RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

[Rkane_1]

Yes, I know that Block can be MORE than an interposition of limbs but for a more delineated use of a Block, I suggest the following variant.


---------------------------------

Standard Maneuvers

Block (revised)

This action prevents a hand-to-hand opponent’s attack and sets the blocking character up to deliver the next blow. A character that wishes to Block must declare his intentions before his attacker attempts on Attack roll. To attempt a Block, the attacker must roll against his opponent’s OCV, not DCV. If the character successfully Blocks, he takes damage to the limb, weapon or shield with which he blocked or ½ damage if not using the optional Hit Location rules. If the attacker and Blocker both have their next action Phases in the same Segment, the character who Blocked automatically gets to act first, irregardless of relative DEX (the Blockers opponent is delayed until the Blockers’ DEX). Blocks have no effect on Ranged attacks.
EXAMPLE: Ogre tries to punch Seeker. Seeker attempts to Block (a mistake). Ogre’s OCV is 6, and Seeker’s OCV is 11. Ogre needs a 6+11-11=6 or less. Ogre rolls a 10 so Seeker’s Block was successful, however, Ogre can deadlift an aircraft carrier and Seeker has about 1/128th his Strength (60 STR vs. 25 STR). Ogre rolls his damage which is 12d6 and rolls 35 STUN/12 BDY (an average roll). Seeker’s PD is 15 so he takes 20 STUN/0 BDY which is halved if not using the Hit Location rules for total of 10 STUN/0 BDY (Not bad for Blocking the force of a hurricane wind). If using the Hit Location rules, Seeker probably would have chosen to take the blow on his arm which has a STUN and BDY multiplier of x1/2. The same amount of damage would be taken. Seeker should have Dodged, but his Block would have been sufficient against a weaker opponent.

A character who has successfully Blocked can Block additional attacks made against him. Each additional attack made against him is a +2 cumulative per attack, and if the Blocker is actually struck, he may not Block any further attacks.

If using the Hit Location penalty a Blocker is at –4 OCV to Block any strike at the lower portion of his body (rolls from 14-18) with his arms or hands. The Blocker is also at a –4 OCV to Block any strike at the higher portion of his body (rolls 3-11) with their legs. Characters with odd fighting styles may counter this by buying +PSLs (Only to counter Block penalties for High/Low strikes with arms/legs (-2)).

Martial Block

Martial Block is identical to Block above with the exception that some techniques add PD to the PD of the Blocker against whom the attack is being made. If the character is using a Shield or Weapon with resistant PD or the Blocker himself has resistant PD, then the +PD of the maneuver becomes resistant as well. This new Resistant PD adds to the total of resistant PD but only if the object with Resistant PD is being used to Block with.

Maneuver Costs

Element -----------------------Description ------------------Maximum
Block -------------------------+0pts of maneuver ---------Take Once
----------------------------------------------------------Is based on Block
----------------------------------------------------------Instead of Strike
----------------------------------------------------------(Abort is Free)

PD+ --------------------------+1 pt per +3PD ------------up to +12 PD
------------------------------+2pts per additional +3PD over +12 PD
------------------------------(Only usable with Block)

From this, the following Blocks may be made:

Maneuver ---------Phs ------Pts -------OCV --------DCV --------Damage/Effect
Defensive Block ----½-------- 5-------- +1----------+3 ---------PD for defense
Glancing Block -----½-------- 5--------- 0---------- -1--------- PD+12 for defense
Martial Block -------½ --------4-------- +2---------- 0---------- PD+6 for defense

Extra DC adds +3 PD for ever +1DC added.

Optional rule #1: Shields
Characters with shields may be opt to use a Block maneuver to use the PD of their shield instead of making an activation roll. This is free of charge and costs no extra points for the character but LARGE shields may have a larger surface and provide more +OCV with Block (only for use with Shield (-1))

Optional Rule #2: Inside Block
If a Blocker is in the same hex as an opponent and wishes to Block, they may execute an inside Block which allows a character to Block the limb which is executing the blow and not the actual weapon or fist/foot which is causing the damage. This will allow characters to divide all damage by an ADDITIONAL x1/2 BEFORE subtraction PD and then dividing damage for the Block. This also allows characters to avoid Killing damage from hand to hand melee weapons as the character is Blocking the arm or appendage of the attacker and not the weapon. The character just takes damage from the arm and that is handled as if it were a normal attack of the attacker’s Strength which then goes through the above process as if it were a normal attack against an Inside Block. GM’s may wish to assess a –2 OCV penalty to Inside Blocks as it IS hard to get “inside” on an opponent. A GM may also let a character do an “Inside Block” on a weapon providing the Blocker could conceivably find a spot on the weapon which , if struck, would not somehow hurt them (the haft of an axe, the entire surface of a staff, etc.) but the GM could assess penalties depending upon how outlandish or simple the character makes it sound (“You’re going to grab the sword by the flat edges with your pinkies…um, Bob…-18 OCV…Now…well...oh dear.. No more pinkies Bob.”)

Optional Rule #3: OCV bonus next round.
Often a well-executed Block can throw an opponent off balance. To simulate this, you may wish to give a character a +1 OCV bonus for every 2 points the attacking character missed their roll by but only if the Blocker can act before the Attacker does next. If the attacking character made a 13 when a 9 was needed, the Blocker would get a +2 bonus for his or her attack next Segment. This bonus is also reduced by a -2 cumulative for every other Block which must be made by the Blocker in that round.

-----------------------------------------------


Okay.....let her rip....make it hurt. :help:

[BNakagawa]

assuming the martial artist didn't already have either a weapon in hand or resistant defenses already, there would be no point in ever blocking a HKA.

Would this work against a energy HKA (flaming sword for example)?

I think to offset the problem with blocking bricks, you should give the blocker +3 PD per point they make the block by, so if you just barely block the attack, you get a little bonus PD but if you block by a huge margin, the damage dealt is reduced to nada.

[Robyn]

I think to offset the problem with blocking bricks, you should give the blocker +3 PD per point they make the block by, so if you just barely block the attack, you get a little bonus PD but if you block by a huge margin, the damage dealt is reduced to nada.

Fraction of campaign caps, fraction of strongest defensive power character already possessed? Shouldn't this be the same whether it's used in a 75/75 point game or a 200/150 game?

[Rkane_1]

Actually, the higher the campaign limit would be handled by the DC gives +3 PD rule. The higher the campaign limit, the higher the likely DC on Martial Artists. For non-Martial Artists, little PD would be available but Bricks already have a High PD and then halfing the damage because of the block maneuver would most likely make it worthwhile.

And as for the blocking of Energy based HA's, I would not give the PD bonus but I would grant the attacker chooses the limb he took the blow to and if he had any ED, that would, of course apply.

If the attacker had a Killing attack, you could either dodge, wear some sort of armor to block, use a shield, or finally the Inside Block variant.

[Rkane_1]

My original model for this was a Dice for Dice reduction with Str + DC worth of dice deducted from the force of the attack, but I thought this would be a lot of dice rolling, so I reasoned that the nromal PD was already figured into the PD of the character and a +1d6 in a Strike could just as easily be made a +3 roll with the Standard rule just to make it easier.

Just to show you what I was thinking when I wrote it.

[prestidigitator]

As far as I am concerned a Block that results in damage to the limb is a failed Block. There is already a suggestion in the book for assigning penalties based on the differences in the sizes of the weapons (so blocking a sword with your bare hands might result in a -3 or more penalty). I'd say you could waive the penalty if you just wanted to replace a random/targetted Hit Location with your arm or leg. Seems simple but complete enough to me.

[nexus]

How about if the Block is successful the attack is reduced 1 DC class per 5 points of Strength(Base HTH DC) the Blocking character has + 1 addictional DC per pip the Blocker beats the Attacker's OCV. The remaning damage, if any is applied against the character's PD. If the campaign is using Hit Location, the GM at his discretion can consider the attack to automaticallyl strike a limb. Of course game balance and dramatic sense should apply. In Superheroic games using Knockback, the GM might consider reducing or ignoring Knockback caused by successfully Blocked Attacks. Sheild's might give a bonus to Block or perhaps acts additional Damage reduction or take the attack completely but take full Damage themselves and possibly break (either according to the foci rules or Def/Body of the sheild in Heroic games).

