Dodge

[Trifletraxor]

So how do you like your dodge sirs and madams?

Equal level or better dodge is needed to avoid an attack (the old RQ3 way)

Difference in success levels determine the outcome (successfull dodge against special attack results in damage equal to a normal attack - old RQ3 houserule)

OR something else?

SGL.

[Trifletraxor]

Critical dodge giving a free attack and fumbled dodge increasing attackers success level by one (e.g. failure->success)

or,

Success level of dodge 2+ higher than attack gives free attack and fumbles as above?

Do you use any penalties for encumbrance?

SGL.

[RosenMcStern]

The second option (the current BRP rule). The RQ3 way discourages dodging too much.

[Chaot]

Equal Success level, the action goes to the Dodger. They fully avoid the blow, they evade, or they close, situation demanding. If the Attacker gets a higher success level, full effect for the Attacker. This holds unless they're both a Failed roll. Then the situation is static.

[Trifletraxor]

The second option (the current BRP rule). The RQ3 way discourages dodging too much.

I agree with that, but on the other side I think the second one favour it too much (at least if one still uses the old AP rules). Then it's better than parrying.

Equal Success level, the action goes to the Dodger. They fully avoid the blow, they evade, or they close, situation demanding. If the Attacker gets a higher success level, full effect for the Attacker. This holds unless they're both a Failed roll. Then the situation is static.

That's the RQ3 way. I'm my group dodge ended up being used whenever they knew the damage from the attack would be so great that a normal parry wouldn't be enough to save them, but otherwise no-one deared to dodge in fear of specials.

So far I'm here:

"Dodge: A defensive combat skill used for “avoiding attacks by moving or shifting quickly out of the way”. A normal success dodge avoids all the damage from a normal success attack, and halves any damage getting through armor and protective spells from specials and criticals (rolling with the blow). A special dodge also avoids all the damage from special attacks, and halves the damage getting through from critical attacks. A critical dodge avoids all damage from the attack, and also gives the dodger a free attack (costing no combat actions) against his opponent. A fumbled dodge leads to an automatic hit even if the attacker failed, as the dodger basically walks into the attack."

Halving the damage getting through instead of decreasing the attack one level sort of helps a bit in not making it too powerful. I'm still looking for a way to penalize characters using heavy armor while attempting this skill. Any thoughts? I've always found dodge a bit troubling game mechanic wise.

SGL.

[RosenMcStern]

The current trend (our houserules and MRQ2) is to penalize attacks in the round you Dodge. This way, you will resort to Parry in all situations except the ones when the GM declares the attack is too powerful to be parried. Again, MRQ2 is superior in this because it provides a rule for this and not only GM judgement.

Armor already has a fixed penalty listed for Dodge, so the old Encumbrance rules are obsolete. They required too much bookkeping.

[Trifletraxor]

The current trend (our houserules and MRQ2) is to penalize attacks in the round you Dodge. This way, you will resort to Parry in all situations except the ones when the GM declares the attack is too powerful to be parried. Again, MRQ2 is superior in this because it provides a rule for this and not only GM judgement.

I haven't read MRQ2 yet (planning to get my copy at Continuum), but I'd say it would need to provide a superior rule to be superior. With what you describe, where basically back to RQ3, at least in function.

Armor already has a fixed penalty listed for Dodge, so the old Encumbrance rules are obsolete. They required too much bookkeping.

I'll agree that the old encumbrance rules are obsolete. Maybe fixed penalty is the way to go.

SGL.

[frogspawner]

So how do you like your dodge sirs and madams? ...OR something else?

My way is definitely "something else":

Normal Dodge avoids 10 damage, Special 20, Critical All. (No fumble effect - but also no extra-attacks or anything. Keep It Simple.)

I also allow Dodge in addition to Parry, even of the same blow. (Hence avoiding the 'which is better?' problem.)

The trouble with halving damage is it means Dodge isn't that great for the unarmoured (or lightly armoured).

[RosenMcStern]

The trouble with halving damage is it means Dodge isn't that great for the unarmoured (or lightly armoured).

Not only that, it is that dodging Fast Nimble Halflling stabbing with Dagger is more effective than dodging Slow Clumsy Troll telegraphing blow with Maul. Why?

The rule in MRQ2 is, well, get the book and read it. It is the best compromise I have seen so far. And I have played with all sort of variations.

[deleriad]

I'm not sure that the MRQ2 version of dodge would work under BRP because the drawback is based around combat actions *and* it is the only part of MRQ combat which is a pure opposed roll: in MRQ dodge is all or nothing. In BRP, dodge has always felt uncomfortable to me. In MRQ it's more of a combination of a manoeuvre skill and a throw yourself to the floor skill.

[Trifletraxor]

My way is definitely "something else":

Normal Dodge avoids 10 damage, Special 20, Critical All. (No fumble effect - but also no extra-attacks or anything. Keep It Simple.)

