Topic: Dodging and Shields

[Grimsouled]

I see in the rules (Section 9.6) that it explicitly states that passive Dodge and passive Shield cannot be combined. However, it expressly states 'passive'. Does that mean you can use the passive portion of one when you do a Partial or Full of the other? Thanks.

[Hurin]

I believe according to the RAW, yes.

Personally, I have just taken passives out of my game altogether, not just because of complications like these, but also because they muddy the waters of what exactly is happening with active/passive defenses. But that's just me.

[nash]

I think literally you are correct.  I think that may be an error (or at least poorly written).   It seems weird you can do a full shield block and get a passive running.  Or even weirder, as written you can do a partial dodge and a partial block.

[rdanhenry]

I think literally you are correct.  I think that may be an error (or at least poorly written).   It seems weird you can do a full shield block and get a passive running.  Or even weirder, as written you can do a partial dodge and a partial block.

Pretty sure I've seen Captain America do that.

[nash]

I think literally you are correct.  I think that may be an error (or at least poorly written).   It seems weird you can do a full shield block and get a passive running.  Or even weirder, as written you can do a partial dodge and a partial block.

Pretty sure I've seen Captain America do that.

So FWIW in my games... you pick one of the 6 options.  [Passive | Partial | Full] [Dodge | Block].  As I said; I suspect this is the intent of the rules.

However some of the weird combinations may be a useful here.  Say you have 10 ranks in both running and shield and say a +50 bonus to both.  (Totally random numbers).  You are holding a wall shield which blocks 4 attack at +30 (ignoring the multiple shield roll).

So normal rules would say you get 50 for full dodge, and 80 for full shield (4 attacks) for 4 AP.

Lets try partial dodge + partial block.   First 4 attacks are +80 (50/2 + 50/2 + 30).  Same as above.  Next attack is at +25 (partial dodge), with no shield bonus.  Normally you'd be 4 at 80, and then the rest at 0.    Dodge would be +50 on all attacks.  For 5 attacks that would mean 250 DB (dodge total) vs 320 DB (shield total) vs 345 DB (shield + dodge hackery).

[jdale]

There's nothing prohibiting passive dodge + partial/full block, or passive block + partial/full dodge. Perhaps there should have been? But I think of passive dodge/block as just being a type of complementary skill for combat (thus adding your ranks), in that sense adding a complementary skill to an action is reasonable.

In practice, most characters who rely on Dodge will not have shields, so they can't passive block. And characters who rely on shields have less reason to minimize their encumbrance, so their passive dodge may amount to nothing (since it is penalized by your encumbrance/armor penalties). It could certainly boost a character who relies on light armor (or no armor), maybe with a buckler, when they decide to go heavily defensive?

Passive dodge is also still limited to applying against a limited number of attacks, and you need to make a maneuver roll if that number is > 1.

[Hurin]

Lets try partial dodge + partial block.   First 4 attacks are +80 (50/2 + 50/2 + 30).   

Actually I think first 4 attacks are at +65 (50/2 + 80/2).

Aside from that, one issue for me is I don't like that Dodging applies to all attacks, whereas Shield blocking applies only to a certain number of attacks (1-4 depending on Shield size) and Shield also requires a skill check on top. That seems to be a bit harsh on Shield. And no character should be able to actively Dodge 20 attacks at once, since you simply can't track 20 objects simultaneously (I see this sort of active Dodging as actively tracking and avoiding, which is different than just moving randomly to get a little DB bonus, which I consider to be covered already by passive Dodging).

So to be fair, I houserule it so that active Dodging works by the same mechanic as Shield blocking: you have to apply it to specific attacks (maximum 4); and to apply your active bonus to more than one attack per turn, you have to make a Running skill check.

[pastaav]

I think the reason the rule wording became passive Dodge + passive Block instead of Dodge and Block does not mix is that in the beta numerous groups report, including mine, it was exactly the combination of passive use for no AP cost  that was exploited. None in my group attempted the passive Dodge with partial Block.

As for the rest of the dicussion. Partial dodge + partial block require double concentration...something that can only be combined with creep movement and no other action. Is it given that that melee participation is allowed in "only movement is allowed"?

Can a character concentrate on a spell, do partial dodge, move creep and declare a 4 AP attack (that is reduced -50 due to concentration)?

