Can a Juicer use Auto-Dodge to end an Entangle?

[Axelmania]

I am hungry for some official combat examples including Entangle because there are many aspects of it I am not sure on particulars for.

The initial setup (beat a strike roll with a defense roll) is the simplest. Its everything afterward which confuses me.

It says it takes 1 attack and roll to Entangle each round to maintain.

So the first fact I would assume is if you don't spend that attack the Entangle ends.

Will any roll do? Rolling a 1 for example? Do you need a 5 like with strikes? Would a 1-4 fail to maintain?

If any result is fine then why roll at all?

It mentions you can dodge to escape. But against what? Is that the purpose if the above roll? A number to beat?

Do you only get 1 chance to dodge-escape each melee round?

I thought about letting people try each attack to Dodge until they beat the number or ran out of attacks.

But that would create a problem with auto dodge because then you never run out.

Since you normally dodge one time per attack. One time per entangle seems right.

I am also not clear, when an entangle is maintained, what the entangled and entangled can do with their other APM. Nothing at all for both? Nothing at all for just one? Nothing just with the entangled limb or weapon?

[drewkitty ~..~]

Auto Dodge does not fit the canon text on page 345 of RUE. As I am reading the text I see that both sides of the entanglement have to deliberately act to maintain or to break the entrapment. That too says that auto-dodge, a reflex action, does not fit the bill of usable in this situation.

[HWalsh]

I am hungry for some official combat examples including Entangle because there are many aspects of it I am not sure on particulars for.

The initial setup (beat a strike roll with a defense roll) is the simplest. Its everything afterward which confuses me.

Attacker rolls to strike with their weapon/attack.
Defender uses an action to Entangle, the defender has to get a higher result than the attacker's strike roll.

It says it takes 1 attack and roll to Entangle each round to maintain.

So the first fact I would assume is if you don't spend that attack the Entangle ends.

Yes.

Will any roll do? Rolling a 1 for example? Do you need a 5 like with strikes? Would a 1-4 fail to maintain?

If any result is fine then why roll at all?

The opponent can escape the entangle by making a dodge against the number rolled by the person who initiated the entangle.

It mentions you can dodge to escape. But against what? Is that the purpose if the above roll? A number to beat?

Yes.

Do you only get 1 chance to dodge-escape each melee round?

You can keep burning actions to keep retrying.

I thought about letting people try each attack to Dodge until they beat the number or ran out of attacks.

Yes that is possible.

But that would create a problem with auto dodge because then you never run out.

Incorrect. You can only auto-dodge in response to an attack. Maintaining an entangle is not an attack. It is a defense to begin with, so auto-dodge doesn't apply. They might be given one auto-dodge at the time of the entangle at the GM's discretion, but dodging out of it after it is applied does not meet the requirements for the automatic dodge.

Since you normally dodge one time per attack. One time per entangle seems right.

Nope. You can keep burning actions until you get free.

I am also not clear, when an entangle is maintained, what the entangled and entangled can do with their other APM. Nothing at all for both? Nothing at all for just one? Nothing just with the entangled limb or weapon?

Entangle is not a grapple. This is important. Nowhere does it say it requires a grapple.

So you have RAW and RAI.

RAW - Attacker attacks you, you entangle as a defense, you can do whatever you want with your APM, they can do whatever they want with their APM. You are not hindered in any way while entangling and neither are they aside from the weapon/limb being unable to be used.

RAI - This is hard to fathom. I generally assume that you must remain in melee combat range to keep an entangle active. The rules, however, do not confirm this.

[Axelmania]

I remember reading stuff about one or both being unable to attack but can't remember which core book.

Best entanglers appear to be the Dead Reign dogs because they aren't described as being unable to attack, but their victim can't attack or run, and has bonuses halved, presumably for defenses since that's all they can do.

[HWalsh]

I remember reading stuff about one or both being unable to attack but can't remember which core book.

Best entanglers appear to be the Dead Reign dogs because they aren't described as being unable to attack, but their victim can't attack or run, and has bonuses halved, presumably for defenses since that's all they can do.

Nowhere does it say they cannot attack. Entangle just says they can't use that weapon or limb.

