5th Ed: Flying Dodge

[Alibear]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

IMO both DFC and Flying Dodge should have some sort of opposed roll on their movement elements (although I'd be fine with Flying Dodge getting the +4 DCV anyway) to determine if they get hit before they move.

 

 

I play Flying dodge as it increases your dcv as per the rules and you can move to the target hex if the attack doesn't stun you or knock you back.

 

DFC I leave alone as I think the 1/2 dcv part is a decent trade off.

[SteveZilla]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Is that anything like a flying brick?

 

 

Another variety of flying brick:

 

 

 

Being serious now. Is the "dive" in a DFC required to be in a straight line, but the FMove element of FD can turn corners? Would limiting the Move of an aborted-to FD to a straight line help resolve some of the difficulties?

[bigbywolfe]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Probably not since the biggest complaint is that you automatically avoid HtH combat.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Or why not just not allow Flying Dodge in games if its use according to RAW bothers a GM?

 

If I were a player in a game who built a character with this maneuver (say a speedster) and during an adventure I find out that the maneuver has been nerfed by a house-rule not explicitly stated up front during character creation, then I'd be a little pissed.

[prestidigitator]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Oh, I agree. Whether you're going to nerf it or disallow it completely, definitely be up front about it. At the latest bring it up when you go over a new character who has the maneuver, or when a player wants to buy it as an upgrade. But that's what a discussion like this is good for: get your mind wrapped around it before it comes up in-game. So I think we're on the right track.

[secretID]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

FD should be compared to DFC, but also to holding an action and then interrupting an attack with a move. You can’t do that as an abort, but you can via a DEX v. DEX roll, and a non-AOE attack would automatically miss.

 

E.g., Speedster, with 29 DEX, 10 OCV, and 20” MV is facing Blaster, with 20 DEX, 10 OCV, and a ranged attack, on the first seg 12.

 

Let’s say Speedster can’t/doesn’t want to move very far.

 

DFC:

Speedster holds his action (or he wouldn’t be able to DFC, since he can’t move twice in a seg). Blaster attacks, and Speedster aborts to DFC, moving 4”. He all but automatically hits the target hex, so Blaster automatically misses. Speedster is prone.

 

Interrupting move:

Speedster holds. Upon attack, Speedster rolls DEX at 15 vs. 13. If he makes it, he runs around behind Blaster, Blaster misses, and then Speedster, who is not prone, gets to attack Blaster!

 

FD:

Speedster holds, then aborts to FD, moving 4”. Blaster still gets to shoot at Speedster, but effectively at -4. Speedster isn’t prone, but has used his action. Speedster is at +4 DCV to other attacks.

 

Even if Speedster had the FD maneuver, he might well choose one of the other alternatives.

 

The further Speedster can/will move, the greater the advantage of FD. The choice will depend on relative DEX, SPD, and MV. And of course, FD costs 5, and requires that the character have at least 5 more in MAs.

 

 

Countering FD and DFC. DFC has serious problems if there are multiple attackers attacking at different times. FD has that same limitation, though it’s better - as it should be, because it costs. Fighting in closer quarters but with ranged attacks largely counters the FD, but not DFC. Timing can help – hold an action, then attack at the end of the seg before your next scheduled action, or hold an action and try to interrupt the next attack from the artful dodger. These might not be so easy, but we know that SPD and DEX have combat advantages – you’re probably a lot stronger than the little gnat.

 

Oh - and the thing about FDing around cover not stopping a ranged attack is ridiculous - it would actually be worse to dive around a corner than to run into a field. That I won't use, but the rest works for me.

[prestidigitator]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Hmm. I tend to play it that most of the time when you successfully dex-off to go first with a held action, the other character gets more choice in terms of what they'd like to do after you go. There are some exceptions, like performing a disarm "defensively" to interrupt an incoming attack. But generally if it's not a purely defensive action, I allow the dex-off to let you go first. That's it; not an automatic invalidation of the other character's action just because you win an opposed dex roll.

 

So if you're trying to move before they attack, you might get a couple of steps first (how far will probably depend on how far away you were when they decided to attack and by how much you win the dex-off), but they can generally choose to follow or intercept you and make their attack. Again there are a few exceptions, like if they are performing a Haymaker (and one or two forms of Extra Time) which specifically includes the weakness of missing if the target moves.

