Thoughts on Update 5

By LuciusT, in Dark Heresy Second Edition Beta

Maybe the mistake is in making Dodge a skill at all. Maybe everyone should just get a Challenging (+0) Agility test to avoid ranged attacks and a Challenging (+0) Weapon Skill test to avoid melee attacks.

Then it gets even worse as you cannot get the +10/+20/+30...

I think it is ok as it was with opposed, just add one or two positive modifiers for dodge and fine.

Yes. Actually see it in print. But...would this mean that any successful Dodge made in melee is also fleeing combat? Or a Disengage move?

A case could be made for this in melee but that would invalidate the Assassin strike talent. The Character would simply have to dodge (Rather than Parry) and they have disengaged from melee. This could have other ramifications for all combatants. I'm sort of conflicted on this so I'll have to think on it more!

Possible solution: the attacker follows the target and he chooses the direction of the Dodge move instead of the target. So you are a little bit penalized to use Dodge in melee, representing the fact that it isn't really a dedicated counter-melee thing and you should really use Parry instead.

Maybe the mistake is in making Dodge a skill at all. Maybe everyone should just get a Challenging (+0) Agility test to avoid ranged attacks and a Challenging (+0) Weapon Skill test to avoid melee attacks.

Maybe the mistake is in making Dodge a skill at all. Maybe everyone should just get a Challenging (+0) Agility test to avoid ranged attacks and a Challenging (+0) Weapon Skill test to avoid melee attacks.

Then it gets even worse as you cannot get the +10/+20/+30...

I think it is ok as it was with opposed, just add one or two positive modifiers for dodge and fine.

I actually like LuciusT's suggestion. Then you get modifiers for conditions, just like attacks will.

Maybe the mistake is in making Dodge a skill at all. Maybe everyone should just get a Challenging (+0) Agility test to avoid ranged attacks and a Challenging (+0) Weapon Skill test to avoid melee attacks.

Removing the Dodge skill seems crazy at first because it's been in the game since Day 1. However, when I looked at the first edition rules I didn't find it odd that Parry wasn't a skill. As someone who studied martial arts for about 10 years, the thought of practicing defensive blocks to the complete exclusion of strikes and kicks (i.e. spending XP to jack up my Parry skill) makes very little sense. I learned offense and defense equally -- I spent my XP to increase Weapon Skill :D

With that realization, Dodge begins to make less sense as a skill. What is Dodge but a measurement of a character's ability to react quickly to incoming attacks and dive out of harm's way? That sounds like the basic description of Agility rather than a specific skill. Compare Dodge to Acrobatics and Sleight of Hand, both of which are Agility-based skills that IMO require far more specialized training.

I'm also totally fine with prohibiting the use of Agility-based Dodge in melee. Dodging punches and kicks (or chainsword strikes) requires reading your opponent's body language, then sidestepping or blocking appropriately -- honestly, I think Weapon Skill is much more applicable than Agility in this situation.

Removing the Dodge skill would also nerf the biggest bugbear of the binary Dodge system -- Dodge-monkey Assassin types who are basically immune to the first 2 attacks each round. A high-level Acolyte can elevate a stat to the 60s; as a straight Agility test, the Acolyte will have a high but not guaranteed chance to evade an attack, but with the +30 Dodge skill they are almost untouchable.

With that said, this approach does need some testing. I personally don't see Dodge/Parry as sufficiently separate from Agility/Weapon Skill to warrant their inclusion as skills, but other people may have perfectly valid reasons to disagree with me. I'll give this a shot with my group and see how it goes.

Edited by Covered in Weasels

Maybe the mistake is in making Dodge a skill at all. Maybe everyone should just get a Challenging (+0) Agility test to avoid ranged attacks and a Challenging (+0) Weapon Skill test to avoid melee attacks.

You may be onto something.

Removing the Dodge skill seems crazy at first because it's been in the game since Day 1. However, when I looked at the first edition rules I didn't find it odd that Parry wasn't a skill. As someone who studied martial arts for about 10 years, the thought of practicing defensive blocks to the complete exclusion of strikes and kicks (i.e. spending XP to jack up my Parry skill) makes very little sense. I learned offense and defense equally -- I spent my XP to increase Weapon Skill :D

With that realization, Dodge begins to make less sense as a skill. What is Dodge but a measurement of a character's ability to react quickly to incoming attacks and dive out of harm's way? That sounds like the basic description of Agility rather than a specific skill. Compare Dodge to Acrobatics and Sleight of Hand, both of which are Agility-based skills that IMO require far more specialized training.

