Forums of the Megaverse®

Ok, how many attacks can someone with an atododge attempt to dodge in one action?
In the book it says specifically that that a parry can only be used against 3 attacks, any more can not be parryed.
Now since these two actions work essentially the same, so should I restrict the atododge in the same way? How do you handle this?

I allow A seperate AutoDodge to be used unlimited times, remember A Roll with Impact uses an action. So area effect becomed very very useful when facing nimble enemies.

Also certain characters, enhanced speed powers, Juicers and Crazies and other mad fast types should, in my opinion be able to Autoparry as many attacks that come at them a melee round.

Snow Hawk wrote:Ok, how many attacks can someone with an atododge attempt to dodge in one action?
In the book it says specifically that that a parry can only be used against 3 attacks, any more can not be parryed.
Now since these two actions work essentially the same, so should I restrict the atododge in the same way? How do you handle this?

Autododge does not work quite like an Autoparry. Or rather, it works only like the auto part of the autoparry, just as a dodge. a DODGE can explictly be aginst any number of attakers in a round. a Parry can only be aginst up to 3 different opponents. Dodges and Autododges do not have this limitation.

Yes, this means a juicer can attempt to dodge 100 people all firing at him at once.

No, that dosn't mean it'll work--Some of those people are going to roll high enough to hit, or just roll natural 20's.

But this is ALSO why only bonuses to Autododge and PP apply to dodge, while Automatic parry gets any number of bonuses to parry. Autododge is intended to be FAR more powerful, and so it gets lower bonuses as a limit, so while you CAN try to dodge dozens of people at once, it's very very unlikely to save you in the end.

Snow Hawk wrote: Dodge.

Ho-Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! THRUST! *whacks self with quarterstaff on rebound*
*recovers*
Let's try that again......

Snow Hawk wrote:Ok, how many attacks can someone with an atododge attempt to dodge in one action?
In the book it says specifically that that a parry can only be used against 3 attacks, any more can not be parryed.
Now since these two actions work essentially the same, so should I restrict the atododge in the same way? How do you handle this?

I would place it at Once per attack rotation, one roll vs all attacks, in any setting except the N&S/MC setting , which has it's own set of rules about multiple attackers.

Thank you all for your input, but I have to say I don't like any of your answers so I have written up my own solution. I am going to play test it this Saturday, I will type it here if I like how it turns out.
So thanks again for your replies.

As I understand it, a character may dodge as many attacks as are incoming, as long as they can perceive them (no dodging sneak attacks and attacks from behind). They're even able to forfeit actions off their next melee round; it also puts them at the bottom of the initiative order, and more likely to need to dodge again. From the example combat on RUE p.341-342, it is apparent that this is by design. A character who must dodge ends up on the defensive and it is difficult for them to get off of it without taking a blow.

Autododge is very much a super-power because it completely disrupts the normal expectations of combat. Even being targeted by dozens of blows will not put a juicer of the pace of combat or force him to retreat, as it would more typical soldiers. Hence why it is a fairly rare ability. I recommend against nerfing it. Doing so undermines a big part of what makes characters with the ability special.

BookWyrm wrote:

Snow Hawk wrote: Dodge.

Ho-Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! THRUST! *whacks self with quarterstaff on rebound*
*recovers*
Let's try that again......

Daffy Duck...a classic

Mr. Jays wrote:

BookWyrm wrote:

Snow Hawk wrote: Dodge.

Ho-Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! THRUST! *whacks self with quarterstaff on rebound*
*recovers*
Let's try that again......

Daffy Duck...a classic

I know, I couldn't resist.

Snow Hawk wrote:Thank you all for your input, but I have to say I don't like any of your answers so I have written up my own solution. I am going to play test it this Saturday, I will type it here if I like how it turns out.
So thanks again for your replies.

The book doesn't limit auto dodge. Though I limit it to 3 attacks just like parry, and I don't allow auto dodge vs area effect attacks.

Alrik Vas wrote:

Snow Hawk wrote:Thank you all for your input, but I have to say I don't like any of your answers so I have written up my own solution. I am going to play test it this Saturday, I will type it here if I like how it turns out.
So thanks again for your replies.

The book doesn't limit auto dodge. Though I limit it to 3 attacks just like parry, and I don't allow auto dodge vs area effect attacks.

This is close to what I am going to do. I am glad that at least someone other than me thinks that it needs to be limited, thank you.

