Parry & Dodge

[Lloyd Dupont]

Why can't we both parry and dodge in the same round?

Is it because it's more "realistic" or to be able to engineer an automatic fail save/evade for a damage spell? Any other reasons?

The former reasons are not really needed, the cumulative -30% to multiple reactions is good enough in my book...

Edited July 5, 2023 by Lloyd Dupont

[SDLeary]

1 minute ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Why can't we both parry and dodge in the same round?

Is it because it's more "realistic" or to be able to game fail save/evade a damage spell? Any other reasons?

The former reasons are not really needed the cumulative -30% to multiple reactions is good enough in my book...

"Fighting Defensively" p.126. Or are you talking in general beyond this?

SDLeary

[Lloyd Dupont]

3 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

"Fighting Defensively" p.126. Or are you talking in general beyond this?

SDLeary

Page 126 "Parries and Dodge", and I quote and underline:

"Parries and Dodges
Parries and dodges cannot be combined in a round unless your character is in a completely defensive state. In this case, the –30% modifiers for successive defensive actions include both parries and dodges."

Edited July 5, 2023 by Lloyd Dupont

[SDLeary]

6 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Page 126 "Parries and Dodge", and I quote and underline:

"Parries and Dodges
Parries and dodges cannot be combined in a round unless your character is in a completely defensive state. In this case, the –30% modifiers for successive defensive actions include both parries and dodges."

Correct, and "Fighting Defensively" allows both in the same round. The question was if you were looking for both Parry and Dodge beyond this particular combat maneuver? 🤔

SDLeary

[Lloyd Dupont]

I mean I always allow multiple reaction to my player.

But this rule states that if you parry the enemy fighter, you can now longer evade the fire spell throw at you (or the dragon firebreath). I personally find it excessive and I am happy with the -30%.

I guess it's my table my rule.

But I am curious to know if some people feel strongly that indeed, once they parry an enemy fighter they can no longer evade an incoming spell. And why, if this "feeling" could be explained beyond personal preference. I get that BRP rules re really there to savagely kill everyone fighting but.. mm... I am tempering down damage in general...

Plus if one simply evade everything, which as far as I know doesn't penalize in any way (except, perhaps, one can't parry missile), then it's a win for them, making evade a bit too good an option, which should really be the weakest defence option in my book. Because it's much harder to do in real life, whereas parrying with a shield, nothing could be easier.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Lloyd Dupont

[SDLeary]

Gotcha!

In the scenario that you propose, I would say No. Reasoning here is that once your character is engaged with the Fighter, that their attention is in preventing being skewered or bashed to death. That weapon that is in front of them is much more an issue than the person in the background mumbling to themselves, waving their hands around.

Now, if that person in the background is NOT a person, but a dragon, then that is of concern! I would hope that your character would understand and Fight Defensively, though I could be persuaded to allow the character to split their attention to pay attention to both causes of concern. I would probably say that they do it though at a total -20% to both attack and parry, with a dodge malus tagged on when that is attempted.

Another option might be to allow a DEX roll to get the character out of the way (Diving to the ground, behind a rock, etc), letting the opponent in front of them take the brunt of the flaming breath.

SDLeary

PS – and just for reference, here is the further description of Fighting Defensively on p.130:

Quote

Fighting Defensively

If your character forgoes all attacks in a round to fight defensively, they can substitute one free Dodge attempt for their attack and can continue to make dodge or parry attempts. Normally, each subsequent Dodge or parry attempt is at a cumulative –30% modifier, but while fighting defensively, your character can substitute a Dodge skill attempt for an attack without incurring the –30% penalty. If they have already made Dodge attempts and parries and are at a negative modifier, the modifier does not increase. Essentially, it is a free Dodge attempt that does not incur a penalty on the next dodge or parry attempt.

The only restriction in this case is that your character cannot Dodge and parry within the same DEX rank. If your character can normally make multiple attacks per round (such as having a skill over 100%), they can make a second free Dodge or parry without incurring the cumulative penalty.

Under no circumstances can fighting defensively be combined with any attack or offensive action, even such as the Desperate Action (page 146).