I'm also totally fine with prohibiting the use of Agility-based Dodge in melee. Dodging punches and kicks (or chainsword strikes) requires reading your opponent's body language, then sidestepping or blocking appropriately -- honestly, I think Weapon Skill is much more applicable than Agility in this situation.

Removing the Dodge skill would also nerf the biggest bugbear of the binary Dodge system -- Dodge-monkey Assassin types who are basically immune to the first 2 attacks each round. A high-level Acolyte can elevate a stat to the 60s; as a straight Agility test, the Acolyte will have a high but not guaranteed chance to evade an attack, but with the +30 Dodge skill they are almost untouchable.

With that said, this approach does need some testing. I personally don't see Dodge/Parry as sufficiently separate from Agility/Weapon Skill to warrant their inclusion as skills, but other people may have perfectly valid reasons to disagree with me. I'll give this a shot with my group and see how it goes.

I'll run it by my players tonight

Edited by Felenis

An option that I use in a homebrew system is that Dodging in melee inflicts a condition on your character called Off-Balance. It gives you a -10 to all skill rolls involving movement and attacking, until you spend some action points (Half Action in WH40K probably) to remove it, IE recover your balance.

This way Dodge is still good, but there is a reason to take Parry rather than just to get the Balanced bonus. Particularly for a melee oriented character.

It also still allows characters to make those cinematic diving rolls, but just like in the action movies they are (almost comically) off balance and have to fight to regain their footing.

Of course this works best as part of an overall system that is balanced for this, but the Dodge/Parry issues in WH40KRPG partly inspired this aspect of the system so I thought it might be relevant for some.

Maybe the mistake is in making Dodge a skill at all. Maybe everyone should just get a Challenging (+0) Agility test to avoid ranged attacks and a Challenging (+0) Weapon Skill test to avoid melee attacks.

You may be onto something.

Removing the Dodge skill seems crazy at first because it's been in the game since Day 1. However, when I looked at the first edition rules I didn't find it odd that Parry wasn't a skill. As someone who studied martial arts for about 10 years, the thought of practicing defensive blocks to the complete exclusion of strikes and kicks (i.e. spending XP to jack up my Parry skill) makes very little sense. I learned offense and defense equally -- I spent my XP to increase Weapon Skill :D

With that realization, Dodge begins to make less sense as a skill. What is Dodge but a measurement of a character's ability to react quickly to incoming attacks and dive out of harm's way? That sounds like the basic description of Agility rather than a specific skill. Compare Dodge to Acrobatics and Sleight of Hand, both of which are Agility-based skills that IMO require far more specialized training.

I'm also totally fine with prohibiting the use of Agility-based Dodge in melee. Dodging punches and kicks (or chainsword strikes) requires reading your opponent's body language, then sidestepping or blocking appropriately -- honestly, I think Weapon Skill is much more applicable than Agility in this situation.

Removing the Dodge skill would also nerf the biggest bugbear of the binary Dodge system -- Dodge-monkey Assassin types who are basically immune to the first 2 attacks each round. A high-level Acolyte can elevate a stat to the 60s; as a straight Agility test, the Acolyte will have a high but not guaranteed chance to evade an attack, but with the +30 Dodge skill they are almost untouchable.

With that said, this approach does need some testing. I personally don't see Dodge/Parry as sufficiently separate from Agility/Weapon Skill to warrant their inclusion as skills, but other people may have perfectly valid reasons to disagree with me. I'll give this a shot with my group and see how it goes.

I came back to this forum after the murder of Opposed Defenses just to lend support to this idea.

Actually, I will say more:

If we have dodge and parry skills, we should ditch the weapon proficiency talents and trade them for weapon proficiency skills, for the sake of consistency.

Which actually doesn't sound so bad... Oh, gosh darn it.

Edited by svstrauser

That does sound bad. You would need to go back and remove a ton of the stacking modifiers on an attack before you could make it work. Then it implies that things like skill tests to reload and other such madness should be in the game, because "why not, the skill is there?" It sounds like a horrifyingly bad idea, actually.

I vote for ditching the Dodge and Parry skills and not adding any weapon-type-based skills. Save ranked skills for things that are applicable outside of combat.

I'm not a fan of requiring proficiency talents for the most basic of weapons, but they may be appropriate for more esoteric stuff. I've toyed with the idea of giving all starting characters proficiency in Low-tech, Las, and SP weapons (representing rudimentary standard training for all Inquisition recruits). Other weapons like chainswords, bolters and launchers could require talents to use effectively, since they require different aiming/swinging techniques or complex maintainance rituals.