A Martial Block could purchased with an Exert Element that increased the Blocker's effective strength for purpose of this subtraction to explain those wizened Martial Arts Masters that can casually bat aside the punches of hulking bruiser.

In any event, the attacker is consider to have been "set up" for a future blow and acts after the Blocker as ususal.

[Frenchman]

An unarmed person can block a sword without cutting themselves - by grabbing/deflecting their arm. Presdigitator has got the right idea there.
Assuming that your version of block has the same CV modifiers (none) as the default block, why would a character sacrifice an action before the hit roll is made, to possibly (if they miss) have a chance (then you have to roll) to take 1/2 damage - when they can take a small penalty to CV and abort to Roll With the Blow after they know whether or not the other person hit?

If two combatants with equal O/DCVs square off, the one who aborts to block will waste their abort much of the time - Their opponent has a 40% chance to miss them - and thus their pre-emptive abort was pointless, and if they do hit them, they have another 40% chance to fail their block roll.
If you wait until after their attack roll, then you can take your action if they miss, or - if they hit - abort to Roll With the Blow and automatically take 1/2 damage plus some extra KB. And at this point, the extra distance is probably welcome

If you abort (or hold an action) to block, best case scenario is for your opponent to miss you, and both of you to waste the turn - where a regular block gives an additional benefit if you succeed, you go first next time you share a phase. Rolling with the blow lets you avoid wasting an action, and automatically gives you essentially the same benefit - 1/2 damage. If you're blocking your opponent, then you are likely not doing too well (a normal block is a good move even when you have the upper hand, this one is not), and the extra inches of KB will put desirable distance between yourself and your foe, giving you a head start and possibly making the DCV penalty moot.

[ghost-angel]

This is coming dangerously close to combining Attempt To Hit and Attempting To Damage, which are two seperate mechanics in Hero.

That and it also comes far too close to tying SFX to Mechanics.

What is Iceman's "Block" is really creating a thick sheet of ice in the air to deflect the blow without using his own limbs?

Or maybe Gravitar's block is to cause a gravitational sheer in the air causing the incoming fist to move just slightly out of the way and miss?

And that's just thinking in terms of a Superheroic game...

[Hugh Neilson]

It's Heresy! Such audacity! ;) With that out of the way...


Yes, I know that Block can be MORE than an interposition of limbs but for a more delineated use of a Block, I suggest the following variant.

How do you vary the pricing for those who do block with something other than the interposition of a limb? Given that such a blocker gains an advantage over those using interposition of a limb, there should be a costing difference, with either your approach providing a discount or the usual version costing a premium. IOW, how would one price out a character who uses the non-default Block method selected for the campaign?


Standard Maneuvers

Block (revised)

This action prevents a hand-to-hand opponent’s attack and sets the blocking character up to deliver the next blow. A character that wishes to Block must declare his intentions before his attacker attempts on Attack roll. To attempt a Block, the attacker must roll against his opponent’s OCV, not DCV. If the character successfully Blocks, he takes damage to the limb, weapon or shield with which he blocked or ½ damage if not using the optional Hit Location rules. If the attacker and Blocker both have their next action Phases in the same Segment, the character who Blocked automatically gets to act first, irregardless of relative DEX (the Blockers opponent is delayed until the Blockers’ DEX). Blocks have no effect on Ranged attacks.
EXAMPLE: Ogre tries to punch Seeker. Seeker attempts to Block (a mistake). Ogre’s OCV is 6, and Seeker’s OCV is 11. Ogre needs a 6+11-11=6 or less. Ogre rolls a 10 so Seeker’s Block was successful, however, Ogre can deadlift an aircraft carrier and Seeker has about 1/128th his Strength (60 STR vs. 25 STR). Ogre rolls his damage which is 12d6 and rolls 35 STUN/12 BDY (an average roll). Seeker’s PD is 15 so he takes 20 STUN/0 BDY which is halved if not using the Hit Location rules for total of 10 STUN/0 BDY (Not bad for Blocking the force of a hurricane wind). If using the Hit Location rules, Seeker probably would have chosen to take the blow on his arm which has a STUN and BDY multiplier of x1/2. The same amount of damage would be taken. Seeker should have Dodged, but his Block would have been sufficient against a weaker opponent.

Basically, this approach says, to me, "Don't bother with Block". Against powerful attacks, you'll still take damage, albeit possibly reduced. Against low power attacks, you're likely facing multiple opponents. In either case, you're better off dodging and enhancing your DCV by 3 (or maybe DFC to evade a really powerful attack altogether). This assumes a character lacking Martial Arts. Seeker would have been far better off to Martial Dodge and get +5 DCV. [ASIDE: Given you want this for realism, why are all your examples still using 4 color Supers, one of the least realistic genres?]


Martial Block

Martial Block is identical to Block above with the exception that some techniques add PD to the PD of the Blocker against whom the attack is being made. If the character is using a Shield or Weapon with resistant PD or the Blocker himself has resistant PD, then the +PD of the maneuver becomes resistant as well. This new Resistant PD adds to the total of resistant PD but only if the object with Resistant PD is being used to Block with.

Why can't a non-Martial Artist block with a shield or weapon? I don't think every Fantasy Hero character with a shield on his arm should be required to have Martial Arts in order to block with it.


PD+ --------------------------+1 pt per +3PD ------------up to +12 PD
------------------------------+2pts per additional +3PD over +12 PD
------------------------------(Only usable with Block)

Why is there a cap on the base bonus defenses? Or, alternatively, why are the bonus defenses based on the character's own defenses anyway? It seems to me this is intended to simulate skill in blocking, so the character's own defenses should not be determinative of the benefits.

+3 PD, only when executing a successful block (which means nonpersistent, requires an OCV vs OCV roll, and rather limited circumstances) costing 2 points seems very expensive.

Given I can have the same +3 defense with +1 DC, it's now really only costing 2 to buy up the DC of my attacks - why would I not want to spend the full 4 points and get those added benefits, spend the full 3 points and get +2 resistant PD that always works and doesn't require any actions on my part, or buy +2 PD for the same 2 points, assuming I already have enough rPD that I'm not worried about BOD damage? This assumes I'm not hampered by NCM on my PD, of course.

Why can't a non-Martial Artist buy a more effective Block (ie more PD)? As to the multiple maneuvers, sinking 10 - 15 points into Block seems like a lot of points to me.


Optional rule #1: Shields
Characters with shields may be opt to use a Block maneuver to use the PD of their shield instead of making an activation roll. This is free of charge and costs no extra points for the character but LARGE shields may have a larger surface and provide more +OCV with Block (only for use with Shield (-1))

This will, of course, require Shields be rewritten for games where equipment isn't paid for with points. Note that, as written, a standard shield does not provide bonus PD. It provides a bonus to DCV. Does the character using the shield to Block get both the bonus PD from the maneuver and the bonus from the shield? Does he get the shield's bonus regardless of whether the Block maneuver succeeds? How does this price out in a game where I pay for equipment? Seems I now have a variable limitation (RSR: OCV v OCV roll + Only When Blocking, or Activation).


Optional Rule #2: Inside Block
If a Blocker is in the same hex as an opponent and wishes to Block, they may execute an inside Block which allows a character to Block the limb which is executing the blow and not the actual weapon or fist/foot which is causing the damage. This will allow characters to divide all damage by an ADDITIONAL x1/2 BEFORE subtraction PD and then dividing damage for the Block. This also allows characters to avoid Killing damage from hand to hand melee weapons as the character is Blocking the arm or appendage of the attacker and not the weapon. The character just takes damage from the arm and that is handled as if it were a normal attack of the attacker’s Strength which then goes through the above process as if it were a normal attack against an Inside Block. GM’s may wish to assess a –2 OCV penalty to Inside Blocks as it IS hard to get “inside” on an opponent. A GM may also let a character do an “Inside Block” on a weapon providing the Blocker could conceivably find a spot on the weapon which , if struck, would not somehow hurt them (the haft of an axe, the entire surface of a staff, etc.) but the GM could assess penalties depending upon how outlandish or simple the character makes it sound (“You’re going to grab the sword by the flat edges with your pinkies…um, Bob…-18 OCV…Now…well...oh dear.. No more pinkies Bob.”)

I believe an attacker is only in the same hex as the defender during a grapple (in which case swinging a weapon should be pretty tough) or if the attacker is quite small. Seems to me this should be a standard approach to Blocking unless the weapon has stretching/reach (with the counter-exception being whether the defender has stretching/reach). We're getting pretty complicated here, though.


