Blocking Move Throughs: An Optional Rule

[Dust Raven]

Based in part on the later post in the Tactical Principals thread, I've developed an optional rule for blocking Move Throughs. Here goes...

All attempts to Block a Move Through incure an OCV Penalty equal to the attacker's velocity/5, with a minumum of -1 and a maximum of -3. The defender has the option of Blocking in such a way that, if successful, forces the attacker to continue his move as if the attack missed normally, or attempts to force the attacker to stop one hex in front of the defender. For the former, the result treated exactly as if the attacker simply missed, and they attack continues to move past his target to his full allotted movement. In the latter, if the block roll is successful, the attack still rolls damage, but only to determine KB; neither the attacker nor the defender take damage from the Move Through. The defender may resist KB using any means at his disposal as normal. If the defender takes any KB, it is resolved normally. If the defender does not take KB, the attacker is treated as if he stuck normally and takes full damage from his own Move Through, though the defender still take no damage.

Any comments, suggestions, criticisms, objections, etc.?

[schir1964]

Sounds good! (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

[Sean Waters]

Very nice idea although I might favour both parties taking some or all of the damage on a successful block - especially as there is the option of avoiding the collision - after all there is still a considerable impact.

[Dust Raven]

Very nice idea although I might favour both parties taking some or all of the damage on a successful block - especially as there is the option of avoiding the collision - after all there is still a considerable impact.

The only reason I didn't allow for that is the simple fact that in all cases, a successful Block means the target take's no damage. With my optional rule, the blocker can take damage, but only from KB, which is the risk of attempted to stop the attacker and forcing him to take damage instead.

[Sean Waters]

The only reason I didn't allow for that is the simple fact that in all cases, a successful Block means the target take's no damage. With my optional rule, the blocker can take damage, but only from KB, which is the risk of attempted to stop the attacker and forcing him to take damage instead.

I can see the logic but the blocker under your system has the option of avoiding all damage - it is only if they want to potentially deliver some and deliberately put themselves in harms way that they risk injury - and I feel it should be a relatively substantial risk as this sort of manouvre is going to amke a lot of cgharacters think twice about doing move throughs in the first place.

[Dust Raven]

I can see the logic but the blocker under your system has the option of avoiding all damage - it is only if they want to potentially deliver some and deliberately put themselves in harms way that they risk injury - and I feel it should be a relatively substantial risk as this sort of manouvre is going to amke a lot of cgharacters think twice about doing move throughs in the first place.

Hence the OCV penalty. It makes blocking a move through harder from the get go. Should the penalty be greater, or perhaps without a max of -3?

[RDU Neil]

Based in part on the later post in the Tactical Principals thread, I've developed an optional rule for blocking Move Throughs. Here goes...

All attempts to Block a Move Through incure an OCV Penalty equal to the attacker's velocity/5, with a minumum of -1 and a maximum of -3. The defender has the option of Blocking in such a way that, if successful, forces the attacker to continue his move as if the attack missed normally, or attempts to force the attacker to stop one hex in front of the defender. For the former, the result treated exactly as if the attacker simply missed, and they attack continues to move past his target to his full allotted movement. In the latter, if the block roll is successful, the attack still rolls damage, but only to determine KB; neither the attacker nor the defender take damage from the Move Through. The defender may resist KB using any means at his disposal as normal. If the defender takes any KB, it is resolved normally. If the defender does not take KB, the attacker is treated as if he stuck normally and takes full damage from his own Move Through, though the defender still take no damage.

Any comments, suggestions, criticisms, objections, etc.?

I don't like a block enabling damage. Bracing and putting strength, or some such against the attacker, no problem... great maneuver for the super tough, but allowing a maneuver that negates damage to somehow cause (more) damage to the attacker... not so much.

We have martial throw for using velocity against them into the ground... and I'd be more comfortable with allowing "Reflection vs. Hand to Hand" with some kind of cost simlilar to missile reflection in order to do "damage with a block."

As it stands, my games would almost 100% say a block vs. move through would be some kind of "slap it past you" maneuver. The SFX of the move through combine with the SFX of a block to create a limited SFX event. That is the simplest ruling. Variations where that would not work are likely to be rare and should be given "one off" status if the situation is really unique.

[Zed-F]

I'd have to agree with RDU Neil here. Blocking a move through is just redirecting the attacker's momentum in a safe manner in 99% of all cases that don't involve outright dodging. Either you're shoving him offtarget just as he's about to land, or you're sidestepping his attack and redirecting him as he passes by.

[gojira]

Hmm, this is a rather cool idea. I think Sean and RDU Neil have some points though.

How about something like this: A character with Missile Deflection, an appropriate SFX (maybe a shield, being big and very tough, having power armour with a high PD, etc), and enough STR to lift his attacker can make a Power skill roll to deliver damage to an attacker making a Mover Through. The Power skill roll is made at a penalty of attackers's Velocity / 5. If the Power skill roll is successful, then the defender may block as normal and if the block is successful, each side takes 50% damage and the attacker is stopped in the defender's hex. If either the Power skill roll or the block roll fails, the defender fails and the attacker may proceed as normal.


Another idea: allow a defender with a full phase held to use a block and, if the block is successful, then counter attack a move through immediately before the attacker moves out of the defender's hex. The defender effectively uses his first held half phase to block, then his second held half phase to counter attack. The counter attack must be a HTH attack with an appropriate SFX.


* * *

As I was thinking about this, I start thinking about counter attacks. I used to fence a little, and there are counter attacks in fencing. I don't see anything like that on the Hero manuvers chart, not even the martial one.

I wonder if Hero needs some sort of counter attack manuver. The SFX should match. Fists should counter a hand attack, blades should counter a weapon attack, maybe even ranged attacks can counter ranged attacks wuxia chi warrior style. Not sure where I'm going with this, just thought it might be a usefull addition.

[RDU Neil]

As I was thinking about this, I start thinking about counter attacks. I used to fence a little, and there are counter attacks in fencing. I don't see anything like that on the Hero manuvers chart, not even the martial one.

I wonder if Hero needs some sort of counter attack manuver. The SFX should match. Fists should counter a hand attack, blades should counter a weapon attack, maybe even ranged attacks can counter ranged attacks wuxia chi warrior style. Not sure where I'm going with this, just thought it might be a usefull addition.

I think the issue of Counter Attacks is a crucial one that needs to be dissected. Maybe another thread is a better place... 'cause I think we need to discuss...
1) Violating the segmented action/movement standard that is Hero. Attacking off your phase... combining a defensive and offensive maneuver in one, etc.

2) Does the fact that blocking sets you up for first attack next action fulfill the need for counterattack, thus not violating the segmented action standard? (In many ways, I think this does work. In Hero it is two actions, Block then attack, which is different than a fencing riposte or a blocking elbow strike which in real life are trained as a "single maneuver." This a place where Hero's two separate actions are good for game balance and close enough that we don't need counter strikes... at least IMO.)

[Kristopher]

I still would rather rule on this based on the physics, to generate something that wouldn't make eyebrows raise or eyes rolls whenever it comes up in play.

"I hit him going how fast, and he just blocked it, and so I just stopped and neither of us moved and neither of us took any damage? What????"

:nonp:

[prestidigitator]

Hmm. For one thing I try not to restrict the SFX of a character's powers too much, but I won't hesitate to decide as GM the SFX of a Block or other maneuver. Sorry. That's me. If you want to get out of the way, use a Dodge (or maybe a Dive for Cover). If you are actively countering the actual attack by stopping the movement of the attacker's limb/body, that's a Block. Don't push me too far into the, "anything can have any SFX," argument, 'cause I'll start, "Blocking," your Pre Attacks. :D :p

[RDU Neil]

Hmm. For one thing I try not to restrict the SFX of a character's powers too much, but I won't hesitate to decide as GM the SFX of a Block or other maneuver. Sorry. That's me. If you want to get out of the way, use a Dodge (or maybe a Dive for Cover). If you are actively countering the actual attack by stopping the movement of the attacker's limb/body, that's a Block. Don't push me too far into the, "anything can have any SFX," argument, 'cause I'll start, "Blocking," your Pre Attacks. :D :p

I'm with you on this. I usually say, "Describe what you are trying to do, and I'll give you the best maneuver option."

If they say "I puff up my chest and stop him cold with my might pectorals!" well, that is brace-and-take-the-hit... not block. I'll give 'em a chance to change their idea if they don't like my ruling.

