Dodge uses NEXT attack

[dragonfett]

That is how I run combat, same with power attacks and called/aimed/aimed called shots.

[dragonfett]

The next attack gets used up by a dodge.

[drewkitty ~..~]

example and commentary
It's like when you see Jacky Chan dodging from side to side to avoid the Sword the guy he is fighting is stabbing at him with.
If you have never seen any Jacky Chan movies you need more laughter in your life, go out and rent a few.

[Damian Magecraft]

So... in the one RUE game I was using the "Combat Example" as a guide and just had the combatants check off attacks as they get used up but always doing the teeter totter method of gameplay. This resulted in I felt a better play experience, and shorter rounds. I don't know why shorter rounds feels better (decades of AD&D probably) but they do to me.

So... while poring over the book recently I still find reference in the dodge description about it using up your NEXT attack. Is that still in effect? To me that adds complication to the table experience cause now I have to remember who dodged last and often players are getting distracted here and there and its really easy to forget that you might have dodged last loop through the initiatives. yes a dodge uses the next attack. Unless it is an auto dodge; then it is free.

Is there a actual term for the loops you go through in the course of a round? Phases sounds like it should be a known number of parts or steps.

No not officially. (I however call them turns.)

[Johnathan]

I've seen it run both ways. One way, your character dodges and uses up one of their attacks/actions in their "pool" of melee actions available to them. The other way, they have literally sacrificed their next action/attack in order to dodge, which means they have forfeited their next attack and you essentially just skip over them and move onto the persons turn.

It all depends on the GM's style of gameplay and their own interpretation of the explanation given forth in RUE. One way makes combat flow a little bit faster and also seems to deal with a situation if your PC happens to have 8 attacks per melee vs an NPC's 4 attacks per melee: The "pool" method. I.E. - Your PC will effectively use 2 of their actions vs. the NPC's one (One to dodge and then one to retaliate vs. the NPC's one striking attack)

The other one sticks to combat rules a little bit more closely, as described in the Jackie Chan example. If you dodge, you don't have time to really retaliate until you recover from dodging out of the way of that pesky sword. Consider it. If you're in a sword fight and you choose to physical move out of the way of harm (which is what a dodge is), you won't have time to make a counter-move (Unless you have been trained to do so). You avoided your damage, but the guy attacking you is STILL on the offensive, while you have decided to be on the defensive by dodging. He's not going to quick attacking you, but if you decide to start attacking back, then it's a shift in mentalities and movements for your PC. That is where the using up the "next" action comes from.

[Damian Magecraft]

I've seen it run both ways. One way, your character dodges and uses up one of their attacks/actions in their "pool" of melee actions available to them. The other way, they have literally sacrificed their next action/attack in order to dodge, which means they have forfeited their next attack and you essentially just skip over them and move onto the persons turn.

It all depends on the GM's style of gameplay and their own interpretation of the explanation given forth in RUE. One way makes combat flow a little bit faster and also seems to deal with a situation if your PC happens to have 8 attacks per melee vs an NPC's 4 attacks per melee: The "pool" method. I.E. - Your PC will effectively use 2 of their actions vs. the NPC's one (One to dodge and then one to retaliate vs. the NPC's one striking attack)

The other one sticks to combat rules a little bit more closely, as described in the Jackie Chan example. If you dodge, you don't have time to really retaliate until you recover from dodging out of the way of that pesky sword. Consider it. If you're in a sword fight and you choose to physical move out of the way of harm (which is what a dodge is), you won't have time to make a counter-move (Unless you have been trained to do so). You avoided your damage, but the guy attacking you is STILL on the offensive, while you have decided to be on the defensive by dodging. He's not going to quick attacking you, but if you decide to start attacking back, then it's a shift in mentalities and movements for your PC. That is where the using up the "next" action comes from.

True both methods are used by many.
However Canon is dodge uses the next attack/action in the queue.
The Pool method is a common enough House Rule that it is an acceptable alternative style of play. In short you which ever one best suits you and your group.