 

So I don't easily buy the, "I'll just move in the middle of his attack and he automatically misses," train of thought.

[secretID]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

When I was resolving this question as a GM, one of my players quoted from FRED (I only have the unrevised) a passage that said that when there's a DEX contest, each side is committed to the "announced" action.

[SteveZilla]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

But is there a DEX contest when the defender is Aborting to a defensive action? I thought DEX-offs were for Held Actions when used in an offensive nature (like "I use my held action to shoot him before he draws his gun to shoot me" or sumsuch)?

[secretID]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

But is there a DEX contest when the defender is Aborting to a defensive action? I thought DEX-offs were for Held Actions when used in an offensive nature (like "I use my held action to shoot him before he draws his gun to shoot me" or sumsuch)?

I think you have it right - there's only a DEX-off when you can't abort to the action you want. For this discussion, that means that there's no DEX-off for FD or DFC, but there is for interrupting an attack with a move.

[prestidigitator]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

But is there a DEX contest when the defender is Aborting to a defensive action? I thought DEX-offs were for Held Actions when used in an offensive nature (like "I use my held action to shoot him before he draws his gun to shoot me" or sumsuch)?

 

No, there isn't. That's why I made the distinction between defensive actions (that you can abort to, whether you are actually aborting or using a held phase) and other actions that require a dex-off to try to go first. However, my stance on moving to automatically avoid a normal (non-area) attack does still apply to the movement portions of DFC and Flying Dodge.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

How about this counter to flying dodge:

 

Adroit Punch: 6D6 EB (PD) (30 pts) Trigger (When oppent Flying Dodges) +(1/4) No time (+ 1/4) half Phase reset (+0) No range penalty (+1/2) indirect (+1/4)

 

Act 67 pts Real 67 pts end 7

 

Notes: I choose 6D6 EB by assuming 20 str cha and typical punch is +2DC. Also the eb gives me range without too much hassle. No range to represent PC gettting the hit off before the move (even though the opponent is actually moving) and indirect for the previous reason (even though the opponent actually moved around a corner.)

 

Thoughts ?

 

Also this build came to my mind as the easiest way to do this, but there probally is a better build out there.

[prestidigitator]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Adroit Punch: 6D6 EB (PD) (30 pts) Trigger (When oppent Flying Dodges) +(1/4) No time (+ 1/4) half Phase reset (+0) No range penalty (+1/2) indirect (+1/4)

 

Act 67 pts Real 67 pts end 7

 

Neat build, but the fact that you can construct a specific power to help one character overcome an imbalance in the system does not change the fact that it is an imbalance in the system. Unless you're willing to make it into a maneuver and allow everyone to use it, of course. That's a possibility: allow anyone to setup this "triggered" action instead of their normal attack; if the opponent attempts the maneuver you've declared as your trigger, they do not get the benefits of their maneuver against your attack; if they don't perform the trigger maneuver before your next Phase, your attack is wasted. It'd turn things into quite an acting/feinting game, but the intricacies might get amusing until they get old.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Neat build' date=' but the fact that you can construct a specific power to help one character overcome an imbalance in the system does not change the fact that it is an imbalance in the system. Unless you're willing to make it into a maneuver and allow everyone to use it, of course. That's a possibility: allow anyone to setup this "triggered" action instead of their normal attack; if the opponent attempts the maneuver you've declared as your trigger, they do not get the benefits of their maneuver against your attack; if they don't perform the trigger maneuver before your next Phase, your attack is wasted. It'd turn things into quite an acting/feinting game, but the intricacies might get amusing until they get old.[/quote']

 