Optional Rule #3: OCV bonus next round.
Often a well-executed Block can throw an opponent off balance. To simulate this, you may wish to give a character a +1 OCV bonus for every 2 points the attacking character missed their roll by but only if the Blocker can act before the Attacker does next. If the attacking character made a 13 when a 9 was needed, the Blocker would get a +2 bonus for his or her attack next Segment. This bonus is also reduced by a -2 cumulative for every other Block which must be made by the Blocker in that round.

Well, at least that would provide some slight reason to use the maneuver, although only if my opponent is hard to hit in the first place.

Some more overall issues:

What about ED? We can have laser swords, flaming swords and HA's based on ED, all of which should reasonably be Blockable, shouldn't they?

What if the attack in question has advantages? Are the bonus Defenses from Block Hardened (relevant for penetrating or AP attacks)? Do I get any benefit from Blocking a Lightsaber (NND Does BODY)? What if the attack is an Adjustment Power, or a Grab?

Given the premise is that even a successful Block still results in the defender absorbing a portion of the force of the attack, does a Block negate Knockback, only reduce it, or result in normal knockback? If Ogre smashes Seeker with all that force, shouldn't he be knocked down/back as well as damaged?

All in all, I think this adds too much complexity for nominal benefit, but that should be expected from my comments in another thread.

[Lord Mhoram]

As I avoided the block discussion before, I'l throw in my two cents. I dislike the approach as it limits certain genre conventions.

Karate Kid from the Legion could block, by physically deflecting limbs, Superboy all day long. Karate Kid by special effect was a normal, trained human, and using your rules would then not track as he did in the source literature. He could also grab and hold Superboy with a martial grab. Perhaps, in this case, each Martial Damage class you have gives you another 3 defence. So the martial artist that has a Grab that can hold a 60 STR brick (because he has 8 MDC) could then block the same. That would allow the superhero "trained, normal" block the brick, which fits parts of the source literature for that kind of game.

[nexus]

Two or more characters can occupy the same hex without being involed in a grapple, IIRC. A hex is a 2 meter radius. Short weapons (knives, for example) could probably be used without a problem; longer ones would probably have issues.

[nexus]

Any opinon on my variant or should I move it to another thread?

[Hyper-Man]

definitely a detailed and interresting a proposal.

However,
it would slow down gameplay.
And it does not address Knockback/Knockdown at all.
And it creates a slippery slope of other questions.

Some Martial Blocks could certainly be described as punching the attacker's punch. Using this proposed method the defender is taking damage but not the attacker. To be fair damage should be shared by both. Then, by futher reasoning, the attacker should take damage from his own attacks. etc....

Interresting and detailed? yes.
Would it improve the combat AND roleplaying aspect of a game? no.

[Lord Mhoram]

Any opinon on my variant or should I move it to another thread?

If you need a "blocker takes damage" kind of block, which utility I question, except in limited circumstances, that make a lot of sense, and is fairly simple to use. It also brings to mind (for no real reason other than I thought of it while reading your proposal) the idea of a linked Missle D and ranged energy blast with the SFX of shooting your energy blast at someone who shot at you and blowing through his attack.

Add in Martial DCs to add to STR for purposes of limiting damage (or HA's defined as "super martial arts") so the Karate Kind kind of martial artist that can block Superboy is reflected, and I think it works... but given the whole purpose of "blocker taking damage" is to ignore that kind of thing as being unrealistic.... :)

[Hugh Neilson]

Two or more characters can occupy the same hex without being involed in a grapple, IIRC. A hex is a 2 meter radius. Short weapons (knives, for example) could probably be used without a problem; longer ones would probably have issues.

There's plenty of room for two characters in a hex, however I believe the HTH default is that the characters strike from adjacent hexes.

[Robyn]

Some Martial Blocks could certainly be described as punching the attacker's punch. Using this proposed method the defender is taking damage but not the attacker. To be fair damage should be shared by both.

Your fist is doing a Move Through on their fist.

[Rkane_1]

assuming the martial artist didn't already have either a weapon in hand or resistant defenses already, there would be no point in ever blocking a HKA.

Unless execyuting an Inside Block which is more difficult and requires you be in the same Hex with your opponent.

[Rkane_1]

As far as I am concerned a Block that results in damage to the limb is a failed Block.
Or more sloppy than it needs to be or just a way of taking the incoming damage that could have gone to your head where it could do more damage and placing it on your arm instead, which is a much better place for it. Look at the guys in UFC or Kickboxing. They use hundreds of little maneuvers to defklect the full force of the blow they are taking from simply placing a hand up to shrugging their shoulders to take it on the shoulder in stead of the chin.


There is already a suggestion in the book for assigning penalties based on the differences in the sizes of the weapons (so blocking a sword with your bare hands might result in a -3 or more penalty). I'd say you could waive the penalty if you just wanted to replace a random/targetted Hit Location with your arm or leg. Seems simple but complete enough to me.
But then there is the added PD...I think I will be reformulating this. Something akin to the STR for Disarm to directly reduce the number of DC's per Robyn's suggestion (I think it was Robyn)

Whups, nope. Nexus. Sorry, nex. My bad.

[prestidigitator]

Or more sloppy than it needs to be or just a way of taking the incoming damage that could have gone to your head where it could do more damage and placing it on your arm instead, which is a much better place for it. Look at the guys in UFC or Kickboxing. They use hundreds of little maneuvers to defklect the full force of the blow they are taking from simply placing a hand up to shrugging their shoulders to take it on the shoulder in stead of the chin.
And as a martial artist, I don't call those blocks, nor would I handle them with the Block maneuver in Hero. Instead I'd call it a higher DCV (so the opponent is less likely to make targetted shots, or more likely to miss if they do) and/or the SFX of Combat Luck/extra PD.


But then there is the added PD...I think I will be reformulating this. Something akin to the STR for Disarm to directly reduce the number of DC's per Robyn's suggestion (I think it was Robyn)

Whups, nope. Nexus. Sorry, nex. My bad.
I can buy extra PD with a RSR just fine already, and that doesn't require an Aborted Action.

[Utech]

I sometimes work as a fight choreographer. I'm afraid your ideas on Block just don't track with the way I choreograph fights.

In any fight I choreograph, a defender would never perform a successful Block that resulted in injury to the defender. I have found this simple in choreographing fights with
no weapons
knives
rapiers
double rapiers
rapier and dagger
sword and shield
sword and cloak
broadswords
small swords
quarterstaves
and any combination on that list (quarterstaff vs broadsword, etc)

It seems to me that what you are describing is the result of a failed block. Many times I have choreographed a fight in which someone performs a desperate block that partially deflects the blow, but not entirely. In game terms I would call this the GM narrative of a failed block with a low roll for damage.

[Rkane_1]

How do you vary the pricing for those who do block with something other than the interposition of a limb? Given that such a blocker gains an advantage over those using interposition of a limb, there should be a costing difference, with either your approach providing a discount or the usual version costing a premium. IOW, how would one price out a character who uses the non-default Block method selected for the campaign?
This was meant to Replace the Current Block in a campaign. I suppose I would make "Super-Dodge" a very skilled Dodge with an added element of an OCV bonus afterwards. More expensive than a traditional Dodge but with more benefits (first strike and OCV nbonus)


Basically, this approach says, to me, "Don't bother with Block". Against powerful attacks, you'll still take damage, albeit possibly reduced. Against low power attacks, you're likely facing multiple opponents.
But using Block against multiple oppoenents is VERY hard but VERY cinematic. In Kung Fu flicks, you see it often. In real life, the poor schmuck gets mobbed.


In either case, you're better off dodging and enhancing your DCV by 3 (or maybe DFC to evade a really powerful attack altogether).
If it is a really HUGE attack, I would have to agree with you. It is more logical than trying to stop it with rerouting force or counter force.

However, if you are comparable in striking power with your opponent or superior in striking power, it may be what you want to hit a more elusive foe by luring him close to strike with a counter, leaving himself more open for attack.


This assumes a character lacking Martial Arts. Seeker would have been far better off to Martial Dodge and get +5 DCV. [ASIDE: Given you want this for realism, why are all your examples still using 4 color Supers, one of the least realistic genres?]