[Axelmania]

You said nowhere but did you check the dogs I refer to? Pg 75 Grabbing Bite and Entangle Attack

These benefits wouldn't necessarily extend to defensive entangles of course, but regardless of how entangles begin they should still have similar uses.

As for Entanglers not attacking this text is in HU2p68 then PF2p45.

The character using the entangle move cannot attack without releasing his entangling hold.

I guess this wouldn't prevent you from dodging or starting entangles yourself.

[HWalsh]

You said nowhere but did you check the dogs I refer to? Pg 75 Grabbing Bite and Entangle Attack

These benefits wouldn't necessarily extend to defensive entangles of course, but regardless of how entangles begin they should still have similar uses.

As for Entanglers not attacking this text is in HU2p68 then PF2p45.

The character using the entangle move cannot attack without releasing his entangling hold.

I guess this wouldn't prevent you from dodging or starting entangles yourself.

Grabbing Bite and Entangle Attack are not same thing as the Entangle maneuver in RUE.

[Axelmania]

I didn't say it was. It's described as an Entangle Attack while Entangle is normally a defense.

But aside from how you initiate it (making an attack, presumably with Entangle bonuses, vs a defense roll, vs making a defense against an attack roll) why would the effects be different?

Dogs are described as continuing to tug and throw them off balance though, which is probably not a component of standard defenses.

What isn't clear to me though is... do dogs do that as a free benefit or would they have to keep spending melee actions to incur those penalties, possibly compromising their ability to Dodge a 2nd zombie?

[HWalsh]

I didn't say it was. It's described as an Entangle Attack while Entangle is normally a defense.

But aside from how you initiate it (making an attack, presumably with Entangle bonuses, vs a defense roll, vs making a defense against an attack roll) why would the effects be different?

Dogs are described as continuing to tug and throw them off balance though, which is probably not a component of standard defenses.

What isn't clear to me though is... do dogs do that as a free benefit or would they have to keep spending melee actions to incur those penalties, possibly compromising their ability to Dodge a 2nd zombie?

It depends on how the Entangle was done. Entangle Attack has it's own rules that limit it. Entangle is a different maneuver and effect.

If there are no mechanical rules stated then there are no mechanical effects.

If the dog continues to tug and keep them off balance but the flavor text gives no mechanical rules then there are no mechanical benefits or disadvantages.

[Axelmania]

This affirms to me you haven't read the entry and jump to calling anything I say flavor text, since there clearly are mechanical disadvantages: half bonuses and inability to run or attack.

The question here is whether these penalties require maintenance from the dog.

Even if so little as the 1/round action expenditure which a defensive Entangle requires.

[HWalsh]

This affirms to me you haven't read the entry and jump to calling anything I say flavor text, since there clearly are mechanical disadvantages: half bonuses and inability to run or attack.

The question here is whether these penalties require maintenance from the dog.

Even if so little as the 1/round action expenditure which a defensive Entangle requires.

Incorrect. Please don't attempt to place down words that I did not say as words I said.

I specifically said if there are no mechanical rules stated then there are no mechanical effects.

I did not say there are no mechanical effects for Entangle Effect.

There are no such effects limiting the use of Entangle as in the defensive combat ability as listed in RUE. I cannot, and have not, commented on the specifics of the things in Dead Reign because I do not own Dead Reign and, as such, cannot look up information I do not have. This may seem surprising but not everyone who plays Palladium games has the disposable income to purchase every book for every game line that comes up. I finally got my copy of Heroes of Humanity recently. Unfortunately as I have real-world problems (namely the fact that I suffered an injury 6 months ago that landed me in this wheelchair probably for the rest of my life) I am a little short of cash for purchasing books for game lines I don't play.

While I do often assume that you often do confuse flavor text for actual mechanical rules due to past threads, in this case I did not. I only stated that if there are none then there are none. If it says that this happens, and it has mechanical effects for it happening, then it happens and those are the mechanical effects. If it says that this happens and it does not, or fails to, give any mechanical effects then it happens but does not have any mechanical effects associated with it.

[drewkitty ~..~]

In RUE it says that the trapped char has to roll a dodge to break free, and there is no limit on the one who entangled, further attacking the one he/she entangled.

