Sixth Edition Showcase #4: Deflection, Reflection, And Range

[Steve Long]

A Statement Of Purpose: As we build up to the release of 6E, I thought it would be fun to showcase something in the 6E rules that I think HERO fans will particularly like or find useful. The Sixth Edition Showcases won’t be lengthy or detail-filled, but hopefully they’ll whet your appetite for 6E. I plan to post one a week, though not necessarily on the same day each week.

Naturally, you’re welcome to discuss each Showcase to your heart’s content — praise it, complain about it, whatever you like. However, generally speaking, I’m not going to participate in the conversation or answer any questions. I’ll say pretty much all I want to say in each Showcase post. ;)

So, on to this week’s showcase! The subject:

Deflection, Reflection, And Range

As many of you know, I’ve never been very happy with the 4E/5E Missile Deflection & Reflection Power, for a variety of reasons: it largely means paying for functionality you get for free with Dodge; the two “halves” of the Power don’t fit together well; using special effects to define what the Power can do is kind of odd; and so on.

Thus, one of my goals for 6E was to find a way to make this Power worth its weight... or, failing that, ditch it and just let people build “Missile Deflection” as extra defense with a Required Skill Roll or something. Fortunately, I was able to resolve the problem to my own satisfaction without having to go to that extreme — and I think the end result will be to your satisfaction as well. ;)

After a whole lot of thinking, tinkering, and draft-writing, I finally came to the conclusion that I could make Deflection and Reflection both have unique functionality that’s worth paying Character Points for by making one change to the combat rules: allow characters to Block Ranged attacks made against them. So, now characters can do that, though usually it requires a shield or some other implement (as the rules note, trying to Block laser beams with your bare hands tends to be a Very Bad Idea ;)).

Deflection is the ability to Block Ranged attacks at Range (and without the need for any sort of implement). For example, it could be telekinetically knocking arrows out of the air, or using your energy beam to “shoot down” an attacker’s energy beam. Reflection (a separate Power) allows a character to Reflect Ranged attacks that he can Block back at the attacker (or sometimes at other targets). It doesn’t work with Deflection (at least, not in the basic rules; that’ll be touched on in the APG).

I think these changes really give those two Powers a distinctive purpose, a reason to exist in the System, and make them darn useful and fun to boot. ;) And with the right Power Modifiers you can create lots of interesting abilities with ’em.

Now let’s take a look at this week’s sample page (which is, as usual, as yet unedited). I chose it for two reasons. The first is to show off the excellent Storn Cook art. This piece is one of a series of pieces that Storn did for us that tell an Urban Fantasy story he came up with. As you progress through the book you see the main character investigating a murder and eventually confronting the killer in mystical combat. It’s Very Cool. ;)

Second, it includes a minor change to the Range rules. The Standard Range for Powers isn’t 10 meters (what used to be 5 hexes) times Active Points anymore, it’s 10m times Base Points. A Blast 10d6 (base cost of 50 Character Points, final cost of 50 Active Points) has a Range of 500m; a Blast 10d6, Penetrating (base cost of 50 Character Points, final cost of 75 Active Points) also has a Range of 500m. I think this tends to be more “game logical” and easier to learn for someone who’s not already HERO-fluent. Of course, it probably won’t have any real effect on play since combats almost never take place at really long ranges. In any event it’s a simple matter to extend a Power’s range if need be.

That’s all for this week... though I’m sure it’ll give you plenty to discuss until next week’s Showcase. ;)

[Hierax]

Excellent, more good changes!

Great to see Base Points being used as the umm... basis for range.

Page looks good too!

[Steve Long]

"But Umber Hulks With Shotguns? That Rocks Ass!!"

Total pointless aside (he said, desperately seeking a temporary reprieve from the Hell of Editation): every time I see this, here or in KODT, I think, "Man, I gotta remember to commission a picture for 6E FH featuring monsters with shotguns." :eg:

[ajackson]

So, is there any way to block melee attacks at range? That's something I've seen come up often enough that it seems worth handling in a standardized way.

[nexus]

IIUC, the ability to use a Block maneuver against Ranged attacks is now a basic (universal) ability?

Edit: Nope, my bad. I misread. Sorry about that!

I am curious how the ability to block ranged attacks with your bare hands (the martial artist or speedsters that can catch bullets) can be built and is there any addition that allows for Melee/Hand to Hand attacks to be Deflected?