 

Edited July 5, 2023 by SDLeary
clarification

[SDLeary]

HA! We are editing past each other!

Think of an Evasion as not so much a defensive maneuver. It more simply staying out of engagement distance. If the character is NOT ENGAGED, then it would be more likely that I would allow an additional "dodge" to get out of the way of the Dragon's breath.

SDLeary

[Lloyd Dupont]

I understand your argument, and it makes sense, and I am sure the player could learn to appreciate and game the fine nuance of BRP combat.

What really bothers me here is, as I mentioned in my last paragraph, it really makes Evade the single best defensive option in the game. (Perhaps it was the intention too, you have to develop a separate skill after all, and Shields, the other separate skill have their own advantage, in that light perhaps I should just call it "Defence" and be done with it)

Although, to be fair, I might already have a solution to that. As I am preparing a set of custom BRP rule (long story short, after polling my players, I have to customize the game), I was thinking to add a fatigue cost to Evade. And also add some combat perk costing fatigue. But I was thinking to add a perk to remove the fatigue cost of a simple evade, so back to square one.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Lloyd Dupont

[Lloyd Dupont]

2 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

HA! We are editing past each other!

Think of an Evasion as not so much a defensive maneuver. It more simply staying out of engagement distance. If the character is NOT ENGAGED, then it would be more likely that I would allow an additional "dodge" to get out of the way of the Dragon's breath.

SDLeary

So... using Evade could have the other disadvantage that you cannot reduce the distance, or maybe worse, always increase the distance between players?
I am not sure if it's what you suggested, but I have wondered about that sometimes...

[SDLeary]

35 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

I understand your argument, and it makes sense, and I am sure the player could learn to appreciate and game the fine nuance of BRP combat.

What really bothers me here is, as I mentioned in my last paragraph, it really makes Evade the single best defensive option in the game. (Perhaps it was the intention too, you have to develop a separate skill after all, and Shields, the other separate skill have their own advantage, in that light perhaps I should just call it "Defence" and be done with it)

Although, to be fair, I might already have a solution to that. As I am preparing a set of custom BRP rule (long story short, after polling my players, I have to customize the game), I was thinking to add a fatigue cost to Evade. And also add some combat perk costing fatigue. But I was thinking to add a perk to remove the fatigue cost of a simple evade, so back to square one.

Evade is the best defensive option, though it also means that you can't really get in there and reduce the number, or take out opponents, as its sole purpose is to keep you OUT of an engagement. Once you are engaged, you are no longer able to Evade, as your focus is now on your opponent, or opponents.

32 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

So... using Evade could have the other disadvantage that you cannot reduce the distance, or maybe worse, always increase the distance between players?
I am not sure if it's what you suggested, but I have wondered about that sometimes...

Evading is staying our of engagement (at least as defined with a concurring Dodge skill). Evade is what you use when you observe the archer targeting you, the dragon inhaling, that dude over there mumbling to himself and waving his hands around. It is what takes you out of the path of the oncoming car, allowing you to dive out of its path. Its Errol Flynn hopping on and off furniture, staying out of the reach of his opponents; once he is in reach, and he ducks, that is a dodge.

Using this, assuming skills are rolled, you can maintain and possibly increase (special, critical?) distance. I might allow an Evade for someone that is attempting to disengage, but this would be in lieu of a regular Dodge, and would not allow an attack. A Special or Critical would be needed in order to create enough distance, a regular success would indicate a simple dodge, but remaining in engagement distance.

SDLeary

[Lloyd Dupont]

3 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

Evade is the best defensive option, though it also means that you can't really get in there and reduce the number, or take out opponents, as its sole purpose is to keep you OUT of an engagement. Once you are engaged, you are no longer able to Evade, as your focus is now on your opponent, or opponents.

This makes sense.... But where is it stated within the rules as written?! 😮

[SDLeary]

1 minute ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

This makes sense.... But where is it stated within the rules as written?! 😮

Its not, so if used its a house rule, though easily imported considering the lineage of its parent game. Under BRP this would probably simply be a DEX roll, perhaps with a lower characteristic multiple depending on circumstance. 

