if you're having issues of high skill and high defenses, it's because you set the point values of the campaign too high. It's the "sweet spot" idea - that certain games do well between levels X and Y, or points YYY and ZZZ, or some other limit. Outside of that, the idea goes, things break down . . . so set the game up on the bottom end of that range (or even below it) and work up . . . and stop playing or limit growth past the far end of it.
That'll work, for sure. But if GURPS is fine at 150 points and even 250 points but breaks down at 300, or 350, or 400, or some other number, then starting at 150 instead of 250 just puts the problem off. It's still coming - and in a point buy system, if it's a specific skill level, or defense level, or combination of factors that make it an issue, it can come as soon as someone puts their points to getting to that level.
If the problem is where you end up, I'd rather address where you end up than pull back the point where you start.
I think addressing the issues that cause a race up in skill, and having an idea of what skill levels are appropriate and building systems around that is the way to go. I think GURPS does perfectly fine at higher power levels . . . it's just that unlimited skill, therefore unlimited defenses, and the ability to freely leverage skill to smash defenses means you can get caught up in raising the numbers by not knowing when enough is enough. Defining "enough" and having rules that make it so may make it easier for the players and the GM to be on the same page in terms of what "enough" is.
Overall: I think I like what I see so far. Tomorrow I'll get into maximums and caps for DF in general.
Part I
Part II
Part IV
Let's look at a combined offense and defense, and related issues.
Putting it Together
Defenses are based on skills, so setting the offensive limit
Let's run some numbers and see if I like what I see.
Aaron A. Aardvark has Broadsword-16, Combat Reflexes, Shield-14, and a Medium Shield (DB 2), and Speed 6 (and Unluckiness, but that's neither here nor there.) He has Parry 12 + 2 DB = 14, Block 11 +2 DB = 13, and Dodge 9 + 2 DB = 11 with No Encumbrance.
He faces his opposite number, Betty Basher, with Axe/Mace-18, Combat Reflexes, Shield-14, and a Medium Shield (DB 2), but only Speed 5.5. She uses a knobbed club to avoid Parry U. She has Parry 13 + 2 DB = 15, Block 11 + 2 DB = 13, and Dodge 8 + 2 DB = 10 with No Encumbrance.
Aaron can crit-fish against Betty for a 3-6 critical on 16 or less. Betty defends with Parry 15, 16 with Retreat.
He can use Deceptive Attack for a 12 or less, but Betty defends with a Parry 15, 16 with Retreat, or 13 and 14 after the -2.
He can Rapid Strike with two 10s, and if both hit Betty defends at a 15 and a 13 (16 and 14 with Retreat.)
Aaron can also Feint Betty, but 16 vs. 18 gives him less than 50% odds of gaining an edge. It's not a smart play but it could work. If it does, he can both crit-fish at a 16 and force Betty to defend at an 11, 12 with Retreat. If that somehow works, that 12 or less Deceptive Attack is mighty tempting but risky.
Betty can crit-fish against Aaron with a 3-6 critical on an 18 or less - 17 and 18 still miss, of course. He can't hairsplit Deceptive Attack. Aaron defends with Parry 14, 15 with Retreat.
She can use Deceptive Attack for a 14 or less, forcing Aaron to defend at a 12, 13 with Retreat.
She can Rapid Strike for a pair of 12s, and if both hit, Aaron defends at 14, 15 with Retreat, and then 13, 14 with Retreat.
She can Feint Aaron, and with an 18 vs. a 16 she's got reasonable odds of success, althought not great. A success, though, can really turn the fight - Aaron defends at 10, 11 with Retreat . . . and it's easy enough to attack with Deceptive Attack to put this to 8, 9 with Retreat.
What if Aaron has Broadsword-24, instead? That's Parry 16 + 2 DB.
Aaron can Deceptive Attack at the Very Deceptive Attack level (needs a new name) on a 16 or less; this criticals on a 3-6, and Betty has to defend at an 11, 12 with Retreat.
Aaron can Rapid Strike for two 18s, or make the Deceptive as well for two 14s. If they both land, Betty has a 15 and a 13, or a 13 and an 11, if both are also Deceptive.
Aaron can Feint Better, and 24 vs. 18 means it's very likely to succeed. Betty has an 11 and a 9, or that followed by a Very Deceptive Attack forces to Betty to defend at 7 and 5.
All of that seems okay to me - the fixed Feint and fixed Deceptive Attack levels seem reasonable and workable. High skill still matters, a lot, but you don't really get to finagle it as well, so the defender still has a shot to defend.
I think I like the fixed numbers. I also think the skill cap of around 25-30 is probably a workable max, too, depending on the game.
Miscellaneous Issues
Race to the Cap!
It's quite possible that people will race to the maxima. I feel the best way to deal with this is to make it a soft maximum on skill. Flat cost until the cap, and then a rising cost - double or even triple cost per level afterward. It's easily done with an Unusual Background if you don't like directly messing with skill costs, or want it to keep scaling up for each additional level.
Do you still need a DB cap?
I'd say yes. Although it's hard to get past DB 3 in Basic Set without supernatural aid or superscience, it's easy to get high single digits with GURPS Magic in play. The theoretical maximum of DB 19 calculated here is still possible, after all, and that's really in any game using the basic magic system and extended spellcasting for Magery above 3.
If active defense is limited, then it's logical to try to maximize your defense bonus any way possible.
Having a cap - I suggesed 8 DB - is reasonable. I also like the idea of Option 3 - best source - and DB means contact effects - Option 2. And I like DB from magical effects not working close combat.
In any case, preventing DB from rising above 6-8 has the nice effect of saying that defenses should probably reach around 16, and very high ones - thanks to DB, advantages, and skill - can't get much higher than 30 . . . 31-33 with Retreat . . . if everything is maxed out and skill caps at 30. Capping at 25 skill would make it more like a 6 DB cap and a 25 maximum Parry or Block before Retreat or weapon-based defensive bonuses. Look at the examples above - give either of them DB 5-6 instead of DB 2 and most of the value of the options are reduced. Give them DB 8-10+ and it's basically over. Equally, though, toss in Blur and it suddenly matters, even to Aaron with skill 26, as it changes options since crit-fishing is just one viable strategy. Equally, it's not critical to give out Shield to everyone because it's harder to really surpress defenses past a certain point.
Overall: I think the defenses that spill out of the likely skill levels are okay, here, and that a Defense Bonus cap is worth it. I don't like a fixed cap, really, athough it's simple compared to the other options. The option of "best source" makes a fair bit of sense, though it suffers from some logical holes, like Shield spells suddenly being mostly useless on shield-using fighters and two swords being the all-around best option for defenses if you have a Shield-casting buddy or can cast it yourself.
I think the numbers here show that you can still keep Feint and Deceptive Attack relevant with the more limited, fixed versions, and with a skill cap, so long as you also mind a maximum of DB in some fashion.
It's the Points, Stupid!
Not that anyone has been that blunt, but it's come up in the comments. And it's a broader game design question - if you're having issues of high skill and high defenses, it's because you set the point values of the campaign too high. It's the "sweet spot" idea - that certain games do well between levels X and Y, or points YYY and ZZZ, or some other limit. Outside of that, the idea goes, things break down . . . so set the game up on the bottom end of that range (or even below it) and work up . . . and stop playing or limit growth past the far end of it.
That'll work, for sure. But if GURPS is fine at 150 points and even 250 points but breaks down at 300, or 350, or 400, or some other number, then starting at 150 instead of 250 just puts the problem off. It's still coming - and in a point buy system, if it's a specific skill level, or defense level, or combination of factors that make it an issue, it can come as soon as someone puts their points to getting to that level.
If the problem is where you end up, I'd rather address where you end up than pull back the point where you start.
I think addressing the issues that cause a race up in skill, and having an idea of what skill levels are appropriate and building systems around that is the way to go. I think GURPS does perfectly fine at higher power levels . . . it's just that unlimited skill, therefore unlimited defenses, and the ability to freely leverage skill to smash defenses means you can get caught up in raising the numbers by not knowing when enough is enough. Defining "enough" and having rules that make it so may make it easier for the players and the GM to be on the same page in terms of what "enough" is.
Overall: I think I like what I see so far. Tomorrow I'll get into maximums and caps for DF in general.
Tuesday, December 29, 2020
GURPS Combat Skill/Defense Caps - Part II - Defense
Today I'm going to look at the effect on needed defenses if you're using the modified Feint and Deceptive Attack rules linked in the series earlier, and with an eye on defenses in the skill range discussed yesterday. For the other parts of this series, click here:
Part I
Part II
Part III and Part III Adendum
Part IV
How high of a defense?
Defenses are based on either a skill - Block and Parry - or on Speed minus Encumbrance level - Dodge. Dodge is going to be what Dodge is going to be - it's the best defense (until you critically fail it) but the hardest to directly improve.
A normal man of Speed 5 will have Dodge 8, 11 with Retreat. A melee-focused PC may have more like a Speed 6 or 7, but rarely a Dodge of higher than a 10 before DB, 13 with Retreat. It will not vary that much, and is very vulnerable to Feint if not coupled with a high combat skill.
How how of a skill?
Base skill determines just how much of a Parry or Block the defender will get. We'll shorten up to "Parry" and I'll note the peculiarities of Block below.
Skill 12 means a base 9 Parry
Skill 16 means a base 11 Parry
Skill 20 means a base 13 Parry
Skill 24 means a base 15 Parry
Skill 30 means a base 18 Parry
Like almost any other success roll in GURPS, you're going to ideally have a 16 (3-6 critical, 17 fails, 18 critically fails) or higher. Dropping to 15 (3-5 critical, 16 fails, 17-18 critically fails) comes with a significantly higher chance of critical failure.
But trying to arrange defenses to a 16 in the face of a Feint (-4) and Very Deceptive Attack (-4) is tough. That's a 24 Parry or Block, which means Skill 30 plus Enhanced Defenses 3 (+3), Combat Reflexes (+1), and DB 2. Or a more reasonable skill 24 plus Combat Reflexes 1 and DB 8. It's a question who is inflicting -4 on you from Feint to get there, too, if you're rolling against a 24-30 skill. It's probably more reasonable to assume a -2 to -4 from the attacker.
I think actually makes sense to see defenses at 16 without penalties as a more reasonable aim. That's Skill 18, Combat Reflexes (+1), and 3 DB. That's reasonably doable for a front line fighter even in a non-cinematic game. And it means that choosing Telepgrahic Attack has a real cost (it means skill 14 is sufficient, skill 12 with Retreat) and Deceptive Attack has a real benefit (reduces defenses to a 14 or a 12, depending on the penalty you can absorb and still hit.)
How about bonuses?
Bonuses:
+2 Acrobatic Dodge
+1 to +3 Defending Weapon
+1* Balanced Weapon (* gives +1 to skill, which may give +1 to Parry or Block)
+2 All-Out Defense (Increased Defense)
+1 or +3 Retreat
How about penalties?
The biggest fixed a foe can inflict on you is -8. That's a Feint, followed by a Very Deceptive Attack. (Certain things change this, such as custom defense-reducing attacks or the Botte Segrette (Dungeon Fantasy 11, p. 34), can inflict higher penalties, but probably should amount to real threat to defenses.)
Unfixed penalties can result from a "Spinning" attack; equally, so can bonuses. As noted in Part I, you can also change these to a fixed level of -2 and +2 (or -4 and +4).
Situational penalties can make it worse - but like the discussion of situational penalties in Offense, I think it's a mistake to try to allow for fully absorbing such penalties. You should always have a way to be worse off - it gets silly if you defend as well standing up, alert, and facing your target as you do kneeling, stunned, and flanked because your defenses are high enough to ignore those -8 in penalties. This thought process is the same as the one in Part I - Offense, that "maximum" needs to be without situational penalties that you generally do not choose to take upon yourself.
Penalties:
-4 Parry / -2 Block against a flail (-2/-1 versus short-chain flail weapons)
-1 Bad Footing
-4 Stunned
-4 Can't see attacker
-1 on fire
-encumbrance (for certain Parries, all Dodges)
-2 flank/runaround attack
-1/-2 for height (DFRPG simplified relative height)
-1 two-weapon attack
Multiple Defenses add a wrinkle - Multiple parries are at -4 for each after the first. It's -2 for Fencing weapons (or certain two-handed weapons with Martial Arts.) It's -2 and -1 with Weapon Master. Many cinematic fencers will fight with a "case" of identical weapons, because that gives a -1 cumulative parry penalty off of two identical parry scores. Add in +3 for Retreat, and if they can parry the attacking weapon, they can generally parry it multiple times before their defenses are really reduced or compromised.
Block
Shields warrant a special note. First, Block is identical to Parry for the same level of Shield. It will always come with a Defense Bonus, as you can't use it without equipment. So +1 to all of those numbers, at least.
Second, their multiple-defense cascade either doesn't exist (one Block per turn, per Basic Set), or is -5 (-3, or -2.5 rounded up with Weapon Master) per use with Martial Arts. So it's always worse for multiple defenses than Parry. However, it's a better defense overall.
That said, the rules should apply here just as elsewhere. Block is balanced against Parry well enough in GURPS, and has been since the early days (but not in Man-to-Man, where it bit fairly hard.)
Overall: It's interesting that with sufficient defense additions and situational modifiers, you can raise your Block or Parry to equal or exceed your skill. The fixed Feint and Deceptive Attack rules limit the amount of supression of defenses you can suffer, but to be fair it's never been something high-skill defenses actually suffer very often. It's more limiting the damage to the low-skill defender. At a glance, then, it seems workable and might actually increase the survival chances of the weakest of combatants, but also limit the need to push defenses up to very high levels for fear of Deceptive Attack levels that simply aren't included in the system (except from very special situations and attacks.)
Part I
Part II
Part III and Part III Adendum
Part IV
How high of a defense?
Defenses are based on either a skill - Block and Parry - or on Speed minus Encumbrance level - Dodge. Dodge is going to be what Dodge is going to be - it's the best defense (until you critically fail it) but the hardest to directly improve.
A normal man of Speed 5 will have Dodge 8, 11 with Retreat. A melee-focused PC may have more like a Speed 6 or 7, but rarely a Dodge of higher than a 10 before DB, 13 with Retreat. It will not vary that much, and is very vulnerable to Feint if not coupled with a high combat skill.
How how of a skill?
Base skill determines just how much of a Parry or Block the defender will get. We'll shorten up to "Parry" and I'll note the peculiarities of Block below.
Skill 12 means a base 9 Parry
Skill 16 means a base 11 Parry
Skill 20 means a base 13 Parry
Skill 24 means a base 15 Parry
Skill 30 means a base 18 Parry
Like almost any other success roll in GURPS, you're going to ideally have a 16 (3-6 critical, 17 fails, 18 critically fails) or higher. Dropping to 15 (3-5 critical, 16 fails, 17-18 critically fails) comes with a significantly higher chance of critical failure.
But trying to arrange defenses to a 16 in the face of a Feint (-4) and Very Deceptive Attack (-4) is tough. That's a 24 Parry or Block, which means Skill 30 plus Enhanced Defenses 3 (+3), Combat Reflexes (+1), and DB 2. Or a more reasonable skill 24 plus Combat Reflexes 1 and DB 8. It's a question who is inflicting -4 on you from Feint to get there, too, if you're rolling against a 24-30 skill. It's probably more reasonable to assume a -2 to -4 from the attacker.
I think actually makes sense to see defenses at 16 without penalties as a more reasonable aim. That's Skill 18, Combat Reflexes (+1), and 3 DB. That's reasonably doable for a front line fighter even in a non-cinematic game. And it means that choosing Telepgrahic Attack has a real cost (it means skill 14 is sufficient, skill 12 with Retreat) and Deceptive Attack has a real benefit (reduces defenses to a 14 or a 12, depending on the penalty you can absorb and still hit.)
