Issues with Retreating Dodge

[smurf]

The way I read it is:

Sworddude has reach, either 1 or 2 hexes.

The Sworddude had the option of a C attack to kick.

The Bow dude retreats one hex but still in Sword reach.

The Bow dude has one shot at the sworddude who can also do a retreating dodge.

The Bow dude needs to reload and ready again... under attack from the sworddude. A penalty for getting a new arrow into the bow should be a problem.

The result will be for the bowdude reaching for a HTH weapon.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by bearit

I feel like those have been spell out plenty already, but I’ll be even more detailed.

Pursuer options (Axe-18, no shield)-
Move and Attack: -4 to hit and skill cap 9
All-Out Attack: +4 to hit, no defenses
Committed Attack (2 Step): net +0 to hit, can’t defend with weapon AND other defenses are at -2
Active Defense: Dodge 10 (8 with Committed, none with AOA)

Retreater options (Bow-18, fast-draw-16)-
Attack: point blank at face, Bow-13
Active Defense: Dodge 14 including retreat

After several failed Move and Attacks and an arrow to the face, pursuer succeed on one of two All-Out Attacks, not enough to wound. Then got another arrow to the face to finish him.

How is the archer fast drawing their arrows? IIRC to get one shot per turn you need a successful fast draw arrow and fast draw bow roll? You put up an example earlier up were they had heroic archer. If that is the basic assumption then OK, but at 20CP that's quite an advantage here. Also all else being equal archer seems to have a higher DX than Axe wielder to get the better basic dodge?

As others have said if axe is hitting but not wounding that suggests archer is wearing armour (and if the archer went for the face that also suggests broadsword is wearing armour).

But you've seem to have built an archer who can do the back peddling and shooting every turn with enough dodge to make it better, and just given the other fighter an axe. Nothing wrong with that and the archer has spent the points to make the tactic work than they should definitely employ the tactic.

Give the axe a guy a shield, and a visor, let them spend the points they didn't spend on heroic archer and DX on more axe skill or what ever.


To really judge the situation we do kind of need the full details of what each has here. But really are these equal builds either in terms of CP in general or how they've been optimised for this fight?

[OldSam]

One little point I noticed, where I would like to know the RAW way:

Originally Posted by JMason

2) If the melee attack misses, the defender doesn't get to make a retreating

That's an interesting point, I am not so sure about that, at least there is room for interpretation... I would be very interested in the "official" answer ;)


From a generic viewpoint, IMHO, defenders react to the _anticipation_ of the incoming attack.

I wonder if there is a strict rule that forbids a player to come up with a defense (though "unneeded try") against a failed attack at times...?
(Normally, of course, we don't want that just to streamline things, having faster combat!). I would have thought the reasoning for the retreat option is basically the strong will to survive, to avoid the attack etc., then it could well be we just feel it is very close and we have to get out quickly...

As a GM I would probably allow that just for logical reasons, if the player asks for it. For me I think it would make less sense if e. g. trying to parry a weapon that was trying to hit me, but failed, would generally not be allowed. ...for instance it could also be of relevance that I would like both weapons to connect physically.

[OldSam]

Another idea to deal with the issue of repeated retreats:

Most people having experienced a fighting training situation with one person quickly moving backwards for a few seconds, fleeing from a forward moving opponent, would say that constantly moving backwards is very stressful, moving forwards is easier, letting you generate more pressure with less energy.

Possible house rule: A way to simulate this could be demanding extra effort for repeated retreats (not the first one):
- Pay 1 FP for each repeated retreat, until you stop to use the retreat option for at least one turn.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by OldSam

One little point I noticed, where I would like to know the RAW way:



That is an interesting point, I am not so sure about that, at least there is room for interpretation... I would be very interested in the "official" answer ;)


From a generic viewpoint, IMHO, defenders react to the _anticipation_ of the incoming attack.

I wonder if there is a strict rule that forbids a player to come up with a defense (though "unneeded try") against a failed attack at times...?
(Normally, of course, we don't want that just to streamline things, having faster combat!). I would have thought the reasoning for the retreat option is basically the strong will to survive, to avoid the attack etc., but then it could well be we _just feel_ it is very close and we have to get out quickly...

As a GM I would probably allow that just for logical reasons, if the player asks for it. For me I think it would make less sense if e. g. trying to parry a weapon that was trying to hit me, but failed, would generally not be allowed. ...for instance it could also be of relevance that I would like both weapons to connect physically.

There's nothing at all in the RAW that offers you any such option.

