Looks like you are right on all counts there Varsovian.

Some weapons are more versatile with their ranges, although they may need to be readied at different ranges to be effective at them.

From 1 hex (which normally equals 1 yard) you would just move into close combat, which as has been said, is kind of it's own animal.

Yup, the * in the reach column means it requires a ready maneuver to change reach.  As for the knife reaches, be careful because a large/small knife can only have a reach of one on a cutting attack, if you want to impale someone with it, it is only good for reach C.  However, there is no need to do a ready maneuver to switch grips (reach) for a knife.

Okay, another question!

Let's say a guy was holding a rifle when an enemy moved toward him and entered close combat range. If the guy drops the rifle and wants to start punching the enemy, does he need to take a Ready maneuver to ready his fists? Or can he drop the rifle and throw a punch in the same turn?

Why would he even bother? A vertical butt stroke is much more effective.

Butt attack defaults to DX-5. Meanwhile, he has Boxing 14...

Dropping stuff is a free action and your hands/feet etc are always ready.

Close Combat works exactly like all other Reaches of combat, with one small difference:  Shields are far less useful for those using them.



Almost always ready.  I can envision moments when I'd require a Ready Maneuver for hands* and... eh... errr... maybe a Change Position Maneuver for feet?



* Being stuffed deep into pockets during cold weather, in thick mitts that need to be removed, etc.  Feet... I'm having trouble with.  Maybe if you were in a small space and would normally have your feet in a poor position (driving a small car, seated at a cramped desk, etc).  Maybe?

My point is, Rule Zero for this sort of stuff.  maybe just a -4 or 5 to hit representing the time needed to doff thick mitts, or get out from under the desk, etc.

See, I'd rule zero that it didn't matter.

Mittens (As per Low Tech) give Bad Grip 1 and Ham Fisted 2, neither of which make it harder to punch in hand to hand combat... but even if they did, your hands aren't unready. It's not more difficult to attack with an unready weapon; it simply isn't possible.

In reply to Varsovian (msg # 915):

Put a point in bayonet training... rifles with wood stocks can be brutal weapons with only a little training and the bayonet can execute a vicious slash as well as a lethal thrust attack. GURPS may not have rules, but the real world has fine examples.

It's either the Spear skill, or as I've heard one person argue, both Shortstaff and Spear skills.

I’d have to check, but I think bayonets are used with Spear skill according to GURPS Special Ops.

High tech goes into more detail but:

1. Shoulder-arm bayonets use the Spear skill.
2. Sidearm bayonets use the Knife skill.
3. Hitting someone with your rifle uses staff or two-handed Axe/Mace depending on how you swing it.
4. Hitting someone with a pistol uses Brawl or DX, Axe/Mace if the pistol is designed to be used that way.

In reply to Varsovian (msg # 913):

I don't have the depth or length of experience with GURPS that I'd like, not near as much as most folks around here I suspect, but I've had pretty much that exact situation show up in a couple of different games I've played in. In my experience, it's generally been resolved as dropping the weapon and throwing a punch as part of the same turn.

You can do that too. Dropping the weapon is free. It's much more effective usuelly though to put the iron through people.

Most people can attempt it though even without the skill I believe. Telegraphic and AoA determined stack to give a pretty good bonus to skill for someone really pushing for it (+8)

Yeah, that's how most unskilled people fight anyway - each round is an AoA or AoD. Focusing on offense and defense at the same time (regular attacks) isn't easy.

Planning an "immortals drifting through history" game, one that I'd like to run from the ancient past to the near future. The setting is one with superheroes, etc, but aside from immortality, the PCs won't really have "powers".

In terms of pacing, the PCs will have an adventure or two in every historical era, then we skim over a few decades or centuries, summarize what happened, give the PCs some CP to represent development over this time, and then start the next adventure.

My Rules concern is pacing character advancement. What I'd like is for PCs to end up in the modern era with point levels that make them comparable to superhumans, without exceeding what's possible for humans. High skill levels, experience, etc is fine, but flight, super-strength, etc are not.

1. Should I aim for 500 cp characters at the end or 1000 cp? My concern that there's not much more you can do with 1k, just because of how skills higher than 16 rapidly reach a point of decreased cost effectiveness, and low level skills can degrade away if you're not using them regularly. That 1 point in chemistry/5 you learned in the 1800s probably won't stick around forever.

2. How do I handle character advancement? X points per year skipped? A set sum between adventures, with a larger sum between eras? Allowing disused skills to be refunded/traded in for new skills? Increasing levels of Reawakened to access skills you've largely forgotten?

500 ought to be a decent "super-human" but not "a super" level.  Especially if you're not allowing Cinematic traits.


Also keep in mind that the Chemistry bought in the 1800's is what, TL 6?  Modern area is TL 8, so it's not just degradation with some skills, it's advancement of techniques and methods.


That's probably the easiest.


Yeah, that wouldn't be bad, especially if the Character start in pre-metal working eras.  You could put a limit of X number of skill points may be traded between eras.


That's an interesting idea.

Reawakened or Racial Memory or something similar. Maybe Wild Talent with the limitation "a skill I used to possess." Work it into some kind of flashback mechanic.

That would work well.

Character Creation Riff:

Characters have amnesia, and discover who they are through play. In practice, this means that they can justify mid-adventure CP spends by having "flashbacks" as a form of character development, as long as it doesn't contradict anything that's already happened.

At the start of the game you only define attributes and the advantages and disadvantages that are immediately apparent - One Eye, Ugly, Beautiful, Skinny, etc. If you've been wounded before you can't "remember" having High Pain Threshold or Hemophelia because you didn't just start spurting out blood all day the last time someone stabbed you.

Skills are left undefined until you try to use them, then you can spend CP to remember having them via a flashback.

Probably an obvious answer, but something that was on my mind today after watching an episode of Last Kingdom...


If I All-Out Attack, I have no defenses.  That is clear enough.

However, can my allies (assuming they have the required perks, skills, or whatever) use their defenses (presumably block or parry) to defend me after I All-Out Attack?

For example, in one of the episodes, I noticed a tactic which involved groups of three soldiers -one archer paired with two sword & shield warriors.  The archer would attack, and then the two guys with shields would take a defensive position in front of the archer.  This is arguably some sort of pop-up attack, but I was looking at it in terms of the archer using AAO: ranged for a +1; then relying on the two allies to use their defenses.

Similarly, it may be that the archer was using Aim so as to get bonuses, and then forgoing defenses so as to keep the Aim bonus; instead relying on the defenses of his allies.



As a related question:

What are the skills, perks, and various rules which deal with a group of people using defenses to protect another person?

Sacrificial Parry and Shield-Wall perks.
This message was last updated by the player at 23:33, Thu 13 Dec 2018.

From the SJG forums:




http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=111879

Dunno that I agree with either of these takes. I'd go with it being a technique, but a deeper penalty. -2 maybe.

That's a lot of good food for thought.

Danke