How about bonuses?
Bonuses:
+2 Acrobatic Dodge
+1 to +3 Defending Weapon
+1* Balanced Weapon (* gives +1 to skill, which may give +1 to Parry or Block)
+2 All-Out Defense (Increased Defense)
+1 or +3 Retreat
How about penalties?
The biggest fixed a foe can inflict on you is -8. That's a Feint, followed by a Very Deceptive Attack. (Certain things change this, such as custom defense-reducing attacks or the Botte Segrette (Dungeon Fantasy 11, p. 34), can inflict higher penalties, but probably should amount to real threat to defenses.)
Unfixed penalties can result from a "Spinning" attack; equally, so can bonuses. As noted in Part I, you can also change these to a fixed level of -2 and +2 (or -4 and +4).
Situational penalties can make it worse - but like the discussion of situational penalties in Offense, I think it's a mistake to try to allow for fully absorbing such penalties. You should always have a way to be worse off - it gets silly if you defend as well standing up, alert, and facing your target as you do kneeling, stunned, and flanked because your defenses are high enough to ignore those -8 in penalties. This thought process is the same as the one in Part I - Offense, that "maximum" needs to be without situational penalties that you generally do not choose to take upon yourself.
Penalties:
-4 Parry / -2 Block against a flail (-2/-1 versus short-chain flail weapons)
-1 Bad Footing
-4 Stunned
-4 Can't see attacker
-1 on fire
-encumbrance (for certain Parries, all Dodges)
-2 flank/runaround attack
-1/-2 for height (DFRPG simplified relative height)
-1 two-weapon attack
Multiple Defenses add a wrinkle - Multiple parries are at -4 for each after the first. It's -2 for Fencing weapons (or certain two-handed weapons with Martial Arts.) It's -2 and -1 with Weapon Master. Many cinematic fencers will fight with a "case" of identical weapons, because that gives a -1 cumulative parry penalty off of two identical parry scores. Add in +3 for Retreat, and if they can parry the attacking weapon, they can generally parry it multiple times before their defenses are really reduced or compromised.
Block
Shields warrant a special note. First, Block is identical to Parry for the same level of Shield. It will always come with a Defense Bonus, as you can't use it without equipment. So +1 to all of those numbers, at least.
Second, their multiple-defense cascade either doesn't exist (one Block per turn, per Basic Set), or is -5 (-3, or -2.5 rounded up with Weapon Master) per use with Martial Arts. So it's always worse for multiple defenses than Parry. However, it's a better defense overall.
That said, the rules should apply here just as elsewhere. Block is balanced against Parry well enough in GURPS, and has been since the early days (but not in Man-to-Man, where it bit fairly hard.)
Overall: It's interesting that with sufficient defense additions and situational modifiers, you can raise your Block or Parry to equal or exceed your skill. The fixed Feint and Deceptive Attack rules limit the amount of supression of defenses you can suffer, but to be fair it's never been something high-skill defenses actually suffer very often. It's more limiting the damage to the low-skill defender. At a glance, then, it seems workable and might actually increase the survival chances of the weakest of combatants, but also limit the need to push defenses up to very high levels for fear of Deceptive Attack levels that simply aren't included in the system (except from very special situations and attacks.)
Monday, December 28, 2020
GURPS Combat Skill/Defense Caps - Part I - Offense
Logically, I think the best place to start is with defensive caps. That is, limits on active defense bonuses such as DB and Enhanced Defenses. Once you know what a good defense is, you can figure out what a good offense needs to be. But that's trickier to figure out - and both the Basic Set and my own approach has existing work to draw on for offensive limitations. So let's start there, and see where it goes. In Part II, I'll look at Defenses. In Part III, I'll pull it together and I may end up choosing different numbers than I work out today and tomorrow. We'll see. Part IV will be the DF-specific version of this all, where my current plan is to make some ties to templates for some of the rules.
I've previously done some work on offensive limitations in GURPS. What if you combine them? What kind of skill is necessary if you do so?
This post assumes using two suggested rules:
Two Tiered Fixed Deceptive Attack
Fixed Effect Feints
Short version? Deceptive Attack is either -2 (-4 to hit) (straight out of Basic Set, p. 370) or -4 (-8 to hit.) Successful feints inflict a -4 to defend, or -8 in a cinematic game (not discussed below, however.)
How High of a Skill?
What skill depends on what you can do with it.
What should someone be able to absorb in terms of penalties?
First, we need to know what we think a good skill maximum is. If we define "maximum" as "16 or less" to maximize critical hits (3-6), minimize misses (17) and critical misses (18), how much can you really need to have that skill while taking your best shot?
Since you can at most take -8 to yourself to inflict defensive penalties, we're looking at skill 24. Skill 20 if you use the Basic Set version of fixed Deceptive Attack.
If you assume Rapid Strike, that's another -6 or -3, depending on if you assume Weapon Master or Trained By A Master. I would, personally, because if you're expecting to pull off a maximally deceptive attack multiple times due to high skill, you're already effectively playing a game that assumes cinematic levels of ability. So call this -3, which means 23 or 27, depending on the fixed levels of Deceptive Attack.
How about bonuses?
There are some, but I don't think it's worth basing anying around them.
+4 Telegraphic Attack
+4 All-Out Attack (Determined)
+3 Accuracy enchantment
+1 Balanced weapon prefix
+3 Higher Purpose
+1 or +2 (DFRPG simplified relative height) . . . and not a lot of others.
Most of those are very situational, equipment based, or come with costs. It's worth putting them aside and making them truly bonus - not something that's factored in to "need."
What about other penalties?
If you want a true skill maximum, you'll need to go fairly nuts.
-10 for chinks in armor (eyes)
-2 for bad footing
-3 on fire
-3 lying down
-4 grappled
-2 large shield
-2 striking into close combat
-6 rapid strike (without TBAM/WM)
-9 partial darkness
So, -41. You'd need Skill 57 to have a 16 or less to stab someone through the eyeslits while prone, grappled, on fire, in nearly total darkness, into close combat, while holding a large shield, and having bad footing despite not being on your feet. It's only skill 51 if you skip Rapid Strike. It's skill 61 if you're off-handed.
And that assumes you'd not using Size Modifier as a negative to melee attacks.
That's why I say it's ridiculous to set a maxim off of the worst case. It's possible to make the case above even worse if you're using Technical Grappling (like I do) or Martial Arts and fight in even less favorable circumstances.
Who wants to play in a game where penalties are basically a non-starter? That's a fun way to take dumb combats out of the equation in video games. It's less fun in a game where combat can and should be a part of the fun, and the fun is predicated on uncertainty and risk.
Lower skill maximum?
All of this assumes mastery - a 16 or less when inflicting maximum penalties on your foe, with maximum attacks, is "standard."
What if it's not? What if you standard is lower? Let's go the lowest possible - net 10 skill. Still high enough for Rapid Strike or Deceptive Attack, and you hit half the time. It's easy enough to bracket 12-15 in here.
For a 10, we're looking at skill 17 to 21. Too low, obviously - and people won't generally go for broke and shoot for a 10 skill, and it doesn't feel "highly skilled" if that's the case even without any other penalties.
Pulling it Together
The maximum penalty you can inflict on an opponent is -8, which takes two actions - a feint, and an attack. This may take two full turns, or less, depending on the Maneuver you choose, use of the rules on Martial Arts, p. 127, and any Extra Attack. Doing so also reduces your skill by -8.
A "good" skill maximum is probably around 23-27 skill, possibly more like 25-29 (call it 30 for ease of use.) That's not far off from maximum human DX of 20 and a 3e-like skill cap of DX+10. Or from a Man-to-Man era skill 25 being "Master" level skill (per MTM, p. 10)
That skill 25 nicely works with the discretionary and inflicted penalties above is nice - a skill 25 guy can hit the eyeslits on a 15 or less, or hit the skull twice on a 15 or less (12 w/o WM/TBAM), or launch a pair of very deceptive attacks on a 14. A skill 30 guy can do all of that, plus absorb lots of conditional penalties at the same time.
Nicely, though, with the limits on Deceptive Attack and Feint, that skill can't be changed into a truly massive defense-smashing attack. You can't turn that 30 into a Rapid Strike at 27/27 as a Feint-27 and 17 or less Deceptive Attack -5 that couples with the Feint. That might be a negative - I don't think so, but we'll see tomorrow with Defense. You're maxed out at a -6 or -8, depending on the Deceptive Attack level you use. This also means very skill opponents aren't beating each other with dice rolls - you don't get two skill 24 guys fighting it out and have one roll an 8 on his Feint and the other an 18 and end up with a -10 to defend, but then a turn later closer die rolls mean a -0 to -2. It also nicely limits how dangerous a foe needs to be to be dangerous to you - they don't need to be almost your skill or basically doomed from stacked penalties.
So maybe we're looking at skill 25-30 as a maximum of basically useful skill, or a stat-based DX+10. Skill caps (Part III) may be useful here, or it may just be clear that you don't need to keep skills going higher and higher and higher as the benefits start to drop off quickly. In an advantage-based game like DF, Power-Ups can eliminate penalties instead of using skill to do so; in a Martial Arts game, techniques do the job nicely.
Closing thoughts: So far, it seems like my educated guesses on levels of skill are right in the ballpark. Defense will really tell me if the limitations on inflictable penalties are "correct." If not, we'll adjust in Part III.
I've previously done some work on offensive limitations in GURPS. What if you combine them? What kind of skill is necessary if you do so?
This post assumes using two suggested rules:
Two Tiered Fixed Deceptive Attack
Fixed Effect Feints
Short version? Deceptive Attack is either -2 (-4 to hit) (straight out of Basic Set, p. 370) or -4 (-8 to hit.) Successful feints inflict a -4 to defend, or -8 in a cinematic game (not discussed below, however.)
How High of a Skill?
What skill depends on what you can do with it.
What should someone be able to absorb in terms of penalties?
First, we need to know what we think a good skill maximum is. If we define "maximum" as "16 or less" to maximize critical hits (3-6), minimize misses (17) and critical misses (18), how much can you really need to have that skill while taking your best shot?
Since you can at most take -8 to yourself to inflict defensive penalties, we're looking at skill 24. Skill 20 if you use the Basic Set version of fixed Deceptive Attack.
If you assume Rapid Strike, that's another -6 or -3, depending on if you assume Weapon Master or Trained By A Master. I would, personally, because if you're expecting to pull off a maximally deceptive attack multiple times due to high skill, you're already effectively playing a game that assumes cinematic levels of ability. So call this -3, which means 23 or 27, depending on the fixed levels of Deceptive Attack.
How about bonuses?
There are some, but I don't think it's worth basing anying around them.
+4 Telegraphic Attack
+4 All-Out Attack (Determined)
+3 Accuracy enchantment
+1 Balanced weapon prefix
+3 Higher Purpose
+1 or +2 (DFRPG simplified relative height) . . . and not a lot of others.
Most of those are very situational, equipment based, or come with costs. It's worth putting them aside and making them truly bonus - not something that's factored in to "need."
What about other penalties?
If you want a true skill maximum, you'll need to go fairly nuts.
-10 for chinks in armor (eyes)
-2 for bad footing
-3 on fire
-3 lying down
-4 grappled
-2 large shield
-2 striking into close combat
-6 rapid strike (without TBAM/WM)
-9 partial darkness
So, -41. You'd need Skill 57 to have a 16 or less to stab someone through the eyeslits while prone, grappled, on fire, in nearly total darkness, into close combat, while holding a large shield, and having bad footing despite not being on your feet. It's only skill 51 if you skip Rapid Strike. It's skill 61 if you're off-handed.
And that assumes you'd not using Size Modifier as a negative to melee attacks.
That's why I say it's ridiculous to set a maxim off of the worst case. It's possible to make the case above even worse if you're using Technical Grappling (like I do) or Martial Arts and fight in even less favorable circumstances.
Who wants to play in a game where penalties are basically a non-starter? That's a fun way to take dumb combats out of the equation in video games. It's less fun in a game where combat can and should be a part of the fun, and the fun is predicated on uncertainty and risk.
Lower skill maximum?
All of this assumes mastery - a 16 or less when inflicting maximum penalties on your foe, with maximum attacks, is "standard."
What if it's not? What if you standard is lower? Let's go the lowest possible - net 10 skill. Still high enough for Rapid Strike or Deceptive Attack, and you hit half the time. It's easy enough to bracket 12-15 in here.
For a 10, we're looking at skill 17 to 21. Too low, obviously - and people won't generally go for broke and shoot for a 10 skill, and it doesn't feel "highly skilled" if that's the case even without any other penalties.
Pulling it Together
The maximum penalty you can inflict on an opponent is -8, which takes two actions - a feint, and an attack. This may take two full turns, or less, depending on the Maneuver you choose, use of the rules on Martial Arts, p. 127, and any Extra Attack. Doing so also reduces your skill by -8.
A "good" skill maximum is probably around 23-27 skill, possibly more like 25-29 (call it 30 for ease of use.) That's not far off from maximum human DX of 20 and a 3e-like skill cap of DX+10. Or from a Man-to-Man era skill 25 being "Master" level skill (per MTM, p. 10)
That skill 25 nicely works with the discretionary and inflicted penalties above is nice - a skill 25 guy can hit the eyeslits on a 15 or less, or hit the skull twice on a 15 or less (12 w/o WM/TBAM), or launch a pair of very deceptive attacks on a 14. A skill 30 guy can do all of that, plus absorb lots of conditional penalties at the same time.
Nicely, though, with the limits on Deceptive Attack and Feint, that skill can't be changed into a truly massive defense-smashing attack. You can't turn that 30 into a Rapid Strike at 27/27 as a Feint-27 and 17 or less Deceptive Attack -5 that couples with the Feint. That might be a negative - I don't think so, but we'll see tomorrow with Defense. You're maxed out at a -6 or -8, depending on the Deceptive Attack level you use. This also means very skill opponents aren't beating each other with dice rolls - you don't get two skill 24 guys fighting it out and have one roll an 8 on his Feint and the other an 18 and end up with a -10 to defend, but then a turn later closer die rolls mean a -0 to -2. It also nicely limits how dangerous a foe needs to be to be dangerous to you - they don't need to be almost your skill or basically doomed from stacked penalties.
So maybe we're looking at skill 25-30 as a maximum of basically useful skill, or a stat-based DX+10. Skill caps (Part III) may be useful here, or it may just be clear that you don't need to keep skills going higher and higher and higher as the benefits start to drop off quickly. In an advantage-based game like DF, Power-Ups can eliminate penalties instead of using skill to do so; in a Martial Arts game, techniques do the job nicely.
Closing thoughts: So far, it seems like my educated guesses on levels of skill are right in the ballpark. Defense will really tell me if the limitations on inflictable penalties are "correct." If not, we'll adjust in Part III.
Monday, September 7, 2020
Limiting Deceptive Attack
This idea came to me while I was responding to a post about Psi Wars.
For people who want to cap Deceptive Attack and Prediction Shot in a way that's meaningful when playing with high-bonus equipment, such as ultra-tech weaponry, stacked magical and situational bonuses, and so on, here is a way to do it:
For Deceptive Attack and Prediction Shots (Martial Arts, p. 121), final base and effective weapon skill must both be at least 10.
For example, Dirk Strikelots, Knight For Hire, has Broadsword-20, Slayer Training (Broadsword Swing/Neck), and carries Missnomore, an Accuracy +3 broadsword. His base skill is 20, but his effective skill is 24 (22 vs. the neck).
