High defenses in 4th edition

[jackcelso]

Hi iam running several low tech games, and i felt that became much harder to hit the target in melee combat in 4th edition

If you take a 2 characters with sword skill -14, both equiped with a medium shield (DB 2).

They will have a Parry of 12 (74% sucess), if you retreat 13 (84% sucess), if take a all-out defense 15 (95% sucess).

Even if the attacker take a deceptice attack at -4 (the maximum the skill cant go below 10) the parry would be 10 (50% sucess)\ 11 (62% sucess) \ 13 (84% sucess). Meaning that at beast the chance of attack and defense are the same.

In this case i not even put the others several options that can enchant the Parry even higher: if has a fencing weapon, plus the bonus for combat reflexes and feverish defense the Parry would go to 17\ 18 \ 20!!

Even if the attacker would take a all out attack determined (modificad skill 18) and using deceptive attack at maxium (-8 to skill -4 to defense)

the parry would be at 13 \ 14\ 16!! the chance to attack fail is much highier than the parry fails.

Anyone having the same problems?

[Kelly Pedersen]

This is what I'd call a "white room" problem - that is, one that turns up more in theory, when you're assuming absolutely ideal conditions, than in real life (at least, real life games), where circumstances are rarely so ideal.

Looking at the conditions you've suggested, I'd note right off the bat that All-Out Defense is actually a rather poor tactical choice, because it puts the character who takes it entirely on the defensive. They can't attack with it, which means they'll just be taking attacks over and over. Eventually, the attacker will roll a critical hit which the defender won't be able to parry, no matter their skill, and then they're in trouble.

Then there's the retreat bonus. Getting this requires there to be space to retreat to, and nothing says that a retreat gets to ignore things like bad terrain either. A pair of fighters moving back and forth over tree roots, loose stones, on a slick floor, etc., etc.... well, eventually one of them is going to fail a DX roll and go down, and then the one who's still up has a big bonus.

And you're only assuming one parry per person. Most fights in a typical session aren't one-on-one, they're group-on-group. And even if those groups have equal numbers, the smarter tacticians are going to be focusing their attacks on the weakest link of the other side, using multiple attacks against one target to wear their defenses down, take them out, then move on to the next. Really good tacticians will arrange to surround one of their foes, so that at least a couple of attacks come in from the back spaces where they get no defense at all.

Bear in mind, all these situations I've described tend to require other skills besides just high melee weapon skill to really take advantage of - Acrobatics, Tactics, and so forth. This is a good thing, it means that being the best fighter is not just a matter of piling points into one skill, it's a matter of being a well-rounded, clever individual who's always looking for the next advantage. And if you really have two people who are equally matched at all elements of combat, well, I'd say it taking a long time for them to get anywhere in a fight actually makes perfect sense. With someone just as good as you, you've basically got to wait for lucky breaks (i.e., critical hits) to really succeed.

[RyanW]

It isn't usually realistic to be able to retreat forever, if the opponent doesn't obligingly retreat in kind. Not only are you probably going to run out of room eventually, but retreating is likely to push you out of position to support or be supported by your comrades.

On the other hand, in a fight between matched opponents, you winner is often the one that fights dirty. Attack from ambush. Blind him. Keep him occupied until an ally can flank him. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.

[mr beer]

in GURPS, identical, well trained fighters will take a while to cut the other person down in a formal duelling situation. This is a feature, not a bug, since that models reality.

Adventurers, who are smart, will endeavour to solve the problem through a variety of tactical options. The most obvious being, bring some friends to overwhelm their defences.

[tbone]

Kelly Pedersen's term "white room" is perfect here. I believe strongly that it's a good thing – a feature, not a bug, as they say – that GURPS can yield "unbeatable" defenses in "white room" scenarios.

jackcelso, you might find this short article of mine interesting.
http://www.gamesdiner.com/2006/09/gu...-be-good-thing
A player asked this forum pretty much the same question as yours: isn't it a big problem that a defense roll can get as high as 17 or more? (The question
was about 3e, but applies equally to 4e.) My take was that, no, it makes perfect sense - within that white room scenario. When you set up the perfect defense situation – master swordsman, rested and ready, defending just once per turn, from the front only, with good parrying weapon and plenty of room to retreat, no negative factors whatsoever – there's no reason why the swordsman should ever fail to parry!

The reason he does eventually fail is because the white room doesn't exist (or at least doesn't last). Multiple attacks, multiple foes, feints, rear attacks, Deceptive Attacks, shoves and grapples, any other trick the attacker can think of... The key for the attacker is simply to stop handing the defender a perfect defense situation.

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by jackcelso

Hi iam running several low tech games, and i felt that became much harder to hit the target in melee combat in 4th edition

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

This is what I'd call a "white room" problem - that is, one that turns up more in theory, when you're assuming absolutely ideal conditions, than in real life (at least, real life games), where circumstances are rarely so ideal.

It seems though that it's not a theoretical question for the OP.
So what kind of issues has he been having in the game? Are the PCs defending too well? The enemies? Is combat dragging on?

[Tom H.]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

With someone just as good as you, you've basically got to wait for lucky breaks (i.e., critical hits) to really succeed.

I think the combat system may work well, but I want to voice an opinion that may be a bit premature.

I'm a bit bothered by the necessity to over rely on critical hits. If two opponents have high attack and defense skills, it seems a bit perverse that the usual success roll mechanics fail to apply as well as the alternate critical hit mechanics as sophisticated as they are. Why should defense skill only matter when its low enough to warrant normal success rolls? (When relying on critical hits, defense ability loses meaning.) In effect, a two-tiered combat mechanic emerges.

I'm not really asking for a solution as much as making an observation. Every system has its idiosyncrasies.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by Tom H.

I'm a bit bothered by the necessity to over rely on critical hits.

I wouldn't describe this as a "necessity" by any means. The circumstances I was talking about (equal combat skills, and no opportunities to exploit the environment or tactics against the opponent) are, in my experience, very rare. Usually, there's going to be some way to reduce the opponent's defense. Personally, since I feel that that kind of thing is what makes combats actually interesting, I'm in favor of this result.

[Harald387]

It is really not uncommon in games I've played to have PCs with active defenses in the 16-20 range before retreat bonuses, and to face enemies with similar defense levels. Deceptive attacks to off-shield flanks, two-or-more on one, rear attacks, magical spells for debuffs, bad footing, feints, close combat attacks (including grapples) - all of these things serve to push down defenses, and while 'one on one, both facing each other' would be interminable, neither PCs nor opponents ever actually do that.

[weby]

Originally Posted by Harald387

It is really not uncommon in games I've played to have PCs with active defenses in the 16-20 range before retreat bonuses, and to face enemies with similar defense levels. Deceptive attacks to off-shield flanks, two-or-more on one, rear attacks, magical spells for debuffs, bad footing, feints, close combat attacks (including grapples) - all of these things serve to push down defenses, and while 'one on one, both facing each other' would be interminable, neither PCs nor opponents ever actually do that.

Indeed or even "slightly higher".. :)

In my current campaign the PCs have(unbuffed):
1) Dodge 23, parry 29f (swashbucker/thief/bard swiss army knife)
2) Dodge 21, parry 30, block 28 (melee tank)
3) Dodge 22, parry 26 (melee damage dealer)
4) Dodge 22, Parry 19 (wizard)
5) Dodge 21, Parry 23 (Gunslinger)

So all the characters have above 20 dodge and the melee characters closer to 30 parry.

And of course the opponents often have similar values(or in case of single one meant to challenge whole group even higher)