Thanks. But to clarify, I wasn't so much as worried to game imbalance as (I'm finding trigger to be my new best friend ) inspiration hit on how to counter flying dodge. (I find that I'm horrible when I try to design something new.) And yes I do agree that flying dodge is a definate stop sign for a manuever worth a mere 5 points . On the other hand, I feel that it is appropriate for certain concepts.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Neat build' date=' but the fact that you can construct a specific power to help one character overcome an imbalance in the system does not change the fact that it is an imbalance in the system. Unless you're willing to make it into a maneuver and allow everyone to use it, of course. That's a possibility: allow anyone to setup this "triggered" action instead of their normal attack; if the opponent attempts the maneuver you've declared as your trigger, they do not get the benefits of their maneuver against your attack; if they don't perform the trigger maneuver before your next Phase, your attack is wasted. It'd turn things into quite an acting/feinting game, but the intricacies might get amusing until they get old.[/quote']

 

Also, if i'm going to use a house rule against flying dodge then instead of this monstrostity, I would go back to my original assumption and make it a dex contest. But now that I think about it, if the FD lost, he would only take half damage, as if he made a roll with the punch move. That would be fair I think !

[dmjalund]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

My thoughts:

 

If you have declared a flying dodge at your phase it should work exactly as written, automatically avoiding HTH attacks.

 

However

If you abort to it, your dodge happens before the attack (giving +4DCV to HTH & ranged attacks), but your movement doesn't happen until just after the attack (assuming the attack didn't stun, entangle etc)

[SteveZilla]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

How about this counter to flying dodge:

 

Adroit Punch: 6D6 EB (PD) (30 pts) Trigger (When oppent Flying Dodges) +(1/4) No time (+ 1/4) half Phase reset (+0) No range penalty (+1/2) indirect (+1/4)

 

Act 67 pts Real 67 pts end 7

 

Notes: I choose 6D6 EB by assuming 20 str cha and typical punch is +2DC. Also the eb gives me range without too much hassle. No range to represent PC gettting the hit off before the move (even though the opponent is actually moving) and indirect for the previous reason (even though the opponent actually moved around a corner.)

 

Thoughts ?

 

Also this build came to my mind as the easiest way to do this, but there probally is a better build out there.

 

You should note that Trigger doesn't happen before, or even "simultaneously" with the event that sets off the Trigger. Thus, to work I think you'd need to raise the Indirect to +1/2 (Always away from, Any Location -- if that is a valid choice) because the Flying Dodger might be behind cover.

 

 

My thoughts:

 

If you have declared a flying dodge at your phase it should work exactly as written, automatically avoiding HTH attacks.

 

However

If you abort to it, your dodge happens before the attack (giving +4DCV to HTH & ranged attacks), but your movement doesn't happen until just after the attack (assuming the attack didn't stun, entangle etc)

 

I think this might work, but it makes FD useless against AoE attacks, leaving just DfC.

[prestidigitator]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

My thoughts:

 

If you have declared a flying dodge at your phase it should work exactly as written, automatically avoiding HTH attacks.

 

However

If you abort to it, your dodge happens before the attack (giving +4DCV to HTH & ranged attacks), but your movement doesn't happen until just after the attack (assuming the attack didn't stun, entangle etc)

 

If you do it during your Phase, what attacks is the maneuver going to avoid? There's nothing to interrupt. By the time someone decides to attack you, you'll be at the end of your movement anyway, and they'll either choose to attack you there or not. The only way that might work is if you delay your Phase but declare that you are going to perform the Flying Dodge when someone attacks. That brings it perilously close the the Abort/Dex-off again though, eh?

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

You should note that Trigger doesn't happen before, or even "simultaneously" with the event that sets off the Trigger.

 

 

I confused.? Where did I give the impression of the above statement? The trigger is set for someone who uses the flying dodge manuever. I based this construct on the sample automatic risposte hero 5th rev pg 270. I didn't how ever buy up the reset. I left it at half phase so as to leave it as a one use. (Which I would do for the risposte also.) I view the trigger as a reflex action. Also if I it was simultaneously, I wouldn't have bought it with EB but as a HA.

 

As to the indirect being (+1/2). But rereading the description on page 260, I'm sticking with the (+1/4). Beacause indirect allows you to bypass intervening bariers. The (+1/4) level indicates that the attack is always fired away from the attacker, can only knock the target away from the attacker, not any other direction.