I play it unlimited and correct about area effect bypassing an Autododge.
Now remember these Quicksters often have frontline combat skills and lottle else, Skill checks can ruin an unprepared Munchkins day.
And most importantly traps, all types every where you can think of. Nothing super deadly but enough to put the hurt on them.
And finally poison while again frontliners normally have a high pe, just use multiple doses or increaSe potency to work aroynd that.
Or use magic, magic, magic!

Snow Hawk wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:

Snow Hawk wrote:Thank you all for your input, but I have to say I don't like any of your answers so I have written up my own solution. I am going to play test it this Saturday, I will type it here if I like how it turns out.
So thanks again for your replies.

The book doesn't limit auto dodge. Though I limit it to 3 attacks just like parry, and I don't allow auto dodge vs area effect attacks.

This is close to what I am going to do. I am glad that at least someone other than me thinks that it needs to be limited, thank you.

No problem. Just remember, only AoE...technically a mini-missile (rocket attack, straight line) isn't always area effect, especially if you allow called shots with them. Just think about how the attack will effect the area around the target as a guideline.

Alrik Vas wrote:

Snow Hawk wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:

Snow Hawk wrote:Thank you all for your input, but I have to say I don't like any of your answers so I have written up my own solution. I am going to play test it this Saturday, I will type it here if I like how it turns out.
So thanks again for your replies.

The book doesn't limit auto dodge. Though I limit it to 3 attacks just like parry, and I don't allow auto dodge vs area effect attacks.

This is close to what I am going to do. I am glad that at least someone other than me thinks that it needs to be limited, thank you.

No problem. Just remember, only AoE...technically a mini-missile (rocket attack, straight line) isn't always area effect, especially if you allow called shots with them. Just think about how the attack will effect the area around the target as a guideline.

actually a missile attack always will be because of the blast radius.. it's just some blast radii are small enough to escape before the missile hits (like AP missiles), while others aren't. generally minimissiles can be dodged because they have small enough blast radii that most chars can cover that much distance in one action. the bigger missiles however tend to have big enough blast radii that you can't escape the blast even if you do manage to dodge it.. you'd still take half damage.

I'm taking about level terrain, firing a rocket at a target, they dodge and it goes wide, traveling the rest of it's range before exploding.

There is a (power specific) limit to Autododging in the super power Slow Motion Control. Basically you an autodoge....but only three attacks that are 'simultaneous'.....

Nekira Sudacne wrote:

Snow Hawk wrote:Ok, how many attacks can someone with an atododge attempt to dodge in one action?
In the book it says specifically that that a parry can only be used against 3 attacks, any more can not be parryed.
Now since these two actions work essentially the same, so should I restrict the atododge in the same way? How do you handle this?

Autododge does not work quite like an Autoparry. Or rather, it works only like the auto part of the autoparry, just as a dodge. a DODGE can explictly be aginst any number of attakers in a round. a Parry can only be aginst up to 3 different opponents. Dodges and Autododges do not have this limitation.

Yes, this means a juicer can attempt to dodge 100 people all firing at him at once.

No, that dosn't mean it'll work--Some of those people are going to roll high enough to hit, or just roll natural 20's.

But this is ALSO why only bonuses to Autododge and PP apply to dodge, while Automatic parry gets any number of bonuses to parry. Autododge is intended to be FAR more powerful, and so it gets lower bonuses as a limit, so while you CAN try to dodge dozens of people at once, it's very very unlikely to save you in the end.

I'll stick with the Fairy

The Hellion Skelebot get auto dodge based on its constant bobbing and weaving movement. I view most auto dodge attempts like that.

Basically you aren't consciously trying to move out of the way, rather your natural movement is so quick or unpredictable that you have a chance to have completely moved out of the way without even trying.

That is why I don't put a limit on it.

If all your doing is bobbing and weaving while you run about shooting at things...

That isn't dodging.

It's called evasive action. Moving about gives enemies penalties to hit you, and you take similar penalties to attack while doing so.

An automatic dodge is different. You are dodging, you are purposely moving out of the way, but you move so deftly it doesn't interfere with your ability to attack.

It's like automatic parry. Same principle.

Like many have said, auto-dodge is unlimited as long as the character is aware of the attack essentially. Besides, how many people you having attack at one time?

Alrik Vas wrote:If all your doing is bobbing and weaving while you run about shooting at things...

That isn't dodging.

It's called evasive action. Moving about gives enemies penalties to hit you, and you take similar penalties to attack while doing so.

An automatic dodge is different. You are dodging, you are purposely moving out of the way, but you move so deftly it doesn't interfere with your ability to attack.

It's like automatic parry. Same principle.