[nexus]

After a whole lot of thinking, tinkering, and draft-writing, I finally came to the conclusion that I could make Deflection and Reflection both have unique functionality that’s worth paying Character Points for by making one change to the combat rules: allow characters to Block Ranged attacks made against them. So, now characters can do that, though usually it requires a shield or some other implement (as the rules note, trying to Block laser beams with your bare hands tends to be a Very Bad Idea ;)).


This seems to impose a mandatory "limitation"* on the ability regardless of special effect or to give specific sfxs a permanent bonus when acting against it. For example, If a character defines their 8d6 eb as a thrown rock a defender can Deflect it barehanded but if someone else defines their a plasma bolt they cannot. Being overly sfx dependent was an issue I had with the 5th edition version of Missile Deflection.

Of course these aren't the rule in their entirety so this might be addressed there.

*they'll need a focus or Object of Opportunity to use it against many sfx regardless if they get a cost break or not.

[Beast]

Darth Vader did not seem to have a problem deflecting Han's blaster bolt when they meet for the first time in The Empire Strikes Back
yet lost his hand to Luke in Return of the Jedi when fighting with light sabers




Deflection, Reflection, And Range

After a whole lot of thinking, tinkering, and draft-writing, I finally came to the conclusion that I could make Deflection and Reflection both have unique functionality that’s worth paying Character Points for by making one change to the combat rules: allow characters to Block Ranged attacks made against them. So, now characters can do that, though usually it requires a shield or some other implement (as the rules note, trying to Block laser beams with your bare hands tends to be a Very Bad Idea ;)).

[mallet]

Darth Vader did not seem to have a problem deflecting Han's blaster bolt when they meet for the first time in The Empire Strikes Back
yet lost his hand to Luke in Return of the Jedi when fighting with light sabers

Maybe his suit had enough ED to negate the blast or it was a Force power that allowed him to do that. As for the lightsaber cutting off his hand, most lightsaber builds that I have seen use NND (force fields) so any ED his suit might have had would have been useless against the lightsaber attack.

At least that's how I would see the builds to simulate that.

[nexus]

... it was a Force power that allowed him to do that.

Well yes it was sfx wise a force power but can you build that force power (effectively "blocking" a ranged attack defined as "lethal energy beam") with your bare hand with this new set of rules. Or the sfx that would allow a character to do so.

[Alibear]

So if missile deflection is just a variant of block can you mix and match between blocking ranged and melee attacks in the same phase?

Another house rule coming true for me perhaps?

[BobGreenwade]

Total pointless aside (he said, desperately seeking a temporary reprieve from the Hell of Editation): every time I see this, here or in KODT, I think, "Man, I gotta remember to commission a picture for 6E FH featuring monsters with shotguns." :eg:If I ever get Space Wizards going, I may beat you to it.

I already have at least one individual stoked at the idea of Chiang-Shih toting lasers. :D

[Beast]

I find that having to use NND does body vs FF as a bad build
as another light saber would have a FF to control the energy in the light saber
so you have an example of a small FF generator that could be worn(even at 4 times the size it would be a small back pack)
so it could have been in in Vader's armor or any storm trooper's

IMHO it would be just a 4d6 energy KA maybe adding MA maneuvers and CSLs




Maybe his suit had enough ED to negate the blast or it was a Force power that allowed him to do that. As for the lightsaber cutting off his hand, most lightsaber builds that I have seen use NND (force fields) so any ED his suit might have had would have been useless against the lightsaber attack.

At least that's how I would see the builds to simulate that.

[The Main Man]

I like the idea of utilizing Base Points for Range.

I wonder what the cost of Deflection/Reflection will be.

I am not sure about the imposed limitation placed upon Deflection though, but then again I do not have the whole story yet.

[Hierax]

Total pointless aside (he said, desperately seeking a temporary reprieve from the Hell of Editation): every time I see this, here or in KODT, I think, "Man, I gotta remember to commission a picture for 6E FH featuring monsters with shotguns." :eg:

Steve, your awesomeness knows no bounds! :thumbup:

[StGrimblefig]

... If a character defines their 8d6 eb as a thrown rock a defender can Deflect it barehanded but if someone else defines their a plasma bolt they cannot. ...
If that character can do 8d6 with a thrown rock, I would say it is not possible to Block it barehanded -- unless the defender takes the damage to his hand. If you meant that the Deflect Power (capital P) is thusly limited by special effects, I would say it depends upon the genre and the GM. In this respect, it is only as limited as you want it to be. There is no spoon.