The start question in this thread about making combinations of passive and partial and that seem more clear cut. In my game I would not allow simultaneous dodge and block.

[Grimsouled]

In practice, most characters who rely on Dodge will not have shields, so they can't passive block. And characters who rely on shields have less reason to minimize their encumbrance, so their passive dodge may amount to nothing (since it is penalized by your encumbrance/armor penalties). It could certainly boost a character who relies on light armor (or no armor), maybe with a buckler, when they decide to go heavily defensive?

Actually this was the exact situation that came up. The lightly armored guy who relies on dodge was trying to cross a field with archers on the other side and wondered about using a shield to hide behind while crosssing.

[Hurin]

Can a character concentrate on a spell, do partial dodge, move creep and declare a 4 AP attack (that is reduced -50 due to concentration)?

Concentration doubles the cost of all actions, so a 4 AP attack would cost 8 if under concentration (and you can't do any actions with double concentration iirc).

But difficulties in negotiating all this is the reason why I changed the cost of Partial Block and Partial Dodge to '2 AP' rather than 'C'.

[jdale]

Aside from that, one issue for me is I don't like that Dodging applies to all attacks, whereas Shield blocking applies only to a certain number of attacks (1-4 depending on Shield size) and Shield also requires a skill check on top. That seems to be a bit harsh on Shield. And no character should be able to actively Dodge 20 attacks at once, since you simply can't track 20 objects simultaneously (I see this sort of active Dodging as actively tracking and avoiding, which is different than just moving randomly to get a little DB bonus, which I consider to be covered already by passive Dodging).

So to be fair, I houserule it so that active Dodging works by the same mechanic as Shield blocking: you have to apply it to specific attacks (maximum 4); and to apply your active bonus to more than one attack per turn, you have to make a Running skill check.

They aren't equal, though, even after you do all that, because the shield gets a base shield DB bonus. Trying to bring Dodging down to match Blocking just shifts which one is better in favor of Blocking.

[jdale]

In practice, most characters who rely on Dodge will not have shields, so they can't passive block. And characters who rely on shields have less reason to minimize their encumbrance, so their passive dodge may amount to nothing (since it is penalized by your encumbrance/armor penalties). It could certainly boost a character who relies on light armor (or no armor), maybe with a buckler, when they decide to go heavily defensive?

Actually this was the exact situation that came up. The lightly armored guy who relies on dodge was trying to cross a field with archers on the other side and wondered about using a shield to hide behind while crosssing.

That seems like a perfectly reasonable usage to me. In practice it's going to be a pretty niche application but this seems like a case where the character should be able to benefit.

[rdanhenry]

Aside from that, one issue for me is I don't like that Dodging applies to all attacks, whereas Shield blocking applies only to a certain number of attacks (1-4 depending on Shield size) and Shield also requires a skill check on top. That seems to be a bit harsh on Shield. And no character should be able to actively Dodge 20 attacks at once, since you simply can't track 20 objects simultaneously (I see this sort of active Dodging as actively tracking and avoiding, which is different than just moving randomly to get a little DB bonus, which I consider to be covered already by passive Dodging).

So to be fair, I houserule it so that active Dodging works by the same mechanic as Shield blocking: you have to apply it to specific attacks (maximum 4); and to apply your active bonus to more than one attack per turn, you have to make a Running skill check.

They aren't equal, though, even after you do all that, because the shield gets a base shield DB bonus. Trying to bring Dodging down to match Blocking just shifts which one is better in favor of Blocking.

So, the one that needs a piece of equipment is better? Equipment that was a standard piece of military gear across a broad variety of cultures? The method that requires occupying a hand that could otherwise wield a two-handed weapon or be free for spellcasting is better? That sounds both balanced and simulationist-pleasing.

[Hurin]

Just to further emphasize RDan's point, I would say that while the base shield bonus is nice, it quite soon starts to pale in comparison to Dodge's ability to apply to multiple attacks from all directions with no prerequisites (such as holding a specific physical object in the hand) and no skill checks.

A low level character trying to use a Normal shield does get a +20 bonus over a character trying to Dodge, but that Shield only applies to the frontal arc and only to a maximum of two attacks, and the character even needs to make a check to apply the bonus to the second attack.