If you get an automatic dodge because of your bobbing and weaving then I am going to have to say that......
Bobbing and weaving can be an automatic dodge.
Especially since there isn't an 'evasive action' maneuver in the game (for non-pilots). Which sort of means that with out the GM making up a house rule then it has no in game effect....or it didn't tell the various things in the game that did just that were said to get an automatic dodge......

Boxing doesn't give you an automatic dodge, it teaches bob and weave. And if you get it by doing so...how does it work with dodging gun fire, explosions, gas attacks, etc?

And if you are going with the usual, "the rules say so", then don't bother posting. I'm not being harsh, but I'm asking because I actually want to hear a reasonable explanation.

Alrik Vas wrote:Boxing doesn't give you an automatic dodge, it teaches bob and weave. And if you get it by doing so...how does it work with dodging gun fire, explosions, gas attacks, etc?

And if you are going with the usual, "the rules say so", then don't bother posting. I'm not being harsh, but I'm asking because I actually want to hear a reasonable explanation.

Because every version of automatic dodge that has a description of how it works is based on the fact that the dodger is constantly in motion and thus is such a hard target to hit that they tend to automatically generate misses? I.e. the aforementioned skellbots, and Juicers. This suggests to me that yes in fact you can generate a miss aka dodge by moving constantly in such a way as to be unpredictable and thus throw off the aim of your opponent and make them miss you.
Some things don't do this as much as other things (just give a bonus to dodge) and to be honest Boxing in RL and the Boxing skill in game are only loosely related. Just as RL boxing does not help people be better fighter pilots, or teach people how to knock out people with katanas (both of which the skill does) I am going to be willing to say that the game and Real Life are going to have to be different. Of course we could go with the argument that his must be a completely deterministic reality simulation that exactly models in all respects the real world in all things.....but that would not be the Game As Written and thus its sort of irrelevant to the discussion.

<Edit>
A note here, the entire idea of being able to 'dodge' a bullet, a laser, a lightning bolt, or many other things that can be dodged in the game is unrealistic. Since a basic premise of the rules though is that these things can be dodged (albeit at a penalty many times) it follows that the 'reality' being discussed in the games is not the same 'reality' as the Real World. If we want to argue if the Rules As Written should be thrown out and rewritten, or even if we want to discuss if the core combat mechanics should be rewritten that is a possible other topic of discussion...but for right now I will sort of assume that dodging is, in fact possible. And I will go from there.

I agree of course with reality and your statement in the edit you made.

As to generating a miss vs dodging, there's a difference. I understand the intent of what is written in Palladium's explanation, but the literal writing of it couldn't apply to much of anything outside of the meta mechanic as a result, which creates a difficult translation of the rules to the action.

Alrik Vas wrote:I agree of course with reality and your statement in the edit you made.

As to generating a miss vs dodging, there's a difference. I understand the intent of what is written in Palladium's explanation, but the literal writing of it couldn't apply to much of anything outside of the meta mechanic as a result, which creates a difficult translation of the rules to the action.

Except that all of those "dodges" against those lasers, bullets, lightning bolts et multiple cetera would have to be either generating misses, or we have to assume some sort of matrix like reality....because you cant dodge a beam of light. But the game system allows it, thus we are left with two options
1) we can accept that dodging lasers is mechanically possible and figure out how this can work (generating misses "good thing I zigged instead of zagged or that would have hit me!")
or
2) we can assume that some how in the universe people can retroactively decide if they don't want to get hit by lasers and the like and get to rewind time and try to evade it (rigorous enforcement of the dodge mechanics as being actual laws of physics)

I find #2 to be rather unpalatable unless I am playing TOON so I go with option #1 and just describe what the mechanics call dodges as evasions, luck, bobbing, generated misses, harmless ricochet, or what ever else fits the narrative of "attack fails to hit target"

Answering the op.
A character with auto dodge may attempt to dodge any attack they can see coming.

Conversion book 1 has a good write up on dodge, and explains how someone could dodge a laser/bullet. Your dodging the laser per say, you are watching for subtle cues from the attacker and moving before he attacks. There are more details in the book. I know it's in the original conversion book 1, but I'm not sure about the revised edition.

Tags wrote:Conversion book 1 has a good write up on dodge, and explains how someone could dodge a laser/bullet. Your dodging the laser per say, you are watching for subtle cues from the attacker and moving before he attacks. There are more details in the book. I know it's in the original conversion book 1, but I'm not sure about the revised edition.