I think I would vote for Dodge and Parry being simple actions instead of skills. I agree that this would nerf the "dodge monkey problem to some degree and simply make it a test. It also put's it back into line with Bs and Ws tests which do not have "Skill" modifiers beyond the stat itself. As another poster pointed out; Defence is part and parcel of learning a combat skill.

You would need something added to dodge/parry to even it out though. Attacks get bonuses from alot of things, like craftmanship, range, weapon addons, standard attack etc. OR simply ramp up the lethality. Think melee characters will feel it the most since they risk getting caught out in the open after finishing an opponent.

You would need something added to dodge/parry to even it out though. Attacks get bonuses from alot of things, like craftmanship, range, weapon addons, standard attack etc. OR simply ramp up the lethality. Think melee characters will feel it the most since they risk getting caught out in the open after finishing an opponent.

I don't think dodging needs a bonus -- if melee characters have a chance of being caught in the open after finishing their opponent, they will think more tactically about their engagements. If they charge someone in cover, great! If not, they can use Maneuver to push their opponent into a spot of cover before killing them. They can also save an action to move after attacking or use Assassin Strike to get away. The less agile Acolytes can potentially use Thunder Charge to bowl through some defenders before killing their target immediately; the Prone opponents will lose a Half Action next turn, making their counter attacks much less effective.

You would need something added to dodge/parry to even it out though. Attacks get bonuses from alot of things, like craftmanship, range, weapon addons, standard attack etc. OR simply ramp up the lethality. Think melee characters will feel it the most since they risk getting caught out in the open after finishing an opponent.

If you look at the Dodge and Parry skill descriptions, there already are modifiers which can be added to them. You can just keep those.

Really though, since evasion isn't an opposed roll, you don't need to match bonus for bonus.

You would need something added to dodge/parry to even it out though. Attacks get bonuses from alot of things, like craftmanship, range, weapon addons, standard attack etc. OR simply ramp up the lethality. Think melee characters will feel it the most since they risk getting caught out in the open after finishing an opponent.

I don't think dodging needs a bonus -- if melee characters have a chance of being caught in the open after finishing their opponent, they will think more tactically about their engagements. If they charge someone in cover, great! If not, they can use Maneuver to push their opponent into a spot of cover before killing them. They can also save an action to move after attacking or use Assassin Strike to get away. The less agile Acolytes can potentially use Thunder Charge to bowl through some defenders before killing their target immediately; the Prone opponents will lose a Half Action next turn, making their counter attacks much less effective.

If you look at the Dodge and Parry skill descriptions, there already are modifiers which can be added to them. You can just keep those.

Really though, since evasion isn't an opposed roll, you don't need to match bonus for bonus.

I think this sums it up.

not only there has to be a reasonable chance to be hit, as there is no longer an opposed check (keeping the "combat has to be deadly" theme of the rules), there are already bonus for defence in the rules.

that said, I would like to point out that my "suggestion" of using weapon skills was a joke. just in case it appears in some update in the future!

Edit: I do think it should be possible to use dodge as a melee defence, though. Maybe with a penalty?

Edited by svstrauser

I am not strongly opposed to the flat WS/BS vs. Ag/WS Opposed Test, but I'll just point out that the binary dodge system IS in fact such a test -- not in the narrow, technical sense that DoSs are being compared, but in the general sense that it is a contest between two characteristics. It simply takes place on different levels (one check vs. BS followed by one check vs. Dodge, rather than both being done simultaneously by a single mechanic), so it is less easy to see, but mathematically it is the same thing,

Come to think of it, I think the opposed test idea might just add needless complexity. Since what it does functionally in 90% of cases is increase the chance to hit by about 10%, you might as well just do that.

OR you could give the attacker a bonus or penalty equal to half the difference between his skill and his opponent's skill. Again, mathematically the outcome is not much different.

I am not strongly opposed to the flat WS/BS vs. Ag/WS Opposed Test, but I'll just point out that the binary dodge system IS in fact such a test -- not in the narrow, technical sense that DoSs are being compared, but in the general sense that it is a contest between two characteristics. It simply takes place on different levels (one check vs. BS followed by one check vs. Dodge, rather than both being done simultaneously by a single mechanic), so it is less easy to see, but mathematically it is the same thing,

Come to think of it, I think the opposed test idea might just add needless complexity. Since what it does functionally in 90% of cases is increase the chance to hit by about 10%, you might as well just do that.

