Dodging to another square

[Vortigern]

I agree that Sutek was mildly sarcastic before you Sup4. That much is true by his own admision. I don't think he was admitting it to be intended as blatantly insulting however... that isn't what I take 'a little sarcastic' to mean, or how I would view that statement in the context of speaking about a post where someone quite literally did draw a diagram to discuss things with you.

So...

I think you did get baited, slightly. I agree on the chronology, but not on the severity, which is why I think you overreacted. Slightly at first, and then more later. You were actually rather polite at first, asking him what he meant by his statement. So there is no doubt you tried to avoid the argument in that instance. After that however your temper appears to get the better of you.

To me the difficulty with a dialogue with you doesn't have anything to do with you losing your temper however. But I think perhaps I'm a bit more diplomatic than some, if I may say so myself without seeming exactly the opposite. Some people make 'snarky' comments as both a vent for sarcasm and their own tempers/frustrations, as well as a means of humor... and my general recollection is that you respond rather aggressively to any of them that are directed in your general direction. Which I would characterize as, usually but not always, an overreaction. But that is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned, because like I said... I think on that front I don't have much trouble getting along with you ( or anyone ) because I usually ( but not always ) refrain from snark.

To me it is more about the aforementioned 'brickwall logic' issue. Not that this is always a bad thing. I imagine it would be more difficult than usual to con you for example. But it makes a debate much more laborious. :wink:

 

[Supplement Four]

I think you did get baited, slightly.

And, given our heated discussion in this thread, what does he do in other threads? He continues the snarky comments rather than attempting to avoid the conflict.

Like I said, he's a jerk.

For example, in the Map thread, everything was/is cool with me and Vincent. He thought I called him a name when I started the sentence with "Whelp", and I corrected that ASAP to avoid bad feelings.

It was a non-issue.

Then, Sutek tries to bring it up again. In my opinion, he was just trying to ruffle feathers again.

Done-issue, then, he posts:

Google asks if I meant to type "help, I", so obviously sdomething is wonky straight away. I see a coupld of blog entries that use the word the way you have, but that is far from being able to derive that your use of the word "whelp" is correct.

I see that Dictionary.com has these seven definitions, the most common usage being either "the young of the dog, or of the wolf, bear, lion, tiger, seal, etc." or "a youth, esp. an impudent or despised one."

Hmm.

So, basically, he's calling me a liar and trying to heat things up between me and Vincent--as if I had made up a reason for using "Whelp".

This is the behavior of a jerk.

Sutek's a jerk, as I keep saying. And, you and I, Vortigern, would not even be having this conversation had Sutek not been a jerk earlier in the thread.

So there is no doubt you tried to avoid the argument in that instance.

Thank you for recognizing that. I did.

After that however your temper appears to get the better of you.

Not quite "my temper", because I don't have any real feelings about Sutek (other than to think him a jerk).

But, if you (universal "you") go around worrying about what some jerk says on a forum all the time, your hair will certainly turn white years before its time. Life is too short to concern oneself with that kind of BS.

OTOH, I have little patience for jerks, and if someone is going to act like that, I don't have a proboblem in not letting them skate away freely. I don't put up with a lot of crap. It's just not in my nature.

To me the difficulty with a dialogue with you doesn't have anything to do with you losing your temper however.

The thing is this: As I've said before (earlier in the thread), if you place nice with me, then I'll place nice with you.

If you're a jerk, then you get what you deserve.

Simple as that.

Look at all the threads in which I've posted here in this forum. I've never gotten snarky with anyone first. But, when it was done to me, I haven't backed down, either. F%$# 'em, is my motto.

 

[Supplement Four]

Back on the original topic...

It doesn't seem that anyone has yet posted the ultimate reasoning for this rule. Vortigern's comment comes close, but it does sound like a handwave a bit.

What I've determined from reading the responses on this thread is that most GMs just accept the rule as-is without questioning it. That they don't need the logic behind it.

And, that's fine. I was just curious about it. Logically, not everything about the rule and the Dance Aside maneuver really adds up completely.

I'll keep thinking about it.