[glitterboy2098]

the pool method though dilutes the importance of autododge. Rules as written, autododge is important because you can dodge without sacrificing your ability to fight back in 'your' next action in the queue.

normal dodge:
Char1 attacks
Char2 dodges. - Char2 has used his ApM, cannot do anything
char1 can now attack again.


autododge:
Char1 attacks - Char2 autododges
Char2 can now use an action to attack.

to use the martial artist comparison, normal dodge is moving to avoid being hit. your focusing so much on not being hit you can't punch back.
autododge is being able to move out of the way while throwing a punch, ala Bruce Lee...

the down side is that with this approach combat is a bit more complex to track (but more interesting, IMO), and char's without autododge can be locked into a purely defensive fight where they're so busy dodging they can't fight back.

of course, theat last scenario is where the (often forgotten) "Parry" comes in. it lets you reduce the damage you take, and uses no actions. in the martial arts comparison, if dodge is moving out of the way of a punch, parry is the "wax on-wax-off" type action to redirect or block the enemies punch.

[Nemo235]

It can get real silly when you are using attacks to dodge from the next round at the end of the current round.

[Jorel]

So in this Silly world, do you get tomorrows pay, for todays work? You'll be around and alive tomorrow, we can all assume that, so I'll just pay you now for the work that you plan on doing. That last post is just ridiculous.

[dragonfett]

Jorel, have you ever taken any accounting classes? There are some instances where that does in fact happen and makes sense, but it's not all that common.

[Killer Cyborg]

So in this Silly world, do you get tomorrows pay, for todays work? You'll be around and alive tomorrow, we can all assume that, so I'll just pay you now for the work that you plan on doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_payment

[The Beast]

So in this Silly world, do you get tomorrows pay, for todays work? You'll be around and alive tomorrow, we can all assume that, so I'll just pay you now for the work that you plan on doing. That last post is just ridiculous.

That last post is correct as far as the rules are concerned.

[Warwolf]

So in this Silly world, do you get tomorrows pay, for todays work? You'll be around and alive tomorrow, we can all assume that, so I'll just pay you now for the work that you plan on doing. That last post is just ridiculous.

I think what he is getting at is that your number of attacks in any given melee are meant to represent the speed and dexterity with which you negotiate the field of battle in a set time period. If you start running a deficit of movement to the next time period, it gets harder to justify within the framework of the definition of "Attacks per melee." In other words, if a character can typically only act 5 times in a 15 second window then why should they be able to act more than that to defend themselves? If they could act 8 or 9 times including dodges, why would they not be able to attack 8 or 9 times given different circumstances? It's the disparity between chronology and action that I've always had a problem with in every RPG I've ever played.

Unfortunately, logical mechanics do not always make for the most fun gaming experience (I've heard horror stories about a game called Phoenix Command). Thus, the structure of melee rounds and the performance of actions must give a little in the interest of ease and playability. For instance, I keep the "uses next action" definition of a standard dodge although I don't run a deficit of attacks to the next round. Does the latter make much logical sense? No. Does it simplify book-keeping and help prevent combat from bogging down more than normal? Yes.

So, this issue is a matter of taste rather than clear right or wrong.

[dragonfett]

I think that the justification to that would be that the player's reduced number of attacks next round simulates them recovering from needing to dodge in the previous melee round.

[Jorel]

I think that the justification to that would be that the player's reduced number of attacks next round simulates them recovering from needing to dodge in the previous melee round.

What your suggesting could be continued every round, why not use melee actions from three or four rounds down the line, cause you know you'll have them, that way you can use the actions from this round to attack.
Also, when you are dead, cause you didn't have enough actions left at the end the the current round to dodge that fatal attack. Your dead, cause you died before you had the time (next round) to dodge out of the way. Not, you survived because you miraculously add a few seconds in where they do not exist.
And yes, I've taken accounting classes, and it isn't actual work your talking about, but time. Time you can't use to act if your dead, which your assuming you won't be by using those actions from a later round.

[dragonfett]

I never said I agreed with that logic, just trying to justify it in some way.

[Jorel]

I think that the justification to that would be that the player's reduced number of attacks next round simulates them recovering from needing to dodge in the previous melee round.

What your suggesting could be continued every round, why not use melee actions from three or four rounds down the line, cause you know you'll have them, that way you can use the actions from this round to attack.
Also, when you are dead, cause you didn't have enough actions left at the end the the current round to dodge that fatal attack. Your dead, cause you died before you had the time (next round) to dodge out of the way. Not, you survived because you miraculously add a few seconds in where they do not exist.
And yes, I've taken accounting classes, and it isn't actual work your talking about, but time. Time you can't use to act if your dead, which your assuming you won't be by using those actions from a later round.