[HWalsh]

In RUE it says that the trapped char has to roll a dodge to break free, and there is no limit on the one who entangled, further attacking the one he/she entangled.

Right and the entangled opponent can still move, use a different weapon, etc if they wish to. If you entangled an arm they can still use their other arm, or a foot or what have you. They are just forbidden from using the entangled limb/weapon.

This is also the fastest way for a melee focused attacker to weaken a Glitterboys. Disable the boom gun with an Entangle.

[Axelmania]

I cannot, and have not, commented on the specifics of the things in Dead Reign because I do not own Dead Reign and, as such, cannot look up information I do not have.

You did comment on the specifics:

If the dog continues to tug and keep them off balance but the flavor text gives no mechanical rules then there are no mechanical benefits or disadvantages.

You say "if" even after I had already mentioned the mechanical rules on June 19th:

they aren't described as being unable to attack, but their victim can't attack or run, and has bonuses halved

I only stated that if there are none then there are none. If it says that this happens, and it has mechanical effects for it happening, then it happens and those are the mechanical effects. If it says that this happens and it does not, or fails to, give any mechanical effects then it happens but does not have any mechanical effects associated with it.

So basically the 'if' is because you haven't read it and are speaking hypothetically in case I'm wrong, fine.

Disarms have the same end effect regardless of being done as an offense or a defense, so I'm proposing we explore looking at Entangle that way too.

In RUE it says that the trapped char has to roll a dodge to break free

The more I think of it... don't dodges usually require an attack roll to be done?

If that's the case, the attempted dodge might just be once per melee round when the Entangle is reinforced with additional attacks.

[HWalsh]

I cannot, and have not, commented on the specifics of the things in Dead Reign because I do not own Dead Reign and, as such, cannot look up information I do not have.

You did comment on the specifics:

If the dog continues to tug and keep them off balance but the flavor text gives no mechanical rules then there are no mechanical benefits or disadvantages.

You say "if" even after I had already mentioned the mechanical rules on June 19th:

they aren't described as being unable to attack, but their victim can't attack or run, and has bonuses halved

I only stated that if there are none then there are none. If it says that this happens, and it has mechanical effects for it happening, then it happens and those are the mechanical effects. If it says that this happens and it does not, or fails to, give any mechanical effects then it happens but does not have any mechanical effects associated with it.

So basically the 'if' is because you haven't read it and are speaking hypothetically in case I'm wrong, fine.

Disarms have the same end effect regardless of being done as an offense or a defense, so I'm proposing we explore looking at Entangle that way too.

In RUE it says that the trapped char has to roll a dodge to break free

The more I think of it... don't dodges usually require an attack roll to be done?

If that's the case, the attempted dodge might just be once per melee round when the Entangle is reinforced with additional attacks.

Disarm is actually far different. If you disarm the target's weapon they drop the weapon, they only need to spend an action to retrieve it.

Entangle prevents the use of the weapon again until either the entangling character does not expend a melee action that round on it, or they succeed at a dodge roll.

That is the mechanics of entangle.

Auto-Dodge wouldn't be applicable because it is a defensive action not an attack. You can't even do it unless an enemy is attacking you.

I don't see why you find Entangle so difficult. It is very simple.

Opponent attacks.
Defender uses an entangle in place of a Parry/Dodge.
If the opponent's attack roll is defeated the opponent loses access to that weapon/limb until they can succeed at a Dodge roll and score higher than the Defender scored on their entangle roll.

That is it. That is all there is.

There is no, "You can auto-dodge out of it."
There is no, "You can't move if someone targets you with an entangle."
There is no, "The Entangling character cannot move."
There is no, "The Entangling character cannot attack while entangling."

It isn't a grapple, it is a unique thing.

[drewkitty ~..~]

In RUE it says that the trapped char has to roll a dodge to break free

The more I think of it... don't dodges usually require an attack roll to be done?
…snip

Dodges normally require an attack roll and spending an APM to do.
In this case, it appears to be vs the entangler's entangle roll.

I am just saying that Juicers, like every other char, have to spend an APM to break an entanglement.

[Axelmania]

The argument for being able to auto dodge out if it is that auto dodges are dodges.

Yes it is a defense... But dodges are also a defense. Not sure where you were headed with that.

