Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dodge bullets and lightning

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Ambrosia View Post
    I don't agree generally, though I'll say it highly depends on the gun in question. It's easier to dodge a punch than to evade the bullet of a pistol/revolver or SMG or bullpup-style firearm up close. Naturally, full-size rifles (especially those that aren't automatic) would be horrible in close combat, and way easier to dodge.
    Its very hard to swing at a person and completely miss. Even if i hit you from the completely wrong angle I've hit you. A lot of a gun's killing capacity is a matter of being in the right point in the right time to hit someone and being able to throw enough bullets at the situation to make that occur. I"m pretty sure i na brawl more than 1/3 of swings connect.

    There's a lot more complications with trying to "accurately" simulate fire arms than just at range shooting would tell you..(there's also the whole "if your bullet and lightning bolt should HIT SOMETHING even if it misses the target which is completely ignored by the system).. that being the case I'm more than willing to let athletics dodge for gameability's sake.. and would probably not give bullets the "innate advantage" but might increase difficulty of dodging for number of bullets fired rather than just assuming.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Lian View Post
      Its very hard to swing at a person and completely miss. Even if i hit you from the completely wrong angle I've hit you.
      Yes, but personally I'd see a full dice-negating dodge in melee not strictly as "You were not touched at all", but also as "You moved in such a way that the the melee attack was forced ineffective, period."
      Which is not the same as actively parrying - consider the difference between moving in a way so a punch happens to harmlessy brush along your side or forcing the wide swing to connect through the side of the enemy's arm in a harmless manner instead of their fist ('dodge'ing to very close proximity), vs. using your limbs or an object to stop/block/deflect it (parry).
      Last edited by Ambrosia; 05-07-2019, 02:13 AM.


      cWoD Dice Probability Chart ||| cWoD Dice Statistics Calculator ||| cWoD Alternative Armor System
      cWoD Alternative Damage Roll System ||| My explanation of cWoD Damage Levels ||| 'Interesting' Strength Attribute Stuff
      EXPLOSIVE cWoD STUFF! ||| How Technocrats don't think they are Mages

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Ambrosia View Post
        Yes, but personally I'd see a full dice-negating dodge in melee not strictly as "You were not touched at all", but also as "You moved in such a way that the the melee attack was forced ineffective, period."
        Which is not the same as actively parrying - consider the difference between moving in a way so a punch happens to harmlessy brush along your side or forcing the wide swing to connect through the side of the enemy's arm in a harmless manner instead of their fist ('dodge'ing to very close proximity), vs. using your limbs or an object to stop/block/deflect it (parry).
        Then how do you see soak negating a punch?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Lian View Post
          Then how do you see soak negating a punch?
          Soak is relatively simple; Soaking an attack simply means what it means - the damage roll (force of the attack) simply wasn't strong enough to really cause damage to the hit spot (soak roll).

          Where the system in general kind of falls apart though is when you get a godlike to-hit roll result, get all excited about the massive damage you're about to cause....and then roll so very unlucky as to get no success on the massive damage roll. A roll that the target woudln't even be able to soak because lethal vs. mortals, for example.
          And: To a target that has been, RP wise, not seen you coming at all either because you snuck up on them.

          Those moments can be oh so very, *very* frustrating because there really is no good logical explanation for failing. You managed to sneak up masterfully! That to-hit was so great, omg, it's the most perfectly executed strike ever!
          And then...no damage at all. Nada. For...some reason. It can be one of the most frustrating moments of the combat system.

          That's why I'm a fan of applying a certain percentage of the (post-dodge) to-hit roll result as static, unrolled damage to be soaked (if soak is possible) or taken.
          Last edited by Ambrosia; 05-08-2019, 01:57 AM.


          cWoD Dice Probability Chart ||| cWoD Dice Statistics Calculator ||| cWoD Alternative Armor System
          cWoD Alternative Damage Roll System ||| My explanation of cWoD Damage Levels ||| 'Interesting' Strength Attribute Stuff
          EXPLOSIVE cWoD STUFF! ||| How Technocrats don't think they are Mages

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Herr Meister View Post
            So, do you guys allow a roll to try to dodge gunfire attacks? And lightning falling from the sky or even going out of the mage's hand? What are your aproaches for such circunstances?
            What is your the overaching issue you're looking at; discussing the Lightning in multiple ways like this.

            If, as a ST you want someone to be unable to dodge, take more damage from lightning etc. Do it. That's what you get to do as a ST.