But the result of the borrowing from next round leaves you still completely on the defensive while still avoiding the crappy result in PB games where if you have less attacks per round then your opponent you automatically die or get defeated.

in other games your characters have defenses that are always in effect (like AC or in 4e Will, Reflex, Fort defenses) that don't cost you to offer some protection to the guy hitting you. In PB your defenses are only your actions so having extra attacks that can't be countered or stopped... effectively becoming auto-hits is unbalancing. That is enough game play justification to just let people keep dodging after they are out of attacks.

I would rather people avoid combat, if they can't survive without cheating (which I have to say, this is kinda like cheating to add extra time in where it does not exist). I think that your taking away from the people who have those extra actions. If you can't dodge cause you are out of attacks, then I hope you have a back up plan. Rifts should be deadly if you plan poorly. Staying in a fight where someone who moves faster than you, means you are going to get attacked more times, and doesn't mean you deserve more opportunities to dodge. This has to be one of the worst house rules I've heard of people using. Adding in extra time and actions where they shouldn't possibly be.
Why not just let your favorite player get out all his actions in the game in the first round of combat. Let him attack enemies who haven't even joined the fray. Heck, let him continue to attack until he's decimated all the bads you've created for them, that aren't even there yet, cause you know in the future they will be. He'll defeat everyone, the party will emerge victorious, he'll get tone of experience, they'll get none. Everyone should be happy, cause no players died.

[jaymz]

RAW is to dodge uses your next attack/action

It is not that hard to keep track of if one actualy thinks about it.

Also borrowing form teh next round is NOT allowed by RAW and should not be allowed as that then, as had been said, diminishes the advantage of actually having more attacks.

If you have 6 attacks and your opponent has 4 or vice versa, the person with more SHOULD have an advantage but if you allow atacks to get borrowed fom subsequent melee rounds why bother having attacks per melee at all? Also it diminishes the value of an auto-dodge as well.

If you can just keep dodging as much as you want in a melee by continually borrowing attacks from any possible subsequent melee rounds and you win, how is that fair to the guy with more attacks since you have just won using attacks you technically should not have had.

[jaymz]

RAW is to dodge uses your next attack/action

It is not that hard to keep track of if one actualy thinks about it.

Also borrowing form teh next round is NOT allowed by RAW and should not be allowed as that then, as had been said, diminishes the advantage of actually having more attacks.

If you have 6 attacks and your opponent has 4 or vice versa, the person with more SHOULD have an advantage but if you allow atacks to get borrowed fom subsequent melee rounds why bother having attacks per melee at all? Also it diminishes the value of an auto-dodge as well.

If you can just keep dodging as much as you want in a melee by continually borrowing attacks from any possible subsequent melee rounds and you win, how is that fair to the guy with more attacks since you have just won using attacks you technically should not have had.

Are you quoting RAW from RUE or 1st ed? I'll have to get my page reference from RUE later today.

Ther eis no actual combat example ala the Original book however page 340 or RUE

Defending by dodging or entangling means automatically giving up the next melee attack

[jaymz]

Check out RUE pg 342 second paragraph. That's the borrowing bit... don't you love how the rules of this game are hidden to be kept secret from the players.

Another rule contradiction *sighs* so if you do end up winning the fight you just won using attacks you technically shouldn't have.

If that is what can be done then why even bother having Attacks per melee?

Also you still have to use your NEXT attack not just AN attack to dodge.

[Jorel]

I guess as long as it is next attack, they will always be on the defensive, unless the attacker misses enough times. I think it is a poor rule. Do they continue to use up the next attack, as they are attacked multiple times at the end of a round in which they are out of attacks? Say there are 10 attacks made on the PC after he's out for the round. Does he get to use his next 10 attacks? This is a terrible rule if that is the case. Why even use up attacks when dodging if they can be used from a point after you've run out of them. I wouldn't allow it to go past the first attack of the next round, as in 1 extra dodge no more, even if it is RAW. I can't see how this makes play any more realistic, why play if logic doesn't matter even a little. Is there anyone that can actually make that rule make sense in the context of reality?

[Jorel]

I would point out that "next attack" is singular, so you only get 1 to use. If you are attacked more than one time after your out of attacks for the round, you cannot dodge after the first of those attacks. So it only gives a small edge, not an unlimited amount of dodges edge.

[jaymz]

I would point out that "next attack" is singular, so you only get 1 to use. If you are attacked more than one time after your out of attacks for the round, you cannot dodge after the first of those attacks. So it only gives a small edge, not an unlimited amount of dodges edge.

