Dodge - Active or Passive?

[McAllister]

Dodge must be an active defense, because you can't use it against an attack you were not aware of: if it merely represented general evasive movement, you'd be able to dodge any attack as long as you were in combat. Just look at Campaigns p. 374: "A 'dodge' is an active attempt to move out of the perceived path of an attack... A dodge against [a ranged] attack represents an attempt not to be where you think your opponent will shoot, by weaving or ducking at the right moment."

Dodge must be a passive defense, because there are no iterative penalties to more than one use per turn: if it actually represented intentional movement, there would be some sort of limit on the number of times you did it in a second. Just look at Martial Arts p. 122: "It simply means that you’re moving unpredictably in combat, leading your adversaries to misjudge your position and miss some of the time. You’re only actively ducking blows if you try an Acrobatic Dodge, retreat, or dodge and drop."

So, how to reconcile these different views of dodge? I'd like to bring back* the Passive Defense.

*I've never played 3e, so it's not really "bring back" so much as "reconstruct from secondhand mentions and guesswork"

Active Dodge (called Active Dodge to distinguish it from the current Dodge aka Vague Dodge) uses the better of (DX/2)+3 and BS+3 [should I pick one?]. It can only be used if you're aware of your opponent. Each successive dodge is at a cumulative -1 penalty. Retreating and all the other options mentioned in the MA quote, only apply to Active Dodge. This is essentially pretty similar to existing Dodge.

Passive Defense doesn't exist if you're not in combat: if all you're doing is jogging around a track while a sniper lines up a shot, the sniper will have a penalty based on your speed, but you're not actually going to evade this attack. Passive Defense is based on Basic Speed. Not Basic Speed +3, just Basic Speed. However, when you select a maneuver in combat, you can A. give up 1 yard of movement that the maneuver would have given you and/or B. take a -1 penalty to all actions undertaken in this round** in order to add +1 to your Passive Defense until the beginning of your next turn. You're not just running in a straight line, you're bobbing and weaving; in addition to trying to find an opening to attack with your sword, you're also ducking and feinting half-steps to throw your opponent off. The maximum bonus you can obtain this was in a realistic campaign is +3, and in a cinematic campaign it's half your BS rounded up.

**If you try to increase PD on the same round as you take a Recovery Event (as per Last Gasp), your recovery gets a penalty equal to the PD bonus.

My inclination is to say that Feint, Deceptive Attack and other options that penalize Active Defense rolls should also penalize Passive Defense rolls, but that's based more on game balance concerns than any sort of logic. As I wrote above, a human with DX16 and HT16 could realistically buy BS up to 10 (and boost it to 13 with evasive movement), and trying to hit that person without any mechanism to reduce the defense roll would be really frustrating. Would I be better off changing the idea of Passive Defense from a defense roll to an attack penalty? But then how would I prevent it from stacking with Active Defenses? I feel like I'm on the verge of something here, but it's not quite coming together.

[DouglasCole]

Have you read Dodge This, from Pyramid #3/57? There might be ideas in it you can mine.

[Christopher R. Rice]

I'm thinking you might gain some mileage from Cosmic Active Defenses from GURPS Power-Ups 4: Enhancements (p. 7). Maybe something like "Cosmic, Doesn't Need to Be Aware of Attack, +50%" + "Cosmic, Defense, +50%" might be able to simulate what you are looking for.

[McAllister]

In fact, my Pyramid collection is incomplete... I'll take a look, but if it's between this and pre-purchasing Beyond Earth, I'm going to have a hard decision.

[Culture20]

Originally Posted by McAllister

Passive Defense doesn't exist if you're not in combat: if all you're doing is jogging around a track while a sniper lines up a shot, the sniper will have a penalty based on your speed, but you're not actually going to evade this attack. Passive Defense is based on Basic Speed. Not Basic Speed +3, just Basic Speed. However, when you select a maneuver in combat, you can A. give up 1 yard of movement that the maneuver would have given you and/or B. take a -1 penalty to all actions undertaken in this round** in order to add +1 to your Passive Defense until the beginning of your next turn. You're not just running in a straight line, you're bobbing and weaving; in addition to trying to find an opening to attack with your sword, you're also ducking and feinting half-steps to throw your opponent off. The maximum bonus you can obtain this was in a realistic campaign is +3, and in a cinematic campaign it's half your BS rounded up.

I would suggest calling this "Evasive maneuvers" to prevent confusion with 3E Passive Defense which is something entirely different (3E PD *would* help when just jogging, or even standing still).
I have dodged "attacks" that I knew were coming but couldn't see by using such bobbing and weaving moves. The attacks were thrown dodgeballs, but I was really doing all-out defense. There was no chance I could have attacked back (or even caught a ball) while I danced like a mad-man on the gym floor.

[starslayer]

Two things.

1 - you take a penalty to dodge if you are not facing the attack. This could be seen as a sorry if built in 'it is hard to dodge multiple attacks' since there are only so many attackers that can be at your front and evasive action with regard to one is them will effect all of them.

2 there are optional rules, I believe in marital arts, that penalize multiple dodge, with the note that while realistic it makes for a tactical nightmare.

[Varyon]

I think I rather like this handling, although I'd agree with using Evasive Maneuvers or similar as the name to avoid confusion. One thing I'd change is to have it be an option the character takes on his turn, with the decreased movement rate and/or action penalty you outlined to be able to do it at all (further penalties could be available in cinematic campaigns to get a boost to the defense).

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Varyon

I think I rather like this handling, although I'd agree with using Evasive Maneuvers or similar as the name to avoid confusion. One thing I'd change is to have it be an option the character takes on his turn, with the decreased movement rate and/or action penalty you outlined to be able to do it at all (further penalties could be available in cinematic campaigns to get a boost to the defense).

Seriously: "Dodge This."

It has a mechanic for evasive maneuvering already. It has stuff that make dodge reactive. It has a lot on facing and perception.

[Otaku]

For those of us that aren't going to have access to "Dodge This" anytime soon, I do like these rules. I see both the up and the downside to using a familiar term like "Passive Defense" to describe it.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Seriously: "Dodge This."

It has a mechanic for evasive maneuvering already. It has stuff that make dodge reactive. It has a lot on facing and perception.

The evasive maneuvering in that article is rather harsh. It works fairly well if you want to just move, but if you're trying to fight at the same time you're pretty much out of luck. That's arguably more realistic, although I prefer the increased variability of a Dodge to the penalty to enemy attacks in that article, and this version allows you to make some use of evasive maneuvering against melee combatants as well. All the bits about facing and perception from that article would be extremely useful in helping decide if an Active Dodge is an option, of course (and can help inform the players on if they should be using evasive maneuvering while fighting).