He's fighting Konk Chopgroin, fierce orc chieftan. He's on Bad Footing (-2 to attack). He knows Konk has some fierce defensive skill and decided to do the most Deceptive Attack possible. He swings to the neck. His effective skill to hit the neck is (20 skill, +3 accuracy, -2 neck, -2 bad footing = 19 skill). His skill 20 would allow him up to a -5 deceptive attack, but that would make his base skill 10 and his effective skill 9, so he has to dial it back to -4. He swings at an effective skill of 11. If it hits, Konk parries at -4! He could choose to hit the torso (-0) instead of the neck (-2) at a 13, or go for Deceptive Attack -5 and stay at an 11. He rolls a 13 and misses.
The next turn, Dirk decides to All-Out Attack (Determined) to ensure he hits. The +4 to hit increases his chances of success, but he can't use it to lower his foes defenses - his skill 20 limits him to a maximum of -5 Deceptive Attack.
Notes:
This adds a lot of complexity. You'll need to know what bonuses/penalties should be included, and which ones should not, and remember to calculate down to a 10 or 11 and then add modifiers back on after that, then re-calculate if your negatives bring you below 10 after all.
Riposte has a similar approach, though, so this isn't a totally new idea for GURPS - you don't get to count shield DB, Shield spells, etc. and turn that into a better Riposte.
The wording might need some work, but this is a good way to avoid bonuses becoming defense-swamping penalties for defenders. It does mean that there will always be a further push to raise base weapon skill - you'll need it to ensure you can Deceptive Attack the way you want to.
For people who want to cap Deceptive Attack and Prediction Shot in a way that's meaningful when playing with high-bonus equipment, such as ultra-tech weaponry, stacked magical and situational bonuses, and so on, here is a way to do it:
For Deceptive Attack and Prediction Shots (Martial Arts, p. 121), final base and effective weapon skill must both be at least 10.
For example, Dirk Strikelots, Knight For Hire, has Broadsword-20, Slayer Training (Broadsword Swing/Neck), and carries Missnomore, an Accuracy +3 broadsword. His base skill is 20, but his effective skill is 24 (22 vs. the neck).
He's fighting Konk Chopgroin, fierce orc chieftan. He's on Bad Footing (-2 to attack). He knows Konk has some fierce defensive skill and decided to do the most Deceptive Attack possible. He swings to the neck. His effective skill to hit the neck is (20 skill, +3 accuracy, -2 neck, -2 bad footing = 19 skill). His skill 20 would allow him up to a -5 deceptive attack, but that would make his base skill 10 and his effective skill 9, so he has to dial it back to -4. He swings at an effective skill of 11. If it hits, Konk parries at -4! He could choose to hit the torso (-0) instead of the neck (-2) at a 13, or go for Deceptive Attack -5 and stay at an 11. He rolls a 13 and misses.
The next turn, Dirk decides to All-Out Attack (Determined) to ensure he hits. The +4 to hit increases his chances of success, but he can't use it to lower his foes defenses - his skill 20 limits him to a maximum of -5 Deceptive Attack.
Notes:
This adds a lot of complexity. You'll need to know what bonuses/penalties should be included, and which ones should not, and remember to calculate down to a 10 or 11 and then add modifiers back on after that, then re-calculate if your negatives bring you below 10 after all.
Riposte has a similar approach, though, so this isn't a totally new idea for GURPS - you don't get to count shield DB, Shield spells, etc. and turn that into a better Riposte.
The wording might need some work, but this is a good way to avoid bonuses becoming defense-swamping penalties for defenders. It does mean that there will always be a further push to raise base weapon skill - you'll need it to ensure you can Deceptive Attack the way you want to.
Thursday, May 10, 2018
Further thoughts on Fodder in DF
One of my players commented on a previous post, and said:
"These guys are struggling with orcs and norkers. Well, not really. It’s really numbers and tactics, though.
Yes.
Tactics and numbers.
The orcs and norkers? The bulk of them are weaker, in terms of ST, skill, defenses, and DR, than even the weakest PC fighter-type. Every single one of them is significantly weaker than the experienced front-line fighters, such as Mo, Vryce, and Hjalmarr. Yet the orcs and norkers really frustrate the PCs (and the players.) How?
Well, tactics and numbers. I've discussed this before back in February 2014:
Melee Academy: Dealing with Superior Foes
and
Using Fodder in GURPS DF
What is in those? Tactics, and numbers.
So they have an effect on the PCs. From a GM perspective, what else are fodder good for in DF and the DFRPG?
Deplete resources
Killing foes takes time, takes FP, and somethings costs HP (which costs FP for the cleric.) They may make a few criticals, or come in numbers on a flank that forces you to use up potions, Alchemist's Fire, etc. that come with a dollar cost. Fodder can soak up those resources. They basically need to die to do it.
The can result in victory - albeit often Pyrrhic victory - as the PCs run out of time, run low on resources, or just run low on the enthusiasm for continuing to fight. The PCs pull back out, and the fodder "win." If they can replace losses easily - through recruiting, healing, or Necromancy - it could be a draw or just a cost of keeping their position.
Discourage Lollygagging
PCs tend to waste a lot less time if they have to worry about wandering monsters. Even more so if they have organized fodder in the area. Fights with fodder tend to make noise, and draw in more monsters, and alert everyone and everything to the presence of PCs. Because of this, it discourages taking a long, slow tour of the dungeon, checking on previously explored areas in a megadungeon, or just taking their sweet time about clearing a smaller dungeon. An orc army or a goblin throng or a horde of dinomen means a lot of resources consumed if you don't get a move on.
Test the Tactics of the PCs
Dumb fodder will just die in droves, rushing the same doorway until the PCs choke it with their corpses and then move on. Smarter or well-led fodder will change things up. The PCs have to react to that, which means they need to adjust their own tactics. If they rely on "armored guy takes the damage from ranged weapons" but the fodder switches to poisoned bodkin points, then what? If they rely on defending doorways and waiting for the occupants of rooms to rush them, what happens when the fodder flee out the other door and block that doorway? How will they handle hit-and-run? How about traps? What about fodder who alert other monsters on purpose, or seed areads with dangerous critters as a trap?
The novelty of new tactics means the players need to stay on their toes, and become better players. There is only so far overwhelming ST, skill, defenses, etc. can take you in GURPS. Once you reach "fodder can't block my attacks and I one-shot kill them" then only tactics will help you do better against them. Fodder that adapt force the players to adapt, too.
"These guys are struggling with orcs and norkers. Well, not really. It’s really numbers and tactics, though.
Yes.
Tactics and numbers.
The orcs and norkers? The bulk of them are weaker, in terms of ST, skill, defenses, and DR, than even the weakest PC fighter-type. Every single one of them is significantly weaker than the experienced front-line fighters, such as Mo, Vryce, and Hjalmarr. Yet the orcs and norkers really frustrate the PCs (and the players.) How?
Well, tactics and numbers. I've discussed this before back in February 2014:
Melee Academy: Dealing with Superior Foes
and
Using Fodder in GURPS DF
What is in those? Tactics, and numbers.
So they have an effect on the PCs. From a GM perspective, what else are fodder good for in DF and the DFRPG?
Deplete resources
Killing foes takes time, takes FP, and somethings costs HP (which costs FP for the cleric.) They may make a few criticals, or come in numbers on a flank that forces you to use up potions, Alchemist's Fire, etc. that come with a dollar cost. Fodder can soak up those resources. They basically need to die to do it.
The can result in victory - albeit often Pyrrhic victory - as the PCs run out of time, run low on resources, or just run low on the enthusiasm for continuing to fight. The PCs pull back out, and the fodder "win." If they can replace losses easily - through recruiting, healing, or Necromancy - it could be a draw or just a cost of keeping their position.
Discourage Lollygagging
PCs tend to waste a lot less time if they have to worry about wandering monsters. Even more so if they have organized fodder in the area. Fights with fodder tend to make noise, and draw in more monsters, and alert everyone and everything to the presence of PCs. Because of this, it discourages taking a long, slow tour of the dungeon, checking on previously explored areas in a megadungeon, or just taking their sweet time about clearing a smaller dungeon. An orc army or a goblin throng or a horde of dinomen means a lot of resources consumed if you don't get a move on.
Test the Tactics of the PCs
Dumb fodder will just die in droves, rushing the same doorway until the PCs choke it with their corpses and then move on. Smarter or well-led fodder will change things up. The PCs have to react to that, which means they need to adjust their own tactics. If they rely on "armored guy takes the damage from ranged weapons" but the fodder switches to poisoned bodkin points, then what? If they rely on defending doorways and waiting for the occupants of rooms to rush them, what happens when the fodder flee out the other door and block that doorway? How will they handle hit-and-run? How about traps? What about fodder who alert other monsters on purpose, or seed areads with dangerous critters as a trap?
The novelty of new tactics means the players need to stay on their toes, and become better players. There is only so far overwhelming ST, skill, defenses, etc. can take you in GURPS. Once you reach "fodder can't block my attacks and I one-shot kill them" then only tactics will help you do better against them. Fodder that adapt force the players to adapt, too.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Melee Academy: Opening Moves
Today is an installment of Melee Academy. It's a look at the melee weapons and tactics used in RPGs, and it's aimed at being educational. What do you do, and why do it? Why is it a good move?
Today's installment is about opening moves.
Open more at:
Gaming Ballistic
Mailanka's Musings
Let's GURPS
My favorite opening move is a thrown weapon attack.
D&D and Swords & Wizardry
I probably started really thinking of throwing weapons as a fight-starter from a Dragon magazine article on tactics, although there is a weapon thrown in the example combat in the D&D Basic Set, too.
The main reason here is that combat is fairly abstract, yet closing distance still matters. With a thrown weapon, you can really reach around the battlefield. Plus, it's not as dependent on range as a missile weapon. Let's look at the benefits I find in particular:
Range - It doesn't matter where you are if your foes are within range when the fight starts. Got a clear line of fire and an enemy? Throw at him.
By the book in Basic Set D&D, ranged attacks go after you move, so they're really only useful if your foes are outside the movement range of your buddies. If you can charge in and all reach the bad guys, well, why not do that? But I've played D&D-based games which do all ranged fire first, so you've got a chance to shoot before any movement occurs.
More Targeting Options - You've got a better shot of the GM allowing you to target the orc wizard in the back ranks or the ogre chieftain that's rallying the goblin hordes with a ranged weapon. This isn't always the case, but I'd rather have the ability to reach around the battlefield on the off chance it'll help.
Dual Use - Most thrown weapons are excellent melee weapons - often with identical stats. You aren't really caught with the wrong weapon in hand, like you are with a bow or crossbow or sling. This also means you've got a shield or another weapon or an ogre's head converted to a weapon in the other hand.
GURPS
I like thrown weapons in GURPS, as well. I wrote a whole Weapons & Tactics article on them a while back.
I'll refer you to that for the details. But in general, the options match the ones for D&D and S&W. It's especially nice in GURPS where the amount of movement you can execute before a melee attack is pretty small - very small if you want to retain all of your own defenses! If you can put an axe, a spear, or even a rock into a foe long before melee occurs you might swing the fight in your favor before it really begins.
They do have some downsides that aren't found in D&D-based games, though:
Defenses - It's only a -1 to parry most thrown weapons, and -2 for the small ones. No penalty to Block, either, and it's no penalty to Dodge. Ranged Feint (in GURPS Martial Arts) can reduce Dodge but a shield-armed foe is a terrible target for a ranged weapon. I have to stress this because I've seen a lot of people confidently throw an axe at some foe with no Feint, no Deceptive Attack, and no defensive penalties inflicted at all and then be really disappointed when the foe defends. Just because most people just flinch and cover their face in a snowball fight doesn't mean the orc with the shield is going to do that when you chuck a spear at his vitals.*
Readying Time - You need to have Fast-Draw or a lot of space if you're going to toss your weapon. One second isn't long in life but it's an eternity in life-or-death. You don't want to be standing around readying a weapon while your opponent is killing you and your friends.
Weight - If it's a foe-killing thrown weapon, it's not going to be light. GURPS has more finely-grained encumbrance so this can be an issue.
But the upside of a successful thrown weapon strike - when you get a critical hit or the foe fails to defend, or if you catch someone unprepared for your attack - can be spectacular. GURPS is pro-death spiral, and a foe with an axe in his leg or a knife in his face is a foe who is less able to fight you. Consider keeping a dual-use weapon like a hatchet, axe, or spear out in the hands and opening the fight with a throw.
* I do have an idea or two to address this, for GURPS Martial Arts and DF. Stay tuned tomorrow . . .
Today's installment is about opening moves.
Open more at:
Gaming Ballistic
Mailanka's Musings
Let's GURPS
My favorite opening move is a thrown weapon attack.
D&D and Swords & Wizardry
I probably started really thinking of throwing weapons as a fight-starter from a Dragon magazine article on tactics, although there is a weapon thrown in the example combat in the D&D Basic Set, too.
The main reason here is that combat is fairly abstract, yet closing distance still matters. With a thrown weapon, you can really reach around the battlefield. Plus, it's not as dependent on range as a missile weapon. Let's look at the benefits I find in particular:
Range - It doesn't matter where you are if your foes are within range when the fight starts. Got a clear line of fire and an enemy? Throw at him.
By the book in Basic Set D&D, ranged attacks go after you move, so they're really only useful if your foes are outside the movement range of your buddies. If you can charge in and all reach the bad guys, well, why not do that? But I've played D&D-based games which do all ranged fire first, so you've got a chance to shoot before any movement occurs.
More Targeting Options - You've got a better shot of the GM allowing you to target the orc wizard in the back ranks or the ogre chieftain that's rallying the goblin hordes with a ranged weapon. This isn't always the case, but I'd rather have the ability to reach around the battlefield on the off chance it'll help.
Dual Use - Most thrown weapons are excellent melee weapons - often with identical stats. You aren't really caught with the wrong weapon in hand, like you are with a bow or crossbow or sling. This also means you've got a shield or another weapon or an ogre's head converted to a weapon in the other hand.
GURPS
I like thrown weapons in GURPS, as well. I wrote a whole Weapons & Tactics article on them a while back.
I'll refer you to that for the details. But in general, the options match the ones for D&D and S&W. It's especially nice in GURPS where the amount of movement you can execute before a melee attack is pretty small - very small if you want to retain all of your own defenses! If you can put an axe, a spear, or even a rock into a foe long before melee occurs you might swing the fight in your favor before it really begins.
They do have some downsides that aren't found in D&D-based games, though:
Defenses - It's only a -1 to parry most thrown weapons, and -2 for the small ones. No penalty to Block, either, and it's no penalty to Dodge. Ranged Feint (in GURPS Martial Arts) can reduce Dodge but a shield-armed foe is a terrible target for a ranged weapon. I have to stress this because I've seen a lot of people confidently throw an axe at some foe with no Feint, no Deceptive Attack, and no defensive penalties inflicted at all and then be really disappointed when the foe defends. Just because most people just flinch and cover their face in a snowball fight doesn't mean the orc with the shield is going to do that when you chuck a spear at his vitals.*
Readying Time - You need to have Fast-Draw or a lot of space if you're going to toss your weapon. One second isn't long in life but it's an eternity in life-or-death. You don't want to be standing around readying a weapon while your opponent is killing you and your friends.
Weight - If it's a foe-killing thrown weapon, it's not going to be light. GURPS has more finely-grained encumbrance so this can be an issue.
But the upside of a successful thrown weapon strike - when you get a critical hit or the foe fails to defend, or if you catch someone unprepared for your attack - can be spectacular. GURPS is pro-death spiral, and a foe with an axe in his leg or a knife in his face is a foe who is less able to fight you. Consider keeping a dual-use weapon like a hatchet, axe, or spear out in the hands and opening the fight with a throw.
* I do have an idea or two to address this, for GURPS Martial Arts and DF. Stay tuned tomorrow . . .