I want to play in low-level supers games with the rules but I have provided many alternate genre's in the other thread.


Why can't a non-Martial Artist block with a shield or weapon?*snip*

They can with standard Block too. My bad. I didn't write that up clearly enough. See what happens when you rush me? :D


Why is there a cap on the base bonus defenses? Or, alternatively, why are the bonus defenses based on the character's own defenses anyway? It seems to me this is intended to simulate skill in blocking, so the character's own defenses should not be determinative of the benefits.

+3 PD, only when executing a successful block (which means nonpersistent, requires an OCV vs OCV roll, and rather limited circumstances) costing 2 points seems very expensive.

Given I can have the same +3 defense with +1 DC, it's now really only costing 2 to buy up the DC of my attacks - why would I not want to spend the full 4 points and get those added benefits, spend the full 3 points and get +2 resistant PD that always works and doesn't require any actions on my part, or buy +2 PD for the same 2 points, assuming I already have enough rPD that I'm not worried about BOD damage? This assumes I'm not hampered by NCM on my PD, of course.

Why can't a non-Martial Artist buy a more effective Block (ie more PD)? As to the multiple maneuvers, sinking 10 - 15 points into Block seems like a lot of points to me.

Good call, I will look into that. Again, had to rattle that off as it came to me. Still a work in progress.


This will, of course, require Shields be rewritten for games where equipment isn't paid for with points. Note that, as written, a standard shield does not provide bonus PD. It provides a bonus to DCV. Does the character using the shield to Block get both the bonus PD from the maneuver and the bonus from the shield?
The DCV bonus gets turned into an OCV bonus when using the Block maneuver.


Does he get the shield's bonus regardless of whether the Block maneuver succeeds?
Yes.


How does this price out in a game where I pay for equipment? Seems I now have a variable limitation (RSR: OCV v OCV roll + Only When Blocking, or Activation).
Read Optional Rule #1


I believe an attacker is only in the same hex as the defender during a grapple (in which case swinging a weapon should be pretty tough) or if the attacker is quite small.
Nope. plenty of room though I would consider them in close combat but not necessarily a grapple. Also, I was thinking, long weapons are easier to inside block than short ones but ONLY if you are RIGHT UP ON the person....so maybe adjacent hex only gets the longer weapon OCV penalty but once in CLOSE combat range, not so much. Food for thought.


Seems to me this should be a standard approach to Blocking unless the weapon has stretching/reach (with the counter-exception being whether the defender has stretching/reach). We're getting pretty complicated here, though.
No more so than some other rules but yes, this gives me some ideas as well. Thanks for your input. Please keep the challenges coming.

Well, at least that would provide some slight reason to use the maneuver, although only if my opponent is hard to hit in the first place.


Some more overall issues:

What about ED? We can have laser swords, flaming swords and HA's based on ED, all of which should reasonably be Blockable, shouldn't they?
I would have to say Inside Block or take damage to the limb blocking. But taking a laser sword to the arm *IS* theoretically better than taking it to the face.


What if the attack in question has advantages? Are the bonus Defenses from Block Hardened (relevant for penetrating or AP attacks)?
I would say no, however, if you had bracers on or some other armor or shield item that had these defenses then I would have to say yes.


Do I get any benefit from Blocking a Lightsaber (NND Does BODY)?
Only if Using a light shield, I would say *smile*


What if the attack is an Adjustment Power, or a Grab?
I would say these can be blocked and cause no inherent damage. The attack just fails with a successful Block unless the adjustment Power is bought with the Damage Shiled option that makes any contact a an attack. (The more expensive option)


Given the premise is that even a successful Block still results in the defender absorbing a portion of the force of the attack, does a Block negate Knockback, only reduce it, or result in normal knockback? If Ogre smashes Seeker with all that force, shouldn't he be knocked down/back as well as damaged?
I would say it would be reduced by the damage being halved. Or if using Hit Locations, reduced KNOCKback for limbs as they are not the Center of Mass.


All in all, I think this adds too much complexity for nominal benefit, but that should be expected from my comments in another thread.
No....I am shocked and this is a COMPLETE surprise. I am thoughly unprepared for this. I just.....don't know what to say....*sniff*....*quivering lip*.....*tears welling up*

:weep:

:D

[Rkane_1]

I sometimes work as a fight choreographer. I'm afraid your ideas on Block just don't track with the way I choreograph fights.

In any fight I choreograph, a defender would never perform a successful Block that resulted in injury to the defender. I have found this simple in choreographing fights with
no weapons
knives
*snip*
and any combination on that list (quarterstaff vs broadsword, etc)

I am strictly talking about limb blocking. Parries are another idea. *smile*


It seems to me that what you are describing is the result of a failed block. Many times I have choreographed a fight in which someone performs a desperate block that partially deflects the blow, but not entirely. In game terms I would call this the GM narrative of a failed block with a low roll for damage.

I respect your input as a fellow fight enthusiast.

I would look though to martial arts competitions where it isn't as "pretty" as a choreographed fight. The current rules support cinematic action just fine. I am looking more towards down and dirty fighting and a more realistic version.

I am of the opinion that a skilled combatant shouldn't have to rely on a low roll of his opponent to minimize damage. You see it in UFC matches or street fights where the person just keeps his gloves up , just enough to reduce incoming blows and slightly deflect them, but if enough of those blows are taken to the same limb, bruises form. Damage occurs but LESS damage occurs than overall than if the blow had landed where it was intended.

With some further thought, what if we could just say that a successful Roll with a Punch maneuver also allows the attacker to choose the Hit Location as it is the intervening limb he is sacrificing but with LESS knockback rather than more that you would normallyt get from that maneuver.


Some more food for thought. Thank you.

[Utech]

I respect your input as a fellow fight enthusiast.

Thank you.


I would look though to martial arts competitions where it isn't as "pretty" as a choreographed fight. The current rules support cinematic action just fine. I am looking more towards down and dirty fighting and a more realistic version.

I'm afraid I was not clear, then. I choreograph realistic-looking fights. Not pretty ones. Down and dirty is exactly what I was describing.


You see it in UFC matches or street fights where the person just keeps his gloves up , just enough to reduce incoming blows and slightly deflect them, but if enough of those blows are taken to the same limb, bruises form. Damage occurs but LESS damage occurs than overall than if the blow had landed where it was intended.

Ah, I think I see the problem. You think what they are doing is Blocking the attack. I disagree. In game terms they are using extra PD with RSR. They are not successfully blocking the attack if they are taking damage.


With some further thought, what if we could just say that a successful Roll with a Punch maneuver also allows the attacker to choose the Hit Location as it is the intervening limb he is sacrificing but with LESS knockback rather than more that you would normallyt get from that maneuver.

I don't think that would be either realistic or desirable from a game design perspective. But you may feel otherwise. Carry on.

[Hugh Neilson]

This was meant to Replace the Current Block in a campaign. I suppose I would make "Super-Dodge" a very skilled Dodge with an added element of an OCV bonus afterwards. More expensive than a traditional Dodge but with more benefits (first strike and OCV nbonus)

So how does a character who deflects the blow, rather than simply interposing a limb, acquire that ability under your modified system? In another thread you compared lineal and circular styles. In the preamble to your first post, you acknowledge Blocks can be a lot more than interposition of limbs. I'm looking for the ability to have a game in which characters could have either or both styles. Full replacement seems to limit choices, rather than promote flexibility.

In any case, I see this revision making Block less useful. If it is less useful, there should be a cost reduction for the Martial Block, or some offsetting enhancement, IMO. Do you see your system as providing this?


But using Block against multiple oppoenents is VERY hard but VERY cinematic. In Kung Fu flicks, you see it often. In real life, the poor schmuck gets mobbed.

If you read the full statement I made, you would note my comment was that your variant, to me, makes Block a poor choice against both a group of opponents or a single, powerful opponent. If it were weakened against one, but strengthened against the other, things might come out a bit more even. However, this variant seems, to me, to say "You can block. It costs you your phase, and the best result you can hope for is getting a bit of bonus defenses, and directing the attack to a preferred hit location".

If we look at two identical martial artists, and assume they each have 9 OCV (with preferred attack), 7 DCV, 10 PD, 2 skill levels and 8d6 damage, what choices do we see?