Entangle shifts from being a defense when it is first applied to being an offense when it is maintained 15 seconds later.

At that point is when you would be able to dodge or autododge.

You can't normally roll dodge a second time if you fail to best an attack roll on your first go, so why would that change here?

[HWalsh]

The argument for being able to auto dodge out if it is that auto dodges are dodges.

Yes it is a defense... But dodges are also a defense. Not sure where you were headed with that.

Entangle shifts from being a defense when it is first applied to being an offense when it is maintained 15 seconds later.

At that point is when you would be able to dodge or autododge.

You can't normally roll dodge a second time if you fail to best an attack roll on your first go, so why would that change here?

The argument is flawed though as Auto-Dodges can only be used in a specific situation, whereas Dodges can be used outside of that specific situation.

[Axelmania]

Hm... only example I can think of is the sacrificial dodging in front of the fireball meant for Little Timmy.

But how do we know auto Dodge can't be used for that too? Doesn't it say it can be used wherever dodges can?

[HWalsh]

Hm... only example I can think of is the sacrificial dodging in front of the fireball meant for Little Timmy.

But how do we know auto Dodge can't be used for that too? Doesn't it say it can be used wherever dodges can?

No.

It has specific wording.

Automatic Dodge: Certain characters and creatures are able to automatically dodge an attack without using up a melee attack/action. It is purely a defensive move in which the dodger bobs, weaves, bends or twists his body out of harm' s way. Roll for a dodge as normal (the automatic dodge is not an "automatic" success). An automatic dodge works just like a (automatic) parry in that the act of dodging does not use up any attacks to perform. Bonuses to auto-dodge come from the character' s P.P. attribute and any special bonus specifically for it (the bonus, skill or enhancement will say "automatic dodge"). Unless it specifically says a character has an Automatic Dodge, he does NOT.

Dodge: A character dodges by moving out of the way of the attack. Dodging always takes up one attack/action per melee round. To dodge, the defender must roll equal to or higher than the attacker' s strike roll on a twenty-sided die.

Nowhere in Automatic Dodge does it say "it is used in place of a dodge" and it gives special rules for what bonuses go into it. The fact is when you attempt to escape a grapple or an entangle you are not "dodging" but "escaping" which is a different situation.

Entangle: In order
to get free, the entangled opponent must roll a dodge against the entangle roll.

This is not a situation where auto-dodge is applicable.

[Tiree]

Totally makes sense to me HWalsh. It is one of the reasons why Juicers who have an Auto-Dodge, also have a Super High Dodge!

[HWalsh]

Totally makes sense to me HWalsh. It is one of the reasons why Juicers who have an Auto-Dodge, also have a Super High Dodge!

I look at it from a balance perspective and a simple common sense perspective.

Common Sense:
If Kevin S. wanted players to only be able to dodge out of an Entangle once per melee round, he would have said so. Just as it is very clear that such has to be maintained. If Kevin S. wanted auto-dodge to be immunity to entangle he would have said it, not snuck it in. He clearly made it known that Dodge and Auto-Dodge were not the same thing.

Ergo one can auto-dodge an attack, one cannot auto-dodge a defense. Since Entangle is not an attack, and cannot even be used as anything but a defensive action, it is not an attack and as such it cannot be auto-dodged. Furthermore, since it can't be used as an attack it, itself, cannot even be dodged. It can be dodged OUT OF once it is applied, but it cannot be dodged in and of itself.

Meaning:
You burn 1 action to attack, you get entangled, you have to wait until your next attack to try to dodge out of the entangle.

[guardiandashi]

Totally makes sense to me HWalsh. It is one of the reasons why Juicers who have an Auto-Dodge, also have a Super High Dodge!

I look at it from a balance perspective and a simple common sense perspective.

Common Sense:
If Kevin S. wanted players to only be able to dodge out of an Entangle once per melee round, he would have said so. Just as it is very clear that such has to be maintained. If Kevin S. wanted auto-dodge to be immunity to entangle he would have said it, not snuck it in. He clearly made it known that Dodge and Auto-Dodge were not the same thing.