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Melee Academy: Why punching/grappling armed guys is a bad idea
On my post Melee Academy: Why I Don't See a Lot of Disarming, one of the commenters (TheOneRonin, posting as Unknown) said, in part:
"-Weapons are not significant DEFENSIVE threats. [. . .] Given that in GURPS defenses will most likely be lower than offensive skills, and given that often times, the PCs will be more skilled (sometimes significantly so) than their opponents, the chances of suffering damage when punch a guy with a knife are VERY low…almost negligible."
The idea that weapons are defensively weak as a threat versus armed attackers runs fundamentally counter to my own experience in GURPS. Not just in my high-skill Dungeon Fantasy game - it's run counter to my experience ever since GURPS started allowing successful parries to injure unarmed attackers.
The running comment in my game is that an armed character gets to attack on his turn, and then parry and attack for free on his unarmed foe's turn.
I figured I'd look at some of the numbers involved.
These rules come from Parrying Unarmed Attacks, p. B376.
Assuming an attacker steps into close combat and punches or grapples, or stays at reach 1 and kicks against a melee weapon-armed foe with no Deceptive Attack and no prior Feint or Setup Attack:
Skill-10 Defender: Parry 8. 25.9% chance to Parry, 37.5% with Retreat. On a successful Parry, 50% to successfully strike the attacker, 9.3% vs. Karate or Judo.
Skill-12 Defender: Parry 9. 37.5% chance to Parry, 50% with Retreat. On a successful Parry, 74.1% to successfully strike the attacker, 25.9% vs. Karate or Judo.
Skill-14 Defender: Parry 10. 50% chance to Parry, 62.5% with Retreat. On a successful Parry, 90.7% to successfully strike the attacker, 50% vs. Karate or Judo.
Skill-16 Defender: Parry 11. 62.5% chance to Parry, 74.1% with Retreat. On a successful Parry, 98.1% to successfully strike the attacker, 74.1% vs. Karate or Judo.
Skill-18 Defender: Parry 12. 74.1% chance to Parry, 83.8% with Retreat. On a successful Parry, 98.1% to successfully strike the attacker, 90.7% vs. Karate or Judo.
You're allowed to parry with any legal weapon against a melee attack (such as a kick) coming at Reach 1. You are also allowed any of your normal, legal defenses against a close combat attack on the initial turn your opponent steps in to attack you (see the GURPS FAQ, case 3.4.3.6).
Shields, by the way, make this worse. Canonically, all you need is a successful Parry, and a parry by the margin of the DB of a shield is still a successful parry. An attacker-friendly GM can just say you hit the shield instead, and inflict damage on it (and possibly yourself, if the shield is wooden or metal, see Hurting Yourself, p. B379), but a defender-friendly or rules-literalist GM is free to do both. Ouch.
Fencing weapons get a +3 to Retreat, too, not +1, so they push the Parry numbers down two rows. A Skill-12 Saber fencer has a Parry 12 with Retreat and succeeds 74.1% of the time, and has the same 74.1% chance of getting in a free attack.
Conversely,
- Each 2 points the attack trades off into a Deceptive Attack pushes the defender up a row (towards lower skill and chances.) For this reason, unless the attacker is constrained by time, it's always better to maximize Deceptive Attack even if it reduces your overall chance to hit. Better to hit with a penalty to be parried or miss than just hit and take your chances with a full parry.
- Given an extra action before striking to use for a Feint, each point of skill greater for the attacker is, on average, a -1 to the defender's chances to defend.
- Given both, every 2 point skill margin the attack has is at least a -3 to defend.
- Given high skills for both attacker and defender, the potential risks of attacking are high, but the potential to ram down defenses are also high.
For the defender, All-Out Defense (Increased Defense), with a +2 to Parry, is a good way to fight defensively. A Defensive Feint is a good call, too, if you have superior skill, since it forces foes to forgo Deceptive Attack. You need a higher relative skill to pull it off.
I'd argue here that this makes sense - a large disparity in skills makes for a heroic edge for the more skilled attacker. An unarmed attacker vs. a more skilled armed fighter is in real trouble. An unarmed attacker vs. an equally skilled armed fighter is a risky situation. An unarmed attacker vs. a much lower skills armed fighter is relatively safe. The unarmed fighter's potential edge is magnified by proper tactics (Feint, Deceptive Attack, etc.), which can be negated to an extent by proper armed defender tactics (Defensive Feint, exploiting Reach, All-Out Defend, forcing the unarmed fighter to Move and Attack, Wait, etc.)
Since my old GURPS 3e game, I have made the "free attack" from parrying into a half-damage attack. You roll normally, inflict half of that, rounded down (usual minimum of 1 on cutting, impaling, etc.) I was pretty generous for animals biting to get the -4 as if they had Karate or Judo. Even so, it was free attack city for armed defenders.
In my own DF game, I've expanded these greatly:
Punching vs. guys wielding swords
Now, there is one part of that comment I strongly agree with - if the attacker has significantly more skill than the defender, the risks above drop. But not by much - the only way to ensure you don't get hurt by a Parry is to ensure that the opponent cannot Parry. This post -
Melee Academy: Unarmed vs. Knife - covers methods to do that in more detail. Short version: Feint, and maximal Deceptive Attack.
But yes, whenever you privilege one side in an opposed situation, such as attackers having significantly greater skill than the defenders, that side will have an edge. Often a significant one. If that's coupled with further advantages (healing spells, superscience healing, good arm DR, weak foes, Extra Attack, a large skill gap, etc.) you are further making it more likely they can pull of the difficult task of going unarmed vs. armed.
That's really a system feature, not a bug - by default, around human norms, with modern realism rules, there is much to risk in going unarmed vs. armed. Also, by default, with equally matched foes at any skill level, unarmed vs. armed is a risky situation for the unarmed fighter. If you want to ensure the unarmed folks are in trouble, don't let them have too many advantages above their armed foes. A knife is no way to make up for a large deficit in skill or in special abilities. If you want to ensure unarmed isn't really a problem, you need to bolster what they get. It's cinematic, not realistic, but the tools are there to do it.
You can make it worse for the attacker - allow that "do I hit the limb?" roll even if the parry is failed by, say, 3 or less or even 5 or less (which pretty much means all parries), or just all parries that aren't critical failures. Don't penalize it versus Karate or Judo. Make failed unarmed parries allow both a strike to the parrying limb and the original target.(None of these has been playtested, by the way - my experience is that unarmed vs. armed is already really bad for the unarmed, but there are things you can do if you don't agree.)
You can make it better for the attacker, like I do - suggestions fill the Punching vs. guys wielding swords post.
And by the way, if you're feeling the pain for the unarmed striker/grappler, then I have some help for you there.
Unarmed DF Martial Artists
Now I recognize that my experience may differ from others. But my long experience in actual play is that GURPS is pretty nasty to unarmed attackers going against armed foes. I think the numbers above back that up. If you don't, well, I have suggestions embedded to change the odds.
"-Weapons are not significant DEFENSIVE threats. [. . .] Given that in GURPS defenses will most likely be lower than offensive skills, and given that often times, the PCs will be more skilled (sometimes significantly so) than their opponents, the chances of suffering damage when punch a guy with a knife are VERY low…almost negligible."
The idea that weapons are defensively weak as a threat versus armed attackers runs fundamentally counter to my own experience in GURPS. Not just in my high-skill Dungeon Fantasy game - it's run counter to my experience ever since GURPS started allowing successful parries to injure unarmed attackers.
The running comment in my game is that an armed character gets to attack on his turn, and then parry and attack for free on his unarmed foe's turn.
I figured I'd look at some of the numbers involved.
These rules come from Parrying Unarmed Attacks, p. B376.
Assuming an attacker steps into close combat and punches or grapples, or stays at reach 1 and kicks against a melee weapon-armed foe with no Deceptive Attack and no prior Feint or Setup Attack:
Skill-10 Defender: Parry 8. 25.9% chance to Parry, 37.5% with Retreat. On a successful Parry, 50% to successfully strike the attacker, 9.3% vs. Karate or Judo.
Skill-12 Defender: Parry 9. 37.5% chance to Parry, 50% with Retreat. On a successful Parry, 74.1% to successfully strike the attacker, 25.9% vs. Karate or Judo.
Skill-14 Defender: Parry 10. 50% chance to Parry, 62.5% with Retreat. On a successful Parry, 90.7% to successfully strike the attacker, 50% vs. Karate or Judo.
Skill-16 Defender: Parry 11. 62.5% chance to Parry, 74.1% with Retreat. On a successful Parry, 98.1% to successfully strike the attacker, 74.1% vs. Karate or Judo.
Skill-18 Defender: Parry 12. 74.1% chance to Parry, 83.8% with Retreat. On a successful Parry, 98.1% to successfully strike the attacker, 90.7% vs. Karate or Judo.
You're allowed to parry with any legal weapon against a melee attack (such as a kick) coming at Reach 1. You are also allowed any of your normal, legal defenses against a close combat attack on the initial turn your opponent steps in to attack you (see the GURPS FAQ, case 3.4.3.6).
Shields, by the way, make this worse. Canonically, all you need is a successful Parry, and a parry by the margin of the DB of a shield is still a successful parry. An attacker-friendly GM can just say you hit the shield instead, and inflict damage on it (and possibly yourself, if the shield is wooden or metal, see Hurting Yourself, p. B379), but a defender-friendly or rules-literalist GM is free to do both. Ouch.
Fencing weapons get a +3 to Retreat, too, not +1, so they push the Parry numbers down two rows. A Skill-12 Saber fencer has a Parry 12 with Retreat and succeeds 74.1% of the time, and has the same 74.1% chance of getting in a free attack.
Conversely,
- Each 2 points the attack trades off into a Deceptive Attack pushes the defender up a row (towards lower skill and chances.) For this reason, unless the attacker is constrained by time, it's always better to maximize Deceptive Attack even if it reduces your overall chance to hit. Better to hit with a penalty to be parried or miss than just hit and take your chances with a full parry.
- Given an extra action before striking to use for a Feint, each point of skill greater for the attacker is, on average, a -1 to the defender's chances to defend.
- Given both, every 2 point skill margin the attack has is at least a -3 to defend.
- Given high skills for both attacker and defender, the potential risks of attacking are high, but the potential to ram down defenses are also high.
For the defender, All-Out Defense (Increased Defense), with a +2 to Parry, is a good way to fight defensively. A Defensive Feint is a good call, too, if you have superior skill, since it forces foes to forgo Deceptive Attack. You need a higher relative skill to pull it off.
I'd argue here that this makes sense - a large disparity in skills makes for a heroic edge for the more skilled attacker. An unarmed attacker vs. a more skilled armed fighter is in real trouble. An unarmed attacker vs. an equally skilled armed fighter is a risky situation. An unarmed attacker vs. a much lower skills armed fighter is relatively safe. The unarmed fighter's potential edge is magnified by proper tactics (Feint, Deceptive Attack, etc.), which can be negated to an extent by proper armed defender tactics (Defensive Feint, exploiting Reach, All-Out Defend, forcing the unarmed fighter to Move and Attack, Wait, etc.)
Since my old GURPS 3e game, I have made the "free attack" from parrying into a half-damage attack. You roll normally, inflict half of that, rounded down (usual minimum of 1 on cutting, impaling, etc.) I was pretty generous for animals biting to get the -4 as if they had Karate or Judo. Even so, it was free attack city for armed defenders.
In my own DF game, I've expanded these greatly:
Punching vs. guys wielding swords
Now, there is one part of that comment I strongly agree with - if the attacker has significantly more skill than the defender, the risks above drop. But not by much - the only way to ensure you don't get hurt by a Parry is to ensure that the opponent cannot Parry. This post -
Melee Academy: Unarmed vs. Knife - covers methods to do that in more detail. Short version: Feint, and maximal Deceptive Attack.
But yes, whenever you privilege one side in an opposed situation, such as attackers having significantly greater skill than the defenders, that side will have an edge. Often a significant one. If that's coupled with further advantages (healing spells, superscience healing, good arm DR, weak foes, Extra Attack, a large skill gap, etc.) you are further making it more likely they can pull of the difficult task of going unarmed vs. armed.
That's really a system feature, not a bug - by default, around human norms, with modern realism rules, there is much to risk in going unarmed vs. armed. Also, by default, with equally matched foes at any skill level, unarmed vs. armed is a risky situation for the unarmed fighter. If you want to ensure the unarmed folks are in trouble, don't let them have too many advantages above their armed foes. A knife is no way to make up for a large deficit in skill or in special abilities. If you want to ensure unarmed isn't really a problem, you need to bolster what they get. It's cinematic, not realistic, but the tools are there to do it.
You can make it worse for the attacker - allow that "do I hit the limb?" roll even if the parry is failed by, say, 3 or less or even 5 or less (which pretty much means all parries), or just all parries that aren't critical failures. Don't penalize it versus Karate or Judo. Make failed unarmed parries allow both a strike to the parrying limb and the original target.(None of these has been playtested, by the way - my experience is that unarmed vs. armed is already really bad for the unarmed, but there are things you can do if you don't agree.)
You can make it better for the attacker, like I do - suggestions fill the Punching vs. guys wielding swords post.
And by the way, if you're feeling the pain for the unarmed striker/grappler, then I have some help for you there.
Unarmed DF Martial Artists
Now I recognize that my experience may differ from others. But my long experience in actual play is that GURPS is pretty nasty to unarmed attackers going against armed foes. I think the numbers above back that up. If you don't, well, I have suggestions embedded to change the odds.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
Melee Academy: Why I Don't See a Lot of Disarming
This is part of a multi-blog look at disarming.
For more on this specific topic, check out the links on Doug's page:
Melee Academy: Disarms in four systems
For more Melee Academy posts, please take a look at the Melee Academy page at Gaming Ballistic.
I don't see a lot of disarming attempts in my GURPS games. Armed attempts, rarely. Unarmed attempts, almost never.
For disarming to really be useful, you need a number of cases to all be true at the same time:
- your opponent's weapon is the most dangerous (or only dangerous) weapon they possess.
- your opponent's weapon must be more vulnerable than your opponent; that is, it must be easier to disarm the opponent than to just cripple, incapacitate, or kill the opponent.
- you must have some reason not to directly attack your opponent for damage.
- you must feel you can overcome the opponent's defenses against the weapon and overmatch his ST or DX based weapon skill with yours in a Quick Contest. Which means you're net/net more skilled than your opponent, or stronger, or both, by a margin that exceeds the better of his scores.
Break the sword?
Even if all of those are true, it's generally a little easier to attack the weapon to destroy it than to disarm with skill and grace or with brute force. You also need one of these cases to be true to make disarm worth more than attacking the weapon to destroy it:
- you either can't damage the weapon at all (it's invulnerable to your attacks, but is still possible to remove from the enemy)
OR
- you don't want to damage the weapon (it's valuable loot, you need to pick it up and use it, you hope to give it back to the foe if it's also someone you don't want to harm.)
(Low Tech Companion 2 (p. 22) stats out a lot of lower-tech weapon DR, HP, and HT. I wrote that, so thank me when you snap someone's nunchaku chain.)
Those are tough cases to satisfy in a game.
Generally, you are better off:
- Attacking the limb (base -2, which is easier than hitting most weapons) or hand (base -4, not much harder than striking the weapon.) You only need to inflict injury greater than HP/2 for a limb, HP/3 for an extremity.
- Crippling a supporting limb. If you can cut a leg or foot out from someone and cause them to fall (automatic, if you cripple it), they will be in a poor position to use a weapon.
- Knockdown and Stunning comes with the bonus that they drop their held weapons. Locations such as the Skull, Face, and Groin are good locations for causing such effects.
- Accumulating some damage on the target. Shock can apply up to a -4 to the defender's retaliatory attacks, and eventually any target will run out of HP. You can make an attack less viable via Shock penalties and get you closer to ending the risk of counterattack at all as the foe eventually drops.