Darth Vader did not seem to have a problem deflecting Han's blaster bolt when they meet for the first time in The Empire Strikes Back
yet lost his hand to Luke in Return of the Jedi when fighting with light sabers
That's because a lightsaber is an elegant weapon, not so clumsy or random as a blaster.

It's funny that this came up, as I just recently watched "Ryan vs. Dorkman" again (and RvD2).

[ghost-angel]

For those who are looking at the part about requiring something to block aN incoming attack - please note Steve used the word "usually".

[Beast]

My sentiments exactly
Range based on base points. I Like

needing a focus to perform a deflection/ reflection. I do not like


as a side note using suppress to get the effect of partial or fully negating attack would be 1 way to go
As it gives you points to base how good the power is
a 10d6 suppress might be good vs small arms but have limited effect vs tank cannons




I like the idea of utilizing Base Points for Range.

I wonder what the cost of Deflection/Reflection will be.

I am not sure about the imposed limitation placed upon Deflection though, but then again I do not have the whole story yet.

[StGrimblefig]

Total pointless aside (he said, desperately seeking a temporary reprieve from the Hell of Editation): every time I see this, here or in KODT, I think, "Man, I gotta remember to commission a picture for 6E FH featuring monsters with shotguns." :eg:
Sounds like that should have been in Urban Fantasy Hero.

[ghost-angel]

needing a focus to perform a deflection/ reflection. I do not like:p

you should go back and read Steve's post again. You seemed to have missed at least one key word.

[StGrimblefig]

needing a focus to perform a deflection/ reflection. I do not like
I didn't read it that way.

As I understood it:

Anyone can attempt to Block a ranged attack aimed at themselves -- this usually requires something to block with. It is not a focus, because this Block is not a Power, it's just a good idea.
Deflection is a Power that may or may not have the Focus Limitation applied to it -- just like any other Power.
Reflection is a separate Power that also may or may not have a Focus.


Anyway, that's how I read it.

[nexus]

If that character can do 8d6 with a thrown rock, I would say it is not possible to Block it barehanded -- unless the defender takes the damage to his hand. If you meant that the Deflect Power (capital P) is thusly limited by special effects, I would say it depends upon the genre and the GM. In this respect, it is only as limited as you want it to be. There is no spoon.


What a players calls their EB is special effects. They don't typically have a major effect in Hero System but can provide situational bonuses and penalties at the GM's discretion. That additional damage could be exceptional accuracy, being able to find "chinks" their opponents or even just dumb luck. Even if it is just pure handwavium I don't think the additional bit of verbiage attached to the Power isn't very Hero particularly if its worded like the example (deflecting lasers with your bare hands is a bad bad idea). Why? I can Block a 10 foot sword swung by a giant with my barehands unless the GM says otherwise.

If the book is also aimed at newbies who will not have totally grasped the ideas of sfx and Reasoning from Effect statements like that will make an impression particularly in the core rules It reads very much like giving the power a default OIF: Object of opportunity and Gestures or Restrainable as well (IME, many players assume Missile Reflection is restrainable by default anyway) and a default special effect. In a way like stating the Energy Blast should usually be used to represent laser, blaster bolts and magical rays in its write up.

But again, we haven't seen the entirety of the rule as it will appear in print but I confess I'm dubious on that section of the write up as it stands.

[Alibear]

you should go back and read steve's post again. You seemed to have missed at least one key word.

usually

[mattingly]

"Man, I gotta remember to commission a picture for 6E FH featuring monsters with shotguns." :eg:
How about flying monkeys with submachine guns (http://www.blackwyrm.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=30)?

And don't forget the other related power, Inflection; that requires Incantations and a Skill Roll, but gets bonuses based on the Language Chart.

[Beast]

yes I missed 1 thing about it being an every man skill and needing a focus

IMO it should be a power only

But going with it as an everyman skill ,unless the focus for the most part is a shield or similar device
and the focus should be able to withstand 75% of the body generated on average of the attack and then be destroyed or made useless by the attack
Otherwise you could have Joe Q Public pull out a penny and block an attack from Dr Destroyer(granted I have a character who does just that,but the penny is just a trademark defense and a SFX

from my 24 yrs of playing Champions/Hero System
Very few buy missile defection and even fewer buy reflection
So to remove in effect Deflection(unless you are going to do it at range to pre-detonate area attacks or save others) the whole thing should be a power







I didn't read it that way.

