Passive Defense of 3rd edition
 

Sorry if I am posting this in the wrong place, I found no forum for the old editions.

I am well acquainted with the 4th edition's combat system, but I've just joined a group where the GM prefers to use the 3rd (the only one translated in Brazilian Portuguese).
He said that a shield's passive defense only works for a block. Is he right? I thought that it could work for other defenses as well, depending on the direction of the attack, like the shield's DB in the 4th edition.

Re: Passive Defense of 3rd edition
 

You were right. Shield PD does assist in other defences as well, as long as the attack comes from the same side as the shield or front.

Re: Passive Defense of 3rd edition
 

You're all good.

That's got to be pretty frusterating. ;)

EDIT: Ninja'd by Hannes665! You're right; he's wrong. You don't even have to be aware of the incoming attack for your PD to bounce it on a great roll in 3e.

Re: Passive Defense of 3rd edition
 

Heck, if you have a large shield, plate mail, and a +5 Shield spell (or Deflect enchantment) it doesn't even require a great roll; that's a PD of 12. If you want really stupid, go with Body of Metal 18 (PD 6), a Force Shield (PD +4), and a Shield spell (PD +5) for a PD of 15.

Re: Passive Defense of 3rd edition
 

Which is why PD went away for 4e, it was too silly to implement properly.

Re: Passive Defense of 3rd edition
 

Well, given that DB is still around, not really true. The big problem with PD is that most of the special effects for armor PD are actually "bad damage roll".

Re: Passive Defense of 3rd edition
 

DB is not PD.

You never get to roll against DB when you're normally defenseless to see if the attack was deflected anyways. You did with Passive Defense. Stunned, paralized, surprised and utterly unaware? Who cares, it'll probably bounce off your armor anyways!

No, narrative brain-hurty is a moderate problem, and irrelevant to the issue of small critters who ALSO somehow had PD, or magical effects or whatever. The big problem was that, as a game mechanic (ignoring the special effects description) PD produced really really bad numbers.

If you had PD 3 from a large shield, and 3 from armor, for a total of 6, and your base dodge has been nerfed by encumbrance down to 4, you still could dodge things 50% of the time. With a base dodge of 6, or a PD of 6, you could dodge things about 13% of the time. Because of the bell curve, when you add the two together, the effect scaled wildly out of proportion.

I would keep the PD effect ONLY if PD'd defenses were rolled on a d20 or other flat scale, OR if you could find some way of adding them together without causing benefits from shooting off into the stratosphere.

But, as you've pointed out, it didn't make sense for plain armor anyways, SFX wise, so that would relegate it entirely to magical effects, monsters, whatever, and it's honestly not worth it. Small animals benefit from SM, things with deflection fields can have Obscure or Chameleon or whatever to give a simple hit penalty, and I don't have to worry about "passive" PD rolls ever again.

Re: Passive Defense of 3rd edition
 

Not by the rules as written but that may not matter. As the GM he has the right to set the way things work and he probably doesn't like the idea of someone acrobatically dodging with a shield.

Re: Passive Defense of 3rd edition
 

Join the club :D, some people in our group can't GM 4e for the exact same reason (For heaven's sake SJGames, "fire" Devir... it's been years, at this point it's just excuses of a weak company, IMHO).

One suggestion you might possibly work out is using the free "conversion of 3e to 4e" rules, wich are in english, but simple enough to translate without going over the whole thing.
Or do like we did (before we decided to go english inspite of some members) get familiar with 4e and house-rule everything into 3e that makes sense.

Takes a bit of debate though, some 4e rules seem weird from the 3e perspective, I resisted quite a bit... but it IS better...

Re: Passive Defense of 3rd edition
 

I'd love to, but it is the GM's decision. After all, it is he who does the hard work ;) Also, he has different copies of the 3rd edition books, which also helps.

Re: Passive Defense of 3rd edition
 

In 3e, the shield's PD sums to ALL active defenses rolls, but only from attacks incoming from the front and/or shield side hex. It must be WIELDED to give it's PD, not only CARRIED.

Ps: In 3e, isn't maximum PD at 6?

Re: Passive Defense of 3rd edition
 

I seem to remember so. Although some force-fields had PD8 were apparently an exception to the rule.

Bloody messy mechanic, good riddance.

Re: Passive Defense of 3rd edition
 

Anything gets silly when you go to the ends of a bell curve.

Actually, you could only Dodge (that is, get completely out of the way) 20% of the time. 30% of the time things bounced off of you without penetrating. That's why it's PASSIVE defense. 50% of the time you were hit and hurt.

I have fought with sword and shield. The shield helps A LOT!!!

Re: Passive Defense of 3rd edition
 

A common but erroneous belief. The Passive Defense advantage from Supers was so limited, but total PD from all sources had no special limit. It's like the myth that Dodge in 3e couldn't exceed 10 . . . sure it could, just not for the natural animals in Bestiary.

Re: Passive Defense of 3rd edition
 

A missunderstanding probably born out of some inner instinct to fix the mechanic.

Re: Passive Defense of 3rd edition
 

Yes. Complaints about it reaching above that are misplaced.

Re: Passive Defense of 3rd edition
 

Common indeed.
;)