Not only that, but most of the above also significantly reduces the chances of the opponent to successfully continue to fight. And they work against natural weapons, too, in most cases - you can't disarm a dragon's claw but you can potentially hack it off at the wrist/ankle.
The tactics above reflect my own real-world armed martial arts experience - Filipino Martial Arts makes a big deal of defanging the snake. You want to get rid of a knife? Slice the knife hand or arm. Get rid of a stick? Break the stick hand or arm. Want to avoid the issue at all? Follow your limb strike with a finishing blow. Unlike the movies, you can't just sweep aside someone's blade and stand together watching it fly away. The high-percentage moves are damaging strikes, and GURPS reflects that, and so does my experience. Want to keep the guy with the axe from chopping you? Incapacitate him. And if you can't do that, remove his limb. Can't do that, break his weapon. Can't do that? Then disarm is starting to look good. The easy way to disarm a foe is to pull his weapon from his cold, dead hands.
You can make this all easier in play, but it's hard to get buy in from players - they're generally the most enthusiastic users of weapons, and in a fantasy game they depend on them more than the monsters. No one wants it to be too easy to disarm.
In a cinematic game, of course, it should be easier. Take a look at genre switches like Unarmed Etiquette (Martial Arts, p. 132) and Gun Control Law (Martial Arts, p. 132), if you just want to privilege unarmed or let folks kick guns out of other people's hands.
In my last game session, a fighter facing a were-creature seemingly immune to his attacks used disarm against the were's axe. It worked on the third try - he failed twice, once after successfully triggering a Quick Contest of Skills (the werebear used ST-based weapon skill, which was considerable) and once because he either missed or the were defended (I forget.) The third time worked because he rolled a 3 on the initial attempt to make contact with the weapon, so I just ruled it worked automatically. Even then, that's only because if I treated his ST-based weapon skill Quick Contest roll as a 3 he had a serious chance vs. the were's ST-based skill. The were was rolling versus something in the high 20s vs. the PC's 20 (Axe/Mace @ DX+6, ST 16, -2 for a non-fencing weapon.) I might not have extended the same courtesy if the PC's net skill was too low, anymore than I'd allow a 3 from tiny foe to automatically disarm a PC.
He didn't attack the axe because they believe it is special in some way, and he wanted to hit the were with it (spoilers: he did, and if it's special it's not that kind of special - it was harmless, too.) Had his weapon been able to tell on the werebear, he'd have been hacking the body, slicing the neck, or trying to shatter its skull. Disarming? A low-percentage tactic that paid off with a low-percentage roll (A 3 on 3d6 is 1-in-216).
For more on this specific topic, check out the links on Doug's page:
Melee Academy: Disarms in four systems
For more Melee Academy posts, please take a look at the Melee Academy page at Gaming Ballistic.
I don't see a lot of disarming attempts in my GURPS games. Armed attempts, rarely. Unarmed attempts, almost never.
For disarming to really be useful, you need a number of cases to all be true at the same time:
- your opponent's weapon is the most dangerous (or only dangerous) weapon they possess.
- your opponent's weapon must be more vulnerable than your opponent; that is, it must be easier to disarm the opponent than to just cripple, incapacitate, or kill the opponent.
- you must have some reason not to directly attack your opponent for damage.
- you must feel you can overcome the opponent's defenses against the weapon and overmatch his ST or DX based weapon skill with yours in a Quick Contest. Which means you're net/net more skilled than your opponent, or stronger, or both, by a margin that exceeds the better of his scores.
Break the sword?
Even if all of those are true, it's generally a little easier to attack the weapon to destroy it than to disarm with skill and grace or with brute force. You also need one of these cases to be true to make disarm worth more than attacking the weapon to destroy it:
- you either can't damage the weapon at all (it's invulnerable to your attacks, but is still possible to remove from the enemy)
OR
- you don't want to damage the weapon (it's valuable loot, you need to pick it up and use it, you hope to give it back to the foe if it's also someone you don't want to harm.)
(Low Tech Companion 2 (p. 22) stats out a lot of lower-tech weapon DR, HP, and HT. I wrote that, so thank me when you snap someone's nunchaku chain.)
Those are tough cases to satisfy in a game.
Generally, you are better off:
- Attacking the limb (base -2, which is easier than hitting most weapons) or hand (base -4, not much harder than striking the weapon.) You only need to inflict injury greater than HP/2 for a limb, HP/3 for an extremity.
- Crippling a supporting limb. If you can cut a leg or foot out from someone and cause them to fall (automatic, if you cripple it), they will be in a poor position to use a weapon.
- Knockdown and Stunning comes with the bonus that they drop their held weapons. Locations such as the Skull, Face, and Groin are good locations for causing such effects.
- Accumulating some damage on the target. Shock can apply up to a -4 to the defender's retaliatory attacks, and eventually any target will run out of HP. You can make an attack less viable via Shock penalties and get you closer to ending the risk of counterattack at all as the foe eventually drops.
Not only that, but most of the above also significantly reduces the chances of the opponent to successfully continue to fight. And they work against natural weapons, too, in most cases - you can't disarm a dragon's claw but you can potentially hack it off at the wrist/ankle.
The tactics above reflect my own real-world armed martial arts experience - Filipino Martial Arts makes a big deal of defanging the snake. You want to get rid of a knife? Slice the knife hand or arm. Get rid of a stick? Break the stick hand or arm. Want to avoid the issue at all? Follow your limb strike with a finishing blow. Unlike the movies, you can't just sweep aside someone's blade and stand together watching it fly away. The high-percentage moves are damaging strikes, and GURPS reflects that, and so does my experience. Want to keep the guy with the axe from chopping you? Incapacitate him. And if you can't do that, remove his limb. Can't do that, break his weapon. Can't do that? Then disarm is starting to look good. The easy way to disarm a foe is to pull his weapon from his cold, dead hands.
You can make this all easier in play, but it's hard to get buy in from players - they're generally the most enthusiastic users of weapons, and in a fantasy game they depend on them more than the monsters. No one wants it to be too easy to disarm.
In a cinematic game, of course, it should be easier. Take a look at genre switches like Unarmed Etiquette (Martial Arts, p. 132) and Gun Control Law (Martial Arts, p. 132), if you just want to privilege unarmed or let folks kick guns out of other people's hands.
In my last game session, a fighter facing a were-creature seemingly immune to his attacks used disarm against the were's axe. It worked on the third try - he failed twice, once after successfully triggering a Quick Contest of Skills (the werebear used ST-based weapon skill, which was considerable) and once because he either missed or the were defended (I forget.) The third time worked because he rolled a 3 on the initial attempt to make contact with the weapon, so I just ruled it worked automatically. Even then, that's only because if I treated his ST-based weapon skill Quick Contest roll as a 3 he had a serious chance vs. the were's ST-based skill. The were was rolling versus something in the high 20s vs. the PC's 20 (Axe/Mace @ DX+6, ST 16, -2 for a non-fencing weapon.) I might not have extended the same courtesy if the PC's net skill was too low, anymore than I'd allow a 3 from tiny foe to automatically disarm a PC.
He didn't attack the axe because they believe it is special in some way, and he wanted to hit the were with it (spoilers: he did, and if it's special it's not that kind of special - it was harmless, too.) Had his weapon been able to tell on the werebear, he'd have been hacking the body, slicing the neck, or trying to shatter its skull. Disarming? A low-percentage tactic that paid off with a low-percentage roll (A 3 on 3d6 is 1-in-216).
Monday, November 2, 2015
Melee Academy: Typical Combat Mistakes
I thought I'd get down a couple of points about common combat mistakes I see in GURPS, and it grew into this.
These are errors I see in character generation, character development, and play. I'm not immune to these, myself, but generally I see them more than suffer from them because I'm the GM.
Betting on Airtight Defenses - I also call this the "perfect defense fallacy."
You see this in character design - maximum defenses, maximum possible HP, maximum DR. Buy the maximum protective perks, advantages, and skills you can before you do anything else. Whenever you have a choice between a game-changer advantage, an offensive advantage, or more defense - choose more defense.
This is a fallacy because you don't always get to defend - some attacks are by surprise, or ignore your chosen defense (and you don't know it does until too late), come from behind, or just affect everyone in an area. Further, some attacks ignore your DR, or just don't let your HP matter much (very high damage attacks, non-damaging afflictions, etc.) Grappling makes some of your defenses harder or negates them, once your foe is in close, and takes away more defenses once a grip is secure.
In GURPS, even a ST 25 barbarian with Mountain of Meat and dwarven plate armor with Fortify +5 on it can be one-shotted and killed outright. Avoiding utility and offensive power and game-changing abilities until your defenses are perfect means you're likely to need perfect defenses. And it won't be enough.
Betting on favorable circumstances.
This is an odd cousin to the perfect defenses fallacy. This is, "my defense bonuses will carry me through if I get all of them. Which I will, almost always."
It's an odd cousin because the perfect defense fallacy attempts to cover all of these bases - get a 16+ on defense rolls even when everything is going wrong. This fallacy assumes you won't have to make do. They overlap where the "won't have to make do" approach means you are buying up all sorts of conditional bonuses (shields, Shield spells, limited DR, specific defenses, etc.) in order to have perfect defenses . . . and then suffer because you need those defenses even when circumstances are not perfect.
Retreat - This warrants a special mention. Depending on Retreat to survive is a common error. Betting on your ability to retreat is a featureless plain fallacy. A substantial minority of the time, you will be unable to Retreat at all. A majority of the time when you're fighting alongside friends, you are better off as a group if no one Retreats. But plenty of players will depend on Retreat, especially in the face of non-striking attacks (slams, grapples, grabs, etc.)
Depending on retrograde movement to make your combat strategy work means "room to move" isn't a luxury, it's a necessity. The Retreat-based strategy also means you depend on your friends to give you space, not support - it's an every-man-for-himself strategy. If your friends are close enough to support you, they are close enough to impede your retreat. Or close enough that if you retreat and they don't, enemies will pour into the gaps.
Defensive fighting is smart, but these three mistakes result from putting defense now (or defense numbers) ahead of all other concerns. It's overdoing a good thing.
This approach can also be frustrating for the player, too - you bank on your top-notch defenses and then along come attacks that make them irrelevant. There is little grumpier than the player of a grappled PC with 1 point in Wrestling, or who is attacked from behind despite 8 front-facing DB and a base Parry of 12, or someone who can't fight without his shield once his shield gets broken. You go from "I can Parry anything 98.1% of the time, and I have luck for the 1.9%" to "this game sucks!" or "We've lost this one" in one move.
The Wunderwaffen Fallacy - Basically, "and then a miracle happens, and we win the fight!"
Summoned monsters, one-shot monster summoning items, potions, alchemist's fire, poison, spells, etc. all fall into this category. Instead of being used as an assistance to the main effort of the group's offense or defense, they often make up the main effort.
Either they get deployed as a first-strike wunderwaffen ("I'll throw this poison gas bomb and sit back and reap the rewards!") or as a last-ditch attempt to save the day ("They're tearing us apart! This statuette that summons a 40-point imp will save us!"), or both. In both cases, they're often deployed with unreasonable expectations of success and thus without support - you send the summoned monster in alone, you throw the grenade in, you change nothing about your approach but down a potion to do it a little better.
In my own games, I have given items that will save the day, and which have done so. But they're vastly outnumbered by the ones that just are helpful to a good strategy but which won't bail you out of a bad one. It's rare to have a one-shot win button magic item or spell or piece of gear, but very often people treat any one-shot item or summoned creature as one.
Not enough offense.
It's one thing to get a solid offensive ability and then diversify. It's another to have, basically, a weak offense.
That generally springs from a few issues.
Not enough offensive variety. Because putting all your eggs in one basket is point-efficient, it's very common for GURPS characters to be one-trick ponies in combat. They end up really bad at everything except their chosen skill, and thus prefer to use that in all cases. It's also monetarily efficient to has one great weapon instead of two not-as-great ones. So resource management pushes for one skill, one weapon.
This is why you see people swinging flails, two-handed swords, shields, and axes while grappled instead of using knives, grappling back, head butting, etc. Even with the penalties for doing so, the other options are often so neglected they won't work in the circumstances they're made for.
A lack of damage variety is another - only cut, only crushing, only impaling, only piercing, etc. - often means you are exceptionally good against opponents vulnerable to that kind of attack. If you are an expert against eye shots, you better hope your opponents have eyes and didn't take Injury Tolerance (No Brain) or its equivalent. If you only have cutting attacks and your foe is vulnerable to crushing, you're giving up an advantage by sticking to one damage type. And so on.
No distance variety. - A subset of this is a lack of ranged attacks. You get the occasional thrown weapon, which are bad against foes with shields or a solid parry skill. But generally guys are "melee" or "ranged" but rarely both. After all, 4 points "wasted" in Bow is a +1 to your melee skill you didn't take, or vice-versa. Even with a thrown weapon, it's often too valuable to throw away and the range doesn't stack up - it becomes more of a special case for melee than truly ranged.
No offense, period - Support-type characters tend to have this - no way to usefully contribute to a fight. They bring a pistol to a rifle fight, a knife to a gunfight, and an emergency backup weapon to a swirling melee. Since they can't do much, they end up doing nothing - foes can ignore them (or try to victimize them, to draw a reaction). This is often a side effect of the one-dimensional no-range-or-no-melee character design. "I'll just stand here."
Time is wasting!
This came up in my discussions of suicide by Great Haste. There is a pull towards maximizing what you do this turn.
It's possible to waste opportunities. It's possible to do too little and not contribute to victory. But the fallacy springs from thinking that you must do as much as possible each turn to create opportunities. This can lead to forcing ones that don't exist, or taking risks that aren't warranted to try to create a payoff. Just realizing that if there is nothing good to do, Waiting or some non-attacking move (taunting, inspiring friends with Leadership, getting into a better position, etc.) can be the best option available. Pushing too little is bad, but so is pushing too hard. It's this mistake that drives lots of running around the battlefield trying to attack the best target every time, breaking up formations, or doing costly attacks with little benefit to yourself or your friends.
Those are some of the combat mistakes I see pretty often in my games, and from reading other people's game reports.
These are errors I see in character generation, character development, and play. I'm not immune to these, myself, but generally I see them more than suffer from them because I'm the GM.
Betting on Airtight Defenses - I also call this the "perfect defense fallacy."
You see this in character design - maximum defenses, maximum possible HP, maximum DR. Buy the maximum protective perks, advantages, and skills you can before you do anything else. Whenever you have a choice between a game-changer advantage, an offensive advantage, or more defense - choose more defense.
This is a fallacy because you don't always get to defend - some attacks are by surprise, or ignore your chosen defense (and you don't know it does until too late), come from behind, or just affect everyone in an area. Further, some attacks ignore your DR, or just don't let your HP matter much (very high damage attacks, non-damaging afflictions, etc.) Grappling makes some of your defenses harder or negates them, once your foe is in close, and takes away more defenses once a grip is secure.
In GURPS, even a ST 25 barbarian with Mountain of Meat and dwarven plate armor with Fortify +5 on it can be one-shotted and killed outright. Avoiding utility and offensive power and game-changing abilities until your defenses are perfect means you're likely to need perfect defenses. And it won't be enough.
Betting on favorable circumstances.
This is an odd cousin to the perfect defenses fallacy. This is, "my defense bonuses will carry me through if I get all of them. Which I will, almost always."
It's an odd cousin because the perfect defense fallacy attempts to cover all of these bases - get a 16+ on defense rolls even when everything is going wrong. This fallacy assumes you won't have to make do. They overlap where the "won't have to make do" approach means you are buying up all sorts of conditional bonuses (shields, Shield spells, limited DR, specific defenses, etc.) in order to have perfect defenses . . . and then suffer because you need those defenses even when circumstances are not perfect.