As I understood it:

Anyone can attempt to Block a ranged attack aimed at themselves -- this usually requires something to block with. It is not a focus, because this Block is not a Power, it's just a good idea.
Deflection is a Power that may or may not have the Focus Limitation applied to it -- just like any other Power.
Reflection is a separate Power that also may or may not have a Focus.


Anyway, that's how I read it.

[nexus]

IIUC, the ability to use a Block maneuver against Ranged attacks is now a basic (universal) ability?

Edit: Nope, my bad. I misread. Sorry about that!


And I must correct myself again. I can't say I agree with the ability to block ranged attacks being a basic part of Block.

[Hyper-Man]

I see this change as a logical expansion of the rule that allows strong characters to occasionally throw objects of opportunity at opponents.

Under the new rule it seems likely that when Strong-Dude picks up a car and hurls it at Ultragirl (without having paid points for a 'ranged' attack) she can now attempt to catch the thrown car or bat it away with another object like a car or lightpost (also without having paid points for the Deflection power).

I am sure there are more nuances to it than that but it seems like a balanced idea.

[ghost-angel]

yes I missed 1 thing about it being an every man skill and needing a focus

There is NO NEED for a "focus" - Where are you getting that from?!!?

[nexus]

I see this change as a logical expansion of the rule that allows strong characters to occasionally throw objects of opportunity at opponents.

Under the new rule it seems likely that when Strong-Dude picks up a car and hurls it at Ultragirl (without having paid points for a 'ranged' attack) she can now attempt to catch the thrown car or bat it away with another object like a car or lightpost (also without having paid points for the Deflection power).

I am sure there are more nuances to it than that but it seems like a balanced idea.

It also means that Ultragirl and Strong Dude can attempt to bat aside Electro boy's Bolter Blast and all of them attempt to knock aside Lazaar's Death Beam if he has an object (or something appropriate).

I'd have to see how it all fits together (including the new weapons of opportunity rules and modifiers).

[PhilFleischmann]

I like the idea of Range based on Base Points. So Steve, before you go to press, you should change the second paragraph of the sample page:

"do not include these points in the Active Point calculation when determining the Power’s Range"

That should be "Base Points," not "Active Points".

The rest of the stuff I'll have to see the details on. It sounds OK, but I have to wonder, what's the utility difference between Blocking and Deflecting?

If a guy is shooting an arrow at me from 20 m away, I can either Deflect it at, say, the 10 m mark, or I can Block it when it comes within arm's reach. What's the real difference? Either way, I don't get hit by the arrow. But Deflection I have to pay points for, and Block I don't.

I trust that this will all be spelled out in the book.

[nexus]

I like the idea of Range based on Base Points. So Steve, before you go to press, you should change the second paragraph of the sample page:

"do not include these points in the Active Point calculation when determining the Power’s Range"

That should be "Base Points," not "Active Points".

The rest of the stuff I'll have to see the details on. It sounds OK, but I have to wonder, what's the utility difference between Blocking and Deflecting?

If a guy is shooting an arrow at me from 20 m away, I can either Deflect it at, say, the 10 m mark, or I can Block it when it comes within arm's reach. What's the real difference? Either way, I don't get hit by the arrow. But Deflection I have to pay points for, and Block I don't.

I trust that this will all be spelled out in the book.

Maybe Deflect lets you protect other targets? That what I was assuming.

[ghost-angel]

Alright, finally got to check the sample page....

That's a sweet depiction of Clairsentience... best I've seen in any of the books IMO.

[Hyper-Man]

There is NO NEED for a "focus" - Where are you getting that from?!!?

Probably from here:


.... by making one change to the combat rules: allow characters to Block Ranged attacks made against them. So, now characters can do that, though usually it requires a shield or some other implement (as the rules note, trying to Block laser beams with your bare hands tends to be a Very Bad Idea ;))....

[Vondy]

I like the idea of missile deflection being a maneuver akin to block. I do not like the idea of it being an "everyman maneuver." In some cases it could be appropriate (grabbing a mirror to deflect lasers, a roman legionairres shield for arrows), but not every character can snatch arrows and spears from the air. For some characters that's not conceptually apropos. For others it is. Good and bad. I can roll with it. I may create a martial version of it and restrict the other to appropriate improvised foci and the like.

[ghost-angel]

Yeah - note the word USUALLY.

USUALLY =/= NEED.

Look it up, I'll wait.