Yep works great....right up until you have people dodging lighting bolts from the sky, invisible attackers, and juicers get to auto-dodge lasers from behind and.....
But yes that is exactly what I am talking about...you use narrative to fill in "why this works" (this is known on Sci-Fi as Techno Babble).

Dealt with invisible attackers in Shadowrun, my character wears a stealth suit, so the basically ruled that of you can't see the attack coming you can't dodge, personally I would just carry that over to Rifts, and use it in extreme situations, invisible, lighting from the sky and so on.

As to Juicers, well that sounds like something that "seemed like a good idea at the time." Seems the options would be limited in that regard, GM could always replace the ability. That way realism can be maintained, and the juicers still have an advantage.

Tags wrote:Dealt with invisible attackers in Shadowrun, my character wears a stealth suit, so the basically ruled that of you can't see the attack coming you can't dodge, personally I would just carry that over to Rifts, and use it in extreme situations, invisible, lighting from the sky and so on.

As to Juicers, well that sounds like something that "seemed like a good idea at the time." Seems the options would be limited in that regard, GM could always replace the ability. That way realism can be maintained, and the juicers still have an advantage.

True one can always substitute the Rules As Written with their own House Rules.
But if we are talking about personal house rules to make the setting make the most personal sense it quickly devolves into more or less a rewrite of the whole system as virtually every rule has someone that thinks there is a better house rule way of doing it.
Which was why I was clear that I was talking about trying to offer an explanation of how the actual RAW could work, and not trying to offer a new set of house rules that 'fix' the 'problems' that I saw.

Well it's impossible for the rules to cover every situation... Aww well (shrugs) Such is life.

eliakon wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:I agree of course with reality and your statement in the edit you made.

As to generating a miss vs dodging, there's a difference. I understand the intent of what is written in Palladium's explanation, but the literal writing of it couldn't apply to much of anything outside of the meta mechanic as a result, which creates a difficult translation of the rules to the action.

Except that all of those "dodges" against those lasers, bullets, lightning bolts et multiple cetera would have to be either generating misses, or we have to assume some sort of matrix like reality....because you cant dodge a beam of light. But the game system allows it, thus we are left with two options
1) we can accept that dodging lasers is mechanically possible and figure out how this can work (generating misses "good thing I zigged instead of zagged or that would have hit me!")
or
2) we can assume that some how in the universe people can retroactively decide if they don't want to get hit by lasers and the like and get to rewind time and try to evade it (rigorous enforcement of the dodge mechanics as being actual laws of physics)

I find #2 to be rather unpalatable unless I am playing TOON so I go with option #1 and just describe what the mechanics call dodges as evasions, luck, bobbing, generated misses, harmless ricochet, or what ever else fits the narrative of "attack fails to hit target"

Except there are ways of "generating misses" that aren't "dodges", like moving very fast, which is being in constant motion also, but isn't automatic for anyone regardless.

Alrik Vas wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:I agree of course with reality and your statement in the edit you made.

As to generating a miss vs dodging, there's a difference. I understand the intent of what is written in Palladium's explanation, but the literal writing of it couldn't apply to much of anything outside of the meta mechanic as a result, which creates a difficult translation of the rules to the action.

Except that all of those "dodges" against those lasers, bullets, lightning bolts et multiple cetera would have to be either generating misses, or we have to assume some sort of matrix like reality....because you cant dodge a beam of light. But the game system allows it, thus we are left with two options
1) we can accept that dodging lasers is mechanically possible and figure out how this can work (generating misses "good thing I zigged instead of zagged or that would have hit me!")
or
2) we can assume that some how in the universe people can retroactively decide if they don't want to get hit by lasers and the like and get to rewind time and try to evade it (rigorous enforcement of the dodge mechanics as being actual laws of physics)

I find #2 to be rather unpalatable unless I am playing TOON so I go with option #1 and just describe what the mechanics call dodges as evasions, luck, bobbing, generated misses, harmless ricochet, or what ever else fits the narrative of "attack fails to hit target"

Except there are ways of "generating misses" that aren't "dodges", like moving very fast, which is being in constant motion also, but isn't automatic for anyone regardless.