 

[Vortigern]

Personally it makes sense to me. I don't find them illogical, and feel as if I do have the logic behind it. I thought I made that clear earlier?

I think this is an instance of us having two very different logical approaches to this and the interpretation of the rule and what it appears to represent.

 

[Supplement Four]

Personally it makes sense to me. I don't find them illogical, and feel as if I do have the logic behind it. I thought I made that clear earlier?

Let me pose a question to you, then. Maybe I'll see your logic clearer. Maybe you'll see my point better.

We'll see.

Consider a combat grid.

T = Table
A = Attacker
D = Dodger

Take this combat grid set-up...

AAA
ADA
AAA

And compare it to this one...

TTT
TDT
TAT

The Dodger will never leave his square, yes? So, why does it matter he's surrounded by tables? Why can't he dodge the attacker normally?

Why isn't there any difference (mechanically) between the two combat set-ups?

 

[flatscan]

Why isn't there any difference (mechanically) between the two combat set-ups?

Because, Conan: the RPG is not a simulationist game. It is a gamist game (like all d20 games). The flavor is that your character is moving by Dodging but the tech is that he must return to the square he started in. So even though he dodges to a nearby square to avoid the blow, he "stays" in his original square, unless he uses Dance Aside.

Combat is divided up by Actions, Movement, and Defense. Allowing Defense to include Movement would unbalance characters that Dodge vs. characters that Parry by giving the Dodgers a tactically powerful added advantage. That's why they made Dance Aside a maneuver with strict requirements.

 

[Supplement Four]

Why isn't there any difference (mechanically) between the two combat set-ups?

Because, Conan: the RPG is not a simulationist game. It is a gamist game (like all d20 games). The flavor is that your character is moving by Dodging but the tech is that he must return to the square he started in. So even though he dodges to a nearby square to avoid the blow, he "stays" in his original square, unless he uses Dance Aside.

Combat is divided up by Actions, Movement, and Defense. Allowing Defense to include Movement would unbalance characters that Dodge vs. characters that Parry by giving the Dodgers a tactically powerful added advantage. That's why they made Dance Aside a maneuver with strict requirements.

Agreed on this. I wasn't looking for the mechanical reason, but I understand what you're saying.

But even if d20 is gameist (and I'm not sure I agree with you 100% on that...yet, I don't disagree 100% either), still it's rules have logic behind them. They don't add rules "just because". Evem abstract hit points are logically defined (from a simulationist perspective).

Thus, this rule should have logical reasoning behind it, too--something that a simulationist gamer would be happy with.

That's what I'm looking for.

 

[flatscan]

Thus, this rule should have logical reasoning behind it, too--something that a simulationist gamer would be happy with.

That's what I'm looking for.

We as players can only guess as there's no further explanation in the rules. I also think Mongoose added the penalty to hem Dodging in a bit as Dodge already had a benefit over Parrying since you can't Parry ranged attacks. You should post your question in the "Rules" forum and see if any of the game writers can throw a clue our way.

 

[Supplement Four]

You should post your question in the "Rules" forum and see if any of the game writers can throw a clue our way.

I went down the route with some other, earlier, game questions, and they still sit unanswered.

That forum is a good idea, but as it sits, it's useless. I haven't seen too many authors or Mongoose rule authorities answering anything there.

 

[Krushnak]

The Dodger will never leave his square, yes? So, why does it matter he's surrounded by tables? Why can't he dodge the attacker normally?

Because those elbows and knees you've got flailing around while dodging have to go somewhere and whether your surrounded by angry men with swords or belligerent tables you have to concentrate harder to not hit them.

 

[Supplement Four]

Because those elbows and knees you've got flailing around while dodging have to go somewhere and whether your surrounded by angry men with swords or belligerent tables you have to concentrate harder to not hit them.

Possible. Five feet isn't that much space if you think about it.