You know what that line says to me?

In a Superheroic Game, you will most likely not need anything to attempt a Block - because you're a Superhero.

In a Pulp Game you can use unlikely items to try and block things (Lucky I had my cigarette case on me. . . .)

In a "realistic" game, you're going to need something "believable"

I see no wording AT ALL that says "and you're going to need an appropriate Focus of opportunity to use this Manuever" ANYWHERE.

And seriously - it bugs me to absolutely no end when things like this manage to get interpreted in such a jack-booted fashion for no bloody reason at all.

[jtelson]

There is NO NEED for a "focus" - Where are you getting that from?!!?

I'd guess from the sentence "...allow characters to Block Ranged attacks made against them. So, now characters can do that, though usually it requires a shield or some other implement (as the rules note, trying to Block laser beams with your bare hands tends to be a Very Bad Idea )."

There seems to be a translation error occuring around the word 'Usually' causing it to be read as 'Pretty much all of the Time' and the phrase 'shield or some other implement' causing it to be read as 'Focus'.

I'm curious if HtH block will now also usually require..., which I would be fine with - I'm just curious.

[nexus]

I'm curious if HtH block will now also usually require...

I certainly hope not.

[Beast]

so if a super heroic character has been hit by a laser/bullet/ spitball that did body to them once already
then just puffing up their chest and pointing at their chin and being ready for the attack to block it with their good looks, is not a block to me(maybe bracing for knock back)

a Block is when something is interposed between the target and the attack(could be a body part more likely some kind of shield or improvised shield)
putting your hands up in the way and yelling"not in the face,not in the face for a thrown rock I can see as a block as your arms can take more shock and show more of an angle to the attack compared to your face

you want to block that laser/bullet/spitball that has already harmed you or something with near your defenses, better grab a manhole cover

using cover where you use the def and body of a nearby object and force the attack to have to blow through it first to then harm you would be a better mechanic
of course the attacker could try to either attack a part of the body not covered or bounce the attack from a direction not covered



Yeah - note the word USUALLY.

USUALLY =/= NEED.

Look it up, I'll wait.

You know what that line says to me?

In a Superheroic Game, you will most likely not need anything to attempt a Block - because you're a Superhero.

In a Pulp Game you can use unlikely items to try and block things (Lucky I had my cigarette case on me. . . .)

In a "realistic" game, you're going to need something "believable"

I see no wording AT ALL that says "and you're going to need an appropriate Focus of opportunity to use this Manuever" ANYWHERE.

And seriously - it bugs me to absolutely no end when things like this manage to get interpreted in such a jack-booted fashion for no bloody reason at all.

[ghost-angel]

I don't care how YOU interpret the word "block" .... because the Mechanics of the Maneuver Block are not the same thing.

And I care even less for your forced interpretation of what Steve's actual sentence was. He did not once use the word "need" in that description.

[The Main Man]

Regardless, I wonder if the Range Modifier will affect Blocking Ranged Attacks, Deflection, or Reflection.


I will also add that I have already been using "Block Ranged Attacks" in my Dragonball campaign for going on a year now.

[megaplayboy]

DBZ characters routinely swat incoming energy blasts out of the way using their bare hands. Sometimes comic book characters do perform the equivalent of a "chest block" against a big EB (which is presumably worth a big PRE attack bonus), though those characters generally are of the very tough/nigh invulnerable variety.

So I'd say it's genre and archetype/concept-specific vis a vis whether an object is needed to deflect.
I don't think it'd be appropriate for the Hulk to snatch a bullet out of the air, but Quicksilver might be able to pull it off. Certainly Supes has done that more than once.

[nexus]

DBZ characters routinely swat incoming energy blasts out of the way using their bare hands. Sometimes comic book characters do perform the equivalent of a "chest block" against a big EB (which is presumably worth a big PRE attack bonus), though those characters generally are of the very tough/nigh invulnerable variety.

So I'd say it's genre and archetype/concept-specific vis a vis whether an object is needed to deflect.
I don't think it'd be appropriate for the Hulk to snatch a bullet out of the air, but Quicksilver might be able to pull it off. Certainly Supes has done that more than once.

I agree. That's why I think it should be an ability that you have to pay for instead of innate. Unless it is a setting like DBZ where it's almost literally an "Everyman (Saiyan)" Power.