[RDU Neil]

I still would rather rule on this based on the physics, to generate something that wouldn't make eyebrows raise or eyes rolls whenever it comes up in play.

"I hit him going how fast, and he just blocked it, and so I just stopped and neither of us moved and neither of us took any damage? What????"

:nonp:


Agreed.

[prestidigitator]

Does the fact that blocking sets you up for first attack next action fulfill the need for counterattack, thus not violating the segmented action standard? (In many ways, I think this does work. In Hero it is two actions, Block then attack, which is different than a fencing riposte or a blocking elbow strike which in real life are trained as a "single maneuver." This a place where Hero's two separate actions are good for game balance and close enough that we don't need counter strikes... at least IMO.)
For purposes of this kind of action, I allow a character to Delay one Phase and then Abort their next normal Phase rather than using the Delayed one. That means you can:
Delay a Phase and wait for an incoming attack.
Abort the next Phase to Block when the attack comes in.
Use the Delayed Phase to attack back immediately (or, if you prefer, first in the next Segment even if you wouldn't normally have a Phase then).
If you go with that, I think it is definitely sufficient; it really does allow the defender to go before the attacker next time (rather than depending on having a Phase before or on the same Segment as the attacker's next one).

Of course, how that interacts with Sweep is a little odd. I haven't really dealt with that. I'd probably require the defender to successfully Block all attacks against them in the Sweep, or at least that last one, to pull it off. I don't know.

[Dust Raven]

I still would rather rule on this based on the physics, to generate something that wouldn't make eyebrows raise or eyes rolls whenever it comes up in play.

"I hit him going how fast, and he just blocked it, and so I just stopped and neither of us moved and neither of us took any damage? What????"

:nonp:

That's precicely what I'm attempting. In this optional rule, there are several possible outcomes, all of which sound realonable in a Heroic or Supeheroic setting.

If Blocking in a way that redirects the attack:
1) You fail and the attack hits you normally.
2) You deflect the attack, you and the attacker take no damage and the attack continues along his path until his movement runs out.

If Blocking to stop the attack dead:
1) You fail and the attack hits you normally.
2) You succeed, you and the attack take no damage, but you take KB.
3) You succeed, you take no damage or KB and the attacker takes damage as if the attack succeeded but the target took no KB.

I can see where that last option might cause problems. It's incredibly difficult to pull off though. For one, you have to actually succeed at the Block roll, which with this rule has a penalty to the roll just for attempting it. Also, you have to somehow avoid all KB, which is a trick only tough immovable like characters can even attempt in the first place. There is just to way that little billy is gonna stop the Flash dead in his tracks. Even if little Billy succeeds at the block (maybe he rolled a 3), he'll still take the KB or the Flash will just pass him by. However, if the Flash were to attempt a Move Through on the Hulk, who probably wouldn't take KB anyway, he's in trouble.

[Dust Raven]

Oh, and this rules is also intended to reinforce the danger of attempting to do Move Throughs on those immovalbe targets. Now, only if you cleanly miss will the attacker avoid damage.

[Kristopher]

There's already a mechanic in the game for this...if the target takes no knockback from the move through, he doesn't move. Otherwise, he moves. You can be the baddest Bruce Lee mojo bugger on the planet, and none of your moves is going to let you stand in front of an oncoming freight train and say, "Oh, I Martial Blocked it."

[prestidigitator]

Oh, and this rules is also intended to reinforce the danger of attempting to do Move Throughs on those immovalbe targets. Now, only if you cleanly miss will the attacker avoid damage.
Hmm. Last I checked immovable objects don't normally perform Blocks.... :nonp:

[Threnody]

Doesn't Fantasy Hero have a Maneuver for pikes facing cavalry? Couldn't you do over that for unarmed fighting?

I think it'd be simpler. :)

[Dust Raven]

There's already a mechanic in the game for this...if the target takes no knockback from the move through, he doesn't move. Otherwise, he moves. You can be the baddest Bruce Lee mojo bugger on the planet, and none of your moves is going to let you stand in front of an oncoming freight train and say, "Oh, I Martial Blocked it."

A litteral freight train, definately. A guy running real fast to slam into me, I think can be blocked, and in such a way that the blocked will take no damage from the impact but still be knocked down or across the room, cinematically speaking.

[Dust Raven]

Doesn't Fantasy Hero have a Maneuver for pikes facing cavalry? Couldn't you do over that for unarmed fighting?

I think it'd be simpler. :)

I don't have Fantasy Hero, but a friend does. I'll have to see if I can borrow it.

[Boulder]

You should be able to block since all intended purposes a Move Threw is a hand to hand attack. As for the frieght train aspect, um, you can't block a area effect attack, like a frieght train or gozilla wanting to step on you, you better off diving for cover!

Missile deflection for a hand attack is well....corney
Block and throw is a very valid defence against movethrews but relize if you block it than the attack did "not" hit so the attacker takes no damage from the attack. Throwing is much better only if you still have an action on that phase, while blocking can be a abort action.

[Kristopher]

IMO, the SFX and the mechanic should match. Getting out of the way is Dodge, not Block.

[RDU Neil]

IMO, the SFX and the mechanic should match. Getting out of the way is Dodge, not Block.

Maybe what is happening here is that the superhero concept of blocking has too much sway. Only (really) in super situations is a block a matter of flat out "stopping" the attack. In almost every real situation an effective block is a matter of pushing the attack past you or away from vital areas. The block doesn't meet the attack head on, but is stopping it before full force is achieved, hitting the attack from the side to deflect it, etc. Even shield vs. sword, the effective block pushes the blade to the side. A good block doesn't just "take the hit" which should be ruled as an attack vs. the shield, sword doing damage and potentially destroying the blocking object or injuring the blocking arm/leg/hand.

Only in supers are blocks consider, "stopping Thor's hammer with the palm of my hand!" or some such craziness. And in those cases, such mighty maneuvers are more of a description of "Holy crap Count Nefario is bada$$!" rather than "Holy Crap Count Nefario has amazing blocking technique!"

I think, to Kristopher's point, that Hero's openness to SFX divorced from mechanic can have very jarring results in play that are unintended, and may not crop up more than one in five times, but when they do it's a matter of "What the fudge?"

I'm very much in the camp that maneuvers, unlike generic powers, are very much SFX based... and interpreting them with the same "Any SFX goes" is not conducive to consistent game play... where as "Any SFX for an EB" is often just fine.

As in many of these discussions, the root cause of disagreement is in some fundamental issues of interpretation of Hero... differences and inconsistencies that have cropped up over 25 years of play.

[Dust Raven]

IMO, the SFX and the mechanic should match. Getting out of the way is Dodge, not Block.

In Hero System, there is no "matching" as you imply between SFX and the game mechanics. Everything matches with everything.

With the rules for Block and Dodge specifically, all a Block does is negate all effects of a single attack and allow the defender to act first should both he and the defender act in the same segment each of their next Phases. There is nothing about physically intercepting the attack. And with Dodge, it just increases the character's DCV for their Phase. Nothing about physically moving around to avoid attacks.

What you should be thinking is of matching an applicable game mechanic to the SFX you envision instead of the other way around.

[Kristopher]

In Hero System, there is no "matching" as you imply between SFX and the game mechanics. Everything matches with everything.

With the rules for Block and Dodge specifically, all a Block does is negate all effects of a single attack and allow the defender to act first should both he and the defender act in the same segment each of their next Phases. There is nothing about physically intercepting the attack. And with Dodge, it just increases the character's DCV for their Phase. Nothing about physically moving around to avoid attacks.

What you should be thinking is of matching an applicable game mechanic to the SFX you envision instead of the other way around.

Everything but the last paragraph is, IMO, wrong.

I utterly reject and oppose the "any mechanic can be used to represent any SFX" school of thought in HERO construction.

That's how we end up with cutesy or kludgey mechicanical builds that don't have the same feel as the SFX they're supposed to represent, and often are used more for their mechanical/metagame effectiveness than they are for their appropriateness to the effect being represented.

That's how we end up with Desolidification being used to build invulnerability.

Block does one thing, and Dodge another, and the very names suggest exactly what they're supposed to represent. Using Block to represent the ability to get out of the way or Dodge to represent deflecting or absorbing the hit is bass ackwards, kludgey, etc.

[RDU Neil]

I utterly reject and oppose the "any mechanic can be used to represent any SFX" school of thought in HERO construction.