OR you could give the attacker a bonus or penalty equal to half the difference between his skill and his opponent's skill. Again, mathematically the outcome is not much different.

No, it isn't in fact such a test. An Opposed Test is narrowly defined concept with a specific place in the system where the DoS of the two character are compared. There is no technicality or vagueness here where you can say that the Binary Dodge mechanic is in fact an Opposed Test, because it isn't.

Those two solutions are worse than Binary Dodge alone. Essentially what you are saying is that you should just add another step, albeit a small one, to the process. Nor is the goal of an Opposed Test on Dodge to just increase the chance of an attacker succeeding on his roll. It is supposed to remove the edge cases where a weak dodge can negate a strong attack roll, which is a really awkward mechanic.

I did say something about "not in the strict and narrow sense," specifically...

The point is that the basic dynamic of a contest between skills is the same. A WS50 person will hit an Ag 50 person less often than he will an Ag 20 person, and will do both more frequently than a WS 30 person, regardless of whether the rolls are opposed (narrow sense) or not. Making the rolls opposed (narrow sense) does not change this dynamic at all.

The only in game effect making it an opposed test (narrow sense) will have, period, is to increase the number of hits. The amount of other in-game effects is zero.

Opposed (narrow sense) skill checks in the case of multiple attacks -- which is what cancelling out 1 hit per 1 DoS on the evasion test effectively is, approximately -- is an easy way to quickly determine number of hits and so serves a purpose. However, with Standard (or All-Out) Attack, it serves no purpose at all because the attack is itself either-or (with the exception of 1 minimum damage on 1 die per 1 DoS). The absolute only difference it will make functionally is to increase number of hits -- so you might as well just add an extra bonus on the attack to begin with and save the effort of counting and comparing DoS.

I am perplexed by the "good roll" argument. A roll is only good if the system says it is. Why on Earth should anyone think a 01 is better than a 20 unless the system has specifically designated it as such?

I am not strongly opposed to the flat WS/BS vs. Ag/WS Opposed Test, but I'll just point out that the binary dodge system IS in fact such a test -- not in the narrow, technical sense that DoSs are being compared, but in the general sense that it is a contest between two characteristics. It simply takes place on different levels (one check vs. BS followed by one check vs. Dodge, rather than both being done simultaneously by a single mechanic), so it is less easy to see, but mathematically it is the same thing,

Come to think of it, I think the opposed test idea might just add needless complexity. Since what it does functionally in 90% of cases is increase the chance to hit by about 10%, you might as well just do that.

OR you could give the attacker a bonus or penalty equal to half the difference between his skill and his opponent's skill. Again, mathematically the outcome is not much different.

No, it isn't in fact such a test. An Opposed Test is narrowly defined concept with a specific place in the system where the DoS of the two character are compared. There is no technicality or vagueness here where you can say that the Binary Dodge mechanic is in fact an Opposed Test, because it isn't.

Those two solutions are worse than Binary Dodge alone. Essentially what you are saying is that you should just add another step, albeit a small one, to the process. Nor is the goal of an Opposed Test on Dodge to just increase the chance of an attacker succeeding on his roll. It is supposed to remove the edge cases where a weak dodge can negate a strong attack roll, which is a really awkward mechanic.

Honestly, I prefer a system where a weak dodge can negate a strong attack, especially in 40K roleplay. It's a preference rooting in a basic desire to root for the underdog... and when faced with Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids, Eldar, Orks and Daemons, the agents of the Imperium are supposed to be the decided underdogs. A mechanic which gives a normal human a chance to survive a Bloodletters hellblade is a good mechanic. It may not make sense in terms of "realism" but it makes sense in terms of good cinematic drama. If I wanted realism, I wouldn't be playing a game involving alien demons and space orks. :)

If Dodge/Parry Skills are removed, evading attacks should be binary. Otherwise it'll be way too hard to dodge single shots from Accurate weapons (if they roll well and get ~6 DoS, Opposed evasion is nigh-impossible).

I did say something about "not in the strict and narrow sense," specifically...

The point is that the basic dynamic of a contest between skills is the same. A WS50 person will hit an Ag 50 person less often than he will an Ag 20 person, and will do both more frequently than a WS 30 person, regardless of whether the rolls are opposed (narrow sense) or not. Making the rolls opposed (narrow sense) does not change this dynamic at all.

The only in game effect making it an opposed test (narrow sense) will have, period, is to increase the number of hits. The amount of other in-game effects is zero.