[prestidigitator]

Guys, it is usually a bad idea to try to block a sword with your bare hands too. I see this as no real different from that. I usually handle it by assigning a (large) penalty to the Block (difficult but not impossible, since you can get close enough to block the hilt or the attacker's body if you are really careful). That, or if the defender is willing to get hit anyway, allow the Block with no penalty and the effect is to simply allow the defender to choose the Hit Location that is affected rather than negating the attack.

I foresee doing something similar in 6E against Ranged attacks (provided the attacker isn't in HTH range). Most likely I'll use a VERY large penalty unless the defender has "something appropriate" with which to block. Like perhaps in the -10 (Extraordinary) range. And if it happens, it'll be a very interesting scenario to explain away dramatically as the GM.

Anyway, I'm interested to see the new rules. Sounds like it's becoming a lot more consistent. Yeah! :)

Oh, and I really like the artwork so far!

[gojira]

This piece is one of a series of pieces that Storn did for us that tell an Urban Fantasy story he came up with. As you progress through the book you see the main character investigating a murder and eventually confronting the killer in mystical combat. It’s Very Cool. ;)



Niiiiiiice! I had planned to start with the basic rule book, rather than for full rules (mostly just to space things out and go easy on the pocket book). This is Not Helping.

[Alibear]

Guys, it is usually a bad idea to try to block a sword with your bare hands too. I see this as no real different from that. I usually handle it by assigning a (large) penalty to the Block (difficult but not impossible, since you can get close enough to block the hilt or the attacker's body if you are really careful). That, or if the defender is willing to get hit anyway, allow the Block with no penalty and the effect is to simply allow the defender to choose the Hit Location that is affected rather than negating the attack.




Well if I wanted to penalise that I'd say that weapon length already gives you a negative 2 when blocking a medium weapon barehanded.

[Vondy]

Well if I wanted to penalise that I'd say that weapon length already gives you a negative 2 when blocking a medium weapon barehanded.

Blocking a sword is a little different than blocking a missile because you can step inside your attacker's reach and block the arm rather than the blade. For that the -2 modifier is apropos. But catching the blade between your palms without being cut...? That's a cinematic shtick rooted in character concept. It would require greater penalties. A character who could do that should probably be required to purchase penalty skill levels with an assigned special effect to represent such ability. The closest approximation for missiles is that you can use some sort of apropos object for cover (shield, metal plate, mirror). But catching arrows and spears (or bullets) in flight? That, again, is cinematic shtick rooted in character concept. Not everyone should be able to do it off the cuff, which this rule essentially allows. As a GM I'd require the PSLs and a concept based explanation for feats beyond using an object to block incoming attacks.

[Alibear]

In a realistic game I'd just disallow it outright bit in a cinematic game I'd encourage that sort of thing wso would not apply any extra penalties.

[nexus]

Guys, it is usually a bad idea to try to block a sword with your bare hands too. I see this as no real different from that. I usually handle it by assigning a (large) penalty to the Block (difficult but not impossible, since you can get close enough to block the hilt or the attacker's body if you are really careful).

That's a fair gm call for you to make but there is no default penalty for Blocking anything (currently). What's a good idea or bad idea varies from setting to setting, genre to genre as well as character to character. A character might do the cinematic "blade clapping" trick, bat/kick the weapon aside by the flat or any other stunt that would probably cost you a limb in real life or be impossible (I briefly focus my chi and harden my palm to bounce the blade.")

One of the things I like about Hero currently is that, as a universal system, it makes as few assumptions as possible about how each game is going to to work. Assumption being to defined as "coded into the core rules." For me it really depends on how it's phrased. IIRC, there is some additional notation to Block that says in a more realistic game the GM might want to assign penalties Block against weapons, exceedingly powerful attacks, etc. But also Block does not necessarily mean "parry". It can have other special effects. A "Block" might be a type of aggressive feint/dodge combo that unbalances the attacker and lets the defender act before them while they recover.

[Trebuchet]

Blocking a sword is a little different than blocking a missile because you can step inside your attacker's reach and block the arm rather than the blade. For that the -2 modifier is apropos. But catching the blade between your palms without being cut...? That's a cinematic shtick rooted in character concept. It would require greater penalties. A character who could do that should probably be required to purchase penalty skill levels with an assigned special effect to represent such ability. The closest approximation for missiles is that you can use some sort of apropos object for cover (shield, metal plate, mirror). But catching arrows and spears (or bullets) in flight? That, again, is cinematic shtick rooted in character concept. Not everyone should be able to do it off the cuff, which this rule essentially allows. As a GM I'd require the PSLs and a concept based explanation for feats beyond using an object to block incoming attacks.Obviously we haven't seen the numbers yet, but I suspect blocking ranged attacks in 6E is going to be pretty much like blocking HtH attacks in 5ER: Sometimes it's the best maneuver you can do; other times you'd be better off Dodging or Diving for cover.