Ergo one can auto-dodge an attack, one cannot auto-dodge a defense. Since Entangle is not an attack, and cannot even be used as anything but a defensive action, it is not an attack and as such it cannot be auto-dodged. Furthermore, since it can't be used as an attack it, itself, cannot even be dodged. It can be dodged OUT OF once it is applied, but it cannot be dodged in and of itself.

Meaning:
You burn 1 action to attack, you get entangled, you have to wait until your next attack to try to dodge out of the entangle.

With that said I would likely allow someone with auto dodge a "free" attempt to dodge the initial entangle (as an auto dodge) but I agree they could not use their auto dodge to get out of the successfully applied entangle.

[drewkitty ~..~]

The argument for being able to auto dodge out if it is that auto dodges are dodges.

Yes it is a defense... But dodges are also a defense. Not sure where you were headed with that.

Entangle shifts from being a defense when it is first applied to being an offense when it is maintained 15 seconds later.

At that point is when you would be able to dodge or autododge.

You can't normally roll dodge a second time if you fail to best an attack roll on your first go, so why would that change here?

Auto Dodge does not fit the canon text on page 345 of RUE. As I am reading the text I see that both sides of the entanglement have to deliberately act to maintain or to break the entrapment. That too says that auto-dodge, a reflex action, does not fit the bill of usable in this situation.

Even Juicers have to spend an APM to break an entanglement. That is the RAW.

All words trying to change that is just the sound of the waterfall.

[Axelmania]

Automatic Dodge: Certain characters and creatures are able to automatically dodge an attack without using up a melee attack/action. It is purely a defensive move in which the dodger bobs, weaves, bends or twists his body out of harm' s way.

Escaping an entangle seems defensive to me.

Nowhere in Automatic Dodge does it say "it is used in place of a dodge" and it gives special rules for what bonuses go into it. The fact is when you attempt to escape a grapple or an entangle you are not "dodging" but "escaping" which is a different situation.

Being entangled impedes me, being tripped impedes me, I don't see any meaningful difference to avoiding either of these.

Entangle: In order to get free, the entangled opponent must roll a dodge against the entangle roll. This is not a situation where auto-dodge is applicable.

Why not? Auto-dodge is still a dodge, it would be used whenever a dodge could.

I don't think we should expect to see "or auto-dodge" in every single instance, or else only a normal dodge works.

For example, Pg 80 of the GM's Guide has the Ancient WP Net (absent on RUE 327, I guess this means nets no longer exist) which says:

Snare one's opponent by throwing the net over him: The intended victim must dodge or be netted

It doesn't say "or auto-dodge" so would that mean Juicer's can't auto-dodge to avoid a net snare?

If Kevin S. wanted players to only be able to dodge out of an Entangle once per melee round, he would have said so.

Technically you can make as many dodges to escape entangles as you want per melee round, so long as they are DIFFERENT entangles.

Defense rolls are made in response to attack rolls. There isn't any "all-out defense: double" like in GURPS where you can make multiple defenses against 1 roll.

I could just as easily argue "if Kevin S. wanted players with lots of attacks to be able to escape entanglement more quickly, he would've said so". It takes "1D4+1 melee rounds" to cut free of a net, so clearly it's a rounds-based thing, not an attacks-based thing, which he prefers for making escapes.

one can auto-dodge an attack, one cannot auto-dodge a defense. Since Entangle is not an attack, and cannot even be used as anything but a defensive action, it is not an attack

Only the initial roll to entangle is a defense, because it happens in response to an attack.

The subsequent rolls to entangle are most definitely an attack, because they aren't defenses made in response to any kind of attack roll.

and as such it cannot be auto-dodged. Furthermore, since it can't be used as an attack it, itself, cannot even be dodged. It can be dodged OUT OF once it is applied, but it cannot be dodged in and of itself.

You dodge the offensive re-application of an existing entangle.

Disarms already work this way, I'm not seeing what's so hard to accept about it. You can't roll a parry against a defensive disarm, the only "defense" is your attack succeeding. You can roll a parry against an offensive disarm.

Rolling a dodge against the entangle roll IS a dodge.

The only time you are allowed to make dodges is 1 time per roll made.

No other time actually prompts it.

Even Juicers have to spend an APM to break an entanglement. That is the RAW.

No, it isn't. RUE 345 doesn't say the defender needs to spend an attack, just that they need to roll a dodge.

