The Pokémon: Symphonic Evolutions concert tour is coming to Washington, D.C. on August 15th and Philadelphia on September 19th. Seats are limited, so be sure to book your tickets quick!
Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire have been announced!
Check BNN and Bulbanews for up-to-date Pokémon news and discuss it on the forums or in our IRC channel.

Talk:Protect (move)

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

DynamicPunch and No Guard versus Protect

My original edit concerning DynamicPunch + No Guard vs. Protect was very specific because I tested with other moves and only DynamicPunch broke through Protect. Have the edits since then been tested? If not, the Effects section should be changed again so the DynamicPunch + No Guard combo is explicitly mentioned. I can do this, or someone else can if he or she wishes. If they have been tested, then the article may be left as-is.

Furthermore, I'd like to add the other effect I recently discovered concerning DynamicPunch + No Guard, but not until the previous conflict has been resolved. The newly discovered effect is as follows: DynamicPunch + No Guard will not ignore Protect if the move priorities have been altered. I have duplicated this effect twice. Both times, Quick Claw activated, which altered the move priorities. Subsequently, DynamicPunch did not ignore Protect. When I took the Quick Claw off the Pokémon with No Guard, DynamicPunch did ignore Protect every time. (I have already added this information to the DynamicPunch page.) bubicus 05:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Rumors...

I heard a rumor that before Gen IV was going to be introduced, the developers were considering making Protect block only Special moves and Detect only Physical moves. Because it is a rumor...

Please only submit information you know to be accurate, and adhere to a neutral point of view. Do not misrepresent rumors, misconceptions or opinions as fact.

... I am not going to put this on the page but I was hoping for somebody to elaborate into this. TESHTALKSAND 20:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's probably nothing more then a rumor; people have always wondered about those two skills, I think, as it seems strange to have doubles of the same thing like that. Probably, when the split between special and physical was annouced, this rumor sprung up as a result. I can't imagine the developers would entertain the option of making these two skills so conditional, not to mention, they would need to buff the PP on Detect, as well as let more Pokémon learn it (to be fair and balanced). Just my opinion though. -- Jioruji Derako.> 20:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that is all I wanted though, confermation of it being a rumor. Thank You Jioruji. TESHTALKSAND 20:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
There's always a chance it could have been "officially" mentioned somewhere, but I highly doubt it. -- Jioruji Derako.> 02:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ghost Curse?

When I play Pokémon Colosseum, I've been able to break Protect by using a Ghost type and having it use Curse. I'm not sure if this works in any other game (I've never tried it) but it should have some mention in here. Blaziken257 01:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a real damaging attack so it's logic, no need to speak about that in the article imo.--Froggy25 16:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Really?

From the article: "Lock-On, Mind Reader, and No Guard give moves a (100 - move accuracy)% chance to hit through Protect" So Pound with an accuracy of 100, has a 0 percent chance of hitting? While Dynamic Punch has a 50 percent chance? The Dark Fiddler - Nos hablamos? 15:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

My experiments seem to corroborate with that statement—I was able to make DynamicPunch hit through Protect, but not Spark.  — Laoris (Blah) 17:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
So one can safely say that if the player uses Fissure after one of those moves against a Pokémon with Protect, its accuracy is 70%? That sounds pretty amazing. UltimateSephiroth (about me · chat · edits) 21:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It also says that OHKO moves will always fail against Protect though, even with Lock-On or such active. So I don't think Fissure would work. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 00:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

PKMN Anime: Safeguard = Protect

The anime has made, and still continues to make, no distinction between Safeguard and Protect since both moves have been consistently shown to share the same function of protecting a user from damage with only the visual appearance of the moves and the method in which they are used as being the differentiating factors. --Arima 00:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A Bit of Trivia...

Should it be put that, ever since its introduction, it has always been TM 17? --TheXMJohnson 03:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Success chance

What's the source for the success chance for Gen IV?

I've proven that the chance for protect success is diminishing in B/W[1], like it was in Gen 3. I'm also 99.99% certain it's the same in Gen 4 as well. --Kaphotics 18:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Success chance?