Whether it's possible or justifiable for an individual character is going to be largely dependent on the genre and the character concept. Even without a light saber Darth Vader seemed to block Han Solo's blaster bolts pretty well in The Empire Strikes Back.

[GamePhil]

He said that Blocking Ranged Attacks would usually require an object. I see nowhere that he said Blocking HTH attacks would usually require such.

[Vondy]

Whether it's possible or justifiable for an individual character is going to be largely dependent on the genre and the character concept. Even without a light saber Darth Vader seemed to block Han Solo's blaster bolts pretty well in The Empire Strikes Back.


This is my problem with having it be a system default rather than an option applied, and tweaked, as needed. As soon as character concept plays into it, but you don't have to pay points for it, you end up with questions of fairness coming into play, as well as questions of narrative playability when characters who really have no justification for doing something try to leverage the rule anyways. I'm all for letting GMs make judgement calls, but this rule puts the GM in the position of being responsible for a rule that appears to be a little bit slippery in the first place. I haven't read the rule, of course. Its just been described to us. Nonetheless, I think there should be some sort of buy in for the more cinematic uses of this "everyman maneuver." My initial thoughts are a martial version or PSLs.

[GamePhil]

The "system default" appears to be that everyone can block Ranged Attacks, but it will usually require am implement (dodging behind a wall is, to me, an implement, though), and that if you want to be able to do it better, you buy it. Han can't block a blaster bolt with his hand, the fact that Vader can is simply an indication that he bought Deflection without a Focus (and possibly No Range) or a similar ability.

[megaplayboy]

Hmm. I guess "hand to hand reflection" will have to continue to be handled by Damage Shield or perhaps an attack triggered by a successful block and limited to the size of the incoming attack.

I'm getting older now, but wasn't the original reflection power one that could be specified to work vs. physical, energy, ranged or hth attacks? Seem to recall something like that, it had a roll, -1/d6 of attack?

[GamePhil]

I'm getting older now, but wasn't the original reflection power one that could be specified to work vs. physical, energy, ranged or hth attacks? Seem to recall something like that, it had a roll, -1/d6 of attack?

As I recall, it was 30 pts (base), 18- roll to start reduced by AP of attack (1/5, I think), worked against Ranged Attacks only, and didn't care about special effect beyond that. The roll could then be bought up.

I think it was Champions II, could be wrong there. I'll try to unpack the book and look when there's time, if no one beats me to it.

[director13]

1) I'm with the (multiple) people who pointed out that unarmed blocks against weapons should require an object to do so, so making that the same regardless of ranged or HTH works for me.

1a) "Should" being dependent on genre and SFX and exciting cinematic descriptions of maneuvers.

2) This was something I was allowing anyway, with shield parries and arrows / crossbows (which is admittedly, genre and SFX dependent).

3) I wonder how this will play with the previously announced "resisted with alternate defense" rules. If the defense for the attack is bought as OCV instead of DCV, would a block use DCV instead of OCV for that attack?

3a) (I wonder..) Could you buy a version of Block that worked with DCV instead (all the time), to work the way Dodges do in other games?

[Nolgroth]

Dangit! Each and every one of these Showcases is drawing me further and further towards 6th edition. As a consequence, that same pull is moving me further and further from 5th edition. I suppose that is the purpose. I got this very strong feeling that I am going to be better able to "grok" 6th edition over 5th. Doesn't hurt with the nice looking art and all that good stuff either.

[ghost-angel]

I like that anyone can try and knock something out of the air.

How many times have you had something thrown at that you were able to bat away? Seriously, it's not that hard for a lot of things. Especially improvised weapons like chairs, pieces of wood, toaster oven. . .

I like that the wording leaves a lot of room for the GM to define his game, "usually" and "should" being interpretable words. Your supers can bat common bullets out of the way if that's in the genre-style you're playing. Or that now anyone can pick up that peice of u-pipe the villain happens to have lying around and block that incoming nega-beam if that's in genre.

Hero System is about Genre Simulation and Game Building. We're getting more and cooler tools to do that with.