Hmmnever thouht of that. It does indeed say dodging uses your NEXT attack not next attackS so once you use your next attack you theoretically should not be able to dodge again until you have an attack to dodge with.

[Jorel]

I would point out that "next attack" is singular, so you only get 1 to use. If you are attacked more than one time after your out of attacks for the round, you cannot dodge after the first of those attacks. So it only gives a small edge, not an unlimited amount of dodges edge.

Hmmnever thouht of that. It does indeed say dodging uses your NEXT attack not next attackS so once you use your next attack you theoretically should not be able to dodge again until you have an attack to dodge with.

Or a "next attack" if you've run out.

[Jorel]

As in...you've used all your attacks (you know...attacking). You can then dodge once, even if you are out of attacks that round. That sure is handy. Then you can use up all attacks next round (minus one used last round) continuing to attack, and still dodge again during that round, thereby offsetting every other round after by having one less attack, but they still get 1 dodge every turn, and an extra action during the first round. That is stupid. Really, really stupid. I say I probably wouldn't play it that way in my game.

[jaymz]

or to flip that around you could say the unlimited dodging uses up your next attack... meaning you get free dodging at the end of your round at the cost of only the next attack... i know that might be a stretch but the passage is inconclusively written (surprised?). or you could interpret that as you lost the next attack so your next attack after that is down the chain.

Riddle me this... if I am fighting two gunners, and I go first... i miss totally on a 1 or something or maybe i lost initiative... they both in order shoot at me. How many attacks do I lose? I am no longer where I can read my RUE book (back at work). I don't remember if your dodge action goes against all incoming attacks at you that "loop through the initiative".

If you allow unlimited dodging to use only one attack at the end of a round then why bother with attacks per melee or saying auto-dodging is such a good thing.

Persnally I think you shouldn't be allowed ot continue to dodge once you are out of attacks for that round. The whle point o fhte oher classes and skill sgiving more attack sis to have an advantage and allowing peope to dodge for free or more than they shoud in a given 15 second segment essentially marginalizes and deminishes the advantages that other poeple built into their characters in the first place.

[Jorel]

Riddle me this... if I am fighting two gunners, and I go first... i miss totally on a 1 or something or maybe i lost initiative... they both in order shoot at me. How many attacks do I lose? I am no longer where I can read my RUE book (back at work). I don't remember if your dodge action goes against all incoming attacks at you that "loop through the initiative".

Unless you have autododge, you can only dodge one at a time (unless you dodge them both with one movement, cause they tied for initiative and it is done simultaneously). Choose wisely. One might miss, or they both might hit when you fail to dodge the one. You can only use your next attack to dodge, not take one from farther down the line.
If your taking dodges from a pool of attacks, then you can dodge both.

[jaymz]

Riddle me this... if I am fighting two gunners, and I go first... i miss totally on a 1 or something or maybe i lost initiative... they both in order shoot at me. How many attacks do I lose? I am no longer where I can read my RUE book (back at work). I don't remember if your dodge action goes against all incoming attacks at you that "loop through the initiative".

Unless you have autododge, you can only dodge one at a time (unless you dodge them both with one movement, cause they tied for initiative and it is done simultaneously). Choose wisely. One might miss, or they both might hit when you fail to dodge the one. You can only use your next attack to dodge, not take one from farther down the line.
If your taking dodges from a pool of attacks, then you can dodge both.

Just remember taking actiosn from a pool is a house rule not RAW is all

[jaymz]

I know how I would rule on all of this. In the book (RUE) it says you can dodge using your NEXT attack. Once you dodge you cannot dodge again (unless you have an autododge) until the next sequnce of attacks because you do not HAVE a NEXT attack until the next sequence of attacks take place.

[Jorel]

Just remember taking actiosn from a pool is a house rule not RAW is all

Me too, huh. The if is if your using house rules and taking attacks from a pool, sorry for not clarifying. Also kinda sorry Abub hates Palladium.

Edit: I quoted the wrong post...and fixed.

[Jorel]

I know how I would rule on all of this. In the book (RUE) it says you can dodge using your NEXT attack. Once you dodge you cannot dodge again (unless you have an autododge) until the next sequnce of attacks because you do not HAVE a NEXT attack until the next sequence of attacks take place.

This is how I may end up using it.

