Parrying and Dodging missile weapons

[Warpig]

My understanding for PFRPG rules on parrying (with a weapon not a shield) and dodging missle weapons (by this I mean conventional Arrows and Thrown Weapons like knives, spears, javelins, gnomes and other small people )

...That the general rule is -10 to dodge and -6 to parry, unless it says otherwise for the O.C.C. like a Monk or Longbowman. Is this correct?

I also have the same question for magic attacks (like a fireball, energy bolt or a lighting bolt). I have assumed that you may not even attempt to parry or dodge these "magic attacks" unless it is specified.

And finally...the same question for a Dragons breath attack (fire, cold, etc.)...

[Shin Kenshiro]

I think that's the official rule. Pretty stupid too. From what I know it was originally invented for Rifts to keep people from dodging lasers. That I can deal with. But for some reason KS then decided to use the same rule for dodging all kinds of projectile weapons. Apparently he thinks that dodging an arrow is as difficult as dodging a bullet or a laser.

I know that Call Lightning has its own dodge rule (need 18+ unmodified, or at least used to, I think it might have been changed to allow a 22+ or something with mods as well). Other spells might have similar specific rules. Otherwise, I don't know if the -10 rule is ever said to specifically apply to magic, so it is GMs call (if you're using it at all I would say yey though).

I don't think dragon breath weapons are ever specifically dealt with either, but I would think that dodging a 5 foot wide gout of fire is probably roughly as difficult as dodging an arrow (and you're probably going to be much closer to the dragons mouth than you would normally be to an archer).

personally, -10 is a good rule for dodging arrows and the like. It may be easier to dodge a rock than a bullet, but only in the movies does someone easily dodge an aimed arrow attack by a trained professional. Sorry, but that's just the way it goes. You can work the rule anyway you want, but I hold my players to that, otherwise, what am I supposed to do with the monk and longbowman? Give them insane bonuses? I could, but then that really seems to unbalance it all. So I keep the number of archers in my game limited, and it keeps the players concerned about them.

[maasenstodt]

It may be easier to dodge a rock than a bullet, but only in the movies does someone easily dodge an aimed arrow attack by a trained professional.

At short range, perhaps, but keep in mind that in medieval combat, very few archers worked at anything but medium to long range. When combat got close, they typically either fled or pulled their swords. The reason? You can't very well parry with a bow and you need space to operate.

I cannot see how it should be vastly more difficult to actively dodge an arrow fired from 30 yards, much less 50 or more yards, than a swift swing of a sword right next to you. Freefall is correct... it's a stupid rule.

[Veknironth]

Well, at 30 yards, you're not going to even see an arrow. Hell, at 50 yards it's really hard to see an arrow. The arrow has such a small profile and flies so fast it's almost impossible to follow. What you can do with a shot of 50 yards or so, if vacate the area you were in. Or you can throw up a barrier between yourself and the arrow. If you have the time to perform this action while the arrow is in flight, you can effectively dodge or parry. It all depends on the trajectory the arrow takes. The time the arrow will be in the air on a straight shot is less than the time it takes to drop straight to the ground.

What we usualy do is allow the player to dodge before the attack it is loosed. So, if the GM tells you someone has the arrow nocked and pointed at you, you say dodge and roll. IT then becomes the shooter firing at a moving target. You add his bonuses and the dodger's and it's like a normal melee interaction. IF the PC waits to see what the archer does, then he's just hit (assuming the archer rolls succesfully).

-Vek
"Just another option."

[maasenstodt]

What you can do with a shot of 50 yards or so, if vacate the area you were in. Or you can throw up a barrier between yourself and the arrow.

This is essentially what I'm getting at. Nobody should take me to say that one can dodge attacks when they can't see the attacker or the attack. Rather, I'm saying that assuming that one is actively dodging an archer's attack that they can see, there shouldn't be this HUGE discrepency between avoiding it and avoiding any number of other types of attacks.

The amount of time it takes a skilled swordsman to swing a well crafted weapon (say a katana, since that is the slashing sword that I have the most personal experience with) is very short - equal or less than the time it takes for an average archer to aim and fire an arrow and then wait for the arrow to strike. Moreover, while an arrow is a low profile projectile approaching on a fairly direct trajectory, a sword has a broader profile and moves in a sweeping motion, leaving fewer options for a target to take in avoiding it.

Considering the above, I simply cannot see how this rule makes sense given the genre. Then again, I'm somebody who disagrees with Kevin's integration of SDC and other "improvements" in 2nd Ed., so I'm clearly a fringe personality anyway.

[Veknironth]

Well, Maas, you're not the only one who doesn't like the inclusion of SDC into the game. I hate it.

If you don't like the option I offered, then try making it tradjectory dependent. If the attack has to be lobbed, then the PC can dodge. If the shot is coming in on a straight line, then you have the minuses.

-Vek
"SDC should be called EHP, or extra hit points."

[maasenstodt]

Well, Maas, you're not the only one who doesn't like the inclusion of SDC into the game. I hate it.

If you don't like the option I offered, then try making it tradjectory dependent. If the attack has to be lobbed, then the PC can dodge. If the shot is coming in on a straight line, then you have the minuses.

Always nice to hear from those who still prefer the good old days of HPs being all that stands between life and death.

As far as rules go, for me it's not an issue that I struggle with. When I'm running a Palladium Fantasy game, it's 1st Ed. (rev). End of story. There's no SDC, no dodging penalties, no PPE, individual combat styles for each class -- I love it. It's only when I'm playing in somebody else's 2nd Ed. game, like right now, that I get a bit frustrated. Being a player, though, I'm not in much of a position to change things.

I just wish all of the post 2nd Ed. books were double stated...

[Veknironth]

Well, come on now. If there's one thing that's better about the 2nd ed than 1st, it's the PPE. The spells per day I never liked.

That said, we never worried about the dodge rule either since we went with out system.

-Vek
"Psionics are categorized better in 2nd ed also."

[maasenstodt]

I'm just not a fan of point based spell casting. Indeed, while there are few areas where I prefer AD&D's mechanics to Palladium's, spell casting is one of them (the other big one that comes to mind is weapon speeds / casting times as initiative modifiers). Furthermore, while the "spells per day" system isn't quite as ideal as a memorization based system, at least it's somewhat more arcane than PPE, which seems pulled out of a video game.

Psionics, incidently, would also be improved by scraping ISP and moving it to a skill based system. Alas, neither PPE nor ISP are going anywhere, and in truth, were I given a chance to retool the Palladium system, there are other areas that are much more broken and in need of change than these. The aforementioned dodge rule among them.