Evade is an import from Mythras. However, in that game, there is NO Dodge. Dodging is considered part of normal footwork in combat in that game. Evade is to cover most other circumstances, and also replaces DEX rolls. As defined in Mythras:

Quote

Evade (DEX x2)

Evade is used to escape from observed, impending danger, and can be used against ranged weapons (by diving for cover, for example), avoiding traps, changing the engagement distance in combat, and generally getting out of the way of a potential physical hazard. It can also be used as a resistance roll for certain types of magic.

Further, its stated (in the chapter on Combat) that if used as a reactive action for someone in a combat area, say diving out of the way of incoming missile fire, that it often leaves the character prone, requiring that they use their next action to get up.

SDLeary

[Lloyd Dupont]

I like that. I considered it and forgot it. Now that you reminded me of it and after that whole discussion, I think this ties up all together nicely.

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Why can't we both parry and dodge in the same round?

I suspect it is because BRP was cobbled together from different games. Dodge was introduced in Strombringer where it was allowed in place of Attack & Parry, but in SB one would only dodge attacks that they couldn't or wouldn't want to parry for some reason. Plus there were limits to what attacks could be dodged (you could dodge a thrown spear you could not dodge a loosed arrow)

This rule was carried over into RQ3 where one could do two out of three of the options of attack, parry and dodge, and RQ3 did not have the multiple reactions option, so you generally got one defense a round, two if you sacrificed your attack or were wielding two weapons. 

2 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Is it because it's more "realistic" or to be able to engineer an automatic fail save/evade for a damage spell? Any other reasons?

I think it's mostly due to it being a carry over rule, but some other reasons are:

• To prevent characters from dodging and parrying the same attack (despite the fact that people do just that in a real fight).
• To prevent dodge from becoming too powerful, since when it does work, it works better than a parry as it stops all damage and there is no risk of damaging your parrying weapon.

2 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

The former reasons are not really needed, the cumulative -30% to multiple reactions is good enough in my book...

Okay, but in that case why parry when you can dodge?

With the way the BGB handles combat there is not much incentive to parry. In RQ3 parries were better against higher success levels. Shields suffer in the BGB because they aren't much better than any other parrying weapon, in fact they tend to be worse when attack & parry are rolled into one skill.

IMO I think since dodge requires more of a full body motion compared to a block or parry it probably deserves a larger multi-action penalty, say -40% vs. -30%. THat way dodge would still be available for when you need it, but parry is usually the better option, especially with multiple reactions. It a lot harder to jump out of the way of an axe than it is to stick your shield in front of you to take the blow.

 

[Lloyd Dupont]

Well.. hello Atgxtg!

I am still unsure whether I care about the only either of Dodge or Parry in a round rule. SDLeary makes a good point. But that gives free success to spell casters. Ok damaging spell are over the top expensive but still. Or people only Dodge and.. meh... Probably will not really limit options.

 

In related remark. A big part of this set of custom BRP rules I am working on is that I am redoing magic extensively. Although I am unsure what to do with big damage spells... But hey, as someone once told me, how do you damage the damn dragon otherwise?
As it is the current iteration, in the barest of draft format, will have big damage spell still exists, be cheaper (in MP) but take up a few rounds to cast. Still very much work in progress and who knows I might change it once I start the campaign! 😮 😅

 

Anyway, for now I made the following amendment to Dodge in my iteration of current custom BRP rules, I like it

Quote

 

Dodge is a very efficient skill to avoid attack. Although, it will always leave the character at an opponent's weapon range. One cannot dodge and engage with shorter weapons. Also, one cannot dodge when prone.

Also, it costs 1 FP to dodge.

 

Also I am preparing some weapon and combat perk and move that cost FP...

Never done it before, but I reckon that if sorcerer can have a MP economy to do stuff, surely it wouldn't be too hard to have an FP economy for combatants...
Although now that I think of it.. do I need to have an FP economy for all my monsters?
As a GM I might probably cheat... monsters won't live enough rounds for that to matter, nor will they do expensive FP maneuverer...