 

[Trodax]

This is how I look at it:

Why do you need the extra square to dodge effectively?
When you dodge an attack, you are moving around, in the sense that you're using footwork to shift your body to avoid attacks (this is obvious because in real life peoples feet aren't glued to the center of a 5-foot square :wink: ). When someone swings at you with a sword, you take a quick step back. When someone lunges at you with a spear, you shift to the side. That it would be much harder to dodge an attack if you were hemmed in by walls or enemies on all sides seems perfectly logical to me (and I would think most people agree, right?)

So why don't you move on the battle grid when you dodge?
Well, here we have to become a little more gamist and make sure that the rules we make actually give satisfying results in the game. If you allowed movement every time someone applied their dodge defense to an attack, you would open up a huge can of worms. Tactical positioning is very important in d20 combat, and allowing movement when dodging would basically be giving free maneuverability (an enormous advantage to those using dodge instead of parry defense, just like flatscan said above). Also, imagine a dodging character getting hit by a swarm of 20 arrows; he would be bouncing around like a madman! Madmen bouncing around is not something I want to see in my Sword & Sorcery gaming, because they, frankly, look quite silly. With the Dance Aside maneuver, it's OK, because it's restricted to only those attacks that are less than half your dodge defense so it won't happen very often (and also you need Dex 13).
(I should add, though, that the first time I read the maneuver description, I was a bit wary of bouncing madmen and would have preferred to see it restricted to once/round or something. Haven't seen it in play, though; it's probably not a problem.)

To sum up: if you think it's illogical that you don't move when you dodge, it's probably best to apply a "the game has to work" explanation, because the alternative would give grossly illogical results (madmen flying 100 feet through the air when hit by 20 arrows, when they wouldn't have been able to move at all without those arrows...*shudder*).

 

[Vortigern]

Personally it makes sense to me. I don't find them illogical, and feel as if I do have the logic behind it. I thought I made that clear earlier?

Let me pose a question to you, then. Maybe I'll see your logic clearer. Maybe you'll see my point better.

We'll see.

Consider a combat grid.

T = Table
A = Attacker
D = Dodger

Take this combat grid set-up...

AAA
ADA
AAA

And compare it to this one...

TTT
TDT
TAT

The Dodger will never leave his square, yes? So, why does it matter he's surrounded by tables? Why can't he dodge the attacker normally?

Why isn't there any difference (mechanically) between the two combat set-ups?

Personally in situation two I don't consider the tables to be a very serious hindrance, depending on the character in question. I'd allow tumble/jump checks to circumvent them for unimpeded movement if desired, and I'm not sure I wouldn't just count them as 'empty' for dodge purposes.

 

[Supplement Four]

Trodax makes "game" sense above, and I agree with what he has to say. But, it's still not a logical "in-game" or "in-universe" reason for the rule.

Maybe there isn't one.

Personally in situation two I don't consider the tables to be a very serious hindrance, depending on the character in question. I'd allow tumble/jump checks to circumvent them for unimpeded movement if desired, and I'm not sure I wouldn't just count them as 'empty' for dodge purposes.

The tables (in my mind) are long, picnic-like affairs with long benches that will seat 5 or more people to a side.

According to the rules, those squares are blocked because of the tables--just as if you'd stacked crates there.

If if helps, replace the tables above with casks and barrels of wine, stacked about 6 feet high, taking up the entire square.

 

[Vortigern]

Well if that is the case then he can't dodge to full effect because his attacker is the one controlling the distance of engagement via controlling the only entrance/exit into that small blocked off area.

The attacker can press, or not, depending on whatever is to his advantage or to your detriment. He can herd you into the corner, or try to. There is a lot of dodge type movement that is theoretically curtailed by the fact that you can't move in those other directions. ( Similarly curtailed I'd say by an enemy being in all of those squares. )

You can still dodge however. And it might even work. But it isn't going to be as easy as it would be if you were in a nice open space, free to dance and jump around however you might want to. So you take a penalty, to reflect the tight spot you are in.

 

[Sutek]

Consider a combat grid.

T = Table
A = Attacker
D = Dodger

Take this combat grid set-up...

AAA
ADA
AAA

And compare it to this one...

TTT
TDT
TAT

The Dodger will never leave his square, yes? So, why does it matter he's surrounded by tables? Why can't he dodge the attacker normally?