Having more attacks per melee doesn't necessarily help you escape things faster.

Lone Star pg 51 for example "It takes the average person 1D4 minutes to work his way loose; 3D4 minutes for most animals, but 5D6 seconds for most supernatural beings"

[HWalsh]

Axel, you insinuate that the maintenance roll is an attack... But the book never says that and it doesn't follow normal attack rules.

Show me, in the book, where Entangle is called an attack.

[Greepnak]

I had to houserule a lot of things to make palladium flow and I'm still working on it.

I treat entangle like it's fluff implies... I use my free hand to grab my opponent's weapon, perhaps as a shoulder lock or however I would like to describe it. This keeps my hand busy, but if I have a weapon in my other hand I can still attack with that. I simply require entangles to be re-done at the beginning of every new round or assume the victim was able to wriggle out.

[HWalsh]

My problem with conversations like this is that sometimes when posters post them... They already know the answer they want. They aren't here to discuss it, or really ask a question, they are just trying to get a consensus that supports what they already wanted it to mean.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Even Juicers have to spend an APM to break an entanglement. That is the RAW.

No, it isn't. RUE 345 doesn't say the defender needs to spend an attack, just that they need to roll a dodge.

So what you quoted is correct, but your GM ruling the text means al type of dodge is not canon.

Yes, it says a "dodge" is needed to break an entanglement.
To Dodge takes an APM.
There is no provision in the text that says that the char can auto-dodge out of an entanglement.

Having more attacks per melee doesn't necessarily help you escape things faster.

That is right. And Everyone have to spend an APM to Dodge out of an entanglement.

Lone Star pg. 51 for example "It takes the average person 1D4 minutes to work his way loose; 3D4 minutes for most animals, but 5D6 seconds for most supernatural beings"

way . What the , do these specific text of the CN-1 Net Gun have in relation to generalized h2h combat entanglement text.

That text is about escaping the net fired by that weapon.

[Axelmania]

I mention the net gun as an example where escaping is time based instead of action based. This supports my view of it being feasible that you only roll dodge once per round in response to the one roll of Entangle per round.

Anything which you spend an attack to do and which is opposed by a defense rule is most likely considered an attack. Entangle is only explicitly a defense when it initially opposes a strike.

You don't need special provisions saying you can use auto-dodge when it says you can dodge. It is a Dodge. You need special provisions to exclude it as an option, lime with the Juicer Killer power armor.

I recall WP net saying it can only be parried by a staff or spear. I guess that means you can't auto parry it, as there is no special provision for auto parries?

[guardiandashi]

I mention the net gun as an example where escaping is time based instead of action based. This supports my view of it being feasible that you only roll dodge once per round in response to the one roll of Entangle per round.

Anything which you spend an attack to do and which is opposed by a defense rule is most likely considered an attack. Entangle is only explicitly a defense when it initially opposes a strike.

You don't need special provisions saying you can use auto-dodge when it says you can dodge. It is a Dodge. You need special provisions to exclude it as an option, lime with the Juicer Killer power armor.

I recall WP net saying it can only be parried by a staff or spear. I guess that means you can't auto parry it, as there is no special provision for auto parries?

with the net the reason it can only be parried by a staff or a spear is the net is big enough to still entangle you if you aren't using a "reach" weapon.

the reason you wouldn't be able to use an auto-dodge to dodge out of an entangle is that the weaving around that is the example of most auto-dodges is explicitly prohibited BY the entangle.

look at it this way ever watch cowboy bebop? or most Jackie Chan movie fight scenes? they both use a lot of "auto-dodge" style evasions. The point is that the Dodge is a mechanic for breaking the entangle "grapple" auto-dodge is more about "drunken monkey" style or for a star wars example watch the Yoda fight scene the hyperactive little freek never stays still long enough for a conventional fighter to hit him.

[Axelmania]

It doesn't say anywhere that Entangle prevents autododge.

[HWalsh]

It doesn't say anywhere that Entangle prevents autododge.

Entangle doesn't affect movement in any way for either combatant.

[drewkitty ~..~]

I mention the net gun as an example where escaping is time based instead of action based. This supports my view of it being feasible that you only roll dodge once per round in response to the one roll of Entangle per round.

