| From: | dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Technique and Damage (was Re: CC Martial Arts) |
| Date: | Tue, 06 Jun 2000 10:24:51 -0600 |
>On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 dbuehrer@******.carl.org wrote:
>
> > >Umm, I thought that extra successes in a Melee combat test is supposed
> > >simulate this "Technique causes more damage" phenomena.
> >
> > And it does it quite well. The problem that's come to light is that the
> > Power of the attack is based on the attacker's strength, which just isn't
> > the case in RL.
>
> Actually, it is. All other things being equal (i.e. a strong
>person and a weak person both hit the same vital location with equal
>skill), the stronger person is going to do more damage. This is pretty
>much the case with SR as well.
Sorry, I'm not being specific. Please let me try again.
The primary determinants of damage in unarmed combat are skill and weight.
Yes, a stronger person will hit harder than a weaker person. But the
difference due to strength isn't that much.
A skilled fighter will put their body into it (adding more mass to the
blow) and will hit a lot harder than an unskilled fighter (in general).
A heavier person will hit a lot harder than a lighter person.
> Again, don't confuse skill with strength, skill with quickness, or
>skill with reaction. Skill is skill. It dictates how many successes you
>have, and that's all. How many successes you have is a direct map to how
>well you have placed your blow, put your body behind it, and followed
>through.
Agreed.
> Also keep in mind that SR melee combat is abstract. In an
>abstract system that takes multiple blows, parries, counters, etc into
>account, there will be instances where Strength will be important, just as
>there are instances where Body will be very important.
But Body is more important when it comes to strikes (punchs/kicks). Skill
and quickness are important when it comes to locks and throws. I can't
think of a form of attack in which strength is the primary determinant of
the outcome. No wait, yes I can, a bear hug. There, that's one.
Every form of attack I've been taught relies using my mass, using their
mass, using gravity, using pain, using technique, or using speed. With the
exception of the bear hug, I have yet to be taught, nor have I witnessed, a
form of attack that relies on strength.
> If you place your blow with equal efficacy and have a higher
>Strength, your attack *should* do more damage.
But not much more. Mass + velocity = energy. And more muscle doesn't
increase the velocity enough to really be significant.
Here's where I think the confusion occurs.
Everyone imagine a weak guy hitting a punching bag. Now imagine a strong
guy hitting a punching bag. Is the weak guy you imagined small and
light? Is the strong guy you imagined big and muscular? More muscle
equals more weight/mass. The strong guy isn't hitting harder because he's
stronger, he's hitting harder because he has more mass behind his punches.
And although the muscle mass is significantly contributing to the damage,
the energy generated by the muscles isn't significantly contributing to the
damage when compared to a weaker person. It's the extra mass that's
generating more damage.
The boxing world knows this. That's why they have weight classes, not
strength classes. Boxers are not divided into classes by how much weight
they can lift, but by how much they weigh. The heavy boxers hit harder
because they have more mass behind their punches.
The power of an unarmed strike shouldn't based on Strength, it should be
based on Body.
To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"What you are doing at the moment must be exactly what
you are doing at the moment--and nothing else."