Retreat - This warrants a special mention. Depending on Retreat to survive is a common error. Betting on your ability to retreat is a featureless plain fallacy. A substantial minority of the time, you will be unable to Retreat at all. A majority of the time when you're fighting alongside friends, you are better off as a group if no one Retreats. But plenty of players will depend on Retreat, especially in the face of non-striking attacks (slams, grapples, grabs, etc.)
Depending on retrograde movement to make your combat strategy work means "room to move" isn't a luxury, it's a necessity. The Retreat-based strategy also means you depend on your friends to give you space, not support - it's an every-man-for-himself strategy. If your friends are close enough to support you, they are close enough to impede your retreat. Or close enough that if you retreat and they don't, enemies will pour into the gaps.
Defensive fighting is smart, but these three mistakes result from putting defense now (or defense numbers) ahead of all other concerns. It's overdoing a good thing.
This approach can also be frustrating for the player, too - you bank on your top-notch defenses and then along come attacks that make them irrelevant. There is little grumpier than the player of a grappled PC with 1 point in Wrestling, or who is attacked from behind despite 8 front-facing DB and a base Parry of 12, or someone who can't fight without his shield once his shield gets broken. You go from "I can Parry anything 98.1% of the time, and I have luck for the 1.9%" to "this game sucks!" or "We've lost this one" in one move.
The Wunderwaffen Fallacy - Basically, "and then a miracle happens, and we win the fight!"
Summoned monsters, one-shot monster summoning items, potions, alchemist's fire, poison, spells, etc. all fall into this category. Instead of being used as an assistance to the main effort of the group's offense or defense, they often make up the main effort.
Either they get deployed as a first-strike wunderwaffen ("I'll throw this poison gas bomb and sit back and reap the rewards!") or as a last-ditch attempt to save the day ("They're tearing us apart! This statuette that summons a 40-point imp will save us!"), or both. In both cases, they're often deployed with unreasonable expectations of success and thus without support - you send the summoned monster in alone, you throw the grenade in, you change nothing about your approach but down a potion to do it a little better.
In my own games, I have given items that will save the day, and which have done so. But they're vastly outnumbered by the ones that just are helpful to a good strategy but which won't bail you out of a bad one. It's rare to have a one-shot win button magic item or spell or piece of gear, but very often people treat any one-shot item or summoned creature as one.
Not enough offense.
It's one thing to get a solid offensive ability and then diversify. It's another to have, basically, a weak offense.
That generally springs from a few issues.
Not enough offensive variety. Because putting all your eggs in one basket is point-efficient, it's very common for GURPS characters to be one-trick ponies in combat. They end up really bad at everything except their chosen skill, and thus prefer to use that in all cases. It's also monetarily efficient to has one great weapon instead of two not-as-great ones. So resource management pushes for one skill, one weapon.
This is why you see people swinging flails, two-handed swords, shields, and axes while grappled instead of using knives, grappling back, head butting, etc. Even with the penalties for doing so, the other options are often so neglected they won't work in the circumstances they're made for.
A lack of damage variety is another - only cut, only crushing, only impaling, only piercing, etc. - often means you are exceptionally good against opponents vulnerable to that kind of attack. If you are an expert against eye shots, you better hope your opponents have eyes and didn't take Injury Tolerance (No Brain) or its equivalent. If you only have cutting attacks and your foe is vulnerable to crushing, you're giving up an advantage by sticking to one damage type. And so on.
No distance variety. - A subset of this is a lack of ranged attacks. You get the occasional thrown weapon, which are bad against foes with shields or a solid parry skill. But generally guys are "melee" or "ranged" but rarely both. After all, 4 points "wasted" in Bow is a +1 to your melee skill you didn't take, or vice-versa. Even with a thrown weapon, it's often too valuable to throw away and the range doesn't stack up - it becomes more of a special case for melee than truly ranged.
No offense, period - Support-type characters tend to have this - no way to usefully contribute to a fight. They bring a pistol to a rifle fight, a knife to a gunfight, and an emergency backup weapon to a swirling melee. Since they can't do much, they end up doing nothing - foes can ignore them (or try to victimize them, to draw a reaction). This is often a side effect of the one-dimensional no-range-or-no-melee character design. "I'll just stand here."
Time is wasting!
This came up in my discussions of suicide by Great Haste. There is a pull towards maximizing what you do this turn.
It's possible to waste opportunities. It's possible to do too little and not contribute to victory. But the fallacy springs from thinking that you must do as much as possible each turn to create opportunities. This can lead to forcing ones that don't exist, or taking risks that aren't warranted to try to create a payoff. Just realizing that if there is nothing good to do, Waiting or some non-attacking move (taunting, inspiring friends with Leadership, getting into a better position, etc.) can be the best option available. Pushing too little is bad, but so is pushing too hard. It's this mistake that drives lots of running around the battlefield trying to attack the best target every time, breaking up formations, or doing costly attacks with little benefit to yourself or your friends.
Those are some of the combat mistakes I see pretty often in my games, and from reading other people's game reports.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Melee Academy: Unarmed vs. Knife
The is (was?) a whole thread about this over on the SJG Forums. I saw the title, and emailed Doug and said, "That's our next Melee Academy." But I haven't read the thread itself. I wanted to basically put forward the tactics I've seen work in play when forced to fight unarmed versus a foe with a close combat-capable weapon and the intent to use it.
Unfortunately for this post, I also got a sudden, huge, last-minute influx of good paying work, which killed the free time I'd budgeted for a page reference and turn-by-turn tactical description. But this still might help, so I'm posting what I have.
These assume Basic Set and Martial Arts rules. If you use Technical Grappling, some of these options will work very, very differently. Lucky for you, Doug has you covered over at Gaming Ballistic.
The basic tactic for unarmed vs. knife is pretty much:
- Don't get hit.
- Defend if you do get hit.
- Grapple the weapon arm. Per B371, this makes it impossible to strike with the weapon in it.
- Arm Lock (if you can) or strike (if you can't). Don't let go of the arm.
Don't Get Hit
Goal number one, avoid getting hit in the first place. There isn't a lot you can do to ensure this, but if your skill is better you can try this one:
Defensive Feints
If your skill is much, much better (think, 10+ skill points) than your opponent, consider this option. Use Defensive Feint to lower the chances of being hit. Hopefully, this forces your opponent into a normal, non-Deceptive Attack, or possibly even a Telegraphic Attack. Then you can use your effectively improved defenses.
Otherwise, All-Out Defense is your friend while you just pray the guy rolls an 18 on his attack.
Defend
All-Out Defense is probably the best option to start with. The unarmed fighter will want to All-Out Defend (Increased Defenses) for a +2 to Parry if intending to use the Parry to set up an Arm Lock. +2 to Dodge is also good if you have a superior Dodge and intend to set up your own grapple later. Double defenses (use Dodge first) is also a good option.
Retreat is tough, because you want to avoid getting hit but you don't want to stray any further from the foe than you can. A weapon gives him a reach advantage (in Tactical Combat) so you will want to stay close so you can attack when your turn comes around.
Eventually, though, you'll need to stop using AOD and start attacking.
Grapple the Arm
There is a -1 penalty to eat up when you grapple the arm (and -2 for hand), but you need to - just like in real life, in game, you'll want to immobilize the weapon.
Feint, then Attack
If you think you've got superior skill to your opponent, use Feint to lower his defenses. Use Beat if you think your ST+skill and you successfully used Parry to defend against his weapon.
In any case, when you attack, use Deceptive Attack aggressively. As in, drop your skill all the way down to 10. You can afford to miss but can't afford to be parried since that will result in a free chance to cut you. Once you've got it, look at Arm Lock or using strikes (I like Knee Strike here) to disable your opponent or remove the weapon. You no longer need to worry about being weapon parried, because you've got the arm.
Ultimately, though, none of these are optimal - it's a case of "X-1 vs. X" and, surprise surprise, you're better off being the X not the X-1 in that equation.
That's the basic cycle I use. Avoid getting hit, Feint is you think you have the skill edge, use Deceptive Attack aggressively to ensure you only hit when you've stomped his defenses down, and hold to the arm and do violent things to your opponent.
Unfortunately for this post, I also got a sudden, huge, last-minute influx of good paying work, which killed the free time I'd budgeted for a page reference and turn-by-turn tactical description. But this still might help, so I'm posting what I have.
These assume Basic Set and Martial Arts rules. If you use Technical Grappling, some of these options will work very, very differently. Lucky for you, Doug has you covered over at Gaming Ballistic.
The basic tactic for unarmed vs. knife is pretty much:
- Don't get hit.
- Defend if you do get hit.
- Grapple the weapon arm. Per B371, this makes it impossible to strike with the weapon in it.
- Arm Lock (if you can) or strike (if you can't). Don't let go of the arm.
Don't Get Hit
Goal number one, avoid getting hit in the first place. There isn't a lot you can do to ensure this, but if your skill is better you can try this one:
Defensive Feints
If your skill is much, much better (think, 10+ skill points) than your opponent, consider this option. Use Defensive Feint to lower the chances of being hit. Hopefully, this forces your opponent into a normal, non-Deceptive Attack, or possibly even a Telegraphic Attack. Then you can use your effectively improved defenses.
Otherwise, All-Out Defense is your friend while you just pray the guy rolls an 18 on his attack.
Defend
All-Out Defense is probably the best option to start with. The unarmed fighter will want to All-Out Defend (Increased Defenses) for a +2 to Parry if intending to use the Parry to set up an Arm Lock. +2 to Dodge is also good if you have a superior Dodge and intend to set up your own grapple later. Double defenses (use Dodge first) is also a good option.
Retreat is tough, because you want to avoid getting hit but you don't want to stray any further from the foe than you can. A weapon gives him a reach advantage (in Tactical Combat) so you will want to stay close so you can attack when your turn comes around.
Eventually, though, you'll need to stop using AOD and start attacking.
Grapple the Arm
There is a -1 penalty to eat up when you grapple the arm (and -2 for hand), but you need to - just like in real life, in game, you'll want to immobilize the weapon.
Feint, then Attack
If you think you've got superior skill to your opponent, use Feint to lower his defenses. Use Beat if you think your ST+skill and you successfully used Parry to defend against his weapon.
In any case, when you attack, use Deceptive Attack aggressively. As in, drop your skill all the way down to 10. You can afford to miss but can't afford to be parried since that will result in a free chance to cut you. Once you've got it, look at Arm Lock or using strikes (I like Knee Strike here) to disable your opponent or remove the weapon. You no longer need to worry about being weapon parried, because you've got the arm.
Ultimately, though, none of these are optimal - it's a case of "X-1 vs. X" and, surprise surprise, you're better off being the X not the X-1 in that equation.
That's the basic cycle I use. Avoid getting hit, Feint is you think you have the skill edge, use Deceptive Attack aggressively to ensure you only hit when you've stomped his defenses down, and hold to the arm and do violent things to your opponent.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Melee Academy: Feints, Beats, Ruses
The other day a thread came up on the SJG forums that questioned how feints work. Naturally and inevitably for the forums, the thread derailed into the "feints are marginal, all-too-random, and useless anyway" subtopic. I totally disagree, but I realized it's worth discussing the strategy and utility of Feints. Some people that aren't using them just might not be aware of good tactics you can use to take advantage of them.
This post will work well with GURPS Basic Set, but it does assume some familiarity with the rules and options from GURPS Martial Arts, especially under Feints, p.100-101, and Feints and Multiple Attacks p. 127
Feints are a maneuver in GURPS that allow you to pit your skill vs. your opponent's skill in a Quick Contest, and if you win, your opponent's defenses are lowered by the margin of success. Pretty simple. But when to use them, and how to leverage that most effectively, isn't necessarily simple.
When to Feint
The short version: Feints are valuable and useful whenever your skill exceeds that of your opponent, and yet you aren't able to reliably penetrate his defenses just by using Deceptive Attack, and/or there are non-trivial costs to attacking repeatedly (Parry U weapon, weapons that need re-readying such as double-dagger notation weapons). Those, in a nutshell, are cases where Feinting is a potentially useful tactic.
The first part is critical - Feint is a way to leverage superior skill to lower defenses. Without that, the odds that it won't do anything at all are too large to make it a reliable tactic.
Some specific cases are especially good for using Feint:
- Where your opponent's defenses don't track directly to skill. Dodge is fully skill-independent. Opponents who rely purely on Dodge may also have low combat skills, making them especially vulnerable to feints. Additionally, opponents who have high defenses because of mudane equipment (shields add DB 1-3), room to retreat (+1 to +3, depending on the defense and the skill involved), magical or superscientific defenses (the Shield spell gives DB 1+), and so on. Direct active defenses bonuses contribute to this: Combat Reflexes (+1), the various Enhanced Defenses traits (+1 or more), or spells like Defending Shield
- Opponents who are hard to hit in the first place, reducing the opportunity to use Deceptive Attack. Small foes (if using relative SM in melee), foes with supernatural hit-reduction defenses (the Blur spell), when coupled with solid defenses, can be a problem. Feint is useful to reduce defenses without reducing your chance to hit in the first place.
- A Feint makes a great setup for a high-value target like chinks in armor, any eye attacks, skull attacks, neck, or veins or arteries. Since those targets have a high (-5 to -10) penalty to hit, they naturally reduce the amount of Deceptive Attack you can use, but since Feint is done prior and separately, you can reduce defenses without reducing your chances to hit.
- You can't attack over and over. With a weapon that needs be be re-readied (such as a double-dagger weapon) or has Parry U (and you need that Parry), a successful Feint will make it harder for your opponent to stop your attack when you make it.
- You need to ensure a hit soon and can't either wait for a bad defense roll or a critical hit. This tends to be a tactical consideration vs. a weak but well-positioned foe.
- Your allies can attack the foe multiple times, reducing his choice to defenses to less optimal ones, which your Feint can further reduce. This is good against high-Parry or high-Block foes with a mediocre Dodge, usually in a case where their high defenses are disproportionally high for their skill.
- You have multiple attacks, so the Feint applies to all of them and magnifies its effects. The rules on Feint and Multiple Attacks (Martial Arts, p. 127) allow you to trade off one part of a multiple attack as a Feint, making this extremely valuable for fighters with Extra Attack, or using Rapid Strike. If you have Extra Attack without Multistrike, you must attack with different weapons . . . but a Feint isn't an attack, exactly, so it's reasonable to assume you could Feint and then Attack with the same weapon using the rules on MA p. 127.
- Your opponent has been injured and is suffering Shock (p. B419) but is not stunned: the -1 to -4 for shock reduces DX for skill rolls, and thus can be converted into a potential defense penalty with a timely Feint.
- When your opponent is using Sacrificial defenses to Parry, Block, or Dodge for a target. Reducing the defenses of the "defense umbrella" can reduce the defenses of multiple foes at once, effectively!
In all of those cases, the basic summary applies: They are cases where your skill exceeds your foe's, and there is some reason not to just reduce skill directly to lower defenses directly.
Why not just Deceptive Attack?
Another effective way to reduce an opponent's defenses is Deceptive Attack. It always works, and doesn't pit your skill vs. your opponent's in a roll of the dice.
But while Deceptive Attack is certain, it is limited. It is always 2:1, trading 2 skill for a -1 for your opponent to defend. Feint is random and may result in no penalty, but any success is on a 1:1 basis. Also, Deceptive Attack and penalties to defend from being feinted stack. A defender who is already defending at a penalty due to Feint can have his defenses reduced to nearly-automatic failure with a high-end Deceptive Attack.
While a Deceptive Attack is useful regardless of your opponent's skill, a Feint comes into its own when your skill is better . . . or where attacking costs you something that Feint does not.
When Not To Feint
Feint is flat-out not worth doing in some cases.
- Your opponent has a higher skill than you. In this case, you're better long odds you will roll much better than your opponent.