Oh and I plan to give a parry bonus to shield, on top of your skill value. But I want to think on how weapon and shield get damaged as well. A wooden shield should get damaged by a big monster attack, even when the parry succeeded.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Lloyd Dupont

[SDLeary]

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

But hey, as someone once told me, how do you damage the damn dragon otherwise?

Multiple Ballistae! All bolts enhanced with True Bolt!

SDLeary

True Bolt – Allows missile to home in on target, increases chance of successful attack by 50%

Edited July 5, 2023 by SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Well.. hello Atgxtg!

Hi

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

I am still unsure whether I care about the only either of Dodge or Parry in a round rule. SDLeary makes a good point. But that gives free success to spell casters. Ok damaging spell are over the top expensive but still. Or people only Dodge and.. meh... Probably will not really limit options.

I'm not thrilled with it either, but I did try to explain how it evolved. Basically dodge had been the cheap and easy way to avoid an attack so they had to add some sort of downside.

Realistically, I'm not so sure Dodge should exist anyway. Footwork is part of fighting. People don't just stand still and trade blows, they dodge and weave and sidestep and lunge and all that. In a real fight you both dodge and parry, often at the same time. So I really think it would be better to just include that into the normal fighting defense. For instance defending against a spell could mean putting your shield up in front of you. Maybe leaping out of the way dodging could be just a parry with a difficulty modifier for not being able to use a weapon to help with defense?

As for the evade skill? Well, if it iexists, why learn how to dodge? That's the thing with multiple overlapping skills. Either one becomes the ultimate defense skill or else they get neref to the point where they aren't worth taking. The same sort of thing happens to stat rolls as you add more skills. For instace if you don't have a balance skill then GMs can default to a DEX roll or some kind. If you have a balance skill then you don't use a DEX roll for blance, as it would undermine the balance skill. Same with Dodge and Evade vs. magical spells. 

 

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

In related remark. A big part of this set of custom BRP rules I am working on is that I am redoing magic extensively. Although I am unsure what to do with big damage spells...

I suppose it would depend on how you redo the rest of the magic. 

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

 

But hey, as someone once told me, how do you damage the damn dragon otherwise?

By target hit locations, or bypassing armor? BRP dragons, while tough, are quite killable by  a normal weapon attack. 

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

As it is the current iteration, in the barest of draft format, will have big damage spell still exists, be cheaper (in MP) but take up a few rounds to cast. Still very much work in progress and who knows I might change it once I start the campaign! 😮 😅

RQ3's cermony skill worked that way. If you had time you could boost your chance of success with cermony, but it greatly increased the casting time. Ususally it wasn't worth it when you needed to get something out fast, but if you were doing something that cost MP or permanent POW and where you had time, it was worth it for the boost.

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Anyway, for now I made the following amendment to Dodge in my iteration of current custom BRP rules, I like it

Okay, but again, why would people learn to parry if dodge does the same thing but applies against more threats?

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Also I am preparing some weapon and combat perk and move that cost FP...

Never done it before, but I reckon that if sorcerer can have a MP economy to do stuff, surely it wouldn't be too hard to have an FP economy for combatants...
Although now that I think of it.. do I need to have an FP economy for all my monsters?
As a GM I might probably cheat... monsters won't live enough rounds for that to matter, nor will they do expensive FP maneuverer...

FP= Fatigue Points? 

I think if it matter of not will depend on how fast the FP eceonm,y affect the PCs. If they can get through a short fight unaffected then moster FP won't matter. If the PCs get worn down over a fight, then it monster FP might matter a lot.

 

BTW, FP might be a way to limit/restrict dodge as it would probably take more FP than parrying.

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Oh and I plan to give a parry bonus to shield, on top of your skill value.

I once suggested making shield parry easy. It's not all that hard to duck behind a shield.

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

 

But I want to think on how weapon and shield get damaged as well. A wooden shield should get damaged by a big monster attack, even when the parry succeeded.