That's how we end up with cutesy or kludgey mechicanical builds that don't have the same feel as the SFX they're supposed to represent, and often are used more for their mechanical/metagame effectiveness than they are for their appropriateness to the effect being represented.

That's how we end up with Desolidification being used to build invulnerability.

Block does one thing, and Dodge another, and the very names suggest exactly what they're supposed to represent. Using Block to represent the ability to get out of the way or Dodge to represent deflecting or absorbing the hit is bass ackwards, kludgey, etc.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Kristopher again.

Dude, we were SO separated at birth. :cool:

[Boulder]

The nice thing about HERO system is that any power can have any special effect, the same for martial maneuvers.

A move threw attack in considered a hand attack, the same as move-bye.
Relize that a move threw is very easy to block since the distance givess a - to OCV.

Example is that a barbarian does a move threw with his battle ax, the defender a paladine states he blocks with his shield, should anyone of us as a GM say "You can't block that!"

In a super game a Brick rushes the martial artist, are we going to state that he can't? A block is a good defence for hand attacks, but it has its negatives also, you block you can't attack, if you abort than being able to attack first is kind of mute.

Now if the Colossus, a villian with growth...lets say 8 levels and decides to stomp Black hawk a martial artis, if he said, "I block" well let him block and still get flaten as the entire area is damaged bye the stomp.

Blaock and Dodge have only one thing in common, they are both purely defensive maneuvers. They do two totally different things, Dodge adds to the DCV and block is a "to hit" roll to negate the hit.

If you really want a good argument see the thread "When should you let a player Missile deflect"

[schir1964]

I usually don't get into these type of discussions but the claim, "Any Mechanic May Have Any SFX" is easily disproved.

If this claim were true, then there would only be three mechanics (Attack, Defense, & Perception), since these three mechanics could have any SFX.

You can take any mechanic and give an example of a SFX that wouldn't make any sense, thus disproving the part of "Any SFX".

Thus you can give examples like:
I use my normal, non-armored, and non-protected to block all melee attacks regardless of the weapon. You can try to rationalize it all you want, but there will always be an attack type (SFX) that won't make any sense for the character to be able to block and take no damage, per the definition of the mechanic. Such as a whip attack, no matter what the character does with his arm he should take damage if he blocks the attack. The only SFX that would make sense would be grabbing the whip, but that would be a different mechanic than the block mechanic.

Similarly, you could apply Damage Shield to PD and try to rationalize that it has the effect of damaging those who strike your skin, but it won't work, since the PD mechanic associated with "Defense SFX" not "Any SFX".

Now every mechanic does have certain range of SFX that it was intended to help simulate any SFX within that range.

Addendum: As far as Martial Arts, if they can represent Any SFX, then why aren't the included as normal maneuvers? Why are they separated and named after the Martial Arts sFX if they are nothing more than extended mechanics of the standard maneuvers available to everyone?

Just My Humble Opinion

- Christopher Mullins

[Dust Raven]

Block does one thing, and Dodge another, and the very names suggest exactly what they're supposed to represent. Using Block to represent the ability to get out of the way or Dodge to represent deflecting or absorbing the hit is bass ackwards, kludgey, etc.

Yet I'm absolutely certain you have no problem with buying an Energy Blast that's versus PD.

I utterly reject and oppose double standards.

[Dust Raven]

I usually don't get into these type of discussions but the claim, "Any Mechanic May Have Any SFX" is easily disproved.

If this claim were true, then there would only be three mechanics (Attack, Defense, & Perception), since these three mechanics could have any SFX.

You can take any mechanic and give an example of a SFX that wouldn't make any sense, thus disproving the part of "Any SFX".
That's a bit simple of you ask me. I don't have to tell you why the Hero System has so many various mechanics. It has nothing to do with trying to cover all SFX possible. It has to do with covering all the game effects possible.


Thus you can give examples like:
I use my normal, non-armored, and non-protected to block all melee attacks regardless of the weapon. You can try to rationalize it all you want, but there will always be an attack type (SFX) that won't make any sense for the character to be able to block and take no damage, per the definition of the mechanic. Such as a whip attack, no matter what the character does with his arm he should take damage if he blocks the attack. The only SFX that would make sense would be grabbing the whip, but that would be a different mechanic than the block mechanic.
You are mixing SFX and mechanics. For every SFX of defense, there will always be a SFX that would logically ignore it or it would otherwise wouldn't apply to. However, there is no such parallel in the game mechanics. Block affects all HTH attacks, regardless of the SFX of the attack or the Block. The rules only offer a guideline on what to do if the SFX don't logically match (such as blocking a sword by catching it in your bare hands), but even then, the Block is a valid defense maneuver, not barred because "it doesn't make sense".


Similarly, you could apply Damage Shield to PD and try to rationalize that it has the effect of damaging those who strike your skin, but it won't work, since the PD mechanic associated with "Defense SFX" not "Any SFX".
No you can't. Damage Shield can only be applied to Attack Powers. This is a game mechanic. That's why it won't work. As it happens though, you are perfectly justifed in buying Armor with the SFX of "a sword I swing around". The blade deflects damage away, protecting the character. You can also buy an HKA with the SFX of "hard armor I wear and use to smash people to death." If this doesn't make sense to you, you are only limiting yourself.


Now every mechanic does have certain range of SFX that it was intended to help simulate any SFX within that range.

Addendum: As far as Martial Arts, if they can represent Any SFX, then why aren't the included as normal maneuvers? Why are they separated and named after the Martial Arts sFX if they are nothing more than extended mechanics of the standard maneuvers available to everyone?

Just My Humble Opinion

- Christopher Mullins

For the same reason Energy Blast is called Energy Blast even though it can be used to represent thrown rocks, rubber bullets, the wind, etc.

[schir1964]

That's a bit simple of you ask me. I don't have to tell you why the Hero System has so many various mechanics. It has nothing to do with trying to cover all SFX possible. It has to do with covering all the game effects possible.
Really, so you know for a fact that the game was designed by defining mechanics first without regard to SFX, instead of thinking of the various things in Movies and Comics (SFX) and then trying to come up with a game mechanic to try to simulate that source material.

That logic doesn't really follow, even for other game systems that I'm familiar with.

So yes, it does have to do with creating game effects... in order to simulate the source material in question (SFX). So unless you have something to suggest that the game mechanics were not designed in this fashion, you have little chance of convincing otherwise.


You are mixing SFX and mechanics. For every SFX of defense, there will always be a SFX that would logically ignore it or it would otherwise wouldn't apply to. However, there is no such parallel in the game mechanics.
No, the game is mixing SFX and mechanics. (8^D)

Thank you!! Yes, you've exposed one of the things in the game design that shows that SFX was key in defining a mechanic. Defenses PD, ED, and MD have an SFX associated with them. This can not be denied. Physical Defense (PD) is limited to reducing Physical Attacks. Flash Defense is loosely tied to the Five Senses SFX. Power Defense truely has no SFX tied to it and this actually creates problems with it being purchased and making sense SFXwise.

So, when you purchase an attack you must compare the SFX of the attack to the predefined SFX of the defenses and then make that attack vs that defense, even if it requires using and advantage to do so.

I couldn't have explained how SFX is tied into certain mechanics without your help. Thanks. You clarified my thoughts on this.


Block affects all HTH attacks, regardless of the SFX of the attack or the Block. The rules only offer a guideline on what to do if the SFX don't logically match (such as blocking a sword by catching it in your bare hands), but even then, the Block is a valid defense maneuver, not barred because "it doesn't make sense".
So, you seem to be saying that if the SFX would suggest a different mechanic than Block, that you would still allow that SFX be assigned to a Block, since Block can be assigned to any SFX?

Also, Steve Long has already stated that if the mechanic and SFX don't make sense, that common/dramatic sense prevails. Thus, if the SFX doesn't make sense for the mechanic, you don't define it using that mechanic.

And based on what you said above, Block (the mechanic) affects all Hand To Hand Attacks (the mechanic), and not the SFX of HTH. This leads to non-sensical applications and therefore suggests that one should try to match the SFX to the mechanic (that it was intended to simulate) or have to deal with non-sensical application of SFX that won't make sense in play. It'ss your game, and as long as your fine with it, great, but if you want to convince me otherwise, you'll have to come up with something a bit more solid.


No you can't. Damage Shield can only be applied to Attack Powers. This is a game mechanic.
And as GM, I can do whatever I want in my games, right?
I can allow SFX to be assigned to anything, and apply mechanics in ways against the rules, right?