- Your opponent's defenses are not very good. In this case, Feint is largely wasted. Don't Feint versus a Berserker, or an opponent who is routinely turning his back on you.
- You need to Telegraphic Attack to follow up. Telegraphic Attacks cannot benefit from a Feint.
- Your opponent has a reliable supernatural defense that cannot be reduced by Feint. Feint versus a wizard depending on his Blink or Phase spell isn't helpful unless you can launch multiple attacks you are certain will hit, because his magical defenses will simply ignore the Feint.
In cases like the above, a Feint just isn't going to work or matter if it does, and it is best avoided.
Feint Variations
There are a number of Feint variations in GURPS, too.
Beat - use this when your ST exceeds your DX, your opponent is using contact-based defenses (Parry, Block and not Dodge), you've grappled, or you are using contact-based defenses. Also, note that it's limited to a single defense (Block or Parry) but anyone can take advantage. This is a good way to leverage your ST-based skill advantage vs. an opponent to allow other people to pile on! A beat by a strong fighter can open up an opponent and allow others - such as Melee-spell mages in a fantasy game, or skilled grapplers, or allies with armor-piercing weapons (or a stake when you're vampire hunting) to get in there and do their thing. This is especially useful if your opponent is using a two-handed weapon or a two-handed parry (Wrestling) and has nothing but Dodge to fall back on.
Ruse - use this when your IQ exceeds your DX. Be careful using it against high-Per defenders as they can swap in IQ, Per, or DX to resist it.
Defensive Feint - instead of lowering your opponent's defenses, you lower his chances to hit. This rarely comes up, because generally if you're skilled enough to feint someone you're generally better off using that offensively. But this is a good tactic if:
- you have limited defenses to draw on, or only penalized defenses to draw on. A high-skill knife fighter versus a heavy weapon fighter, for example, can't even attempt to parry . . . but might be able to mitigate the problem by making it less like he gets hit in the first place. A low-Dodge but high-Parry defender vs. a weapon that can't (or just shouldn't) be parried can benefit here.
- you can't hurt your opponent. Either from poor weapons at hand, high enemy defenses, or just needing to ensure the target doesn't get hurt (at all or by you), this option lets you make it unlikely you'll get hit in the process.
- you need to make sure you are missed. Sometimes, even a successful defense isn't enough (or you don't want to have to make one for some reason).
Like any other feint, this is only useful if you feel your skill can top your opponent's by enough to make it a better choice than All-Out Defend. Because of the AOD option, it has a higher bar to hurdle before it's useful - if you can't be relatively sure of a margin of 6+ you should probably AOD instead.
Perks & Techniques & Feints
The Teamwork perk (Martial Arts p. 52 or Perks p. 8) allows you to do a Feint or Ruse on behalf of a teammate. The similar Pack Tactics perk (Technical Grappling p. 30) allows the same. Note that Beat doesn't get affected, but it also doesn't need to - Beats already work for anyone, but only work for one specific defense at a time.
And in case it doesn't go without saying - if you are in a campaign that uses Techniques and you intend to use this tactic often, learn the Feint technique (Martial Arts p. 73). You can turn 5 character points into a +4 to make and resist feints with a given combat skill.
This post will work well with GURPS Basic Set, but it does assume some familiarity with the rules and options from GURPS Martial Arts, especially under Feints, p.100-101, and Feints and Multiple Attacks p. 127
Feints are a maneuver in GURPS that allow you to pit your skill vs. your opponent's skill in a Quick Contest, and if you win, your opponent's defenses are lowered by the margin of success. Pretty simple. But when to use them, and how to leverage that most effectively, isn't necessarily simple.
When to Feint
The short version: Feints are valuable and useful whenever your skill exceeds that of your opponent, and yet you aren't able to reliably penetrate his defenses just by using Deceptive Attack, and/or there are non-trivial costs to attacking repeatedly (Parry U weapon, weapons that need re-readying such as double-dagger notation weapons). Those, in a nutshell, are cases where Feinting is a potentially useful tactic.
The first part is critical - Feint is a way to leverage superior skill to lower defenses. Without that, the odds that it won't do anything at all are too large to make it a reliable tactic.
Some specific cases are especially good for using Feint:
- Where your opponent's defenses don't track directly to skill. Dodge is fully skill-independent. Opponents who rely purely on Dodge may also have low combat skills, making them especially vulnerable to feints. Additionally, opponents who have high defenses because of mudane equipment (shields add DB 1-3), room to retreat (+1 to +3, depending on the defense and the skill involved), magical or superscientific defenses (the Shield spell gives DB 1+), and so on. Direct active defenses bonuses contribute to this: Combat Reflexes (+1), the various Enhanced Defenses traits (+1 or more), or spells like Defending Shield
- Opponents who are hard to hit in the first place, reducing the opportunity to use Deceptive Attack. Small foes (if using relative SM in melee), foes with supernatural hit-reduction defenses (the Blur spell), when coupled with solid defenses, can be a problem. Feint is useful to reduce defenses without reducing your chance to hit in the first place.
- A Feint makes a great setup for a high-value target like chinks in armor, any eye attacks, skull attacks, neck, or veins or arteries. Since those targets have a high (-5 to -10) penalty to hit, they naturally reduce the amount of Deceptive Attack you can use, but since Feint is done prior and separately, you can reduce defenses without reducing your chances to hit.
- You can't attack over and over. With a weapon that needs be be re-readied (such as a double-dagger weapon) or has Parry U (and you need that Parry), a successful Feint will make it harder for your opponent to stop your attack when you make it.
- You need to ensure a hit soon and can't either wait for a bad defense roll or a critical hit. This tends to be a tactical consideration vs. a weak but well-positioned foe.
- Your allies can attack the foe multiple times, reducing his choice to defenses to less optimal ones, which your Feint can further reduce. This is good against high-Parry or high-Block foes with a mediocre Dodge, usually in a case where their high defenses are disproportionally high for their skill.
- You have multiple attacks, so the Feint applies to all of them and magnifies its effects. The rules on Feint and Multiple Attacks (Martial Arts, p. 127) allow you to trade off one part of a multiple attack as a Feint, making this extremely valuable for fighters with Extra Attack, or using Rapid Strike. If you have Extra Attack without Multistrike, you must attack with different weapons . . . but a Feint isn't an attack, exactly, so it's reasonable to assume you could Feint and then Attack with the same weapon using the rules on MA p. 127.
- Your opponent has been injured and is suffering Shock (p. B419) but is not stunned: the -1 to -4 for shock reduces DX for skill rolls, and thus can be converted into a potential defense penalty with a timely Feint.
- When your opponent is using Sacrificial defenses to Parry, Block, or Dodge for a target. Reducing the defenses of the "defense umbrella" can reduce the defenses of multiple foes at once, effectively!
In all of those cases, the basic summary applies: They are cases where your skill exceeds your foe's, and there is some reason not to just reduce skill directly to lower defenses directly.
Why not just Deceptive Attack?
Another effective way to reduce an opponent's defenses is Deceptive Attack. It always works, and doesn't pit your skill vs. your opponent's in a roll of the dice.
But while Deceptive Attack is certain, it is limited. It is always 2:1, trading 2 skill for a -1 for your opponent to defend. Feint is random and may result in no penalty, but any success is on a 1:1 basis. Also, Deceptive Attack and penalties to defend from being feinted stack. A defender who is already defending at a penalty due to Feint can have his defenses reduced to nearly-automatic failure with a high-end Deceptive Attack.
While a Deceptive Attack is useful regardless of your opponent's skill, a Feint comes into its own when your skill is better . . . or where attacking costs you something that Feint does not.
When Not To Feint
Feint is flat-out not worth doing in some cases.
- Your opponent has a higher skill than you. In this case, you're better long odds you will roll much better than your opponent.
- Your opponent's defenses are not very good. In this case, Feint is largely wasted. Don't Feint versus a Berserker, or an opponent who is routinely turning his back on you.
- You need to Telegraphic Attack to follow up. Telegraphic Attacks cannot benefit from a Feint.
- Your opponent has a reliable supernatural defense that cannot be reduced by Feint. Feint versus a wizard depending on his Blink or Phase spell isn't helpful unless you can launch multiple attacks you are certain will hit, because his magical defenses will simply ignore the Feint.
In cases like the above, a Feint just isn't going to work or matter if it does, and it is best avoided.
Feint Variations
There are a number of Feint variations in GURPS, too.
Beat - use this when your ST exceeds your DX, your opponent is using contact-based defenses (Parry, Block and not Dodge), you've grappled, or you are using contact-based defenses. Also, note that it's limited to a single defense (Block or Parry) but anyone can take advantage. This is a good way to leverage your ST-based skill advantage vs. an opponent to allow other people to pile on! A beat by a strong fighter can open up an opponent and allow others - such as Melee-spell mages in a fantasy game, or skilled grapplers, or allies with armor-piercing weapons (or a stake when you're vampire hunting) to get in there and do their thing. This is especially useful if your opponent is using a two-handed weapon or a two-handed parry (Wrestling) and has nothing but Dodge to fall back on.
Ruse - use this when your IQ exceeds your DX. Be careful using it against high-Per defenders as they can swap in IQ, Per, or DX to resist it.
Defensive Feint - instead of lowering your opponent's defenses, you lower his chances to hit. This rarely comes up, because generally if you're skilled enough to feint someone you're generally better off using that offensively. But this is a good tactic if:
- you have limited defenses to draw on, or only penalized defenses to draw on. A high-skill knife fighter versus a heavy weapon fighter, for example, can't even attempt to parry . . . but might be able to mitigate the problem by making it less like he gets hit in the first place. A low-Dodge but high-Parry defender vs. a weapon that can't (or just shouldn't) be parried can benefit here.
- you can't hurt your opponent. Either from poor weapons at hand, high enemy defenses, or just needing to ensure the target doesn't get hurt (at all or by you), this option lets you make it unlikely you'll get hit in the process.
- you need to make sure you are missed. Sometimes, even a successful defense isn't enough (or you don't want to have to make one for some reason).
Like any other feint, this is only useful if you feel your skill can top your opponent's by enough to make it a better choice than All-Out Defend. Because of the AOD option, it has a higher bar to hurdle before it's useful - if you can't be relatively sure of a margin of 6+ you should probably AOD instead.
Perks & Techniques & Feints
The Teamwork perk (Martial Arts p. 52 or Perks p. 8) allows you to do a Feint or Ruse on behalf of a teammate. The similar Pack Tactics perk (Technical Grappling p. 30) allows the same. Note that Beat doesn't get affected, but it also doesn't need to - Beats already work for anyone, but only work for one specific defense at a time.
And in case it doesn't go without saying - if you are in a campaign that uses Techniques and you intend to use this tactic often, learn the Feint technique (Martial Arts p. 73). You can turn 5 character points into a +4 to make and resist feints with a given combat skill.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
GURPS Master Class: Revising Evaluate
Evaluate is basically unused in my games.
The benefit is a bit small (+1 per turn, max +3, one turn per plus), ends early, and generally is superseded by other, more useful options. Low skill? Turn to Telegraphic Attack, Committed Attack, or even All-Out Attack. High skill? +1 to +3 just isn't worth it. Even skill with your foe? Probably better to bet on a critical or a Feint* than to Evaluate.
I've written about ways to upgrade Evaluate before, but since I never seen these used in play I didn't keep track of where I wrote them. So I gave it some thought this week once Doug assigned it out as homework.
I see a complex way and a simple way to upgun Evaluate.
Complex Way:
Evaluate is a Per-based Feint. It's useable against any foe you can see, subject to range penalties. The foe resists with either DX-based or IQ-based skill, to conceal (or fail to create) any openings. You can hold your Evaluate bonus as long as you continue to Evaluate your foe. In addition, you get the usual benefits of Evaluate (+1 to +3). You may choose to keep the results of your Per-based Feint or you can try again and take the new results. The bonuses for the Feint and the Evaluation do not stack; take the higher bonus.
Simple Way:
Evaluate works as written in Basic Set and Martial Arts, but the bonus is +3 for one turn. Additional turns of Evaluate do nothing exceed hold the results.
(Optionally, make it +2 per turn for up to 3 turns, for a possible +6! In that case, only apply half the bonus vs. Feints and Deceptive Attacks. Cancelling -3 is good enough for those.)
I'd go with the simple way. Just hand out a +3 and it's suddenly worth it for many fighters, especially since it can stack with All-Out Attack (Determined) for a +7 to hit without giving a defense bonus to the target ala Telegraphic Attack (Martial Arts, p. 1113). At the same time, it's not quite as good (but much less limited) than Telegraphic Attack. It's better for slightly more defensive minded folks - and cancelling 3 points of Deceptive Attack means you can hold your own, potentially, against a fighter 6 points more skillful than yourself!
In any case, it's important to apply all of the benefits of Evaluate fully - the cancelling of defensive penalties (per Martial Arts, p. 100), bonuses to non-combat skills, and so on. If you don't do that, even the changed versions won't help much.
* Yes, I know that mathematically Feinting a person of the same skill works out to a net zero. But Rock Paper Scissors works out to a net even win-loss over the long run, but it doesn't mean people don't win on some turns. Feint vs. a similar skill foe is betting an attack chance that you'll roll better than your opponent this turn and then mess him up on the next turn. That's, in my experience, a very good choice.
The benefit is a bit small (+1 per turn, max +3, one turn per plus), ends early, and generally is superseded by other, more useful options. Low skill? Turn to Telegraphic Attack, Committed Attack, or even All-Out Attack. High skill? +1 to +3 just isn't worth it. Even skill with your foe? Probably better to bet on a critical or a Feint* than to Evaluate.
I've written about ways to upgrade Evaluate before, but since I never seen these used in play I didn't keep track of where I wrote them. So I gave it some thought this week once Doug assigned it out as homework.
I see a complex way and a simple way to upgun Evaluate.
Complex Way:
Evaluate is a Per-based Feint. It's useable against any foe you can see, subject to range penalties. The foe resists with either DX-based or IQ-based skill, to conceal (or fail to create) any openings. You can hold your Evaluate bonus as long as you continue to Evaluate your foe. In addition, you get the usual benefits of Evaluate (+1 to +3). You may choose to keep the results of your Per-based Feint or you can try again and take the new results. The bonuses for the Feint and the Evaluation do not stack; take the higher bonus.
Simple Way:
Evaluate works as written in Basic Set and Martial Arts, but the bonus is +3 for one turn. Additional turns of Evaluate do nothing exceed hold the results.
(Optionally, make it +2 per turn for up to 3 turns, for a possible +6! In that case, only apply half the bonus vs. Feints and Deceptive Attacks. Cancelling -3 is good enough for those.)
I'd go with the simple way. Just hand out a +3 and it's suddenly worth it for many fighters, especially since it can stack with All-Out Attack (Determined) for a +7 to hit without giving a defense bonus to the target ala Telegraphic Attack (Martial Arts, p. 1113). At the same time, it's not quite as good (but much less limited) than Telegraphic Attack. It's better for slightly more defensive minded folks - and cancelling 3 points of Deceptive Attack means you can hold your own, potentially, against a fighter 6 points more skillful than yourself!
In any case, it's important to apply all of the benefits of Evaluate fully - the cancelling of defensive penalties (per Martial Arts, p. 100), bonuses to non-combat skills, and so on. If you don't do that, even the changed versions won't help much.
* Yes, I know that mathematically Feinting a person of the same skill works out to a net zero. But Rock Paper Scissors works out to a net even win-loss over the long run, but it doesn't mean people don't win on some turns. Feint vs. a similar skill foe is betting an attack chance that you'll roll better than your opponent this turn and then mess him up on the next turn. That's, in my experience, a very good choice.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Melee Academy: Dealing With Superior Foes
How do you deal with superior foes? Not foes with superior numbers, but foes who are just better than you? That is the subject of this installment of the multi-blog series Melee Academy.