Opposed (narrow sense) skill checks in the case of multiple attacks -- which is what cancelling out 1 hit per 1 DoS on the evasion test effectively is, approximately -- is an easy way to quickly determine number of hits and so serves a purpose. However, with Standard (or All-Out) Attack, it serves no purpose at all because the attack is itself either-or (with the exception of 1 minimum damage on 1 die per 1 DoS). The absolute only difference it will make functionally is to increase number of hits -- so you might as well just add an extra bonus on the attack to begin with and save the effort of counting and comparing DoS.

I am perplexed by the "good roll" argument. A roll is only good if the system says it is. Why on Earth should anyone think a 01 is better than a 20 unless the system has specifically designated it as such?

The point of Opposed Evasion isn't to increase the number of hits on multiple attacks, it's intended to remove the cases where a high DoS roll on something like a Standard Attack is totally negated by a Dodge roll with 1 DoS. This bleeds over into other actions as well. All-Out Attack is suddenly much less useful and much worse than a multiple hit attack. As far as crunch is concerned, multiple attack weapons will often be better than weapons that don't have multiple attacks. This is more true in the case of melee weapons, and much less so in the case of ranged weapons with Accurate. Ideally, all of these things, Actions and weapon types and styles, should be balanced roughly the same. Opposed Evasion is supposed to even out that unbalance.

A good roll is defined by the DoS it gives you. Likewise, a roll of 01 is better than a roll of 20 precisely because the system is designed with that case in mind. DoS are should matter in every attack roll, not just the ones that can make multiple hits.

And before you start spewing tripe about increased hits again, do the actual math or use it in a game.

I am not strongly opposed to the flat WS/BS vs. Ag/WS Opposed Test, but I'll just point out that the binary dodge system IS in fact such a test -- not in the narrow, technical sense that DoSs are being compared, but in the general sense that it is a contest between two characteristics. It simply takes place on different levels (one check vs. BS followed by one check vs. Dodge, rather than both being done simultaneously by a single mechanic), so it is less easy to see, but mathematically it is the same thing,

Come to think of it, I think the opposed test idea might just add needless complexity. Since what it does functionally in 90% of cases is increase the chance to hit by about 10%, you might as well just do that.

OR you could give the attacker a bonus or penalty equal to half the difference between his skill and his opponent's skill. Again, mathematically the outcome is not much different.

No, it isn't in fact such a test. An Opposed Test is narrowly defined concept with a specific place in the system where the DoS of the two character are compared. There is no technicality or vagueness here where you can say that the Binary Dodge mechanic is in fact an Opposed Test, because it isn't.

Those two solutions are worse than Binary Dodge alone. Essentially what you are saying is that you should just add another step, albeit a small one, to the process. Nor is the goal of an Opposed Test on Dodge to just increase the chance of an attacker succeeding on his roll. It is supposed to remove the edge cases where a weak dodge can negate a strong attack roll, which is a really awkward mechanic.

Honestly, I prefer a system where a weak dodge can negate a strong attack, especially in 40K roleplay. It's a preference rooting in a basic desire to root for the underdog... and when faced with Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids, Eldar, Orks and Daemons, the agents of the Imperium are supposed to be the decided underdogs. A mechanic which gives a normal human a chance to survive a Bloodletters hellblade is a good mechanic. It may not make sense in terms of "realism" but it makes sense in terms of good cinematic drama. If I wanted realism, I wouldn't be playing a game involving alien demons and space orks. :)

I'm not going to argue preference, because what you prefer isn't my concern. I can see why you like Binary Dodge as well, it has it's places.

However, increasing number of hits (not in multiple attacks, but for standard attacks) is exactly what it does, because that is the effect of making DoS a penalty on the evasion check. It does nothing else, functionally.

Edited by bogi_khaosa

However, increasing number of hits (not in multiple attacks, but for standard attacks) is exactly what it does, because that is the effect of making DoS a penalty on the evasion check. It does nothing else, functionally.

That is what it is supposed to do, functionally making weapons that rely on those attacks and those actions more useful than they are now.

Then, why don't you just give them a bonus to hit, which is simpler and does the same thing?

Two reasons. The first is that there is already a bonus to hit with Standard Attack. The second is that edge case I was talking about, where a narrowly succeeded dodge can totally negate a great roll on a Standard Attack. Because of the whole 1 hit Dodged per DoS on the dodge roll thing, there is a large discrepancy between attacks that can have multiple hits and an attack that doesn't. It essentially means that you always want weapons that use multiple hits on the attack, which is bad for game balance. Like I said before, the goal here isn't to make Dodge (or Parry) worse, it's to make the Standard Attack better (with weapons that don't have Accurate.)