Acrobatic Dodge - Page 2

Jeff Lord · 03-06-2020, 04:30 PM

@larsdangly

Let's first make sure we're on the same page with contested rolls.

We rarely just used a straight contested roll. A figure could "contest" (don't want to misuse the term "defend") an attack during a single turn at their adjDx. They would contest a subsequent attack at a -3 DX penalty, a third at -6, and so on. Mob tactics were quite effective. The difference between target number and actual dice roll was compared. Armored characters survived about as often as unarmored.

As I said, we played this way for years and really enjoyed it.

Skarg · 03-06-2020, 11:15 PM

Jeff, was this a free defense action (other than the cumulative penalty)?

Or did it have other downsides such as reducing subsequent attacks?

(FWIW, this is closer to (a much simplified version of) the GURPS defenses.)

Jeff Lord · 03-07-2020, 12:19 PM

Hey Skarg,

Any non-ranged attack coming in from the front hexes was able to be contested (Eyes Behind and UC IV would extend this to the side hexes).

It was "free" in the sense that it was simply part of the overall attack. We didn't see the need to impose further penalties (beyond the subsequent, cumulative, - 3 DX penalties) given the abstraction of the 5 second combat turn.

I think the 1 second combat turn in GURPS leads to different problems in abstraction.

This all sprung from the head scratching that occurred when trying to rationalize an adjDX 10 character having the same chance to hit an adjDX 8 untrained field hand as an adjDX 14 fencer.

03-06-2020, 04:30 PM	#11
Jeff Lord Join Date: Jul 2018	Re: Acrobatic Dodge @larsdangly Let's first make sure we're on the same page with contested rolls. We rarely just used a straight contested roll. A figure could "contest" (don't want to misuse the term "defend") an attack during a single turn at their adjDx. They would contest a subsequent attack at a -3 DX penalty, a third at -6, and so on. Mob tactics were quite effective. The difference between target number and actual dice roll was compared. Armored characters survived about as often as unarmored. As I said, we played this way for years and really enjoyed it. Last edited by Jeff Lord; 03-06-2020 at 04:31 PM. Reason: typo

03-06-2020, 11:15 PM	#12
Skarg Join Date: May 2015	Re: Acrobatic Dodge Jeff, was this a free defense action (other than the cumulative penalty)? Or did it have other downsides such as reducing subsequent attacks? (FWIW, this is closer to (a much simplified version of) the GURPS defenses.)

03-07-2020, 12:19 PM	#13
Jeff Lord Join Date: Jul 2018	Re: Acrobatic Dodge Hey Skarg, Any non-ranged attack coming in from the front hexes was able to be contested (Eyes Behind and UC IV would extend this to the side hexes). It was "free" in the sense that it was simply part of the overall attack. We didn't see the need to impose further penalties (beyond the subsequent, cumulative, - 3 DX penalties) given the abstraction of the 5 second combat turn. I think the 1 second combat turn in GURPS leads to different problems in abstraction. This all sprung from the head scratching that occurred when trying to rationalize an adjDX 10 character having the same chance to hit an adjDX 8 untrained field hand as an adjDX 14 fencer.