Well, let's assume Attacker goes full out and puts his 2 levels in OCV. The defender can:

- Martial Block (+2 OCV, +2 DCV should equal your defensive block, so no bonus defenses). He has a 62.5% chance of success, in which case he'll take 9 STUN (28 - 10 divided by 2 for arm location). If the block fails, the attacker will hit 62.5% of the time, and he takes 18 STUN on average. Average damage taken: 9 x 62.5% + 18 x 37.5% x 62.5% = 9.84 Stun. [In a larger conflict, the chance of blocking successive attacks drops, so additional attackers will have greater average damage.]

- Dodge (+3 DCV) - attacker hits 50% of the time and misses 50% of the time. Average damage: 9 Stun. [In a larger conflict, the +3 DCV remains, so average damage from other attackers is the same.] The added DCV (which exceeds Block's DCV bonus) helps me against ranged attacks as well.

- Martial Dodge (+5 DCV) - attacker hits 25.93% of the time. Average damage 4.67 STUN. [Larger combat - same as Dodge, the DCV sticks around.]

- Do nothing and attack next phase. Attacker hits 83.8% of the time for 18 Stun, so average damage 15.08 Stun. [Successive attacks have same average in a larger conflict]

- Normal Block has a 37.5% chance of success, so 9 STUN, and an 83.08% chance the attacker hits normally if Block fails, 18 Stun. Average damage 12.72 STUN.

Given these (admittedly restricted) choices of maneuver, if I'm going to use a phase, why would I ever choose to use it to Block? Even a basic Dodge (a maneuver I paid no points for) provides marginally superior results to a Martial Block. The Martial Dodge is vastly superior.


If it is a really HUGE attack, I would have to agree with you. It is more logical than trying to stop it with rerouting force or counter force.

8 DC isn't really a huge attack, is it? We can reduce the DC's to 5d6. The results are then:

- Martial Block 62.5% chance of 3.75 damage (17.5 - 10/ halved), and 62.5% chance of 7.5 if Block fails = 4.10 average damage

- Dodge = 50% chance of 7.5 Stun = 3.75 average

- Martial Dodge 25.93% chance of 7.5 Stun = 1.94 average

- Do nothing = 83.8% chance of 7.5 Stun = 6.29 average Stun.

- Normal Block = 37.5% chance of 3.75 STUN, and 83.08% chance of 7.5 if it fails. Average damage 5.28 STUN.

I'm still picking Dodge over Martial Block, and buying Martial Dodge. So much for Block as a viable choice in combat.

Make it a massive attack - say 12d6 - and we get:

- Martial Block 62.5% chance of 16 damage (42 - 10/ halved), and 62.5% chance of 32 if Block fails = 17.50 average damage

- Dodge = 50% chance of 32 Stun = 16.00 average

- Martial Dodge 25.93% chance of 32 Stun = 8.30 average

- Do nothing = 83.8% chance of 32 Stun = 26.82 average Stun.

- Normal Block = 37.5% chance of 16 STUN, and 83.08% chance of 32 if it fails. Average damage 22.62 STUN.


However, if you are comparable in striking power with your opponent or superior in striking power, it may be what you want to hit a more elusive foe by luring him close to strike with a counter, leaving himself more open for attack.

The fact I need to either Block or Dodge means he's already within range of my retaliatory strike, assuming I don't abort my next phase to block or dodge.


The DCV bonus gets turned into an OCV bonus when using the Block maneuver.

I'm not running the math on that one right now, but I suspect the character will be better off either taking the extra shield DCV and not using his phase to block, or adding Dodge to that extra DCV rather than blocking if he wants to use a phase to reduce the chance of getting hit. The bonus defense of the shield may, however, skew the averages to the point that Martial Block at least becomes preferable to a non-Martial Dodge.


I would have to say Inside Block or take damage to the limb blocking. But taking a laser sword to the arm *IS* theoretically better than taking it to the face.

So basically, Block becomes even less useful if my opponent has an ED weapon. I'm thinking demand for shock rods, flaming swords and laser knives will be rising fast.

Advantaged HTH attacks also get a benefit of becoming unblockable/less blcokable. IPE on such an attack would be useful.

Although I suppose the fact that, even against a normal physical attack, Block is the least effective maneuver anyway should mean that no one needs to plan an attack to further neutralize characters who rely on blocking to defend them anyway. Spend the points on 1 hex area instead so Dodge won't work.


I would say these can be blocked and cause no inherent damage. The attack just fails with a successful Block unless the adjustment Power is bought with the Damage Shiled option that makes any contact a an attack. (The more expensive option)

So more exotic attacks are, perversely, easier to block. Do they get a price break to offset this reduced utility? Probably not - as noted above, Blocking will be pretty uncommon anyway.


I would say it would be reduced by the damage being halved. Or if using Hit Locations, reduced KNOCKback for limbs as they are not the Center of Mass.

Currently, the hit location rules do not modify the knockback rules, do they? Given all you've done is convert the strike from one that might have been a chest/head hit to one that hits the arms, is it realistic that knockback is reduced? Your premise seems to be that the full force of the blow still strikes the target (absent a "bonus PD" adder), so should knockback be different? Of coourse, now we also would have to ask how much knockback should decline for each level of bonus PD added by the Block.

Overall

My math says this variant will result in Block being pretty much unused, Martial or otherwise. I believe real combat does see Block used quite frequently, which should mean it's more effective than this. The comments I've seen from those claiming some knowledge of "real world" Block seem to lean towards "a block you took damage from was a failed block, not a successful one". As such, I don't see this variant having a lot of value from a game play or a realism perspective.

[SteveZilla]

What happened to the roll that Seeker makes to attempt the block? He's not just standing there.

[Hugh Neilson]

What happened to the roll that Seeker makes to attempt the block? He's not just standing there.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Seeker tries to block, and he rolls. if he succeeds, he gets the benefit of Block (by the book or by RKane's proposal). If he fails, the attacker rolls to hit Seeker's DCV. The rolls are unchanged under RKane's proposal unless I missed something.

[SteveZilla]

This action prevents a hand-to-hand opponent’s attack and sets the blocking character up to deliver the next blow.

Based upon the actual mechanics of this maneuver, "prevents" is not the best choice of words. :)


EXAMPLE: Ogre tries to punch Seeker. Seeker attempts to Block (a mistake).

Which Block maneuver is Seeker using in this example?


Ogre’s OCV is 6, and Seeker’s OCV is 11. Ogre needs a 6+11-11=6 or less.

Wait! What about Seeker's Roll to block. That normally gets rolled first. Presuming that 11 is his modified OCV for whatever Block is is using, he needs an 11+11-6=16 or less to 'block' Ogre. Then, if Seeker's roll fails does Ogre roll to hit.


Ogre rolls a 10 so Seeker’s Block was successful, ::snip::

Huh? Since when does the attacker's to hit roll also determine if the block was 'successful'?


...however, Ogre can deadlift an aircraft carrier and Seeker has about 1/128th his Strength (60 STR vs. 25 STR).

Actually, a 60 STR can lift only 100 tons, which is far less than an Aircraft Carrier... But I digress. :)


Ogre rolls his damage which is 12d6 and rolls 35 STUN/12 BDY (an average roll). Seeker’s PD is 15 ::snip::

Doesn't he get bonus PD from the 'successful block' he did?


...so he takes 20 STUN/0 BDY which is halved if not using the Hit Location rules for total of 10 STUN/0 BDY (Not bad for Blocking the force of a hurricane wind).


More like the force of a Mack Truck. But I digress again.


If using the Hit Location rules, Seeker probably would have chosen to take the blow on his arm which has a STUN and BDY multiplier of x1/2. The same amount of damage would be taken. Seeker should have Dodged, but his Block would have been sufficient against a weaker opponent.

If all the above remains the same except he was facing a 25 STR person, Seeker would *still* have taken 2 Stun form an *average* damage roll using this maneuver.


If using the Hit Location penalty a Blocker is at –4 OCV to Block any strike at the lower portion of his body (rolls from 14-18) with his arms or hands.

So he just uses his legs and neatly sidesteps this penalty.


The Blocker is also at a –4 OCV to Block any strike at the higher portion of his body (rolls 3-11) with their legs.

So he just uses his arms then and neatly sidesteps this penalty.