[jaymz]

Hmm, if your saying getting into a gun fight against two shooters to my one means every other hit I'm automatically getting shot...

I think that might seal it... I have turned to hate the PB system.

You aren't automaticaly hit. Your attacker still has to beat an 8 to hit you whether you dodge or not.

People do remeber that hitting is not automatic and you don't actually HAVE to dodge or parry right?

NOw I will allow a person to decide if they want to dodge AFTER I make my attack role scie I think it is fair to allow them the option to dodge only if they may get hit since that way they aren;t burning an attack to dodge something that would have missed anyway....but that is just me.

[Jorel]

How is he gonna know it is a miss before the gun is fired? You can't dodge a bullet after the gun is fired, you either try to dodge when it is fired, or you don't and maybe they miss. What you are suggesting is a bit silly also. Guy standing there getting shot at, waiting to see if he should move if they don't shoot near enough to him first.

[jaymz]

How is he gonna know it is a miss before the gun is fired? You can't dodge a bullet after the gun is fired, you either try to dodge when it is fired, or you don't and maybe they miss. What you are suggesting is a bit silly also. Guy standing there getting shot at, waiting to see if he should move if they don't shoot near enough to him first.

Call it GM caveat in allowing the hero to sort of know whether the shot will hit him or not

[jaymz]

Mind you depending on what kind of game I want to run, I someitmes allow all characters to have autododge if I am looking for something more cinematic. MOst chacrters will not have any bonus to do so as they may not neccessarily have a high enough PP to get any bonuses but it gives them an option just like parry though not as likely to be successful

[Jorel]

I use higher level NPCs and they usually don't miss, that being said I give the 1st level PCs lots of options to not get shot. It doesn't always have to be about using up attacks. Coverage is great, as is a good damage soaker. I prefer realistic with a bit of a stretch, than giant leaps for logic with little realism.

[jaymz]

I use higher level NPCs and they usually don't miss, that being said I give the 1st level PCs lots of options to not get shot. It doesn't always have to be about using up attacks. Coverage is great, as is a good damage soaker. I prefer realistic with a bit of a stretch, than giant leaps for logic with little realism.

All depends, most actin movies dont seemto cause the hero to really lose any attacks when dodgin gun fire so I figure eh I'll go witht hat.

[Warwolf]

But the result of the borrowing from next round leaves you still completely on the defensive while still avoiding the crappy result in PB games where if you have less attacks per round then your opponent you automatically die or get defeated.

in other games your characters have defenses that are always in effect (like AC or in 4e Will, Reflex, Fort defenses) that don't cost you to offer some protection to the guy hitting you. In PB your defenses are only your actions so having extra attacks that can't be countered or stopped... effectively becoming auto-hits is unbalancing. That is enough game play justification to just let people keep dodging after they are out of attacks.

I think you may be forgetting about A.R. for S.D.C. settings. M.D.C., I'll give you, leaves little in the way of "passive defense" (except that if you dodged and haven't had an attack yet you may still be considered "in motion" and harder to hit).


Anywho, I hadn't read that amendment to the "next action" definition in RUE. I admit that it makes more sense than a running deficit, but as I tend to go for a mixed plausible and cinematic feel for my combats, I'll probably just stick to my house rules.

[Prysus]

I use higher level NPCs and they usually don't miss, that being said I give the 1st level PCs lots of options to not get shot. It doesn't always have to be about using up attacks. Coverage is great, as is a good damage soaker. I prefer realistic with a bit of a stretch, than giant leaps for logic with little realism.

Greetings and Salutations. Going with the whole 2 attackers vs. 1 ... it does mean that you're basically guaranteeing they're going to be hit (quite possibly multiple times).

Example:
Step 1: Everyone rolls initiative. NPC 1, Player Character, NPC2 are the results (in that order).
Step 2: NPC 1 shoots. Since these NPC's don't miss, that means player has a choice: Guarantee hit or dodge. Player decides to dodge. Player rolls high enough (we hope!) and avoids the attack.
Step 3: Player tries to attack. GM tells him he can't attack because he dodged. Player tries to take cover. GM informs him that moving is an action and he has no actions. Player learns there's nothing he can do but stand there.
Step 4: NPC 2 attacks. Player asks him if he can dodge. GM informs him that he can only dodge one attacker, and the attackers don't miss. Player takes the hit.
Step 5: NPC 1 attacks again. Player has a choice to stand there and get hit so he can either attack back or at least move to cover, or he can dodge to hope avoid taking more damage (because remember, these NPC don't miss!).