Well RQ3 handled that by giving weapons and shields Armor Points. When an attack exceeded the AP of the parrying object the object lost 1 AP. In RQ3 you could also do deliberate attacks to try and break a parrying weapon/shield and in such cases the parry object's AP were reduced by the amount the damage exceeded the AP. For example, if a Battle Axe did 12 against a Buckler (8 AP) the buckler would stop 8 damage and get reduced to a 7 AP buckler, with 4 points getting through to the defender. . If the axe wielder got tired of the shield being in his way, he could attack the shield in which case 12 points of damage to a 7 point buckler would chop it down to a measly 2 points.  BTW, this made shields nice because you could let your shield get chopped up instead of your weapon.

Also in RQ3 special successes left the parrying weapon unharmed by a parry, and crticals negated the damage entirely So there was a chance of deflecting a powerful blow. I recall a PC surving his first fight thanks to a critical shield parry against a critical attack. 

[g33k]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

...

Realistically, I'm not so sure Dodge should exist anyway. Footwork is part of fighting. People don't just stand still and trade blows, they dodge and weave and sidestep and lunge and all that. In a real fight you both dodge and parry, often at the same time. So I really think it would be better to just include that into the normal fighting defense ...

☝️This☝️  (unless you're standing in a phalanx or similar formation).

"Dodge" IMO is a conceptual mish-mash.  It smacks of "diving for cover" and "DEX-based saving throws" and such like.  But if you're actually  diving for cover  you likely end up prone, and unable to do much (at least, not much physical) until after you stand up again.

You likely *just* dodge vs. a thrown missile; you could try using your sword to parry, but that's a "trick" that most will find unreliable when their life is on the line.  Sure, a weaponmaster can realiably pull it off, but not the ordinary soldier.  Shield-parry, though -- yeah, that's likely vs. a thrown weapon.

So you end up with this morass of if-then-else conditional cases... weapons & shields can both parry... unless it's a missile weapon (then only shields)... unless it's a fast missile-weapon (slingstone, arrow, gunshot) then it can't be parried only "passive location" blocking... unless it's a huge missile-weapon (catapult-boulder, ballista-bolt, etc) then you're dead... unless you dive for cover.  😁

I mean, sometimes in melee you will purely block or "parry" with a weapon or shield; or purely move out of the way via "dodge."
But as @Atgxtg says, most combat is going to have a fluid & seamless mix of footwork & weaponwork, both attacking and defending.

 

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

... The same sort of thing happens to stat rolls as you add more skills. For instace if you don't have a balance skill then GMs can default to a DEX roll or some kind. If you have a balance skill then you don't use a DEX roll for blance, as it would undermine the balance skill ...

I allow varying multipliers on the stat-rolls.  If it's really the realm of a trained/learned skill, you may only be rolling Stat*3, Stat*2, Stat*1; this preserves the value of learning those skills!  If it's really a "raw talent" thing that isn't trained/practiced, then Stat*5 (or more!  Stat*6, Stat*7) to maximize the raw-talent effect.

"What madness is this?!" you ask?  "Stat*6, Stat*7... blasphemy!!" you cry.
If you permit skills to go over 100%, there's no reason not to also allow "raw talent" Stat*N rolls to do so (plus, non-humans and/or magical/techno augments often get such stats available).

 

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, g33k said:

But as @Atgxtg says, most combat is going to have a fluid & seamless mix of footwork & weaponwork, both attacking and defending.

When we were younger and messed around with shinai I found out that it was pretty easy to sidetep or backpedal out of reach from most attacks. Of course we were pulling out blows so the attacks were slowed, and didn't thrust as the shinai didn't collapse on a thrust, so it was easier than it would have been in a real fight, but even so it was mostly step away from the attack while parrying. It was only when somebody tried something fancy that we stood our ground or stepped into an attack. 

4 hours ago, g33k said:

I allow varying multipliers on the stat-rolls.  If it's really the realm of a trained/learned skill, you may only be rolling Stat*3, Stat*2, Stat*1; this preserves the value of learning those skills! 

I mostly just assume that into the base skill percentage. Most skills in BRP, especially with category modifiers, start off better than Stat x1%. 