Martial Block
Martial Block is identical to Block above with the exception that some techniques add PD to the PD of the Blocker against whom the attack is being made. If the character is using a Shield or Weapon with resistant PD or the Blocker himself has resistant PD, then the +PD of the maneuver becomes resistant as well. This new Resistant PD adds to the total of resistant PD but only if the object with Resistant PD is being used to Block with.

So Joe 'Martial Artist' Normal has a kevlar suit (resistant defenses), but is also blocking with an object with non-resistant defense, the pd the maneuver grants is suddenly not the same as his own PD? Thank goodness that object's DEF is always Resistant!

Okay, now how would this maneuver combine with the following situations:

1. The Attacker has Stretching. Does Stretching velocity make an attack harder to block?

2. The Attacker has Shrinking. Does The Growth Momentum "maneuver" from turning off the Shrinking make an attack harder to block?

3. The Defender has Damage Reduction & uses one of the Block maneuvers. How does the halving of damage from a successful block combine with the Damage Reduction?

4. Does the PD that the maneuver grants gain any and all Advantages & Limitations that the defender's own PD has (like Hardened)?

5. The Attacker is using an attack that goes against ED. Does the Block maneuver provide an identical amount of ED?

6. The Attacker has Find Weakness, and has achieved at least one level of success against the defending martial artist. Is the PD from the block maneuver reduced by Find Weakness at the same raito?

7. Can a Martial Artist purchase sectional Armor/FF/PD/ED for just his arms/legs to protect against the beating they will now get?

8. Does the Martial Artist who 'successfully' blocks still take the usual knockback from the 'blocked' attack?

[SteveZilla]

I also realized that had Seeker just stood there and *not* blocked...

Ogre's OCV: 6
Seeker's DCV: 11(?)

11+6-11=6 or less to hit, and rolled 10.

...would have resulted in Seeker taking *no* damage, as Ogre would have missed.

[Hugh Neilson]

I also realized that had Seeker just stood there and *not* blocked...

Ogre's OCV: 6
Seeker's DCV: 11(?)

11+6-11=6 or less to hit, and rolled 10.

...would have resulted in Seeker taking *no* damage, as Ogre would have missed.

Well, if the goal was to make Block less powerful, it would appear to have succeeded...

Even if the Block rules are properly applied, Seeker will always take more damage from a successful block (which he rolls first) than if his Block fails and Ogre misses. In the above example, Seeker has a 98.15% chance of effecting a Block (16-) and taking 10 Stun. If he fails the Block, Ogre needs a 6- chance to hit, so a 9.26% chance to inflict 20 STUN. Average STUN to Seeker if he uses a phase to block: 9.85 If he keeps his phase, he's hit for 20 9.26% of the time, so average STUN falls to 1.85.

Under this proposed system, Seeker actually takes 8 MORE damage, on average, if he uses a phase to block than if he just uses his DCV.

[Robyn]

Well, if the goal was to make Block less powerful, it would appear to have succeeded...

I believe the goal was to make Block more realistic; less powerful is simply a consequence of that, with the current implementation.


Under this proposed system, Seeker actually takes 8 MORE damage, on average, if he uses a phase to block than if he just uses his DCV.

This is a game balance issue. The problem with Rkane_1's current implementation is that the best action by the mechanics does not coincide with the action that frequently occurs in the real world, thus failing as an accurate simulation, thus failing in its "realism" objective; since many people do use blocks in real fights, it follows that, "realistically", blocks are effective.

[prestidigitator]

I also realized that had Seeker just stood there and *not* blocked...

Ogre's OCV: 6
Seeker's DCV: 11(?)

11+6-11=6 or less to hit, and rolled 10.

...would have resulted in Seeker taking *no* damage, as Ogre would have missed.
I hardly call an 11 DCV, "just standing there." :D

[prestidigitator]

I am strictly talking about limb blocking. Parries are another idea. *smile*
Except that a parry is just a block with a weapon rather than a shield or body part. It might be a little easier to pull off, but the system mechanics in place for weapons of differing sizes seem to already handle that pretty well. Why create two completely different mechanics for the same thing?

[Hugh Neilson]

I believe the goal was to make Block more realistic; less powerful is simply a consequence of that, with the current implementation.

Part of Rkane's perceived unreality is the ability of a low STR character to block a much higher STR character and take no damage. I suppose one could alter this and still maintain Block as equally powerfulif we made it better able to deal with lower power attacks. The current model seems far more effective at reducing power than enhancing realism, however.


This is a game balance issue. The problem with Rkane_1's current implementation is that the best action by the mechanics does not coincide with the action that frequently occurs in the real world, thus failing as an accurate simulation, thus failing in its "realism" objective; since many people do use blocks in real fights, it follows that, "realistically", blocks are effective.

Exactly.

[SteveZilla]

Part of Rkane's perceived unreality is the ability of a low STR character to block a much higher STR character and take no damage. I suppose one could alter this and still maintain Block as equally powerfulif we made it better able to deal with lower power attacks. The current model seems far more effective at reducing power than enhancing realism, however.

Though I am in the camp that thinks that Block is okay the way it is, I'd like to suggest an alternate way to take large STR differences into account:

Block (all varieties) work the same as before, except that there is now an OCV penalty based upon the different levels of STR (M/A DCs increase the Artist's effecive STR for this purpose)

For regular, untrained Block that everybody has, for every 5 points* of STR over 10 that the attacker has over the blocker, there is a -1 OCV penalty to successfully do the block. I.e. Joe Normal (10 STR) can block a 20 str guy without penalty, but has a -8 OCV to try to normal block Ogre's 60 STR punch.

For all Martial Arts maneuvers that have Block as an element, the "no penalty gap" rises to 20 points. So, for Seeker (STR 25) to Block Orge (STR 60), he'd have a -3 OCV penalty to his (Martial Variety) Block. Seeker could block someone up to a 45 STR with no penalty.

This all presumes that Seeker has no M/A DCs. IMO a Grand Master who can shater 3 feet of reinforced concrete as easily as the Brick should have no penalty to blocking the Brick. Both are generating the same force, after all. Thus the provision for Martial DCs to narrow the gap. I might go so far as to say that if the Martial Artist's effective blcoking STR is greater than the attackers, he should get a bonus to his OCV for Blocking. It's only fair, as that is the flip side of the coin.

I think this method might be preferable because:
1. It doesn't create new maneuvers that the players have to factor into their characters.
2. It keeps the mechanics of a Block the same while still making it harder for Skill to overcome Strength.

[ghost-angel]

The problem I have with this build is ... Block is a Mechanic, not SFX.

If you want the SFX of your Blocks to be more "realistic" start applying Limitations to the Mechanic until the SFX match the Model. In a Superheroic game it may be perfectly normal for Mr Slow to Block Mr Speed.

[Rkane_1]

An unarmed person can block a sword without cutting themselves - by grabbing/deflecting their arm. Presdigitator has got the right idea there.
With added difficulty, I agree. An inside Block would do the trick.


Assuming that your version of block has the same CV modifiers (none) as the default block, why would a character sacrifice an action before the hit roll is made, to possibly (if they miss) have a chance (then you have to roll) to take 1/2 damage - when they can take a small penalty to CV and abort to Roll With the Blow after they know whether or not the other person hit?

Because they get a bonus on their next action and get to act first. A sacrifice move for a beneficial outcome.


If two combatants with equal O/DCVs square off, the one who aborts to block will waste their abort much of the time - Their opponent has a 40% chance to miss them - and thus their pre-emptive abort was pointless, and if they do hit them, they have another 40% chance to fail their block roll.

? Please explain and use an example


If you wait until after their attack roll, then you can take your action if they miss, or - if they hit - abort to Roll With the Blow and automatically take 1/2 damage plus some extra KB. And at this point, the extra distance is probably welcome.

Or, with the Extra PD, absorb/deflect all the damage in the first place and not worry about it. Someone with High DC's and/or Block oriented PD can block all day against an opponent with similar Strength. The stronger the opponent gets, the more damage would be caused(less damage deflected by the Block). Someone with Higher Strength, DC's or PD bought by Block Maneuver may take very little damage and, if the opponent is significantly weaker, take none at all. Equal opponents may want to consider Dodge more often but don't get the bonus. Maybe one has an edge in that he is tougher, so he chooses Block to take a little damage but get himself an edge in OCV and to act first for his next attack.