I also allow Dodge in addition to Parry, even of the same blow. (Hence avoiding the 'which is better?' problem.)

Simple is good, but it's also pretty similar to a shield parry. I also allow dodge and parry, even against the same attack. I like that option.

The trouble with halving damage is it means Dodge isn't that great for the unarmoured (or lightly armoured).

Halving damage getting through disfavours the armoured the way I play out specials, compared to the "shift success level of attack one down". I have all specials doing double dice damage (e.g. a sword doing 1d8 damage does 2d8 upon a special). Say if the dodger has a 5 point ringmail and makes a normal success dodge against a special sword attack (using the above sword), he'll take 1d8-5 damage with the current BRP method, and (2d8-5)/2 with the halving method, with the halving method increasing his chance of taking damage. Of course, with the old RQ3 method, the dodger will soak lots of more damage, 2d8-5, but that makes dodge sort of useless against anything but the most powerful attacks.

Not only that, it is that dodging Fast Nimble Halflling stabbing with Dagger is more effective than dodging Slow Clumsy Troll telegraphing blow with Maul. Why?

I don't see how this is so. Could you explain more clearer?

The rule in MRQ2 is, well, get the book and read it. It is the best compromise I have seen so far. And I have played with all sort of variations.

I'll certainly get it, but I'm waiting for Continuum so I can get it signed by the authors! However, I don't really see what the MRQ2 dodge rule adds if it's still only good against the most powerfull attacks. As I said, that's how we allways used it in RQ3.

SGL.

[RosenMcStern]

I don't see how this is so. Could you explain more clearer?

If you give an amount of damage that a Dodge can avoid, then it will stop fast but weak attacks but not very heavy, but slow, attacks. It should be the other way round.

I'll certainly get it, but I'm waiting for Continuum so I can get it signed by the authors! However, I don't really see what the MRQ2 dodge rule adds if it's still only good against the most powerfull attacks. As I said, that's how we allways used it in RQ3.

I was not referring to the Dodge rule in MRQ2, but to the parry rule. So far, it is the best compromise i have seen on the subject, as it separates the damaging ability and damage resistance of weapons from their ability to block blows, yet it allows big weapons to deal some damage through parries.

[Trifletraxor]

If you give an amount of damage that a Dodge can avoid, then it will stop fast but weak attacks but not very heavy, but slow, attacks. It should be the other way round.

Okay, you were referring to frowspawner's hourserule, not mine. My mistake.

I was not referring to the Dodge rule in MRQ2, but to the parry rule. So far, it is the best compromise i have seen on the subject, as it separates the damaging ability and damage resistance of weapons from their ability to block blows, yet it allows big weapons to deal some damage through parries.

Hmm... Looking forward to it then!

SGL.

[frogspawner]

If you give an amount of damage that a Dodge can avoid, then it will stop fast but weak attacks but not very heavy, but slow, attacks. It should be the other way round.

Dodge reducing damage by a fixed amount is fine. Fast attacks aren't necessarily weak, and slow ones aren't necessarily heavy - that's just your assumption. There's no connection with attack-speed in that rule. Larger weapons may be harder to dodge due to longer reach...

Okay, you were referring to frowspawner's hourserule, not mine. My mistake.

Not your mistake, that was Rosen's implication ("Not only that..." referring to your "halving damage"). But I missed that too until now.

I have all specials doing double dice damage (e.g. a sword doing 1d8 damage does 2d8 upon a special).

Well, fancy that! Me too!

Halving damage getting through disfavours the armoured....

Ah - "through"! Now that may help - but I'm not sure even that really 'disfavours the armoured'. This exceeds the capacity of my poor brain...

[RosenMcStern]

Dodge reducing damage by a fixed amount is fine.

Please provide an example of a game system outside your house rules that uses this method.

Fast attacks aren't necessarily weak, and slow ones aren't necessarily heavy - that's just your assumption. There's no connection with attack-speed in that rule. Larger weapons may be harder to dodge due to longer reach..

They are not necessarily slow because they are heavy, but if they are slow (and with swung melee weapons they usually are), your houserule creates unrealism. As with the old parry rule, you are arbitrarily relating damage done to difficulty of avoiding the attack. The actual factors involved in this are others. Not that other systems model everything perfectly, but using damage as a measure is one of the worst ways of modeling this.

Edited March 30, 2010 by RosenMcStern

[frogspawner]

Please provide an example of a game system outside your house rules that uses [Dodge reducing damage by 10].

I can't think of any, but there's no need. We shouldn't reject a rule just because no-one's used it before - nothing new would ever be invented!

They are not necessarily slow because they are heavy, but if they are slow (and with swung melee weapons they usually are), your houserule creates unrealism. As with the old parry rule, you are arbitrarily relating damage done to difficulty of avoiding the attack. The actual factors involved in this are others. Not that other systems model everything perfectly, but using damage as a measure is one of the worst ways of modeling this.