4 hours ago, g33k said:

If it's really a "raw talent" thing that isn't trained/practiced, then Stat*5 (or more!  Stat*6, Stat*7) to maximize the raw-talent effect.

I think I might have failed to make my point. What I was trying to show was that attribute rlls tend to get used less as you add more skills as the skills tend to cover what the attribute rolls did. For isntace adding skills like Balance Dodge, Evade and Tumble reduce the use of DEX rolls for agility based tasks. 

4 hours ago, g33k said:

"What madness is this?!" you ask?  "Stat*6, Stat*7... blasphemy!!" you cry.

Not me. I's an RQ3 fan where stat multipliers went as high as x10. For example, rolls to avoid asphyxiation started at  CON x10.

4 hours ago, g33k said:

If you permit skills to go over 100%, there's no reason not to also allow "raw talent" Stat*N rolls to do so (plus, non-humans and/or magical/techno augments often get such stats available).

Oh there is a reason not to allow raw talent to rolls to do so, namely that raw talents never reach the same level of competence as a trained professional.  Raw Talent is only going to take a person so far. But I would allow Stat multiplier to go above x5 if  the circumstances warranted it. 

[SDLeary]

Dodge was really designed to allow Thieves (dnd style) to exist in RQ3, and give them something of a chance. 

Today, I might still allow Dodge, but it would be more along the lines of things that were house ruled into existence in the early 2Ks, modified a bit more. 

Dodge – Generally only used by those who have no other option. They are unarmed or underarmed, fighting against or simply trying to not be killed by armed opponent(s). Chance to Dodge is equal to DEX x5. If fighting multiple opponents, it is not diminished, but used equally against all. While Dodging, the character may not attack. Being encumbered reduces chance (1/2 enc as penalty?). Results as follows:

• Critical – You have managed to get out of the way completely, avoided all damage, and placed yourself in an extremely superior position. You may either disengage completely all current opponents, or if you choose, make an attack (riposte) at +20% immediately
• Special – You have avoided the blow from your current opponent completely.
• Normal – Avoided the blow, mostly. Damage reduced to weapon add.
• Failure – You've been hit, but managed to turn at just the right moment, only take 1/2 damage
• Fumble – You've taken the full brunt of the blow

Sounds generous, but in reality, being able to dodge through a normal BRP combat is unrealistic. If the player can roll the dice that way, then the character was fated to make it out. 

If I'm allowing this in a hyper-real setting, then I might still be convinced to allow it, but eliminate the listed result for Critical, and shift all remaining results up one success level; or perhaps reduce the DEX multiple to x4 or x3, or some such.

SDLeary

Edited July 6, 2023 by SDLeary

[Lloyd Dupont]

15 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

By target hit locations, or bypassing armor

How do they do that with BRP?

Granted I also do Mythras. But this time my players have expressed their desire to go my custom BRP which will introduce only minimal custom effect. i.e. almost no ByPass armor. Anyway, I just checked. Dragon have only 12AP. I guess it's doable...

[Lloyd Dupont]

15 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

FP= Fatigue Points? 

yes

 

15 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Well RQ3 handled that by giving weapons and shields Armor Points. When an attack exceeded the AP of the parrying object the object lost 1 AP. In RQ3 you could also do deliberate attacks to try and break a parrying weapon/shield and in such cases the parry object's AP were reduced by the amount the damage exceeded the AP. For example, if a Battle Axe did 12 against a Buckler (8 AP) the buckler would stop 8 damage and get reduced to a 7 AP buckler, with 4 points getting through to the defender. . If the axe wielder got tired of the shield being in his way, he could attack the shield in which case 12 points of damage to a 7 point buckler would chop it down to a measly 2 points.  BTW, this made shields nice because you could let your shield get chopped up instead of your weapon.