If you abort (or hold an action) to block, best case scenario is for your opponent to miss you, and both of you to waste the turn - where a regular block gives an additional benefit if you succeed, you go first next time you share a phase. Rolling with the blow lets you avoid wasting an action, and automatically gives you essentially the same benefit - 1/2 damage. If you're blocking your opponent, then you are likely not doing too well (a normal block is a good move even when you have the upper hand, this one is not),*snip*

I disagree as the example shows above. You get a bonus to your next shot and get to act first. The tougher you or your Block is, the more often you can do it and the more bonuses you recieve.

[Rkane_1]

This is a game balance issue. The problem with Rkane_1's current implementation is that the best action by the mechanics does not coincide with the action that frequently occurs in the real world, thus failing as an accurate simulation, thus failing in its "realism" objective; since many people do use blocks in real fights, it follows that, "realistically", blocks are effective.

I disagree. Please hear me out.

Two combatant, untrained in Martial Arts...average stats.

One chooses to Strike, the other to the new standard Block. On any average roll, he simply takes half damage and then acts first next round. 2d6 averages to roughly 7 STUN and 2 Body minus 2PD equals 5 STUN, no body. Half it, and it is 2 STUN. He took a shot to the arm that smarted a little but gets to go next action first. He might be better off dodging.

Same scenario, Blocker now has Superior Skill with a Martial Block, He is more likely to succeed as he has a +2 OCV with the Block. If he does succeed, then on an average roll he will have succeeded by +2, giving him a +1 OCV on his strike. The 2d6 averages to roughly 7 STUN and 2 Body minus 2PD AND +6 PD from the Martial Block which means exactly no damage got through. The combatant is at a slight edge, has taken no damage and act first if they have equal speeds. Benefit, Blocker.

Same Scenario, Blocker with Superior Skill but attacker with Superior Strength. The Blocker is still more likely to succeed as he has a +2 OCV with the Block. If he does succeed, then on an average roll he will have succeeded by +2, giving him a +1 OCV on his strike. But now the attacker has a 20 STR and delivers a 4d6 attack. This averages to 14 Stun and 4 Body minus 2PD AND +6 PD from the Martial Block which equals 6 Stun and no Body, halved equals 3 Stun. Its smarted a bit, but the Blocker still has the edge next round though against this powerful opponent but may opt to dodge more often rather than take more of those brutal blows.

If the Blocker had addtional DC's with his Martial Arts, the PD would have increased to compensate as well, making damage FAR less likely the more skilled the Blocker is at Blocking.

Now, against a 30 STR Vampire... it starts going downhill with an average of 21 STUN and 6 Body on an average roll. Take off the 8 PD from Block and you still have 13 Stun which halved is 6 which means you hurt your arm quite a bit.

Of course, heroic characters will likely have more Base PD especially if they are HtH combatants. Also, the more skilled Martial Artists also get the Higher DC's thus more Blocking PD.

[Rkane_1]

The problem I have with this build is ... Block is a Mechanic, not SFX.

If you want the SFX of your Blocks to be more "realistic" start applying Limitations to the Mechanic until the SFX match the Model. In a Superheroic game it may be perfectly normal for Mr Slow to Block Mr Speed.

I agree...but this is just a variant where the GM wants a more tightly defined SFX for the Mechanic. I think current Block works fine for four color. I think mine works better for a more brutal, realistic game. Just a variant. The Block Maneuver is a Mechanic and can be several things. If the GM wants it more narrowly defined for his game, he can use the variant. If he likes it as is, keep it so.

[Rkane_1]

Some options upon reflection...

Instead of Base PD, make Blocking PD 3 pts for every 5 STR...

Also one suggestion where for the Block, the STR Damage dice + DC Dice + Extra Dice from the Blocking Maneuver directly subtraced from the number of Die rolled for the attack. Thus is the Blocker has 14D Block versus a 12D Attack, no damage was taken. If the Block was for 12D and the Attack was 14D, then 2d6 would be rolled before being halved. This would eliminate the Problem of a Successful block but a WILDLY high damage Roll anyway.

On top of that, you could make the Block give a +1 Dice for every 2 the Skill Roll was made by in addition to or instead of the +1 OCV bonus....or perhaps that could be another element.

[Rkane_1]

So how does a character who deflects the blow, rather than simply interposing a limb, acquire that ability under your modified system?

The Glancing Block is an opponent who is using his skill to redirect an opponent's attck. More PD equals less likely to take any damage unless trying to get in the way of a force of nature like the Hulk or just one crazy cyborg/werewolf/what-have-you with high STR. The Higher the Strength or power of attack, the less likely the circular artist would be to redirect the force of the attack.


In another thread you compared linear and circular styles. In the preamble to your first post, you acknowledge Blocks can be a lot more than interposition of limbs. I'm looking for the ability to have a game in which characters could have either or both styles. Full replacement seems to limit choices, rather than promote flexibility.

Yes, yes. More time....I just need more time.


In any case, I see this revision making Block less useful. If it is less useful, there should be a cost reduction for the Martial Block, or some offsetting enhancement, IMO. Do you see your system as providing this?

No, I see the system as there to replace the current one for grittier, more realistic games. That way if the character takes his character to another game without this variant, he doesn't have to recalc the character's points. He just uses the traditional Block Maneuvers as written


If you read the full statement I made, you would note my comment was that your variant, to me, makes Block a poor choice against both a group of opponents or a single, powerful opponent. If it were weakened against one, but strengthened against the other, things might come out a bit more even. However, this variant seems, to me, to say "You can block. It costs you your phase, and the best result you can hope for is getting a bit of bonus defenses, and directing the attack to a preferred hit location".

Yes....the whole intent of the variant was not to offer something BETTER than the existing Block in the system. It was to offer a Block that, in my perceptions, was more realistic. I think the Block in the book is far too powerful but very suitable for standard four color fair. Again, this variant could substitute in grittier, more brutal and realistic games.


If we look at two identical martial artists, and assume they each have 9 OCV (with preferred attack), 7 DCV, 10 PD, 2 skill levels and 8d6 damage, what choices do we see?

Well, let's assume Attacker goes full out and puts his 2 levels in OCV. The defender can:

- Martial Block (+2 OCV, +2 DCV should equal your defensive block, so no bonus defenses). He has a 62.5% chance of success, in which case he'll take 9 STUN (28 - 10 divided by 2 for arm location). If the block fails, the attacker will hit 62.5% of the time, and he takes 18 STUN on average. Average damage taken: 9 x 62.5% + 18 x 37.5% x 62.5% = 9.84 Stun. [In a larger conflict, the chance of blocking successive attacks drops, so additional attackers will have greater average damage.]

What are their STR and DC levels, please? For me to show the math I would need this info.

I guess let me assume they have 10 STR, 4 DC's and they are both using Martial Strike which gives them the +2D6 bonus. Fair enough?

Attacker attacks and Blocker blocks with Martial Strike versus Martial Block. Since they both have equal OCV and the Blocker gets a +2 edge, the Blocker has a 62.5% chance of success, this is true. This also means, on average, he will succeed by 2.

On to damage. The 10 STR+4DC's and Martial Strike equal 8d6 attack. This averages to about 28 Stun and 8 Body.

The Blocker has Martial Block which is his 10 PD+6PD for the Maneuver and with 4 DC's, another +12PD. The total is 28 PD....

No damage done.

The Blocker now has a +1 OCV his next attack on which he will strike first.

[/quote]Given these (admittedly restricted) choices of maneuver, if I'm going to use a phase, why would I ever choose to use it to Block? Even a basic Dodge (a maneuver I paid no points for) provides marginally superior results to a Martial Block. The Martial Dodge is vastly superior. [/quote]

Please reconsider with the math just shown to you.


8 DC isn't really a huge attack, is it? We can reduce the DC's to 5d6. The results are then:

- Martial Block 62.5% chance of 3.75 damage (17.5 - 10/ halved), and 62.5% chance of 7.5 if Block fails = 4.10 average damage

Nope, sorry. Lets reduce the Bonus DC to only +1DC instead of four then with both attacker's at a 10 STR.

On to damage. The 10 STR +1 DC's and Martial Strike equal 5d6 attack. This averages to about 17 Stun and 5 Body.

The Blocker has Martial Block which is his 10 PD+6PD for the Maneuver and with 1 DC, another +3PD. The total is 19 PD....

No damage done.

The Blocker now has a +1 OCV his next attack on which he will strike first.