Why isn't there any difference (mechanically) between the two combat set-ups?

There's a huge difference. Massive.

Without going into my interpretation of tables not really resulting in a blocked space, and only counting as terrain as far as the impact on the combat, let's just say that for the sake of argumant that the do "block" movement into those spaces.

The massive difference is tha the Attackers in map 1 all get huge Multiple Attacker bonuses and the Defender gets a -2 because he has no clear spaces or friendly spaces adjacent to him.

In map 2, the Defender is facing one foe and thus the combat situations are different from the Attacker perspective, and not necessarily the Defender perspective.

I would, however, count the tables as difficult terrain, preventing full movement and makin gcharging and running impossible. A Tunmble check would make normal movement possible, and it goes on, but I won't belaor the point.

Let me take another tactic on explaining why this -2 Dodge penalty may be there in the rule set when the defender, faced with a choice betwen Dodge and Parry, still wants to use Dodge. With an exceptionally high DEX and low STR, Dodge could still be the better option, even with the -2 penalty.

Okay. So, if you look at how the Multiple Combatants rule works versus the base Defense value, under a basic set up of nine (9) occupied squares with enemies in them surrounding a single defender, the final enemy in the series wold have a +16 from the Multiple Combatant cumulative bonus, +2 additionally from an eraned Flank bouns, and because of the mitigagted Defender Dodge, essentially gains another 2 point smaking for an effective +20, before BAB is taken into account.

In a simulationist sense, the -2 penalty hinges on the notion of Threatened Squares. Threatened squares are the dangerous areas of the combat grid, and serve to indicate where Attacks of Opportunity (AOO)occur, drive the 5' Step rule, and make a tangent with Reach as well. If every combatant has at least a 5' reach, able to cause threatening actions in all adjacent squares of the combat grid (not there's no "facing" rules), adjacency is still an issue to contend with when dealing with foes on the grid. To this end, moving out of a threatened square, at any time, provokes an AOO. This is stated in the AOO section of the Combat rules. Movement in Combat is handled under that section, and is it's own action type: Move Action. One must utilize a Move Action to move any number of squares, including a 5' Step, which is the only means of "canceling" an AOO.

So, the reason for the -2 Penalty is because (A) it's the minimum penalty that can be applied in the system, (B) stems from the "Threatened Squares" simulationist concept on which the combat system is based, (C) reinforces the desperate situation of being surrounded by foes (Multiple Combatants rules) or being trapped in a vulnerable combat grid position where the nature of the simulated combat threat is higer because the character is "boxed in".

So it has multiple rules-based reasons, as well as clear flavor-based reasons also.

 

[Sutek]

Trodax makes "game" sense above, and I agree with what he has to say. But, it's still not a logical "in-game" or "in-universe" reason for the rule.

Maybe there isn't one.

What about it isn't logical to you? I mean that in the most serious sense. Evidently, you have a real problem with this -2 or the "not allowing a move" portion of our responses. You do see how Dodge versus range attacks or spells or multiple attackers would break the game mechanics apart? I suppose if you can tell us why you feel it's illogical, we may have a better idea of where you're coming from.

Personally in situation two I don't consider the tables to be a very serious hindrance, depending on the character in question. I'd allow tumble/jump checks to circumvent them for unimpeded movement if desired, and I'm not sure I wouldn't just count them as 'empty' for dodge purposes.

The tables (in my mind) are long, picnic-like affairs with long benches that will seat 5 or more people to a side.

According to the rules, those squares are blocked because of the tables--just as if you'd stacked crates there.

If if helps, replace the tables above with casks and barrels of wine, stacked about 6 feet high, taking up the entire square.

Actaually, no. Tables are not regarded as elements that would block movement. In fact, both Terrain and Obstacle rules are pretty undefined although each have different effects on combat mechanics. At least in the Atlantean Edition, tables, I would rule, counted as obstacles, hampering movement but not completely blocking it, resulting in a double-space cost to move into and out of. The "picnic table" type you describe, with attached benches, would probably only require a skill check to avoid this movement penalty.

Just sayin...but, of course things could be different in 2ed.