Doesn't make a lot of sense to apply things in ways that they obviously weren't meant to used. There are plenty of rules that can be broken in ways that will work and actually make sense, but then there are others, such as the one I gave above (8^D), that don't make sense regardless since it was never designed to be used that way. Same thing applies to mechanics and SFX.


As it happens though, you are perfectly justifed in buying Armor with the SFX of "a sword I swing around". The blade deflects damage away, protecting the character.
That SFX won't work since due to the fact that when the character is knocked out it won't protect the character, and unless the Armor is purchased as a Focus, it can't be picked up by other characters. Also, since armor doesn't help a character escape from an entangle "Net" and a sword being wielded does, it fails miserably as a SFX assigned solely to the Armor mechanic.

Now if you want to go into how simulate certain Foci SFX, I could show you a VPP (Rope SFX) that would boggle your mind. But I wouldn't try to assign the Rope SFX to the Block mechanic. (8^D)


...you can also buy an HKA with the SFX of "hard armor I wear and use to smash people to death." If this doesn't make sense to you, you are only limiting yourself.
Actually, this one of course makes sense, since Spiked Gloves are type of "SFX Armor" and are specifically meant to increase damage of ones punches. So you did well in matching the SFX with the actual mechanic here.

Haven't limited myself in the least. But obviously the other SFX above suggest completely different mechanics for thier build to simulate what they actually do.


For the same reason Energy Blast is called Energy Blast even though it can be used to represent thrown rocks, rubber bullets, the wind, etc.
Actually, no. Energy Blast is called Energy Blast, because it was named that when Champions was the main thrust of the system and Attack Blast was probably too boring.

Oh, here is another one, both Force Field and Force Wall allow you to build in all the defenses in the book, but Armor is limited to Physical/Energy Defense only. Hmmmmm.... the only logical reason might be... SFX. (8^D)

Why isn't MD, FD, or PwrD default or figured stats?
Hmmmmm.... the only logical reason might be... Human SFX overlay of the stats.

I welcome any evidence you can provide that might suggest otherwise.

- Christopher Mullins

[Kristopher]

Yet I'm absolutely certain you have no problem with buying an Energy Blast that's versus PD.

Different case entirely, simply a matter of a legacy name. That's not the same thing, at all, as claiming that there's not SFX distinction between the Block and Dodge maneuvers.

Even though it's called "Energy Blast", EB is simply meant to represent an attack that's intended to stun.

RKA and HKA are meant to represent attacks that are intended to be lethal.

Despite people getting hung up on the names, that's the division, and another case where two different kinds of mechanic are in the game to respresent two different broad groupings of SFX.

[Kristopher]

However, consider this, both Killing Attacks in 4th Edition were defiined vs Physical Defense only. No switching to Energy Defense like the rules allow now.

Oh, here is another one, both Force Field and Force Wall allow you to build in all the defenses in the book, but Armor is limited to Physical Defense only.

Um...while I agree with the general thrust of your post...Killing Attacks could be defined as vs PD or vs ED, and Armor had both PD and ED, in 4th edition. Really. I just looked it up to be certain. I can even give you the page numbers.

[schir1964]

Um...while I agree with the general thrust of your post...Killing Attacks could be defined as vs PD or vs ED, and Armor had both PD and ED, in 4th edition. Really. I just looked it up to be certain. I can even give you the page numbers.
Ooops, typo on the Armor thing. Yes, it's limited to only Physical and Energy, and not the others.

As for HA, and HKA, could give me the page number for those, I would really appreciate it. I would like to double check myself on that.

I retract my statement on this until further notice. Thanks. (8^D)

Addendum: Corrected post to remove inaccuracies pointed out by Kristopher.

- Christopher Mullins

[prestidigitator]

As for HA, and HKA, could give me the page number for those, I would really appreciate it. I would like to double check myself on that.

KILLING ATTACK -- HAND-TO-HAND (HKA)
...
A character must define his attack as physical or energy damage (whether it works against PD or ED; STR adds to the damage in either case).

KILLING ATTACK -- RANGED (RKA)
...
A character must define his attack as physical or energy damage (whether it works against PD or ED).
HA, on the other hand, does seem to imply it is only physical:

HAND-TO-HAND ATTACK (HA)
...
For 3 Character Points, the character can buy +1d6 of physical Hand-to-Hand Attack (HA). This adds directly to the damage done by the character's hand-to-hand attacks.
However I think there may have been answers by Steve Long clarifying that it could in fact be bought as energy damage (I'm not sure if 4E FAQs/questions can still be found, and I'm not trying right now).

[schir1964]

HA, on the other hand, does seem to imply it is only physical:

However I think there may have been answers by Steve Long clarifying that it could in fact be bought as energy damage (I'm not sure if 4E FAQs/questions can still be found, and I'm not trying right now).
Yeah, that must have been what I was thinking of. I found it odd that many weapons used HA as the mechanic, but the rules seemed to say Physcial Damage only.

Thanks for clearing that up. I don't have to find my old 4th Edition book now. (8^D)

I knew there was an attack that Physical Attack only. So I'm not hallucinating. (8^D)

Or am I?

- Christopher Mullins

[Dust Raven]

Really, so you know for a fact that the game was designed by defining mechanics first without regard to SFX, instead of thinking of the various things in Movies and Comics (SFX) and then trying to come up with a game mechanic to try to simulate that source material.
Do you know for a fact it's otherwise?



No, the game is mixing SFX and mechanics. (8^D)
You are messing thing up here. I'm just talking about the rules used to play the game. The game is something different.


Thank you!! Yes, you've exposed one of the things in the game design that shows that SFX was key in defining a mechanic. Defenses PD, ED, and MD have an SFX associated with them. This can not be denied. Physical Defense (PD) is limited to reducing Physical Attacks. Flash Defense is loosely tied to the Five Senses SFX. Power Defense truely has no SFX tied to it and this actually creates problems with it being purchased and making sense SFXwise.

So, when you purchase an attack you must compare the SFX of the attack to the predefined SFX of the defenses and then make that attack vs that defense, even if it requires using and advantage to do so.

I couldn't have explained how SFX is tied into certain mechanics without your help. Thanks. You clarified my thoughts on this.[quote/]
You have given a wonderful example on how this discussion could be taking to an absurdity. It's like you haven't even read my post. Or at the very least, you've completely failed to understand what I was saying.


[quote]So, you seem to be saying that if the SFX would suggest a different mechanic than Block, that you would still allow that SFX be assigned to a Block, since Block can be assigned to any SFX?

Also, Steve Long has already stated that if the mechanic and SFX don't make sense, that common/dramatic sense prevails. Thus, if the SFX doesn't make sense for the mechanic, you don't define it using that mechanic.

And based on what you said above, Block (the mechanic) affects all Hand To Hand Attacks (the mechanic), and not the SFX of HTH. This leads to non-sensical applications and therefore suggests that one should try to match the SFX to the mechanic (that it was intended to simulate) or have to deal with non-sensical application of SFX that won't make sense in play. It'ss your game, and as long as your fine with it, great, but if you want to convince me otherwise, you'll have to come up with something a bit more solid.
I show you anything anything more solid if you keep refusing to see it.





And as GM, I can do whatever I want in my games, right?
I can allow SFX to be assigned to anything, and apply mechanics in ways against the rules, right?

Doesn't make a lot of sense to apply things in ways that they obviously weren't meant to used. There are plenty of rules that can be broken in ways that will work and actually make sense, but then there are others, such as the one I gave above (8^D), that don't make sense regardless since it was never designed to be used that way. Same thing applies to mechanics and SFX.
If it doesn't make sense to you, then do as you will. All I'm trying to do help you understand.


Actually, no. Energy Blast is called Energy Blast, because it was named that when Champions was the main thrust of the system and Attack Blast was probably too boring.

Oh, here is another one, both Force Field and Force Wall allow you to build in all the defenses in the book, but Armor is limited to Physical/Energy Defense only. Hmmmmm.... the only logical reason might be... SFX. (8^D)

Why isn't MD, FD, or PwrD default or figured stats?
Hmmmmm.... the only logical reason might be... Human SFX overlay of the stats.

I welcome any evidence you can provide that might suggest otherwise.

- Christopher Mullins
I don't believe you welcome anything. You seem set in your point of view and refust to budge. You even go so far, once again, to make believe I've said something I haven't. I'd thank you for trying, but from what I can tell you aren't.