[SteveZilla]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

I confused.? Where did I give the impression of the above statement? The trigger is set for someone who uses the flying dodge maneuver. I based this construct on the sample automatic risposte hero 5th rev pg 270. I didn't how ever buy up the reset. I left it at half phase so as to leave it as a one use. (Which I would do for the risposte also.) I view the trigger as a reflex action. Also if I it was simultaneously, I wouldn't have bought it with EB but as a HA.

 

As to the indirect being (+1/2). But rereading the description on page 260, I'm sticking with the (+1/4). Because indirect allows you to bypass intervening barriers. The (+1/4) level indicates that the attack is always fired away from the attacker, can only knock the target away from the attacker, not any other direction.

 

Something that is Triggered by an action (done by you or someone else) goes off after the action is taken. Thus this attack doesn't fire until *after* the target has completed his FD movement. Not a serious problem, with the exceptions noted below.

 

5ER, p260 also states:

Defined Origin Point, Only Fires Away

 

If the Indirect power always originates from a certain spot, and can only be aimed or fired away from the character, Indirect is a +¼. Advantage. An example is an Energy Blast that always originates from a point three feet in front of a character (just outside his Force Wall). The Blast always starts at that point, and always fires in a direction away from the character.

 

The problem I see with using the +1/4 level of Indirect (still with a defined origin point) is that if the target Flying Dodges *closer* than that defined origin point, you can't hit him (a "minimum range" problem), and if he is further away than the defined origin, but behind a barrier, then the attack strikes that barrier because it is only Indirect between the attacker and the defined origin point. Past that point it is a normal attack.

 

The +1/2 Level of Indirect, with it's "Any Origin Point" option would allow you to, on a case-by-case basis, define the origin point as "Right Next To The Target" (thus avoiding *any and all* barriers between you two, and not having a "minimum range" problem).

[bigbywolfe]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

If you do it during your Phase' date=' what attacks is the maneuver going to avoid? There's nothing to interrupt. By the time someone decides to attack you, you'll be at the end of your movement anyway, and they'll either choose to attack you there or not. The only way that might work is if you delay your Phase but declare that you [i']are[/i] going to perform the Flying Dodge when someone attacks. That brings it perilously close the the Abort/Dex-off again though, eh?

Um, if you use Flying Dodge on your own phase you get to make a full move (closing distance or adding, depending if you are approaching or running away) while receiving a pretty big DCV bonus. You don't see that as possibly being useful?

[prestidigitator]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Um, if you use Flying Dodge on your own phase you get to make a full move (closing distance or adding, depending if you are approaching or running away) while receiving a pretty big DCV bonus. You don't see that as possibly being useful?

 

Oh, quite useful and I see nothing wrong with that part of the maneuver. It's the whole point of the maneuver IMO. However, it's quite different from making HTH attacks automatically miss.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

The problem I see with using the +1/4 level of Indirect (still with a defined origin point) is that if the target Flying Dodges *closer* than that defined origin point, you can't hit him (a "minimum range" problem), and if he is further away than the defined origin, but behind a barrier, then the attack strikes that barrier because it is only Indirect between the attacker and the defined origin point. Past that point it is a normal attack.

 

The +1/2 Level of Indirect, with it's "Any Origin Point" option would allow you to, on a case-by-case basis, define the origin point as "Right Next To The Target" (thus avoiding *any and all* barriers between you two, and not having a "minimum range" problem).

 

Well put, and I think I'll change it. Plus thinking for simplicty I'll add no kb.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Something that is Triggered by an action (done by you or someone else) goes off after the action is taken. Thus this attack doesn't fire until *after* the target has completed his FD movement. Not a serious problem, with the exceptions noted below.

 

 

 

Exactly, that is why I bought everything with range. It is only the special effect that I reach the target before he actually completes his move. And again why for simplicty why I going add the no kb-keeps headache down and he anyone asks I'll say the special effect is that the dodge still avoids any chance of the kb-its a hit but not a clean enough hit.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Boy did Steve Long ever open up Pandora's box by making this manuever.

 

How about this for an option. Only allow the movement once per phase, even if you abort? In other words same pc has 6" running. If he doesn't move, then aborts, he gets to use the full 6". If he did a have move of 3", and aborts, he only gets 3". If he moved the full 6" he gets 0" move, but in all cases, he gets his full DCV bonus.