Which has nothing to do with a h2h entanglement.

You don't need special provisions saying you can use auto-dodge when it says you can dodge. It is a Dodge.

Auto-dodge is a type of dodge, not 'a dodge'.
That what is needed is a dodge is what the RAW says. That any type of dodge will do is a GM ruling.

I recall WP net saying it can only be parried by a staff or spear. I guess that means you can't auto parry it, as there is no special provision for auto parries?

This is another attempt to distract from the subject of the discussion.

[drewkitty ~..~]

It doesn't say anywhere that Entangle prevents autododge.

Entangle doesn't affect movement in any way for either combatant.

Other then that they are linked together.

[eliakon]

While you can substitute an Auto-Dodge in the place of a normal dodge when attacked...
...you can not substitute it for a dodge roll when you are not being attacked and instead need to simulate something else.

The Autododge, might, be allowed to try and dodge being entangled in the first place.
But once you ARE entangled you can't simply roll an unlimited number of times until you get free.

[Killer Cyborg]

While you can substitute an Auto-Dodge in the place of a normal dodge when attacked...
...you can not substitute it for a dodge roll when you are not being attacked and instead need to simulate something else.

The Autododge, might, be allowed to try and dodge being entangled in the first place.
But once you ARE entangled you can't simply roll an unlimited number of times until you get free.

Agreed.

[HWalsh]

It doesn't say anywhere that Entangle prevents autododge.

Entangle doesn't affect movement in any way for either combatant.

Other then that they are linked together.

Not according to the rules. It isn't a grapple.

Technically an Entangle could represent a character jamming a weapon in a joint and causing the joint to lock up.

[Axelmania]

Eliakon, I never argued you could roll an unlimited number of times.

I'm saying you roll once per round. You choose whether or not to defend when the Entangler does their new attack roll.

Auto just means you don't have to spend an action for it.

Auto-dodge is a type of dodge, not 'a dodge'.

Free cake is a type of cake, not a cake.

This is where we are now?

[drewkitty ~..~]

Both sides of the equation have to spend APM to do what they want is how it is written.
Until there is an official clarification delivered to us from the PB offices, that is the RAW.


But since you came here asking if juicers can use AD instead of a D, it seams now that you just asked the question to get into this argument and try to convert people to agree with your house rules. Not to ask a question to get an answer..

[Axelmania]

I never said instead like that. I'm just wondering how people thought entangle worked and if they had objections to autododge. It is good to expose one's own views to scrutiny, even that means they will be criticized.

As I have already point out, it only mentions spending an action to reassert the entangle. It doesn't mention needing to spend an action to escape the entangle, only to roll a dodge.

If the reinforcement if the entangle is not considered an attack then it would actually be a house rule to make rolling dodge to escape cost an action.

After all, I am being told this Dodge roll is not actually a dodge, just a roll, so why would it cost an action like an actual Dodge?

My view is that since entangle maintenance costs an attack, it is an attack, and so avoiding the attempt to continue it with a dodge will cost an action as normal, while avoiding the attempt with an auto dodge will not cost one, as normal.

[HWalsh]

I never said instead like that. I'm just wondering how people thought entangle worked and if they had objections to autododge. It is good to expose one's own views to scrutiny, even that means they will be criticized.

As I have already point out, it only mentions spending an action to reassert the entangle. It doesn't mention needing to spend an action to escape the entangle, only to roll a dodge.

If the reinforcement if the entangle is not considered an attack then it would actually be a house rule to make rolling dodge to escape cost an action.

After all, I am being told this Dodge roll is not actually a dodge, just a roll, so why would it cost an action like an actual Dodge?

My view is that since entangle maintenance costs an attack, it is an attack, and so avoiding the attempt to continue it with a dodge will cost an action as normal, while avoiding the attempt with an auto dodge will not cost one, as normal.

Your view does not make much sense to the views of others.

Entangle's maintenance roll is not an attack. It is a maintain. Nothing more or less. If you get a low roll on it, it doesn't fail. It has already succeeded by the time you get to the maintain step.

Auto-Dodge doesn't help. You have to spend normal apms, and if you fail then you can spend another apm to try again.

Easy peasy.