These tactics are generic. These days I usually play Dungeon Fantasy, where fodder is meant to lose and be a threat only in great numbers. In fact, the term is ensconced in the rulebooks:
"Fodder monsters appear in hordes that outnumber the party. [. . .] a mob of fodder is essentially a distributed monster that has lots of attacks [. . .] They often have the advantage of mobility advantage, though, nipping in and out like jackels or piranha [. . .]"
I'm writing this from the perspective of the GM - how do you make these fodder, especially fodder that is outmatched in all quality markers (damage, skill, DR, HP) by the PCs, into an interesting threat?
Obviously, you need to give them some ability to threaten the players, usually using one or more of the four basics - superior numbers, special weaponry, prepared battlefields, or superior tactics. It's the last I'm concentrating on today - tactics. Specifically, the minutia of running fodder. What should your orcs, goblins, giant rats, dinomen, etc. do on their turns to be a threat to a group of well-armed delvers with superior skills?
Threat Potential
First, the fodder must have some way to threaten their opponents. They must be able to potentially penetrate DR with attacks, get a hold with grappling, or have some special ability which puts some cumulative hurt on the PCs. If they don't, they aren't fodder, they are a nuisance at best. They won't get anything done in terms of being a threat, and aside from occupying time (real world and in-game), they're generally a combat non-issue.
So now you've got them as an actual threat, now what? But what about actual tactical choices? What are the GURPS manuevers and combat options they need to choose to make it all matter?
Let's break these up into tactics to emphasize, marginal tactics, and tactics to avoid.
Tactics to Emphasize
These are the money moves for inferior opponents, in my experience.
Make Sure You Hit
The most important thing to do is make sure you hit. Fodder don't have great skill, usually, so don't get too ambitious. Make sure you hit.
You can get cute and do Telegraphic Attacks (Martial Arts, p. 113) to ensure you hit and force defense rolls, too. It doesn't help you roll critical hits, but it helps you hit, and forcing your foe to roll and risk a Critical Failure is better than just missing.
Deceptive Attack
If you can ensure you're going to hit, or at least get enough hits, consider using Deceptive Attack. It's a good tactic against foes that are only a bit superior to you. Lowering a Parry 18 to Parry 17 is worthless, but lowering a 12 to an 11 might make all the difference.
One fun tactic is to mix Telegraphic Attacks from earlier strikers with Deceptive Attack from later ones. The first really only want to force you to defend, hopefully with a Parry or Block so you get a cumulative penalty. The latter ones want to hit your potentially reduced defenses with a larger penalty.
The reverse works okay, too - Deceptive Attack, but then Telegraphic Attack to follow up when you are sure defenses are weak and Retreats used up. But it's demoralizing to spend a lot of attacks setting up a shot and then have the defender make it by the +2 you just handed to him.
Multiple Attacks on One Target
To inflict damage, you need to get through the Active Defenses of your target. In order to do this, you must hit first.
This great thread covers PCs charging a pike formation. Formed up weaker foes with long weapons can represent a good pile of attacks, and limit your options for closing with them. Your goal is to swamp defenses, and hope for critical hits along the way and blown defense rolls as a result of cumulative penalties. GURPS isn't attrition-heavy in the way D&D is, but you can effectively attrit defenses over the course of a turn, given enough attacks.
This also goes for grappling, especially if you're using Martial Arts: Technical Grappling. Even if you aren't, dogpile your foes; the more people you have hanging on, the worse off the opponent is.
Flank, Flank, Flank
Aim for flank attacks. One aspect of outnumbering your opponents is you can often lap around them. Get to the flank hex on the weapon side to avoid shields (and the DB from shields). Get to the shield-side flank to avoid a weapon parry. Even if you just do it through superior movement, the -2 to defend is a big edge.
Committed Attack
If your fodder has multiple defenses, or at least one good one that doesn't depend on Retreat such as Block or a non-Fencing Parry, take a good look at this option.
This beats All-Out Attack (see below) because it means attackers still need to expend some effort overcoming the fodder's defenses. They aren't auto-killed when the PCs' turn comes up. But it also gives them some extra movement, damage, or attacking skill to leverage into a threat to the PCs. Shield-armed fodder should seriously consider this, since they can get off one good Block after getting off a Committed Attack. Use (Determined) for a better hit chance or (Strong) to get a little more damage, and the two step option combined with either can let them perform a runaround attack to give their target a -2 to defend (p. B391) and to force the target to keep backpedaling.
Perks
Take a close look at the Teamwork or Teamwork (Pack Tactics) perks. With the Teamwork perk, they can form up and use formations to threaten foes. With Pack Tactics, they can surround and harass foes more effectively.
Another good one is Shield Wall Training so fodder can block for each other, and make it a bit harder to kill them off with the old technique of Feint-and-Attack or overwhelming through multiple attacks. You can Feint Blarg the Orc, but if Lurg blocks for him, your deception was useless.
Tactics Of Marginal Value
These moves have their place, but they aren't your go-to moves turn after turn.
Aiming for Hit Locations
Useful if the targets have a specific weakness or if you must hit to inflict any useful damage. Or, if hitting a specific location trumps the value of hitting anything else. If the only way you can reasonably hurt your foe is an eye strike or a Chinks in Armor hit, you have to go for it. But it's not worth aiming for specific locations if a random strike or a torso strike will inflict some damage.
You must be able to hurt your opponent, so use aimed shots for penalized locations when that makes the difference between damaging or non-damaging attacks.
All-Out Attack
Another one to avoid, unless you're running berserker fodder. It seems tempting - +4 to hit, +2 to damage . . . but unless you dramatically outnumber your foes or they can't reliably one-shot incapacitate or kill your, you are toast. It's mostly useful when your opponent can't defend or can't retaliate, or to take advantage for a golden opportunity to rush in and whack someone who really needs hitting. But in general, you are just making it easy for your superior foe to kill you faster, and rarely for a good tradeoff.
Defensive Tactics in General
All the All-Out Defending in the world is useless when someone smashes your defenses with a solid Feint and then stabs you. AOD is useful if you are close in defenses, and you can force attackers to attack the fodder that are AODing while other fodder attack. If that is the case, do it. If not, avoid it.
Tactics To Avoid
These have a big failure mark all over them.
Feints, Beats, and Ruses
Useless, worthless, and pointless. All three of these require a competitive skill level to make them possibly useful, and a superior skill level to make them worth trying.
If a fodder monster tries a Feint, and you conceal the results (either by rolling secretly, or rolling the results on the following turn), you're basically just saying "Kill this guy now, he might be good." So it's got some use as a sacrifice, if you want to ensure the PCs kill a specific fodder monster by pretending it is some kind of threat. If you are using some version of Setup Attack, that can be useful.
Beat is possibly useful, if the fodder types are really strong, and can leverage their ST-based skill into a number that can potentially threaten the better of ST-based or DX-based skills of the delver. That's rare in normal GURPS games and rarer still in Dungeon Fantasy. It's better for, again, marginally less skilled guys.
Getting Fancy In General
Remember you are inferior in skill, and you must maximize what you have. Throwing skill away for Rapid Strikes, eye strikes, Lethal Kicks, defaulted techniques, etc. is a bad idea. Go for the money moves and apply as many of them to the enemy as possible.
And that's how I run my fodder to make them a threat.
Special DF Note: Remember they are still fodder. The odds are they are going to lose, and lose badly. Even in a minor victory (driving off the PCs, say) they'll probably take terrible losses. Many will die, and even if they fight in-game as if they all expect to live (and not like suicide troopers), they will take losses. Groups of fodder lose members like larger monsters lose HP, and "heal" them by getting replacements. The only way fodder can really win is through vastly superior numbers, in my experience, although they can occasionally present an obstacle by sheer threat of costing time or resources the group doesn't want to expend. If you juice them up until they are a real threat, then they aren't really fodder, or inferior foes, anymore. An army of orcs is a boss fight, even if individually they are all fodder versus your handful of adventurers.
These tactics are generic. These days I usually play Dungeon Fantasy, where fodder is meant to lose and be a threat only in great numbers. In fact, the term is ensconced in the rulebooks:
"Fodder monsters appear in hordes that outnumber the party. [. . .] a mob of fodder is essentially a distributed monster that has lots of attacks [. . .] They often have the advantage of mobility advantage, though, nipping in and out like jackels or piranha [. . .]"
I'm writing this from the perspective of the GM - how do you make these fodder, especially fodder that is outmatched in all quality markers (damage, skill, DR, HP) by the PCs, into an interesting threat?
Obviously, you need to give them some ability to threaten the players, usually using one or more of the four basics - superior numbers, special weaponry, prepared battlefields, or superior tactics. It's the last I'm concentrating on today - tactics. Specifically, the minutia of running fodder. What should your orcs, goblins, giant rats, dinomen, etc. do on their turns to be a threat to a group of well-armed delvers with superior skills?
Threat Potential
First, the fodder must have some way to threaten their opponents. They must be able to potentially penetrate DR with attacks, get a hold with grappling, or have some special ability which puts some cumulative hurt on the PCs. If they don't, they aren't fodder, they are a nuisance at best. They won't get anything done in terms of being a threat, and aside from occupying time (real world and in-game), they're generally a combat non-issue.
So now you've got them as an actual threat, now what? But what about actual tactical choices? What are the GURPS manuevers and combat options they need to choose to make it all matter?
Let's break these up into tactics to emphasize, marginal tactics, and tactics to avoid.
Tactics to Emphasize
These are the money moves for inferior opponents, in my experience.
Make Sure You Hit
The most important thing to do is make sure you hit. Fodder don't have great skill, usually, so don't get too ambitious. Make sure you hit.
You can get cute and do Telegraphic Attacks (Martial Arts, p. 113) to ensure you hit and force defense rolls, too. It doesn't help you roll critical hits, but it helps you hit, and forcing your foe to roll and risk a Critical Failure is better than just missing.
Deceptive Attack
If you can ensure you're going to hit, or at least get enough hits, consider using Deceptive Attack. It's a good tactic against foes that are only a bit superior to you. Lowering a Parry 18 to Parry 17 is worthless, but lowering a 12 to an 11 might make all the difference.
One fun tactic is to mix Telegraphic Attacks from earlier strikers with Deceptive Attack from later ones. The first really only want to force you to defend, hopefully with a Parry or Block so you get a cumulative penalty. The latter ones want to hit your potentially reduced defenses with a larger penalty.
The reverse works okay, too - Deceptive Attack, but then Telegraphic Attack to follow up when you are sure defenses are weak and Retreats used up. But it's demoralizing to spend a lot of attacks setting up a shot and then have the defender make it by the +2 you just handed to him.
Multiple Attacks on One Target
To inflict damage, you need to get through the Active Defenses of your target. In order to do this, you must hit first.
This great thread covers PCs charging a pike formation. Formed up weaker foes with long weapons can represent a good pile of attacks, and limit your options for closing with them. Your goal is to swamp defenses, and hope for critical hits along the way and blown defense rolls as a result of cumulative penalties. GURPS isn't attrition-heavy in the way D&D is, but you can effectively attrit defenses over the course of a turn, given enough attacks.
This also goes for grappling, especially if you're using Martial Arts: Technical Grappling. Even if you aren't, dogpile your foes; the more people you have hanging on, the worse off the opponent is.
Flank, Flank, Flank
Aim for flank attacks. One aspect of outnumbering your opponents is you can often lap around them. Get to the flank hex on the weapon side to avoid shields (and the DB from shields). Get to the shield-side flank to avoid a weapon parry. Even if you just do it through superior movement, the -2 to defend is a big edge.
Committed Attack
If your fodder has multiple defenses, or at least one good one that doesn't depend on Retreat such as Block or a non-Fencing Parry, take a good look at this option.
This beats All-Out Attack (see below) because it means attackers still need to expend some effort overcoming the fodder's defenses. They aren't auto-killed when the PCs' turn comes up. But it also gives them some extra movement, damage, or attacking skill to leverage into a threat to the PCs. Shield-armed fodder should seriously consider this, since they can get off one good Block after getting off a Committed Attack. Use (Determined) for a better hit chance or (Strong) to get a little more damage, and the two step option combined with either can let them perform a runaround attack to give their target a -2 to defend (p. B391) and to force the target to keep backpedaling.
Perks
Take a close look at the Teamwork or Teamwork (Pack Tactics) perks. With the Teamwork perk, they can form up and use formations to threaten foes. With Pack Tactics, they can surround and harass foes more effectively.
Another good one is Shield Wall Training so fodder can block for each other, and make it a bit harder to kill them off with the old technique of Feint-and-Attack or overwhelming through multiple attacks. You can Feint Blarg the Orc, but if Lurg blocks for him, your deception was useless.
Tactics Of Marginal Value
These moves have their place, but they aren't your go-to moves turn after turn.
Aiming for Hit Locations
Useful if the targets have a specific weakness or if you must hit to inflict any useful damage. Or, if hitting a specific location trumps the value of hitting anything else. If the only way you can reasonably hurt your foe is an eye strike or a Chinks in Armor hit, you have to go for it. But it's not worth aiming for specific locations if a random strike or a torso strike will inflict some damage.
You must be able to hurt your opponent, so use aimed shots for penalized locations when that makes the difference between damaging or non-damaging attacks.
All-Out Attack
Another one to avoid, unless you're running berserker fodder. It seems tempting - +4 to hit, +2 to damage . . . but unless you dramatically outnumber your foes or they can't reliably one-shot incapacitate or kill your, you are toast. It's mostly useful when your opponent can't defend or can't retaliate, or to take advantage for a golden opportunity to rush in and whack someone who really needs hitting. But in general, you are just making it easy for your superior foe to kill you faster, and rarely for a good tradeoff.
Defensive Tactics in General
All the All-Out Defending in the world is useless when someone smashes your defenses with a solid Feint and then stabs you. AOD is useful if you are close in defenses, and you can force attackers to attack the fodder that are AODing while other fodder attack. If that is the case, do it. If not, avoid it.
Tactics To Avoid
These have a big failure mark all over them.
Feints, Beats, and Ruses
Useless, worthless, and pointless. All three of these require a competitive skill level to make them possibly useful, and a superior skill level to make them worth trying.
If a fodder monster tries a Feint, and you conceal the results (either by rolling secretly, or rolling the results on the following turn), you're basically just saying "Kill this guy now, he might be good." So it's got some use as a sacrifice, if you want to ensure the PCs kill a specific fodder monster by pretending it is some kind of threat. If you are using some version of Setup Attack, that can be useful.
Beat is possibly useful, if the fodder types are really strong, and can leverage their ST-based skill into a number that can potentially threaten the better of ST-based or DX-based skills of the delver. That's rare in normal GURPS games and rarer still in Dungeon Fantasy. It's better for, again, marginally less skilled guys.
Getting Fancy In General
Remember you are inferior in skill, and you must maximize what you have. Throwing skill away for Rapid Strikes, eye strikes, Lethal Kicks, defaulted techniques, etc. is a bad idea. Go for the money moves and apply as many of them to the enemy as possible.
And that's how I run my fodder to make them a threat.
Special DF Note: Remember they are still fodder. The odds are they are going to lose, and lose badly. Even in a minor victory (driving off the PCs, say) they'll probably take terrible losses. Many will die, and even if they fight in-game as if they all expect to live (and not like suicide troopers), they will take losses. Groups of fodder lose members like larger monsters lose HP, and "heal" them by getting replacements. The only way fodder can really win is through vastly superior numbers, in my experience, although they can occasionally present an obstacle by sheer threat of costing time or resources the group doesn't want to expend. If you juice them up until they are a real threat, then they aren't really fodder, or inferior foes, anymore. An army of orcs is a boss fight, even if individually they are all fodder versus your handful of adventurers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