            If feels disingenuous to ask for general opinions when you seem to be fishing just for people that agree with you. If you want that, great, phrase the question differently and those of us that disagree won't chime in.

            do you guys allow a roll to try to dodge gunfire attacks? And lightning ... I think it makes little sense to be able to dodge a bullet and let alone a lightning from the sky
            Why are you asking for opinions if you're not listening to them and already have your mind set?

            Comment


            • #21
              I see you have a personal problem with me, but ok lol. I ask to see different opinions and debate, that's what a forum is for. Debating! I can change my mind, in fact I often do as when you made me look at average success with difficulty to change my mind about the dice penalty imposed to soak etc...you're being very unfair with me dude.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Herr Meister View Post
                I see you have a personal problem with me, but ok lol. I ask to see different opinions and debate, that's what a forum is for. Debating! I can change my mind, in fact I often do as when you made me look at average success with difficulty to change my mind about the dice penalty imposed to soak etc...you're being very unfair with me dude.
                I don't have a personal problem with you atall. I have a problem with some of the ways you've engaged in the discussion; accusing me of blindly defending the rules when I disagree with you and, as above, disagreeing with someone saying they allow dodging bullets and Lightning when that's exactly what you asked.
                So I said it was disingenuous; not a sincere discussion, because it seems like there is something else going behind the reasons of your questioning.

                You seem to have a lot of issues with the rules as presented in core books, which is ok, lots of us have issues with aspects of the White Wolf material. Even new players to the game seem to house rule aspects pretty quickly; and the house rules in the current main game I'm playing in would take a long time to adjust to compared to a core game, we've been constantly tweaking them over multiple games for 20 years.

                But when you ask a question in a forum, you'll get people responding as either - "here's the rules", or "here's how we do it and why" compared to the core rules (Normally)

                So if you want a useful answer to look at a whole picture, like your lightning wielding battle mage that doesn't feel like they're doing enough in combat compared to the combat characters - Maybe post the whole thing rather than piecemeal?

                People can then have a look at the whole situation and you might get better answers, although we're still not looking from the perspective of your house rules because we don't know them all.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Illithid View Post

                  I don't have a personal problem with you atall. I have a problem with some of the ways you've engaged in the discussion; accusing me of blindly defending the rules when I disagree with you and, as above, disagreeing with someone saying they allow dodging bullets and Lightning when that's exactly what you asked.
                  So I said it was disingenuous; not a sincere discussion, because it seems like there is something else going behind the reasons of your questioning.

                  You seem to have a lot of issues with the rules as presented in core books, which is ok, lots of us have issues with aspects of the White Wolf material. Even new players to the game seem to house rule aspects pretty quickly; and the house rules in the current main game I'm playing in would take a long time to adjust to compared to a core game, we've been constantly tweaking them over multiple games for 20 years.

                  But when you ask a question in a forum, you'll get people responding as either - "here's the rules", or "here's how we do it and why" compared to the core rules (Normally)

                  So if you want a useful answer to look at a whole picture, like your lightning wielding battle mage that doesn't feel like they're doing enough in combat compared to the combat characters - Maybe post the whole thing rather than piecemeal?

                  People can then have a look at the whole situation and you might get better answers, although we're still not looking from the perspective of your house rules because we don't know them all.

                  You are basically harassing me through different threads and you say you don't have a personal problem with me, really?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Herr Meister View Post
                    I see you have a personal problem with me, but ok lol. I ask to see different opinions and debate, that's what a forum is for. Debating! I can change my mind, in fact I often do as when you made me look at average success with difficulty to change my mind about the dice penalty imposed to soak etc...you're being very unfair with me dude.


                    I don't have an issue with you. I've just given up on the "Realism vs gameability" situation. I mean if I wanted a more realistic game I'd be playing it. I don't think dodge vs firearms is the least of issues I'd need to bring it into anything resembling realism.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Herr Meister View Post
                      You are basically harassing me through different threads and you say you don't have a personal problem with me, really?
                      I'm responding to what is posted for new topics and responses. I'm commenting on quite a few, not just yours but you have started a few recently, so there's more of the ones you've started that are active.
                      I've tried to stay pretty polite in spite of you insulting me with "I'm not sure if they teach logic in your country, so that you can learn to concatenate ideas well" and "I'm amazed at how some people find it so difficult to think outside the box, but rather preffer to agree with anything that is written in the official books" often condescending, and even putting words in my mouth, or text as the case may be.

                      If there's any particular parts of these conversations that you think are actual harassment rather than disagreeing with you, please bring it to my attention so I can address it.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X