When it's used twice in a row, it goes from 100%, to 50%. Does this reset when not used in succession? (VictoryStar 03:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC))

Yes. Werdnae (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Include List of Moves Unaffected by Protect?

Since it's a relatively short list, should this page also list the moves unaffected by Protect? True. you can probably just search the site for "not affected by Protect," but it also makes sense having them listed together here.--Joec (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Protect (move)#Generation V *cough* ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 19:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Black/White 2 changed animation

Will this be fixed?--Goomba98 (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Alternating Protect and Detect

Can you alternate between detect and protect for infinite protection?Wishindo (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Please read the article before asking on the talk page, this is answered in the article. Werdnae (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about the erratic success table after the fourth consecutive use

I'm surprised that such an effect would occur in Generation III, which fixed a lot of move oddities present in the previous Generations. UPokeCenter's description here gives the following excerpt: "A variable, X, starts at 0, and resets to 0 if the last move called for the user is not Detect, Endure, or Protect as user uses this attack or if this attack fails, and is raised by 1 (up to 3) each time this attack is successful. This attack has a 50% chance of failing if X is 1, a 75% chance if X is 2, and an 87.5% chance if X is 3."

I'm wondering if the table in the article is actually a relation between the success rate and X, rather than a relation between the success rate and the number of times used. According to UPokeCenter's description, the value of X is capped at 3 (the fourth consecutive use), so even if you used Protect and succeeded ten times in a row, X would still be 3.

I believe the success table would have been ripped straight from the game data, which would make all values beyond the fourth cell actually garbage data relating to something other than the move Protect, since X never becomes 4 or higher.

This could perhaps be verified by having someone load up a Gen III game in an emulator, spam savestates until Protect succeeds four times in a row, and then reload to see approximately how often the fifth Protect succeeds. If the X-value theory is correct, then Protect should work 1 in 8 times. If the table is correct, then Protect should only work 1 in ~555 times. Blueapple128 (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, and yes, it's basically a relation between success rate and X. The glitch is presumably that X is not capped when it should be, causing the game to start reading garbage data (you can see the Low Kick data in there). As it happens, http://www.nicovideo.jp/watch/sm19862416 is the video that induced me to copy in the table, where the glitched table is exhibited in full detail (there are many long pauses in there). Arcorann (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Extremely intruiging. Wonder if anyone's disassembled to game to see what makes the cap fail to work. I've added a link to that video in the article (using Nicozon instead of Nicovideo so non-registered users will be able to see it), since I feel it's more thorough and convincing than the link that's currently there. Blueapple128 (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Description of the effect may be slightly wrong.

In Pokemon Colosseum, I used Protect, then an item (as that Pokemon's next turn), then protect again which failed the second time. So it seems that it is not whether Protect (or a similar move) was used last turn but rather if the last move that Pokemon used was one of those attacks. Because of confusion and how it may or may not affect the rate, it may be better worded as "if the last attempted move was Protect, Detect...". This also may only be in Colosseum rather than the whole generation, or even just in double battles, I haven't had a chance to check it out.- unsigned comment from Flaring Afro (talkcontribs)

Gen IV Table

I think the moves unblocked by Protect in Gen IV are the same as the moves of Gen V. Tested all those. Anyone knows any other moves which are unblocked by Protect? um0999

Protect no longer effective against Roar.

As of Generation VI, Protect does not work against Roar. Is this also true of Whirlwind? Rocket Grunt Robin (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Animation

I've seen some WiFi battles on the YouTube, and G6 animation of Protect is different from the one in the article (IIRC, Pokemon creates a purpleish barrier in front of it, instead of a green half-sphere around itself). Eridanus (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Images aren't animated for me, but I'm guessing from the file size that it isn't. It's showing Protect, just at the very end. It's a barrier in front of the user, the still shot just makes it look like a half-sphere. Nothing purple about it, though. glikglak 14:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
There's a small bit of purple, but mainly blue. Got confused by the shot making it look like the anime depiction. Eridanus (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)