Compare to the Dodger. The Dodger already gets at least one rank (possibly 2) in Dodging from Culture, which starts to close the gap created by the base shield DB bonus. The bonus she gets applies to all directions, and an infinite number of attacks. That alone often gives the advantage to the Dodger.

And then as you rank up in levels, the discrepancy really starts to favor the Dodger. At 10 ranks, would you rather have a +70 Shield bonus that requires you to have a hand free, to be carrying a physical shield, and further only applies to a maximum of two attacks, which must be through your frontal Arc? Or would you rather have a +53 or +56 Dodge bonus that does not require you to have a free hand or physical shield, and which applies to an infinite number of attacks, even rear attacks?

Now ask the question again at 20 ranks, where the question is a very conditional +100 bonus vs a maximum of 2 attacks or a very unconditional +82 or +84 bonus that applies infinitely and in all directions? The choice is pretty clear... and especially so if you are the party tank who often has to face off against multple enemies, many of whom can multiattack.

I do see a significant disrepancy there, and there is also the further issue of divergent mechanics. I would prefer if active blocking, whether via Shield or Dodge, worked according to the same mechanic: to get an active bonus, you need to see the attack coming and be able to block or dodge it.

[pastaav]

Can a character concentrate on a spell, do partial dodge, move creep and declare a 4 AP attack (that is reduced -50 due to concentration)?

Concentration doubles the cost of all actions, so a 4 AP attack would cost 8 if under concentration (and you can't do any actions with double concentration iirc).

I agree the rule says no other action is allowed, but the real question that I am after, is if the rule has an implicit cost of 4 AP for double concentation, or if the rule implicity says double concentration takes infinite number of AP.

The former interpretation means having extra AP is useful while doing double concentration and I think there are good arguments for why this is good thing. Allowing high AP characters to combination of actions is hardly game breaking and I think it is fun.

But difficulties in negotiating all this is the reason why I changed the cost of Partial Block and Partial Dodge to '2 AP' rather than 'C'.

I don't really see the need for changing Partial Dodge/Block to 2 AP. Only needing 6 AP to make a no penalty attack together with Partial Dodge/Block instead of 8 AP is also a pretty large change.

Interpretating double concentration as 4AP action solves all the issues as far as I can see.

[pastaav]

Passive dodge is also still limited to applying against a limited number of attacks, and you need to make a maneuver roll if that number is > 1.

Is this really a rule in the book?

[Hurin]

I agree the rule says no other action is allowed, but the real question that I am after, is if the rule has an implicit cost of 4 AP for double concentation, or if the rule implicity says double concentration takes infinite number of AP.

I believe the rule is the latter: no other action is possible with double concentration. See p. 152 under Concentration:

"A combatant can concentrate on two things at once (double concentration), however this requires a Mental Focus maneuver every round. No other action can be made aside from movement at a Creep pace (x1/2 BMR) which requires a maneuver roll. A movement maneuver Failure means concentration is broken for both things."

So, this is why I have also changed partial block/dodge to cost 2 AP rather than concentration. If you don't do that, then the cost of partial block/dodge varies a lot, and paradoxically gets higher the faster your character moves (i.e. the more AP they have to spend). Thus if you have 6 AP to spend, the effective cost of a partial block/dodge is 3 AP, because the Concentration doubles the cost of all other actions; but if you have 8 AP to spend, the effective cost of a partial block/dodge is 4 AP, for the same reason.

However, if you redefine the cost of partial block/dodge to a flat 2 AP, the cost never varies.

[jdale]

Is this really a rule in the book?

Sorry, no, I meant passive block, not dodge.

Regarding double concentration (e.g., partial dodge + partial block), it does take your entire round and require a mental focus maneuver. You don't gain any benefit from having extra AP. If you have 8 AP, you'd actually be better off with a partial + a full. But that's not an option if you have less than 8 AP.

[nash]

Is this really a rule in the book?

Sorry, no, I meant passive block, not dodge.

Regarding double concentration (e.g., partial dodge + partial block), it does take your entire round and require a mental focus maneuver. You don't gain any benefit from having extra AP. If you have 8 AP, you'd actually be better off with a partial + a full. But that's not an option if you have less than 8 AP.

If you have 8 AP, couldn't you do a full block and a full dodge?

Of course I want to ask how the heck you got 8 AP....

[pastaav]

Of course I want to ask how the heck you got 8 AP....

Adrenal Speed use combined with the haste spell.