Now personally, I've allowed players to dodge an attack/dive behind cover, but that's not really in the rules. Similarly, I am of the mind that if a character (player or non-player) is moving enough to dodge behind cover, they're not just standing as a target for every other character. If the character is moving so minorly that he's still an open, vulnerable, helpless target against everyone else, then he can't possibly move far enough to get behind cover.

Now I'll admit that I don't run Palladium standard (because I also tend to allow auto-dodges for more cinematic combat where the guy can run and dive out of the way of an attack and fire off a few shots as he hits the ground, which you can't do if you can't attack). Though I'll say I've been in games where dodges did take the next action. I'll tell you how it turned out ...

Me: *Tries an idea that could neutralize the opponent, but it doesn't work.* (Creative, but futile idea).
GM: Dodge or die.
Me: Dodge. Success.
GM: Okay, you dodged so don't have an attack. My turn. Dodge or die.
Me: Um ... dodge. Success.
GM: Okay, you still don't have an attack. My turn. Dodge or die?
Me: Dodge. >_< Success.
GM: Same thing.
Me: Dodge. *Sigh.* Fail.

And yes, that is a real example. The words, of course, were changed and I may have had 4 successful dodges before finally failing (in situations like that, failure is pretty much guaranteed eventually). The GM hadn't honestly realized the "dodge or die" scenario, and in fairness the GM didn't kill my character. When there was a statement of how I should have ran ... there was a rant. We worked out a solution that would work for us.

Again, while I have no issue with the concept of dodging and moving behind cover as one single action ... it shows a level of movement not present in the concept of you can move/dodge ... unless someone else attacks you in which case you've become a stationary target that's easy pickings. Anyways, I think that's the end of my rant on the matter. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys (unless you have to dodge, in which case you're doomed ).

[Jorel]

I use higher level NPCs and they usually don't miss, that being said I give the 1st level PCs lots of options to not get shot. It doesn't always have to be about using up attacks. Coverage is great, as is a good damage soaker. I prefer realistic with a bit of a stretch, than giant leaps for logic with little realism.

Greetings and Salutations. Going with the whole 2 attackers vs. 1 ... it does mean that you're basically guaranteeing they're going to be hit (quite possibly multiple times).

Example:
Step 1: Everyone rolls initiative. NPC 1, Player Character, NPC2 are the results (in that order).
Step 2: NPC 1 shoots. Since these NPC's don't miss, that means player has a choice: Guarantee hit or dodge. Player decides to dodge. Player rolls high enough (we hope!) and avoids the attack.
Step 3: Player tries to attack. GM tells him he can't attack because he dodged. Player tries to take cover. GM informs him that moving is an action and he has no actions. Player learns there's nothing he can do but stand there.
Step 4: NPC 2 attacks. Player asks him if he can dodge. GM informs him that he can only dodge one attacker, and the attackers don't miss. Player takes the hit.
Step 5: NPC 1 attacks again. Player has a choice to stand there and get hit so he can either attack back or at least move to cover, or he can dodge to hope avoid taking more damage (because remember, these NPC don't miss!).

Now personally, I've allowed players to dodge an attack/dive behind cover, but that's not really in the rules. Similarly, I am of the mind that if a character (player or non-player) is moving enough to dodge behind cover, they're not just standing as a target for every other character. If the character is moving so minorly that he's still an open, vulnerable, helpless target against everyone else, then he can't possibly move far enough to get behind cover.

Now I'll admit that I don't run Palladium standard (because I also tend to allow auto-dodges for more cinematic combat where the guy can run and dive out of the way of an attack and fire off a few shots as he hits the ground, which you can't do if you can't attack). Though I'll say I've been in games where dodges did take the next action. I'll tell you how it turned out ...

Me: *Tries an idea that could neutralize the opponent, but it doesn't work.* (Creative, but futile idea).
GM: Dodge or die.
Me: Dodge. Success.
GM: Okay, you dodged so don't have an attack. My turn. Dodge or die.
Me: Um ... dodge. Success.
GM: Okay, you still don't have an attack. My turn. Dodge or die?
Me: Dodge. >_< Success.
GM: Same thing.
Me: Dodge. *Sigh.* Fail.