[Dust Raven]

Different case entirely, simply a matter of a legacy name. That's not the same thing, at all, as claiming that there's not SFX distinction between the Block and Dodge maneuvers.

Even though it's called "Energy Blast", EB is simply meant to represent an attack that's intended to stun.

RKA and HKA are meant to represent attacks that are intended to be lethal.

Despite people getting hung up on the names, that's the division, and another case where two different kinds of mechanic are in the game to respresent two different broad groupings of SFX.

It's still a double standard on your part. You can easily look past the name of Energy Blast, but can't see past the names of Block and Dodge.

[prestidigitator]

Hey guys. Let's calm down a little, okay? I think we're all quite capable of being reasonable and making rational arguments rather than throwing slush, eh?

[schir1964]

Do you know for a fact it's otherwise?
Actually, I do. Not for Hero Games specifically, but for another game system. The designer doesn't create a mechanic out of thin air and then find a use for it in the source material. They look at the source material and then come up with a mechanic to help simulate it. So once again. The burden one you to convince me otherwise.


You are messing thing up here. I'm just talking about the rules used to play the game. The game is something different.
Meaningless to anything I'm talking about. I'll ignore it as failed attempt to insult me. (8^D)

Unless you meant something else and can explain it. I am quite thick headed at times.


You have given a wonderful example on how this discussion could be taking to an absurdity. It's like you haven't even read my post. Or at the very least, you've completely failed to understand what I was saying.
This is quite possible. I am thick headed and sometimes it takes a lot to get through. I'm quite willing to trudge through multiple posts to try to understand.

Now I will step back for moment to clarify some things:
1) I started out by giving my opinion on the system and how certain mechanics do have a range of SFX associated with them and why I think that.
2) You respond by telling me how I'm all wrong about this (at least that is how it came across).
3) So I immediately respond by wanting to know why I'm wrong and continue to put forth more reasons why I think what I do.
4) So I'm waiting for you to show some disconnect with my logic with how I came to my conclusion. So far you have failed to do that, but perhaps you haven't been trying to do that at all.

Now if all you are doing is giving your own opinion on how the system works and why you think that, then hey, that's fine. But don't do it by trying to tell me why I am wrong, unless you are willing to show where I'm missing something or can show where my logic is faulty. I've been proven wrong before and will be proven wrong again in the future. I have also changed my mind multiple times about things with the system by having discussions with people on the board here.

I'll try to be less frustrating to you in my posts, but don't mistake my thick headedness for anything other than that, thick headedness.

Moving on.


I show you anything anything more solid if you keep refusing to see it.
Probably a typo or something here.

If you are referring to your examples, all I did was take your SFX and apply them to the mechanics that they would normally be applied to. That is the way the system was designed to used per the "Reason From SFX". Or am I missing something again?


If it doesn't make sense to you, then do as you will. All I'm trying to do help you understand.
Then it would seem that you are just giving your opinion on how you view things and why you think that. Then why attack my reasons for what I think in the process of doing this?


I don't believe you welcome anything. You seem set in your point of view and refust to budge. You even go so far, once again, to make believe I've said something I haven't. I'd thank you for trying, but from what I can tell you aren't.
(8^D) Dust Raven, we seem to be flip sides of the same coin. I could easily reflect this statement back you and it would seem to apply. I won't take this as an insult either. Since it is probably the result of my thick headedness again. (8^D)

Now, if you want to dicuss my reasons/rationale/logic and how it is flawed in some way. I do welcome it. Since if I am missing something, I truely do want to know about it.

However, if you want to discuss what your reasons/rationale/logic are, then don't quote my stuff in doing so. Just state your opinion and the reasons why you think that. I'm good with that. Maybe I've become too comfortable discussing things with you since I can't seem to keep from angering you. That is not my intent.

Maybe I'll just stop posting for a while and give you rest. (8^D)

Sorry if I've offended you in some way.

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Hey guys. Let's calm down a little, okay? I think we're all quite capable of being reasonable and making rational arguments rather than throwing slush, eh?
Absolutely! You are quite right. Sorry if my posts seem trite or too aggressive. I'll dial it back a bit. My thick headedness seems to come across that way. (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

[Dust Raven]

Actually, I do. Not for Hero Games specifically, but for another game system. The designer doesn't create a mechanic out of thin air and then find a use for it in the source material. They look at the source material and then come up with a mechanic to help simulate it. So once again. The burden one you to convince me otherwise.
If it's another system entirely, it doesn't apply to this discussion.

I think it's safe to say that unless the entirety of authors of the Hero System, from first edition to present unanamously state one way or the other we can chalk this up to personal opinion.



Meaningless to anything I'm talking about. I'll ignore it as failed attempt to insult me. (8^D)

Unless you meant something else and can explain it. I am quite thick headed at times.


This is quite possible. I am thick headed and sometimes it takes a lot to get through. I'm quite willing trudge through multiple posts to try to understand.


Not an attempt to insult you. Please understand nothing I've said is an attempt at an insult. You and I both can be thick headed at times, but I know you aren't stupid.




Now I will step back for moment to clarify some things:
1) I started out by giving my opinion on the system and how certain mechanics do have a range of SFX associated with them and why I think that.
2) You respond by telling me how I'm all wrong about this (at least that is how it came across).
3) So I immediately respond by wanting to know why I'm wrong and continue to put forth more reasons why I think what I do.
4) So I'm waiting for you to show some disconnect with my logic with how I came to my conclusion. So far you have failed to do that, but perhaps you haven't been trying to do that at all.

Now if all you are doing is giving your own opinion on how the system works and why you think that. Hey, that's fine. But don't do it by trying to tell me why I wrong, unless you are willing to show where I'm missing something or can show where my logic is faulty. I've been proven wrong before and will be proven wrong again in the future. And have changed my mind multiple times about things with the system by having discussions with people on the board here.

I'll try to be less frustrating to you in my posts, but don't mistake my thick headedness for anything other than that, thick headedness.

Moving on.
Well, from my point of view, I stated simple facts about how the rules work. I may be taking the way I use the rules for granted here though. I'm aware not everyone uses the rules the same way I do, so what I state as "fact" may only be my opinion. Nevertheless, I feel I'm right. If nothing else, I've seen nothing but personal opinion that certain game mechanics are limited to a certain range of SFX. That simply isn't true. Any SFX can be applied to anything. More on this below.



Probably a typo or something here. Yes, a typo. Omitted a "can't". "I can't show you..." is how it should have read.


If you are referring to your examples, all I did was take your SFX and apply them to the mechanics that they would normally be applied to. That is the way the system was designed to used per the "Reason From SFX". Or am I missing something again?
Follow through with the entire text in the rules regarding Reason From SFX. The key statement there is something to the effect of "what can it do?" A given mechanic does not by default look like, or tend to look like, any given SFX, nor does any SFX represent, or tent to represent, any given Mechanic. Once you've established the "looks like", which is the SFX, you then attach a "what it does" which is the mechanic. The two are seperate and either can be anything.

The closest thing the rules have to tendicies and suggestions of attaching certain SFX to certain mechanics is tradition and common use. Lasers are traditionally and commonly RKAs, a suit of plate armor is traditionally and commonly Armor. The point I'm trying to make is that the rules do not force this assumptions or traditions. If anything forces them, it's players.

What I'm suggestion to you is to step outside that box and assume for a moment that there is no rules oriented assumption that any game mechanic has only a limited selection of applicable SFX and vice versa.



Oh, then perhaps you are just giving your opinion on how you view things and why you think that. Again, why attack my reasons for what I think in the process?
I'm not attacking your reasons. If I'm attacking anything it's your point of view.



(8^D) Dust Raven, we seem to be flip sides of the same coin. I could easily reflect this statement back you and it would seem to apply. I won't take this as an insult either. Probably the result of my thick headedness again. (8^D)

Now, if you want to dicuss my reasons/rationale/logic and how it is flawed in some way. I do welcome it. Since if I am missing something, I truely want to know about.

But if you want to discuss what your reasons/rationale/logic are, then don't quote my stuff in doing so. Just state your opinion and the reasons why you think that and I'm good. Maybe I've become too comfortable discussing things with you, since I can't seem from angering you. That is not my intent.

Maybe I'll just stop posting for a while and give you rest. (8^D)

Sorry if I've offended you in some way.