Also in RQ3 special successes left the parrying weapon unharmed by a parry, and crticals negated the damage entirely So there was a chance of deflecting a powerful blow. I recall a PC surving his first fight thanks to a critical shield parry against a critical attack. 

awesome

6 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Dodge – Generally only used by those who have no other option. They are unarmed or underarmed, fighting against or simply trying to not be killed by armed opponent(s). Chance to Dodge is equal to DEX x5. If fighting multiple opponents, it is not diminished, but used equally against all. While Dodging, the character may not attack. Being encumbered reduces chance (1/2 enc as penalty?). Results as follows:

interesting

[Lloyd Dupont]

Added more addendum to my dodge rule which I kind of forgot about, but they just came back. I think... it might make dodge an ok skill, after all the overall negative comments, could it?

Quote

Dodge is a very efficient skill to avoid attack. Although, it will always leave the character at the opponent’s weapon range, i.e. one cannot dodge and engage with shorter weapons. Dodging when prone is Difficult – i.e. skill % / 2.

Also dodging move the character 1 square on the map (assuming that squares at 5 feet / 1.5m~2m aside). One cannot dodge without a free square.

Also, it costs 1 FP to dodge.

I know, I know, realistically one does not move a square / 5 feet when dodging. But also realistically, one cannot really dodge when in the thick of the melee.

Edited July 6, 2023 by Lloyd Dupont

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Added more addendum to my dodge rule which I kind of forgot about, but they just came back. I think... it might make dodge an ok skill, after all the overall negative comments, could it?

The thing, game design wise, is how do the verious skills balance off against each other, and are you happy with that balance. If one defensive option becomes clearly superior to the others then it will get used much more than the others. 

3 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

I know, I know, realistically one does not move a square / 5 feet when dodging. But also realistically, one cannot really dodge when in the thick of the melee.

Actually it is quite realistic to dodge in the thick of melee. Melee isn't two people just standing within 5 feet of each other trading blows. There is a lot more movement. Generally you fight outside of weapon range and then try to step in and strike without the opponent striking you first. There is a lot of dodging because you are often fighting at just the right distance where moving a foot or two can get out out of reach. 

One of the things I like about the UY RPG is that there is a lot of movement. For instance when the attacker and defender tie the defender can retreat to win the tie. 

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

How do they do that with BRP?

For targeting specific hit locations: I'd have to check the BGB, but most version of the game with hit locations have one or more rules where you can target a specific location. RQ had one rule where you attacked at the end of the round and if you rolled under half skill you hit the desired location. If succeeded but rolled over half skill you hit a random location as normal. RQ also had an alternative where for every SR you delayed your attack you got to shift the rolled hit location by one. Thus is you were supposed to attack on SR 7 but waited until SR 10, and then rolled a 12 for hit location you could hit anywhere from 9-15 (abdomen, chest and right arm). 

Oh, and Flashing Blades (a non BRP game) had you pick a desired hit location roll the D20 twice, and hit whichever location you rolled that was closer to the one you wanted. It was very simple and elegant and could be ported right over to BRP.

For Bypassing armor: Most versions of BRP, including the BGB have weapons bypassing armor (other than parry armor)on a critical hit. 

 

So a human in BRP can indeed kill a dragon without needed big damage spells by targeting head or forequarters and getting a crtical (even a special might do it with the right weapons). Big damage spells help, but they aren't necessary. That's kinda why most BRP game never had big damage spells the way d20 games do. 

 

4 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Granted I also do Mythras. But this time my players have expressed their desire to go my custom BRP which will introduce only minimal custom effect. i.e. almost no ByPass armor. Anyway, I just checked. Dragon have only 12AP. I guess it's doable...

Easily doable with an impaling weapon. They were doable in RQ3 where they had 25 AP. I saw it happen in a game. An arrow that does 1D8+1 averages 11 on a impale and does 18 through armor on a critical. A lance that does 1D10+1 would do 13+horse db on a special and 22+horse db through armor on a critical. You can easily see why knights got the rep for slaying dragons. The lance charge is probably the best way to drop a dragon without magic or firearms. And that's without minor magics like speedart, bladesharp and such, which do help quite a bit. 

The hard part is lasting long enough to get that good hit in, and then surviving it's "death throes" as it usually takes a few rounds before mortally wounded dragon becomes dead dragon.