And yes, that is a real example. The words, of course, were changed and I may have had 4 successful dodges before finally failing (in situations like that, failure is pretty much guaranteed eventually). The GM hadn't honestly realized the "dodge or die" scenario, and in fairness the GM didn't kill my character. When there was a statement of how I should have ran ... there was a rant. We worked out a solution that would work for us.

Again, while I have no issue with the concept of dodging and moving behind cover as one single action ... it shows a level of movement not present in the concept of you can move/dodge ... unless someone else attacks you in which case you've become a stationary target that's easy pickings. Anyways, I think that's the end of my rant on the matter. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys (unless you have to dodge, in which case you're doomed ).

They can always roll low enough to miss, but rarely will they actually shoot the guy without armor first, unless he is clearly about to cast or seems threatening. It isn't dodge or die, except in situations where I deem that to be a necessary outcome. Just because someone is high level, doesn't mean they necessarily have better weapons, protection, or backup. It just means they are more likely to succeed in hitting. If the lower level players have better defenses or weapons, then I don't see it as a problem.

[Jorel]

We're talking about a game where a 1st level character can start out as a Dragon, or a Glitterboy, or any number of overpowered characters. So not everyone has as many attacks as a Juicer, so what. Juicers can't take the kind of hits a Glitterboy can. And Dragons have awesome natural abilities, but not the kind of attacks a Juicer has. So as a GM it is up to you to make balance, where there doesn't seem to be any. I don't find that so difficult. Players aren't always outnumbered, they aren't always the prime target, and you can rule it however you'd like. I'm just analyzing the RAW so I can have my game make sense to my players.
I just started running a game which almost had each one of the characters I just mentioned, the Juicer dropped out maybe. Either way it would have cheated him if everyone else gets autododge, as well as however many dodges they require, and still getting in attacks every round, even though they have less attacks per melee, cause that is his thing. Makes him useless. He doesn't have a breath weapon, so he'll need $ to reload. He doesn't have a Boom Gun, so he's going to be going through ammunition a lot quicker. Everyone will be attacking and he'll get his fair share, so his weaker armor will need repair more often. The only things he really has going for him is his crazy bonuses to dodge or parry, his bonus to strike with a melee weapon, and the fact that he'll still have attacks to dole out damage unchallenged because everyone else used up their attacks during the current round properly. That is his area to excel in, why take that away from him.

Edit: Oh and they can still parry him, just not dodge. Nice how the negatives for modern weapons aren't a factor, cause that dodge you are so needing to have is probably going to fail at -8 or -10 or whatever the rule is.

[Killer Cyborg]

so then the solution is "its ok they just have to have armor that can absorb all these auto-hits? That's crap. Crap Crap Crap Crap Crap.

I think i will stop bothering you guys. All the people here have been most kind and helpfull but I need to stop fantisizing about subjecting my players to PB systems ever again. There are just other systems out there that work where this one just doesn't.

So again thank you all for helping me finally make this move in my RPing life. Have fun where you find it, keep telling good stories and adventures, and don't eat and drink to many Doritos and mountain dew at the table.

Kind of odd that such a small thing would be such a sticking point with you, but I wish you luck in finding other systems with no such flaws or inconsistencies.

[Rimmer]

so then the solution is "its ok they just have to have armor that can absorb all these auto-hits? That's crap. Crap Crap Crap Crap Crap.

I think i will stop bothering you guys. All the people here have been most kind and helpfull but I need to stop fantisizing about subjecting my players to PB systems ever again. There are just other systems out there that work where this one just doesn't.

So again thank you all for helping me finally make this move in my RPing life. Have fun where you find it, keep telling good stories and adventures, and don't eat and drink to many Doritos and mountain dew at the table.

Kind of odd that such a small thing would be such a sticking point with you, but I wish you luck in finding other systems with no such flaws or inconsistencies.

Every game I have ever played has flaws and inconsistancies, just not on the level of Palladium.

[Warwolf]

so then the solution is "its ok they just have to have armor that can absorb all these auto-hits? That's crap. Crap Crap Crap Crap Crap.

I think i will stop bothering you guys. All the people here have been most kind and helpfull but I need to stop fantisizing about subjecting my players to PB systems ever again. There are just other systems out there that work where this one just doesn't.

So again thank you all for helping me finally make this move in my RPing life. Have fun where you find it, keep telling good stories and adventures, and don't eat and drink to many Doritos and mountain dew at the table.

No, the solution is to adapt the system to your tastes like almost every GM does. But, whatever, you do what you feel you have to do.