- Christopher Mullins

You are not angering me, Christopher. And I find no fault in your reasoning, just your point of view. I'm sorry if I implied an insult. If you are thick headed, perhaps I am impatient and demanding. Well, I am impatient and demanding, but hopefully not too much. :)

[Dust Raven]

Hey guys. Let's calm down a little, okay? I think we're all quite capable of being reasonable and making rational arguments rather than throwing slush, eh?

Sorry. I do not mean to throw slush.

On the upside, at least slush is soft enough not to leave a bruise... :)

[schir1964]

Okay, let's make this discussion very simple then.

I'll pose this as questions so as allow freedom of expression from everyone.

1) Do the Primary/Figured Characteristics have SFX embedded in them? Why/Why Not?
2) Does PD/ED have SFX embedded in them? Why/Why Not?
3) Can Pysical Defense protect a character from an Energy SFX Based Attack? Why/Why Not?

The answers to these questions might clear some things up.

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

1) Do the Primary/Figured Characteristics have SFX embedded in them?
Yes. Since each Characteristic is attempting to simulate a specific innate ability possessed by humans in the source material. Matching these things is complete guesswork of course and whether they succeed at doing so is debatable, but it would seem obvious to me that they representations of the human abilities. (Human SFX)

2) Does PD/ED have SFX embedded in them?
Yes. Since Physical SFX and Energy SFX can be easily defined in the source material, and everything should have some type of resistance to Physical or Energy Damage. Why the defence was divided up between these two SFX is perplexing unless they were specfically trying to allow differences to simulate the abilities shown in comics. I don't know. But it seems plausible.

3) Can Pysical Defense protect a character from an Energy SFX Based Attack?
No. Since the attack would have to be match the SFX of the Defense. A laser beam (Energy Based SFX) would cause Energy Based Damage and thus Physical Defenses would not apply.

If someone says Laser Beam could be built vs PD, then the Laser Beam wouldn't be an Energy SFX Based Attack but an Physical SFX Based Attack.

Just My Humble Opinion

- Christopher Mullins

[prestidigitator]

How familiar are you with quantum mechanics? :D

[Boulder]

God, why did I wait so long to join?!!!!
I love this!!! You guys are great!!
Really, you all are, I have not seen one idiodic post (excpet, of cource for mine, but I dont count!)

What should be known is that HERO games is made for players and GM's to make what ever they want, and call it anything they want.
A Energy Blast can be used against PD, it has to be defined that when the chacter is made, along with KA.

As for SFX, that is determined when the chacter is made and the Gm aproves it, I can see a hand attack being energy, but the main reason they have it listed that way is because it is a adder to STR a physical attack. If you want it to effect ED the GM may say ok to change your str damage to a energy attack, but you would have to state it does that all the time, you can't change the attack type after the chacter is made unless you totally rehach the chacter, (As in remake, between games)

[schir1964]

How familiar are you with quantum mechanics? :D
They don't exist. (8^D)

Nice....

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

A Energy Blast can be used against PD, it has to be defined that when the chacter is made, along with KA.
Yes, of course, but that isn't the question.
It comes down to why there are two defenses PD/ED instead of just one?
If there is no embedded SFX in them, then how are they different?
If one is selected as the defence against an attack, then why can't the other defense be used against it, if they truely have no SFX associated with them?


As for SFX, that is determined when the chacter is made and the Gm aproves it, I can see a hand attack being energy, but the main reason they have it listed that way is because it is a adder to STR a physical attack. If you want it to effect ED the GM may say ok to change your str damage to a energy attack, but you would have to state it does that all the time, you can't change the attack type after the chacter is made unless you totally rehach the chacter, (As in remake, between games)
Actually the rule I was referring to was for 4th Edition. If I am not mistaken, 5th Edition allows HA to be defined vs PD or vs ED like the others. However, STR by default only goes against PD. You need to add an advantage to STR to make it go against another defence, such as AVLD.

Glad you are enjoying the show! (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

[Kristopher]

It's still a double standard on your part. You can easily look past the name of Energy Blast, but can't see past the names of Block and Dodge.

The mechanics of Block and Dodge are as indicative of their purpose as their names are. Block is interposition, Dodge is avoidance, as indicated both by the nomenclature and the mechanics.

Despite the name, the mechanics of Energy Blast make it quite clear that it can be used to represent either an "energy attack" or a "physical attack" -- tying in to schir's comments regarding PD and ED, and how they represent a certain level of SFX distinction being hardcoded into the HERO system.

[Sean Waters]

Yet I'm absolutely certain you have no problem with buying an Energy Blast that's versus PD.

I utterly reject and oppose double standards.


So do I for myself, but I don't mind if they apply to everyone else.

Anyway...

Blocking a move through.

First off I'm pretty sure that the system itself supports the idea that a block can be an avoidance, a deflection or a confrontation.

Second, whilst GMs can rule on individual instances, or have campaign rules, there is nothing that prevents Joe Normal blocking Grond's Haymayer with a deflect/confront type block. I mean, common sense says he'd be smeared, the rules don't care though.

Third (and I am only numbering my paragraphs to lend a spurious gravitas tot he proceedings) I can see three possible outcomes here (and bear in mind that, by and large, problems are only going to arise when you are doing move attacks - standard hth attacks are much less problematic):

1: Avoidance - this would count as a miss in my book, and so the blockee would NOT stop - they'd travel on to the end of their move.

2. Deflection - this would involve changing the direction of travel of the attacker. I don't think that you should really be able to do this with a block, and I'd probably require a held action and a throw type manouvre. You could, of course, define your block as a deflection that did not substantially change the direction of the attacker and is, in effect, an avoidance.

3. Confrontation - this is the problem really to my mind, especially if it id defined as an impact taking place. OK your block sfx could be in inertial dampening field - fine - but for almost ANYTHING else, where that amount of momentum is being bought suddenly to rest there should be some sort of impact consequence for both the attacker and defender. Note that you can already abort to resisting KB, and this would probably be my preferred solution here - that way the impact is almost bound to happen, and the defender has a very good chance of hurting the attacker quite badly (and, of course, himself).

I do not like the 'tough it out' mechanic at all: it makes no sense. An example - Brick has missile deflection and block. He decides to tough out a swung rock doing 20d6, and successfully blocks. Same phase a rock is thrown at him and causes 10d6, which he takes, then he continues blocking and toughs out a sword doing a 5d6 penetrating killing attack, even though he has no hardened defences. All attacks came from the same basic direction and he was equally aware of each...

OK that is a problem of the interaction of MD and block. Personally I'd like the ability to BUY block as a power, possibly as an option in the MD power.

More to the point if you are faced with a 30d6 punch you can tough it out, even though that would normally cause considerable damage. I can see some logic in being able to tense up a bit to increase your PD a bit, but not to double or triple it. Moreover, block applies to energy hth attacks as well, and I can't see how most characters can tense up their energy resistance, and block enables you to avoid damage from attacks for which you have NO appropriate defence.

One final thought in passing: if you do block, and define it as confrontation or deflection, and the attacker has a damage shield, so you've deliberately come into contact with it, presumably, do you take the damage shield's effect?

[Sean Waters]

Okay, let's make this discussion very simple then.

I'll pose this as questions so as allow freedom of expression from everyone.

1) Do the Primary/Figured Characteristics have SFX embedded in them? Why/Why Not?
2) Does PD/ED have SFX embedded in them? Why/Why Not?
3) Can Pysical Defense protect a character from an Energy SFX Based Attack? Why/Why Not?

The answers to these questions might clear some things up.

- Christopher Mullins

OK

1. Yes, up to a point. I would not so much think of most characteristics in terms of sfx as in terms of base game mechanics. We're not defining something in the real world so much as setting out our stall in terms that can be used to play the game. Now of course strength, for example, has various sfx properties, but I still see most characteristics in terms of a mechanical base rather than an sfx one. This is demonstarted to an extent in terms if you look at the figured characteristics: why should a better strength mean a better recovery? That's a game convention not a sfx-driven one. So there are embedded sfx: there have to be or the whole thing is meaningless, but these don't bother me much. This is not a problem.

2. With PD/ED being the exception: perhaps we could have a defence value at 2 points per point and then limit it to apply to certain sorts of attack, like, for instance, physical and energy attacks. In an ideal world. Mind you only ideal for some: I dare say many or most cherish the fact that almost every character would have to have a limitation applied to the characteristic, which is just messy. So yes, there are sfx embedded here, but for a nice solid, practical reason. Convenience. The assumption is that the game, in 99% of instances, will require both, so it makes great sense to seperate them early on. This is a gameplay problem.