Yes. I am not saying that all 'generating misses' are dodges. I am saying that some automatic dodges may work by generating a miss. I am saying this because the book text says that in at least two cases something gets automatic dodge because they are in constant motion.
Some automatic dodges will be "nah, I don't think I will let you hit me" some will be "darn that guy keeps moving" some might be "ooh a penny" *woosh*......the exact cause of the dodge don't matter much. What matters mechanically is that the attacker rolls a strike roll (1d20+ any applicable bonuses) if this is a hit (4+ in melee, 8+ in ranged combat) then (and only then) the defender may choose to now opt to use a defense. One of these defenses may be a dodge (which comes in both regular and automatic flavors). If they choose to use the automatic dodge then they roll 1d20 and add in any applicable bonuses. If this number is higher than the opponents strike roll then the attack does not hit and was dodged.
The exact reason that it was dodged though is not specified in the rules. That is part of the narrative that needs to be worked out at the table at that moment.

That's a very long winded way of reiterating "the rules say so" mantra.

I don't disagree entirely, but I was looking for something else. Guess I'll just leave it like this and do it the way that makes sense to me.

Alrik Vas wrote:That's a very long winded way of reiterating "the rules say so" mantra.

I don't disagree entirely, but I was looking for something else. Guess I'll just leave it like this and do it the way that makes sense to me.

If you want to take it that way fine.
Its trying to say that we have to be willing to look at what the dice/rules come up mechanically and translate that into what happens action wise (otherwise we get back to the silly world of dodges literally rewinding time to un-hit people....)
And in that view since all dodges by their very nature will be generating a miss (in some way or other) we just have to figure out (assuming it matters to the group) what specific action caused the specific miss to be generated. Bob and weave, turn at the last second, raw luck....what ever it is something made you miss. This is especially important because what a dodge from a juicer, a dodge from a Drunken Boxing martial artist, and a dodge from a skelebot probably will all look like different things, even though mechanically they are identical. We can either change the narration of it to give them the different color/flavor....or we can rewrite the rules to make each dodge unique....

eliakon wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:That's a very long winded way of reiterating "the rules say so" mantra.

I don't disagree entirely, but I was looking for something else. Guess I'll just leave it like this and do it the way that makes sense to me.

If you want to take it that way fine.
Its trying to say that we have to be willing to look at what the dice/rules come up mechanically and translate that into what happens action wise (otherwise we get back to the silly world of dodges literally rewinding time to un-hit people....)
And in that view since all dodges by their very nature will be generating a miss (in some way or other) we just have to figure out (assuming it matters to the group) what specific action caused the specific miss to be generated. Bob and weave, turn at the last second, raw luck....what ever it is something made you miss. This is especially important because what a dodge from a juicer, a dodge from a Drunken Boxing martial artist, and a dodge from a skelebot probably will all look like different things, even though mechanically they are identical. We can either change the narration of it to give them the different color/flavor....or we can rewrite the rules to make each dodge unique....

I am not seeing where the "rewinding of time" is coming from...
when a combat exchange is made both attacker and defenders rolls are technically determined simultaneously. (Think of the exchange as a moment of frozen time until all dice have been rolled and all bonuses applied.)

Damian Magecraft wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:That's a very long winded way of reiterating "the rules say so" mantra.

I don't disagree entirely, but I was looking for something else. Guess I'll just leave it like this and do it the way that makes sense to me.

If you want to take it that way fine.
Its trying to say that we have to be willing to look at what the dice/rules come up mechanically and translate that into what happens action wise (otherwise we get back to the silly world of dodges literally rewinding time to un-hit people....)
And in that view since all dodges by their very nature will be generating a miss (in some way or other) we just have to figure out (assuming it matters to the group) what specific action caused the specific miss to be generated. Bob and weave, turn at the last second, raw luck....what ever it is something made you miss. This is especially important because what a dodge from a juicer, a dodge from a Drunken Boxing martial artist, and a dodge from a skelebot probably will all look like different things, even though mechanically they are identical. We can either change the narration of it to give them the different color/flavor....or we can rewrite the rules to make each dodge unique....

I am not seeing where the "rewinding of time" is coming from...
when a combat exchange is made both attacker and defenders rolls are technically determined simultaneously. (Think of the exchange as a moment of frozen time until all dice have been rolled and all bonuses applied.)

As I pointed out that if we want to be hyper literal about how this works then you can not try to dodge an attack unless it has already hit you. I know that this is just a mechanics issue. I know that. But my point is that it is impossible to say that some parts of the system should just be looked at and given a 'well that's just how the mechanics work' pass and some get a 'you can't just say that's mechanics, it needs an in game justification'. If we are willing to accept that dodges do not actually go back and retroactively change time, then perhaps we can also accept that dodges do not actually have to be a deliberate action of noticing an incoming attack and moving ones self out of the way of it, that the dodge game mechanic is not the same thing as the dodge in game action.