Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Combat question - Dodge vs Resist
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Abstruse
Something that's been bugging me for a while is the difference between the dodge test and the resistance test? Unless I'm reading the rules wrong, the dodge test is combat pool only and the resistance test is body only...so why are they seperate when the Pistols/Combat Pool roll is the same roll? Did I miss something, or is there a reason for this I'm not getting?

The Abstruse One
Austere Emancipator
You can use Combat Pool for the Damage Resistance test. The TN for the Dodge test is usually different from the DamRes TN.
Cochise
QUOTE (Abstruse)
Something that's been bugging me for a while is the difference between the dodge test and the resistance test?  Unless I'm reading the rules wrong, the dodge test is combat pool only and the resistance test is body only...so why are they seperate when the Pistols/Combat Pool roll is the same roll?  Did I miss something, or is there a reason for this I'm not getting?

The Abstruse One

1.) Damage resistance is body + combat pool
2.) Dodging is TN 4 + modifiers, combat pool only. 1 one success negates 1 success of the attacker. Number of successes of the attacker +1 and it's a total miss.
3.) Damage restance is against Power of attack - Armor (in some cases higher than the TN for dodging in some lower). One success negates 1 success of the attacker but due to base damage of an attack you need two successes per Damage level extra in order to stay unharmed ...

Example:

Char A shoots at Char B with Ares Pred and scores 1 success.

Dodging: Char B uses combat pool vs. TN 4 (+ mods where applicable) and scores 2 successes => successful doge.

Resistance: Char B resists with body + combat pool against TN 9 - worn ballistic armor. Since the Base Damage of the attack is M he needs 5 successes ... 1 to negate the attacker's success and 4 more to stage down from M to L to nothing.

Successes in a dodging tests that don't lead to successful dodging directly apply towards the damage resistance ...
Dashifen
QUOTE (Cochise)
Resistance: Char B resists with body + combat pool against TN 9 - worn ballistic armor. Since the Base Damage of the attack is M he needs 5 successes ... 1 to negate the attacker's success and 4 more to stage down from M to L to nothing.

You sure that you need to negate successes in the damage resistence test? I've never run into that before. I've always played and run that all you need to do is stage the damage, so in this case you'd only need 4 successes and not five.
Austere Emancipator
You compare the net successes. If the shooter has 1 success and you have no Dodge successes, you need 3 successes on the Damage Resistance Test to stage the damage down once. This is quite explicitly stated in the Determine Outcome paragraph on p. 113, SR3.
Bigity
But you only apply the net successess. So 4-1=3 so that still leaves a light wound. However, with 5-1=4 net successes, no damage.
Kagetenshi
Two more things to add about dodging: the only modifiers that apply, IIRC, are wound modifiers and +1 for every three bullets coming your way. Furthermore, if you're a rigger in a vehicle your base TN is Handling, not 4.

~J
Cochise
@ Dashifen ...

*g* I somehow knew that this would happen ...

The problem is that in ranged combat staging is part of "Determine Outcome" after the resistance test. The staging is generally based on the successes generated in the Success and Resistance test.

It pretty much depends on how you interpret the comparison of the generated successes: Seperate or net successes?

First let's have look at Char A having 3 successes on his test:
  • Situation 1: B scores 0 successes => Either A stages up once to S, B doesn't stage thus S damage or A has 3 net successes, thus stages once to S
  • Situation 2: B scores 1 success => Either A stages once to S, B doesn't stage thus S damage or A has 2 net , thus stages once to S
  • Situation 3: B scores 2 successes => Either A stages once to S, B stages once down to M or A has one net success, thus no staging, damage stays at M
  • Situation 4: B scores 3 successes => Either A stages once to S, B stages once down to M or neither have net successes and damage stays at M
  • Situation 5: B scores 4 successes => Either A stages once to S, B stages down twice to L or B has one net success, thus can't stage .. damage stays at M
  • Situation 6: B scores 5 successes => Either A stages once to S, B stages down twice to L or B has 2 net successes thus stages down once to L
  • Situation 7: B scores 6 successes => Either A stages once to S, B stages down thrice to nothing or B has 3 net successes, thus stages down to L
  • Situation 8: B scores 7 successes => Either A stages once to S, B stages dwon thrice to nothing or B has 4 net successes thus staging down twice to nothing

So it either takes 6 or 7 successes to avoid damage

Now let's look at situations where Char A has 2 successes:
  • Situation 1: Char B scores 0 sucesses during resistance => Either A a stages once to S, B doesn't stage or A has 2 net successes thus staging once to S
  • Situation 2: Char B scores 1 successes during resistance => Now you can say Char A scored 2 successes on his test, thus the damage is staged to S, Char B has had one success, thus he cannot stage down. Result: S damage.
    Alternatively you can say: Char A scored 1 net success, thus no staging occurs, the damage remains at M
  • Situation 3: Char B scores 2 successes => Either character has now scored 2 successes => This again gives two possibilities (however with identical outcome): Either both scored 2 successes and thus A stages up and B stages down or A has no net successes thus he cannot stage. In oth cases damage stays at M
  • Situation 4: Char B scores 3 successes=> (still identical outcome) A scored 2 successes and thus stages to S while B had 3 successes which are enough to stage down to M again. Alternatively B scored 1 net success and thus cannot stage down leaving it at M
  • Situation 5: Char B scores 4 successes => Either A stages up to S and B stages down to M and then to L or B has 2 net success and thus stages base damage down to L
  • Situation 6: Char B scores 5 successes => Either A stages up to S and B stages down to M and then to L or B has 3 net successes thus staging base damage by one level to L
  • Situation 7: Char B scores 6 successes => Either A stages to S and B stages down to M, then L and then nothing or B has 4 net successes thus staging base damage to nothing

Either way you need 6 successes to avoid damage.