3. Physical defence can not protect from energy attacks because that is not how the system works. A properly constructed character with a rocky skin sfx should probably have a quite high ED as well as a quite high PD but that's just construction etiquette. Similarly whilst you COULD build a laser that worked against PD, construction etiquette would frown on it, and tend to ignore you at parties. Just because you CAN do it does not mean that it is appropriate to do so. Now an energy attack CAN be defined as working against PD, in which case, of course, PD does protect, but you have to explain why it is more appropriate to go against PD than ED. This is an application problem.

[Sean Waters]

The mechanics of Block and Dodge are as indicative of their purpose as their names are. Block is interposition, Dodge is avoidance, as indicated both by the nomenclature and the mechanics.

Despite the name, the mechanics of Energy Blast make it quite clear that it can be used to represent either an "energy attack" or a "physical attack" -- tying in to schir's comments regarding PD and ED, and how they represent a certain level of SFX distinction being hardcoded into the HERO system.


What a block allows you to do that a dodge does not is get in the first attack next time assuming that you and the attacker go on the same phase. What a dodge allows you to do that a block does not is continue to gain protection after you have been hit.

They are mechanically quite different even though their basic purpose - the avoidance of damage - is the same, so I have no problem with a block being defined as ducking to one side as the punch thunders in, and I have no problem with a dodge being defined as using a forearm to slightly deflect an incoming attack. The difference is that the ducking tot he side in this instance will put you in a better position to attack next time and the forearm deflection does not make you any less likely to succeed with your defence if you are attacked again.

Next phase you could use the same manouvre and an entirely different explanation as to how you accomplish it: I don't see that it matters.

As to PD/ED I think what Schir1964 is getting at is this: EB or HA can, of course, be defined as working against pd or ED. If you define your HtH attack punch as 'flaming fists' can you say that they still work against PD? Well yes you can, but it would not make much sense to do so. If you define your EB as 'rubber bullets' can it also be defined as working against ED? Well yes, mechanically - but again it makes no sense to do so.

[Kristopher]

What a block allows you to do that a dodge does not is get in the first attack next time assuming that you and the attacker go on the same phase. What a dodge allows you to do that a block does not is continue to gain protection after you have been hit.

They are mechanically quite different even though their basic purpose - the avoidance of damage - is the same, so I have no problem with a block being defined as ducking to one side as the punch thunders in, and I have no problem with a dodge being defined as using a forearm to slightly deflect an incoming attack. The difference is that the ducking tot he side in this instance will put you in a better position to attack next time and the forearm deflection does not make you any less likely to succeed with your defence if you are attacked again.

Next phase you could use the same manouvre and an entirely different explanation as to how you accomplish it: I don't see that it matters.

The critical mechanical difference between a Block and a Dodge, which reflects their inherent SFX, is that the Block uses OCV vs OCV to intercept the attack, whereas a Dodge is a general bonus to DCV as one avoids the attacks.

[Sean Waters]

The critical mechanical difference between a Block and a Dodge, which reflects their inherent SFX, is that the Block uses OCV vs OCV to intercept the attack, whereas a Dodge is a general bonus to DCV as one avoids the attacks.


Quite right but I don't see how that dictates the in-game appearance of the manouvre: well, when I say quite right...I don't think that the book mentions blocks 'intercepting' attacks. I'd say that both block and dodge allow you to avoid damage and other effects from an attack: that is the mechanical result.

I've done a bit of martial arts...poorly and with no real discipline...but I've watched people who do know what they are doing and it seems to me that you don't usually block or dodge in most martial arts - you do a bit of each. Usually you move out of the line of attack and at athe same time try to protect yourself by moving your arm or leg into a protective position. Some of the most successful 'blocks' may involve no physical contact at all.

Now the system is set up to have them work off different mechanical bases, but that does not indicate to me that they need to LOOK substantially different, necessarily, and it does not mean they have to look the same. I can see no problem, especially with a martial block, in having the player define how it looks and works, and assuming that a non-martial block IS trying to knock the blow aside with a forearm. I also don't think that the system requires you to do that.

[Dust Raven]

I'm answering these before reading any other responses to give an unbiased response as possible.



1) Do the Primary/Figured Characteristics have SFX embedded in them? Why/Why Not?
No. Each Characteristic can represent the mechanical effect of any SFX. I can certainly understand how someone would simply assume that a Characteristic like STR must represent muscle mass, brawn, hyrdolic cybernetics or something similar, but it really isn't limited. It can represent a mystical endowment of ancient spirits lifting and pushing for the character, using his radion-blast beams to augment is lifting and punching and lifting, etc. There is no SFX that can't apply.

Granted though, there are some very specific SFX that are so commonly associated with each Characteristic it is rare to see something different. But that doesn't mean that something different is wrong, disallowed, innapropriate or discouraged by the rules.

2) Does PD/ED have SFX embedded in them? Why/Why Not?
Same answer as above with the same reasons.


3) Can Pysical Defense protect a character from an Energy SFX Based Attack? Why/Why Not?
Absolutely, so long as the energy SFX attack is bought versus PD. Scoff if you will, but if the mechanics say an attack is versus PD, it doesn't matter what it looks like.

[Dust Raven]

How familiar are you with quantum mechanics? :D
I'd rep you for this, but I'm out of rep for the day.

[Dust Raven]

The mechanics of Block and Dodge are as indicative of their purpose as their names are. Block is interposition, Dodge is avoidance, as indicated both by the nomenclature and the mechanics.
I could then ask you if Armor represents interposition or avoidance. I'm wondering which you'd say it is, or if you'd agree it can be either.

Despite the name, the mechanics of Energy Blast make it quite clear that it can be used to represent either an "energy attack" or a "physical attack" -- tying in to schir's comments regarding PD and ED, and how they represent a certain level of SFX distinction being hardcoded into the HERO system.
Energy Blast if often used as the quintessential "any SFX" game mechanic. Just because it's used as the most common example doesn't mean it's the only game mechanic any SFX can apply to.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Quite right but I don't see how that dictates the in-game appearance of the manouvre: well, when I say quite right...I don't think that the book mentions blocks 'intercepting' attacks. I'd say that both block and dodge allow you to avoid damage and other effects from an attack: that is the mechanical result.

I've done a bit of martial arts...poorly and with no real discipline...but I've watched people who do know what they are doing and it seems to me that you don't usually block or dodge in most martial arts - you do a bit of each. Usually you move out of the line of attack and at athe same time try to protect yourself by moving your arm or leg into a protective position. Some of the most successful 'blocks' may involve no physical contact at all.

Now the system is set up to have them work off different mechanical bases, but that does not indicate to me that they need to LOOK substantially different, necessarily, and it does not mean they have to look the same. I can see no problem, especially with a martial block, in having the player define how it looks and works, and assuming that a non-martial block IS trying to knock the blow aside with a forearm. I also don't think that the system requires you to do that.
Mechanically, I've been known to use the terms "Active Defence" for a blaock and "Passive Defence" for Dodge, but usually when I do it, I suddenly get accused to trying to inflict GURPS on Hero.
Which is a LIE, I tell you!
I've never even READ the GURPS Rulebook.
(I looked at the 1st edition and thought "Wow, they're trying to turn TFT into
the Hero System. I'll stick with Hero")

It is a more accurate way of explaining the difference between the two maneuvers, IMO.

[Dust Raven]

So do I for myself, but I don't mind if they apply to everyone else.

Anyway...

Blocking a move through.

Excellent post and great points made about interpretation of the rules during game play.

I would only add that it's only during game play where the interaction of SFX become an issue, and only there where it should be resolved. Because of the flexibility of the Hero System it is unavoidable that there will eventually be some illogical conflict in this regard. This has nothing to do with the rules and game mechanics though, except how the GM may change how they work during game play. If something doesn't make sense, SFX wise, the GM should fix it.

In one of the examples you give, Joe Normal usng the Block mechanic to tough out a Haymake from Grond, most people would agree the idea is ridiculous and wouldn't allow it. I wouldn't at least. I'd just look at the player of Joe Normal and say "yeah, right!" and continue with the Haymaker. In no way does this mean the mechanic for Block is flawed, only the interacting of the SFX of the attack and defense.