Variant rules where you defend against attacks before you know whether they succeeded are certainly a thing, but they are variants.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by OldSam

That is an interesting point, I am not so sure about that, at least there is room for interpretation... I would be very interested in the "official" answer ;)

As written, you are only able to attempt an active defense if your opponent hit you, and you can only retreat in response to a hit (exception: sacrificial dodge and dive for cover do not require a hit). This anomaly is another reason to replace the concept of retreating with a more general step rule that doesn't care what you use the step for.

[Boge]

My group uses a house rule:

If you step on your turn, you cannot retreat dodge on your defense (unless you're straight up running away). It makes you have to think more tactically about how you want to use your movement.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Anthony

This anomaly is another reason to replace the concept of retreating with a more general step rule that doesn't care what you use the step for.

I'd just allow an unused step to be done at anytime in response to anything, but count that as rolling a dodge to do it in quick enough time to react to something, unless you had specified using that step via a Wait.

In cases where two people want to do the same thing: we already face that dilemma if 2 heroes both want to Sacrificial Dodge in front of the same puppy. Probably could resole that with usual initiative rules.

I think this would apply to a lot of "free action" stuff as resembling a "power dodge" too. Like dropping things is a free action, as is releasing a grapple, but if you're holding someone who is going to attack you via turning on their aura, then you could roll dodge to release your grip in time.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

If it were true that shuffling backwards while shooting a bow was genuinely favored...

A 4 mile per hour pace is not a 'shuffle'. I know what you're talking about, but I just have to point out, 2 yards of movement per second is a decent walking pace forward, let alone backwards.

Originally Posted by bearit

Retreating inherently gives a double step and therefore advantage in tactical combat to the retreater at NO penalty, forcing the penalty on the pursuer to "keep up."

Well yes, and there is part of the rub. Your GM should have been requiring the archer to make DX rolls not to trip over something every backwards Step (not necessarily on retreats, but at least on the Attack's Step 'move'). Unless this was a flat, featureless arena?

Everyone here should have the same thoughts about combat on flat, featureless, infinite planes...

Originally Posted by MrFix

Remember, Kromm replied to this thread, and he did not object to the archer stepping on a turn after retreating.

As Line Editor for GURPS I don't expect Kromm to come out and say "This rule used in a set of rules that often feature abstractions is totes unrealistic and should be ignored or houseruled".

Originally Posted by Anthony

I suspect the easiest fix is to change retreat to an out-of-turn step and let you take it for any reason you want, at any time you want.

I prefer requiring it to be paid forward*. The Character must leave Movement Points to allow for a Step if they wish to take one (minimum 1 for a Step of 1, 2 for Step of 2, etc). If the Character has an ability that allows for multiple Retreats (a favorite of mine) or someway to get Extra Steps (another favorite), they need to have enough Movement Points free to cover them.

I generally allow Giant Step Extra Effort and abilities like Great Void (DFRPG Adventurers pg 37) to ignore these houserules, since there is a premium being paid (FP or exp) for this rule or ability.



* I prefer this when I'm GMing 'realistic' campaigns. When I'm running or playing in a cinematic free-for-all like DF/RPG? No. Not the least because I have a Swishypokler who get's 6-10+ yards of movement with a standard Attack Maneuver due to Giant Step, Great Void, Void Step (opposite of Great Void, usable with attack maneuvers that only allow a Step), and Chambara attacks (trade an Unmodified attack for an extra Step) and defenses (unlimited Retreats, but each one past the 1st is at a cumulative -1 and "costs a defense").

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

And on the flipside, the archer and swordy without...

On the flipside, we don't know what the setup was. The Archer may have been a Heroic Archer built on 300 points facing a scrub swordsman built on 25 points, jogging slowly backwards around a flat, well-maintained arena, with an unlimited arrow capacity quiver...

Maybe the GM overlooked a few rules and the archer got away with some cheese*. We don't know.


* My favorite example of this was a first time GM running a Supers game who made an error calculating his NPC's Dodges, he thought it was (DX+HT/4)+3... so the generic mooks were running with Dodges of 15 for several sessions. It wasn't until he complained about how "unrealistic" this was in front of me. I had him explain, and then gently corrected his math. We laughed, he played it off well, deciding the mooks were all hopped up on super-juice and made it an ongoing problem for us to solve (and of course one PC just had to try to replicate the drug formula... and get themselves hooked... because reasons...).

Originally Posted by Boge

My group uses a house rule:

If you step on your turn, you cannot retreat dodge on your defense (unless you're straight up running away). It makes you have to think more tactically about how you want to use your movement.

Yup, pay-it-forward. It's my preference for realistic and semi-realistic campaigns. I've also allowed "pay-it-back", but that usually just ends up with arguments and headaches that pay-it-forward neatly nips in the bud.