At 10:21 PM 1/30/2018, Rick Smith wrote:
> Defending is an all out defense in GURPS terms. You are giving
>up all chance of hitting the other guy. If you are sacrificing your only
>option this turn. The defend option, should darn well make you
>harder to hit!
Yes. And Attack in TFT is like All Out Attack in GURPS terms (no thought
to defense, generally pretty reckless).
But those are the most extreme GURPS maneuvers. The others, such as
Attack and Wait, allow you to both attack and do something to avoid
>I believe Peter questioned the usefulness of "Defend and Edge Away".
>Wouldn't jut disengaging be faster? Sure. But if you are likely to be
>hit and killed if you don't defend, two defends for a free disengage is
>an attractive option. I've seen plenty of characters take this option for
>good and sensible reasons.
Sure. (Though it seems to me often either I have better DX than my foe so
I disengage without getting attacked, or he has better DX than me, so he
may well make his 4/DX roll to hit me anyway, and so I'd rather only get
hit once than twice.)
I'm sure it has a use, and I don't dislike it. I just think it's
not that generous an effect (but I'm used to GURPS where backing away
happens all the time as there is no engagement).
Though I don't dislike it, I also don't think it does much to address
the main deficiencies of defense in TFT.
As for the 1/3 defense, the way you wrote it is going to have an
uneven effect due to the bell curve and using the To-Hit roll also
for the 1/3 defense roll. It won't be 1/3 chance, and the actual
chance will vary based on the to-hit amount. As I wrote on the SJG
forum, I think the best version would be to roll an extra die at the
same time in another color, and use it to determine whether the
(actual, accurate, independent) 1/3 chance happens. You could even
have the odds vary by the DX and/or weapon talents of the defender,
without it really being any more complicated (in fact, it seems
simpler to me than your "multiple of three" mechanic, as well as more