[/quote]I'm still picking Dodge over Martial Block, and buying Martial Dodge. So much for Block as a viable choice in combat.[/quote]

Please reconsider with the math I've just shown you.

With the STANDARD Block, the damage is more in the examples I have shown you, but with the added DC, it is still considerable defenses. Now if the character's have just raw STRENGTH, then yes, more damage does get done, but this is because their Blocks rely more on brute strength and less on skill. They WOULD then be better off either Dodging or investing in Martial Block.


Make it a massive attack - say 12d6 - and we get:
*snip*

Long story short, after the math 2 Stun gets through with equally matched opponents above but with 8 added DC's

The numbers for this I already crunched. Its only when one character starts getting an edge in strength do the averages really get out of whack, although I WILL say that wildly successful damage rolls may make a character wish to stay away from block but with equals it pretty much equals out, pardon the pun.


The fact I need to either Block or Dodge means he's already within range of my retaliatory strike, assuming I don't abort my next phase to block or dodge.

But the OCV bonus for the follow-up is what represent "luring him in" or "leaving himself open" in this case. Since the opponent Blocked, they have a more likely chance of getting a bonus for the next attack and better chances to strike first.


I'm not running the math on that one right now, but I suspect the character will be better off either taking the extra shield DCV and not using his phase to block, or adding Dodge to that extra DCV rather than blocking if he wants to use a phase to reduce the chance of getting hit. The bonus defense of the shield may, however, skew the averages to the point that Martial Block at least becomes preferable to a non-Martial Dodge.

Well, for every +2 OCV the character has on performing his Block, this leads to a +1 follow-up strike bonus.


So basically, Block becomes even less useful if my opponent has an ED weapon. I'm thinking demand for shock rods, flaming swords and laser knives will be rising fast.

As I suspect they would, just as the call for ED resistant Arm Bracers and clothing would go up as well as ED armor and other counter-measures. That and the practice and use of the Inside Block suggestion.


Advantaged HTH attacks also get a benefit of becoming unblockable/less blcokable. IPE on such an attack would be useful.

Yep....true.


Although I suppose the fact that, even against a normal physical attack, Block is the least effective maneuver anyway should mean that no one needs to plan an attack to further neutralize characters who rely on blocking to defend them anyway. Spend the points on 1 hex area instead so Dodge won't work.

Ya lost me. Please explain.


So more exotic attacks are, perversely, easier to block. Do they get a price break to offset this reduced utility? Probably not - as noted above, Blocking will be pretty uncommon anyway.

can't those be blocked now with the same maneuver out of the book? Hmmmmm...


Currently, the hit location rules do not modify the knockback rules, do they? Given all you've done is convert the strike from one that might have been a chest/head hit to one that hits the arms, is it realistic that knockback is reduced? Your premise seems to be that the full force of the blow still strikes the target (absent a "bonus PD" adder), so should knockback be different? Of course, now we also would have to ask how much knockback should decline for each level of bonus PD added by the Block.

Truth be told I am also working on a modified Hit Location character where being struck in a limb lessens knockback as it is not the center of mass of a person by one or two die. I will post it later. I know you are waiting with baited breath. *smile*


Overall

My math says this variant will result in Block being pretty much unused, Martial or otherwise. I believe real combat does see Block used quite frequently, which should mean it's more effective than this. The comments I've seen from those claiming some knowledge of "real world" Block seem to lean towards "a block you took damage from was a failed block, not a successful one". As such, I don't see this variant having a lot of value from a game play or a realism perspective.

Sorry you feel this way. I do hope you reconsider after analyzing some of the math but if you don't, no hard feelings. Bye

[Rkane_1]

For those interested in the revision...

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45974

[Hugh Neilson]

No, I see the system as there to replace the current one for grittier, more realistic games. That way if the character takes his character to another game without this variant, he doesn't have to recalc the character's points. He just uses the traditional Block Maneuvers as written

You can CALL it realistic as much as you like, however the data you have posted indicates that it will not be beneficial to use Block, which is not realistic given its utility in the real world.


What are their STR and DC levels, please? For me to show the math I would need this info.

DC was given. STR is irrelevant as they are precisely equal.


The Blocker has Martial Block which is his 10 PD+6PD for the Maneuver and with 4 DC's, another +12PD. The total is 28 PD....

The Block I used was standard Martial Block (+2 OCV, +2 DCV) rather than your "Defensive Block" +2 OCV, +0 DCV and -4 DC damage. This compared closer to the +1 OCV, +3 DCV block which provides no bonus defense. That's the differenc ein our math. I'll look at your new thread for any further math.


The Blocker now has a +1 OCV his next attack on which he will strike first.

If he strikes first, his opponent gets a free shot which won't be blocked, or can abort to Block. Running some full combats would be good here. Again, maybe in the new thread.

[Rkane_1]

You can CALL it realistic as much as you like, however the data you have posted indicates that it will not be beneficial to use Block, which is not realistic given its utility in the real world.

I just showed it has utility. There is a risk of damage but you gain a beneficial bonus. There is the utility.


DC was given. STR is irrelevant as they are precisely equal.

Well sure, if you are using another Block Rule and not mine. With mine, more DC's in skill give you better Blocking PD. Hence, the relevance. Please reread the variant.


The Block I used was standard Martial Block (+2 OCV, +2 DCV) rather than your "Defensive Block" +2 OCV, +0 DCV and -4 DC damage. This compared closer to the +1 OCV, +3 DCV block which provides no bonus defense. That's the differenc ein our math. I'll look at your new thread for any further math.

My Martial Block is +2 OCV and 0 DCV. Its the one at the bottom of the list of varaints and grants a +6 PD to the Blocker. Please use that as an example. I figure it would be the most common.


If he strikes first, his opponent gets a free shot which won't be blocked, or can abort to Block. Running some full combats would be good here. Again, maybe in the new thread.

Sounds cool, though I did go from PD to reducing Damage Class in the new variant. Hope to see you there.

[Hugh Neilson]

My Martial Block is +2 OCV and 0 DCV. Its the one at the bottom of the list of varaints and grants a +6 PD to the Blocker. Please use that as an example. I figure it would be the most common.

Sounds cool, though I did go from PD to reducing Damage Class in the new variant. Hope to see you there.

Examples on new thread - best to use the most recent version. If you think the Martial Block will be most common (and the new version math seems to bear that out), why build the other two, and doesn't it seem odd the more effective/common maneuver would be the lowest cost maneuver?

[prestidigitator]

Though I am in the camp that thinks that Block is okay the way it is, I'd like to suggest an alternate way to take large STR differences into account:

Block (all varieties) work the same as before, except that there is now an OCV penalty based upon the different levels of STR (M/A DCs increase the Artist's effecive STR for this purpose)

For regular, untrained Block that everybody has, for every 5 points* of STR over 10 that the attacker has over the blocker, there is a -1 OCV penalty to successfully do the block. I.e. Joe Normal (10 STR) can block a 20 str guy without penalty, but has a -8 OCV to try to normal block Ogre's 60 STR punch.

For all Martial Arts maneuvers that have Block as an element, the "no penalty gap" rises to 20 points. So, for Seeker (STR 25) to Block Orge (STR 60), he'd have a -3 OCV penalty to his (Martial Variety) Block. Seeker could block someone up to a 45 STR with no penalty.

This all presumes that Seeker has no M/A DCs. IMO a Grand Master who can shater 3 feet of reinforced concrete as easily as the Brick should have no penalty to blocking the Brick. Both are generating the same force, after all. Thus the provision for Martial DCs to narrow the gap. I might go so far as to say that if the Martial Artist's effective blcoking STR is greater than the attackers, he should get a bonus to his OCV for Blocking. It's only fair, as that is the flip side of the coin.

I think this method might be preferable because:
1. It doesn't create new maneuvers that the players have to factor into their characters.
2. It keeps the mechanics of a Block the same while still making it harder for Skill to overcome Strength.
I kinda like that one as an optional maneuver penalty. It's simple, and could interact well with the penalty due to differing weapon sizes. I probably wouldn't flip it and give a bonus to a stronger blocker myself though.

[Hyper-Man]

I seem to remember someone on the board here mentioning a fight between the Hulk and an 'old master' type of martial artist.

Does anyone else recall the specifics?

[Utech]

I still think you're doing way too much work here. Just buy extra PD with RSR, call it a block and you're good to go.