[Axelmania]

"Defenders win ties" is used to resolve ties.

In this situation: "In order to get free, the entangled opponent must roll a dodge against the entangle roll." who do you view as being the defender?

Who wins the tie?

Is the dodger the attacker?

If so then what defense does the Entangler get to roll against an offensive dodge to prevent the escape? Parry? A dodge themself? Another entangle?

Or does the number you roll not matter and simply rolling a dodge, no matter the result, gets you free? Even if it's a natural 1 to dodge vs a natural 20 to maintain the entangle?

Auto-Dodge doesn't help. You have to spend normal apms, and if you fail then you can spend another apm to try again.

I'm not seeing you supplying any source that you can spend all your attacks on dodges to try and escape.

The way dodges (including auto-dodges) work is you roll them ONCE in response to an attack roll.

A new roll to Entangle to maintain it (guessing at the start of the new melee on the first action, or maybe just on whatever action you did it the previous round, or earlier) gives 1 opportunity to dodge (including auto-dodge) right when the roll is made.

I don't see any text saying you can simply hold off and roll to dodge later in the round, or keep rerolling them, which makes it ridiculously easy to escape entangles.

Unless we're told otherwise, dodges (including auto-dodges) to escape entangles would work like any other dodge: 1 roll in response to 1 roll.

If you fail? Wait until the initiative resets and the entangler has to reroll, and try again.

Another good option might be if you tripped or body-blocked or body flipped the entangler, because if you make them run out of melee attacks they won't have any to spend to maintain the entangle!

[drewkitty ~..~]

...

As I have already point out, it only mentions spending an action to reassert the entangle. It doesn't mention needing to spend an action to escape the entangle, only to roll a dodge.

...

And people have informed you that 'a dodge' takes a APM to do/use.

And you have been informed that to include the meaning of 'a dodge' to mean that ""it could be a AD or MD also"" is to stating your house rules.

This is not the 1st time you have not accepted what canon answers you have been given in response to your question. And you keeping on arguing past three repetitions from each of the responders saying the same thing, which should tell you that your house rule is not what canon says, will not change the canon answer.

Defender wins the tie.
Your apparent question: which one is the defender?
Answer: The one who is caught inside the entanglement move/hold.
--->The one that has to maintain the entanglement is the attacker.

[Axelmania]

I am glad we agree that the one maintaining the entangle is an attacker.

Yes I do implicitly view addressing dodges as addressing autododges too.

For example: I view Devastator bots' and most tanks' and Juicer-Killer PAs' inability to Dodge as implicitly an inability to auto dodge if the pilot has that capability.

If you are arguing that autododge is excluded whenever dodge is used, you can't be selective in how you apply it.

Aside from the above, how would you argue the -10 for dodging lasers applies? Do you think it doesn't?

I am not seeing a canon basis for saying autododges are excluded from addresses toward dodges.

I am offering new points. I find your dismissing this as "the same thing" to be unobserving.

[HWalsh]

I am glad we agree that the one maintaining the entangle is an attacker.

Yes I do implicitly view addressing dodges as addressing autododges too.

For example: I view Devastator bots' and most tanks' and Juicer-Killer PAs' inability to Dodge as implicitly an inability to auto dodge if the pilot has that capability.

If you are arguing that autododge is excluded whenever dodge is used, you can't be selective in how you apply it.

Aside from the above, how would you argue the -10 for dodging lasers applies? Do you think it doesn't?

I am not seeing a canon basis for saying autododges are excluded from addresses toward dodges.

I am offering new points. I find your dismissing this as "the same thing" to be unobserving.

The issue is the thread premise was an active deception.

You never wanted opinions.

You already had your own personal house rule decided. You had already decided that the Entangle maintenance was an attack and that you would allow an Auto-Dodge once per round. You created this thread simply to legitimize your house rule and then proceeded into semantic arguing so you could declare those who disagreed with you in fact really did agree with you as you did in the above post.

Yeah. I ain't playing that game.

My answer:

1. No you can't Auto-Dodge.

2. Yes you can keep expending APMs to get out.

3. No the entangle is NEVER considered an "attack" even as a maintenance. It simply sets the difficulty.

Warning: Keep it about the post, not the poster