Damage is the measure of a blow's effectiveness - whether from strength or skill (via special/critical) or whatever. So I see no problem with also using Damage to measure the counter-effectiveness of Dodging. In fact, it's neat.

[Atgxtg]

I can't think of any, but there's no need. We shouldn't reject a rule just because no-one's used it before - nothing new would ever be invented!

TRue, but that doesn't jusify your claim that "Dodge reducing damage by a fixed amount is fine."

One thing that I think isn't fine about it is that a fixed amount makes dodging more efective against rapiers than great axes, as the latter do more damage.

Damage is the measure of a blow's effectiveness - whether from strength or skill (via special/critical) or whatever. So I see no problem with also using Damage to measure the counter-effectiveness of Dodging. In fact, it's neat.

In fact it's counterproductive. Big nasties ike trolls and dragons becvome undoagable due to thier high damge dice. The biggest factorin how effective an attack is should be placement. But since in BRP THE Major factor is the weapon being used, a fixed mount dodge just makes dodging more effective againt ligher weapons.

[Trifletraxor]

Fast attacks aren't necessarily weak, and slow ones aren't necessarily heavy - that's just your assumption. There's no connection with attack-speed in that rule. Larger weapons may be harder to dodge due to longer reach...

Dodging a halfling with a knife might be easier than dodging the trollmaul due to the reach, I can see that, though the rapier/greataxe objection has some merit too.

Well, fancy that! Me too!

Nice and easy. The different weapon categories all some different "effects", but I'm happy with the default "impale" special for all weapons.

Ah - "through"! Now that may help - but I'm not sure even that really 'disfavours the armoured'. This exceeds the capacity of my poor brain...

It increases the chance of damage from a special actually getting through armor as compared with the default BRP dodge. I am however thinking about reverting to something more similar to the default and then just up the penalty for using armor. With the fatigue system I'm working at armor ENC is just a bit higher than the average AP of the armor worn, so maybe armor ENC x5% as a penalty. That would make dodge effective, but somewhat reserved for those lightly armored.

SGL.

[frogspawner]

...doesn't jusify your claim that "Dodge reducing damage by a fixed amount is fine."

It's fine by me! :-) It's a workable, not-too-unrealistic rule - to me. I'm not insisting anyone else use it, just suggesting it, as requested.

One thing that I think isn't fine about it is that a fixed amount makes dodging more efective against rapiers than great axes, as the latter do more damage.

If a rapier hasn't done as much damage, it hasn't been as effective. A great axe has greater reach and sweeps through a greater area, so it should be harder to dodge, one could argue...

In fact it's counterproductive. Big nasties ike trolls and dragons becvome undoagable due to thier high damge dice...

Against such Big Nasties you'd be daft to rely on just Dodge... or just Parry.. or just Armour... you'd better have all three!

[Aelwyn]

I like the BRP way of matching effectiveness of dodge against effectiveness of attack, but I've got a question. Is there any reason for a player to choose Shield skill over Dodge? In the rules, shields are clearly superior to weapon parries in some very reasonable instances (mostly it's easier to parry thrown and missile weapons with a shield). But I can't find one advantage in having a shield rather than simply dodging. (Okay, there's one--if you get a critical or special parry with a shield, you damage the attacker's weapon--but not very much.) There should be some other benefit to carrying a shield.

Anybody have a good nerf for this? Or did I miss something in the rules? I'm thinking a successful shield parry turns aside even Critical and Special attacks--but maybe the shield takes damage in those cases.

I do like Dodge better than the old RQ2 Defense skill--which I always forgot to subtract from the attack percentage.

[pansophy]

I think it is just a matter of taste and how you want a character to be. In most cases you can also simply parry with your attacking weapon as long as you do not use the split attack/parry option.

It just looks like flavour to me ...

[Athanor]

You don' have ENC and armor penalties with parry. For the shield, I used the "slung shield" option which is in my opinion the reason why shields are generally ways superior to weapons for parrying (even if the parry is unsuccessful, it still protects some areas).

[Nightshade]

The problem with your argument, Frogspawner, is that BRP pretty much does connect damage with force (albiet not 100%); its not a system that assumes damage is primarily about effectiveness, or there'd both be more connection between skill and damage than there is, and armor would probably work differently than it does (coverage would be as or more important than things like material and thickness).

[frogspawner]

If a rapier hasn't done as much damage, it hasn't been as effective. A great axe has greater reach and sweeps through a greater area, so it should be harder to dodge, one could argue...

The problem with your argument, Frogspawner, is that BRP pretty much does connect damage with force (albiet not 100%); its not a system that assumes damage is primarily about effectiveness...

Any difference between force and effectiveness is too fine a distinction to worry about.

[Nightshade]

Any difference between force and effectiveness is too fine a distinction to worry about.

Kind of think in a system that has armor absorb damage, it is. There are all kinds of effective attacks (in that they have a fair chance to disable someone under the right circumstances) that are generally crappy at penetrating armor; a fencing sword is not particularly easy to dodge, but its hardly high damage, for example.