[schir1964]

As to PD/ED I think what Schir1964 is getting at is this: EB or HA can, of course, be defined as working against pd or ED. If you define your HtH attack punch as 'flaming fists' can you say that they still work against PD? Well yes you can, but it would not make much sense to do so. If you define your EB as 'rubber bullets' can it also be defined as working against ED? Well yes, mechanically - but again it makes no sense to do so.
Yep. Absolutely. 100% Correct. (8^D)

I won't be discussing this further here, since it really is a derailment of the original threads topic.

I think I've made my point well enough that at least you got it. (8^D)
I might start another thread if anyone wants to discuss it further. But I doubt it.

- Christopher Mullins

[Dust Raven]

I won't be discussing this further here, since it really is a derailment of the original threads topic.
Well, I started the thread, and the derailment, so I don't mind. :)


I think I've made my point well enough that at least you got it. (8^D)
I might start another thread if anyone wants to discuss it further. But I doubt it.

- Christopher Mullins
I'll look for it if you do. It's a stimulating discussion.

[RDU Neil]

I would only add that it's only during game play where the interaction of SFX become an issue, and only there where it should be resolved.

But this is the point! Game play IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS! This is a system designed to produce game play, so the game play is all that is important. Everything else is pure hot air. SFX are critical to game play, thus the fact that they are divorced from the mechanics is truly a structural fallacy of the system... not a benefit.

System matters. The system is there to create a certain kind of game play... and by claiming it divorces SFX from mechanics... while leaving an enormous spread of SFX imbedded in the assumptions of the system... there are many, many ways in which game play becomes quite conflicted and jarring and breaks down.

You should not wait until "game play" to suddenly have to wrestle with confilcting interpretations... an effectively designed system minimizes conflicting interpretations and Hero does not do this.

I think it CAN do this, with clear discussion of design intent and play intent. This includes (as Christopher stated before) more in depth discussion of SFX and their intended use.

No game is created from theoretical mechanics that are then mapped to an SFX, any more than someone will design a tool out of thin air and then figure out what to do with it.

Need drives creation. You need to represent a human like character in an action adventure/supers setting... so characteristics are created to represent that human like template. STR is therefore created to represent the push/pull/jump/strike/etc. that a human template character would perform in a recognizable human template like imaginary world.

Now... you can then take the mechanical concept of STR and stretch it to apply in other areas like vehicles or such, but it needs to be recognized that the farther you move from it's design origin, the more likely inconsistencies and jarring game play will result.

You can use STR for anything you want... but they are not all equally effective.

All mechanics are created equal, but all uses of the mechanics are not.

Ex: OCV is mechanical representation of your template human's ability to attack (in some way) a target. DCV is a mechanical representation of the template human's ability to avoid be struck by the attack.

A maneuver which adds to OCV helps attack... a maneuver with adds to the DCV helps avoid. While you can say a block is "getting out of the way" it doesn't mean that such an interpretation is as valid as deflecting the attack.

Hero implies that every possible interpretation is equally valid, which simply isn't the case, and we should recognize this.

Hero clearly defines three ways of not taking damage. Avoid, deflect or stop.

Avoid - dodge
Deflect - block or Missile deflect
Stop - armor/defense

Each one of these is built as a mechanic to simulate the human template ability for these things to happen.

Each one of these has imbedded SFX as to how they play out in the game.

While you can argue something like "armor can be bought to represent being missed by the attack" (read Combat Luck) this deviates enough from it's design intent (steeped in the human template SFX) that it quickly creates head-scratching game play like "Uh... bullet didn't do any body because of my combat luck... but I did take stun from it... so how do I take stun from an attack that the SFX says missed?"

Deviation from SFX design intent created jarring play that requires convoluted work around to explain.

Poor design.

The fact is, Hero doesn't have to go this route. You can have the same system... just back up a step and make the design note that "Not all SFX interpretations are created equal..." and we are in a much better place.

[Sean Waters]

Wow.

I'm impressed. Well argued and well thought through and even though I don't agree with a lot of what you are saying I'm closer to your interpretation having read your post. Kudos.

My relationship with sfx is, well, a bit all over the place.

1. I like the idea of being able to create a mechanic then clothe it in whatever appearance you fancy without changing what it does. No problem there.

2. I like being able to define the same thing in different ways to fit the situation and explain what is happening on a case by case basis to prevent discontinuity and jarring occuring in-game.

3. I don't like some of the uses sfx are put to.

Now 3. is a personal thing really BUT if sfx are to have an in-game effect other than being just that - special effects - and the system is clear that it advocates that sfx should have in-game effects both on application and rule interpretation, i would like to see the whole question of sfx addressed in an awful lot more detail than it is at present.

I'd like to see some rules, or at least guidelines, for sfx interaction, and I'd like to see something delimiting the nature and quantity of benefit and limtiation that a particular sfx is worth.

[RDU Neil]

Wow.

I'm impressed. Well argued and well thought through and even though I don't agree with a lot of what you are saying I'm closer to your interpretation having read your post. Kudos.

My relationship with sfx is, well, a bit all over the place.

1. I like the idea of being able to create a mechanic then clothe it in whatever appearance you fancy without changing what it does. No problem there.

2. I like being able to define the same thing in different ways to fit the situation and explain what is happening on a case by case basis to prevent discontinuity and jarring occuring in-game.

3. I don't like some of the uses sfx are put to.

Now 3. is a personal thing really BUT if sfx are to have an in-game effect other than being just that - special effects - and the system is clear that it advocates that sfx should have in-game effects both on application and rule interpretation, i would like to see the whole question of sfx addressed in an awful lot more detail than it is at present.

I'd like to see some rules, or at least guidelines, for sfx interaction, and I'd like to see something delimiting the nature and quantity of benefit and limtiation that a particular sfx is worth.


What is interesting is that I think both of us are on the same page on number 3 (see above) but where we break is on...


being able to create a mechanic then clothe it in whatever appearance you fancy

This I just can't fathom. How can you create a mechanic without knowing what it will be used for (what clothing it is designed to wear)? I totally understand the ability to take a mechanic designed for one thing (Ex Energy Blast... designed to wear the clothing of Super heat vision or similar) and then dress it differently (to now be Cyclo-impact vision that does P damage and not E damage). What I can't fathom is creating some "pure mechanic" (I don't even know how you would represent such) without any clothing whatsoever (thus no purpose or meaning) and then retroactively give it meaning.

A hammer isn't created... then the concept of hammering invented so you have something to do with this meaningless object. You need to have to pound something, and the create the hammer to fulfill that need.

You can't even strip Hero down to "Move, Attack, Defend, Perceive" without recognizing imbedded SFX that the game play will require entities that do these things... and that need (supers, ninjas, babies with rattles in the play pen) is what drives the creation of mechanics.

SFX are not the icing on the cake... they are the whole reason to bake the cake in the first place.

The idea of mechanics completely divorced from SFX is a retroactive intellectual appellation. It is a theoretical pipe dream expanded from a very smart concept of EB can be energy or physical into some kind of Platonic ideal of mechanics that simply don't exist. Mechanics without SFX are without context and thus without meaning. Having SFX context for mechanics HELPS the game, because then GMs and players can make meaningful decisions on how to interpret or reinterpret game play.

[Kristopher]

1. I like the idea of being able to create a mechanic then clothe it in whatever appearance you fancy without changing what it does. No problem there.

Whereas 98% of the time, I start with a power and its SFX --the "appearance" -- and then work from there to get a mechnical construct which best reflects the nature and feel of that power and its SFX.

[schir1964]

Oooooooh. RDU is using his De'ja Vu power again! (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

[CBikle]

Re: SFX vs. Mechanics.



You should not wait until "game play" to suddenly have to wrestle with confilcting interpretations...

For me, the only time this is really an issue is when it occurs in the middle of combat and if it involves:

1 an NPC's sfx or:
2 the GM looking critically at a PCs sfx in relation to some aspect of the environment.

Generally speaking, ill-defined or fictitious sfx tend to work better in game than well-defined or mundane sfx.

Even if they are built the same mechanically, my "bat-rope" entangle is going to run into more problems in game than the player who bought his entangle as "bands of cosmic energy". Let's face it, the "Power Cosmic" will trump a "utility belt" every time.

When PCs go "SFX fishing", it's not really an issue because most GMs will tend to adjudicate in the PCs favor granting them some minimal bonus or one-time effect; there's no real "debate" (When I'm GMing, I'm more generous if the player suggests how to do it mechanically).