Now the same for just one success of Char A:
  • Situation 1: B scores no success => A has one success, no staging occurs => Base damage
  • Situation 2: B scores 1 success => Either A can't stage, B can't either thus base damage of M or B has one net success thus can't stage down => base damage M
  • Situation 3: B scores 2 successes => A can't stage , B stages one level down thus L or B has one net success that can't stage down => base damage stays at M
  • Situation 4: B scores 3 successes => A can't stage, B stages down once to L or B has two net successes that stage down to L
  • Situation 5: B scores 4 successes => A can't stage, B stages down twice (M to L to nothing) or B has 3 net successes that stage down to L
  • Situation 6: B scores 5 successes => A can't stage, B stages down twice (M to L to nothing) or B has 4 net successes that stage down M to L to nothing

So either 4 or 5 successes to avoid damage ...

Now the greyed situations make the difference:

Solution 1:
If you directly use the individual successes anyone will more easily take higher damage (Situations 2 in Example 1 and 2). And while the number of successes of A increase in a linear manner, the number of successes to avoid damage increase like this 4,6,6,8,8, etc.

Solution 2:
Alternatively, the increase of damage comes a little later, but it's harder to avoid damage overall, since now you need 1 more success that has to cancel out the attackers hit ... In this situation the required number of successes advances linearly just as the attacker's (5,6,7, etc.)

By the wording of the rules, solution 1 is closer to the wording of the rules: Staging nowhere mentions "net successes". However the example on p. 113 clearly uses the solution with net successes.
GrinderTheTroll
QUOTE (Abstruse)
Something that's been bugging me for a while is the difference between the dodge test and the resistance test?

Dodge Test is your chance to avoid getting hit completely. If your Dodge Test Successes >= Shooters successes, you dodge.

Resistance Test is when you get a chance to reduce the remaining number of successes and stage down the damage.

QUOTE
Unless I'm reading the rules wrong, the dodge test is combat pool only and the resistance test is body only

Nah.

Dodge Test = Combat Pool only

Resistance Test = Body + Combat Pool

QUOTE
...so why are they seperate when the Pistols/Combat Pool roll is the same roll?  Did I miss something, or is there a reason for this I'm not getting?

Not sure what you mean here, but you basically get 2 chances as the defender to use Combat Pool dice: 1st for Dodge Test, 2nd for Resistance Test.
Dashifen
QUOTE (Cochise)
@ Dashifen ...
<< snip >>

Interesting. Been playing for years and no one else has ever pointed that out or run using solution 2 as you described above. We've always staged the damage resulting from net successes after the dodge test and then the damage resistence test can stage the damage back down accordingly.
GrinderTheTroll
QUOTE (Dashifen)
QUOTE (Cochise @ Aug 27 2004, 10:06 AM)
@ Dashifen ...
<< snip >>

Interesting. Been playing for years and no one else has ever pointed that out or run using solution 2 as you described above. We've always staged the damage resulting from net successes after the dodge test and then the damage resistence test can stage the damage back down accordingly.

If I am not mistaken that was a change made in SR3 from how it used to be handled. You used to stage down from the Dodge Test (discard extra successes), then stage down from Resistance Test. It was one of the things that when I read SR3 stuck out in my mind as either playing SR1 & SR2 wrong, or a subtle change.
Cochise
QUOTE (Dashifen)
Interesting.  Been playing for years and no one else has ever pointed that out or run using solution 2 as you described above.  We've always staged the damage resulting from net successes after the dodge test and then the damage resistence test can stage the damage back down accordingly.

As I said:

This is merely due to the fact that the damage staging for ranged attacks is done after doing both Success and Resistance Test as part of the Damage assignment.

For melee it's a whole different story:

In melee the attacker makes his test and the number of his successes instantly raise the damage level automatically discarding any uneven number of successes. Every two successes after staging to dealdy may (this is an important choice of wording in the rules) be used to stage power by one.
The resistance test then comes after that and will normally always require 2,4,6 or 8 successes to avoid damage at all.

Apart from that difference this also has impact on how "deadlier overdamage" works for ranged an melee:

In ranged combat the attacker needs 2 net successes per damage box after staging to deadly. At this point resistance has already been dealt with, so that's the final result.

For melee however it becomes a bit more complicated: Every two successes after staging to deadly can now either (this is why the word "may" is of importance in the staging part for melee) be used to increase the power by or to inflict extra boxes of damage. A mix of both is also possible (but requires situations where the attacker uses such large numbers of dice against an opponent who has practically no melee skill). Odd numbers off successes are again automatically dropped by one.
The damage resistance then requires 2,4,6 or 8 successes plus 2 for every box of extra damage that the attacker turned into extra damage boxes.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012