[Nolgroth]

I think any conditions for blocking anything should probably be decided based on the campaign tone and guidelines. From what I am seeing, folks are already toolkitting the showcased rules to fit their interpretation of what makes sense for their campaign. This is a good thing I think. I am just truly looking forward to reading the rules themselves.

[nexus]

Well, it's not a deal breaker just another house rule I'd have to implement if I did switch or something I wouldn't import if I didn't, barring some further aspects of the rules that make the idea more appealing.

[Lord Mhoram]

I don't especially like this one - Block (and now ranged Block) is just an OCV vs OCV way to avoid damage (as Dodge is a DCV vs OCV way to avoid damage). In 5ER the only SFX thing to block is about not blocking a Move Through done by a vehicle.

I've seen a block defined as a dodge with expert timing, because that is just the SFX - someone is just relying on ability to attack for timing.

So I find it funny that Missle D was adjusted, at least partially, because of the SFX inherent in the power, then the new ranged block does exactly the same thing - defines ranged Block and limits it mechanically by SFX. One of the SFX for block in UMA (or Ninja Hero) was just "taking it on the chin". Using ranged block, you can't pull the same stunt. That is just off to me.

I'll likely end up using the new Deflect and Reflect, but a ranged block can be defined any way the player likes it.

[jaws]

I just have to keep repeating i love the work being done on 6E keep it up!

[archermoo]

I don't especially like this one - Block (and now ranged Block) is just an OCV vs OCV way to avoid damage (as Dodge is a DCV vs OCV way to avoid damage). In 5ER the only SFX thing to block is about not blocking a Move Through done by a vehicle.

I've seen a block defined as a dodge with expert timing, because that is just the SFX - someone is just relying on ability to attack for timing.

So I find it funny that Missle D was adjusted, at least partially, because of the SFX inherent in the power, then the new ranged block does exactly the same thing - defines ranged Block and limits it mechanically by SFX. One of the SFX for block in UMA (or Ninja Hero) was just "taking it on the chin". Using ranged block, you can't pull the same stunt. That is just off to me.

I'll likely end up using the new Deflect and Reflect, but a ranged block can be defined any way the player likes it.

Nothing in the description that Steve provided disallows "taking it on the chin" as SFX for blocking ranged attacks. He just noted that usually you'd want an object to block ranged attacks, particularly things like laser beams. As others have noted the same could be said for blocking HtH attacks. So your stated way of using it sounds to me perfectly within both the letter and the intent of the rules.

[Netzilla]

My plan on how I'll run it (I haven't seen the final version of the rule) will be to run it like I currently run Block: Anyone can try it but different circumstances yield different penalties.

For example, in my current campaign, if you try to Block a punch with your bare hand, you can do so at no penalty but if you try to block a knife with your bare hand, you'll be taking a -2 OCV penalty (making someone with Martial Block effectively -0). A sword would be -3 or so. Were I running a Superhero campaign the penalties would a point or two less. If you have a shield, sword or knife of your own, you'll have no penalty (except in the case of blocking knife vs attacking sword). In either campaign, if you have a character concept that would allow him to block knives and swords bare-handed (he's one of the world's best Eskrimadors or he was O'Sensei's greatest student, etc) then he can buy Penalty Skill Levels vs. Unarmed Blocking Penalties.

So, extrapolating this out to "Blocking" ranged attacks. You can attempt to block a thrown baseball with your bare hands at no penalty (don't forget that major leaguers likely have extra OCV levels with thrown baseballs). A thrown knife or spear would likely be a -2, an arrow -3 (or -4 for a high-powered bow) and a bullet would put you at 0 OCV if I allowed a bare-handed block at all (best impress the heck out of me with the description of what you're doing). Again, in a supers campaign, the penalty would be a point or two less (probably 1/2 OCV vs bullets). If you have an appropriate item (shield, manhole cover, etc) then you take no penalty. Also, again, if your character concept calls for being able to block bullets with your katana, you can buy PSLs to do so.

All-in-all, I see this as increasing the flexibility of the system because you no longer have to buy a Power to block arrows with your shield. Real world armies did this for millenia of human history. Also, I don't see it as any harder to adjudicate than the current Blocking rules. Just apply the same level of "genre-appropriate" sense to the new rule.

[GamePhil]

1a) "Should" being dependent on genre and SFX and exciting cinematic descriptions of maneuvers.


Exactly correct. SFX and exciting descriptions would trump "must use an object", much less "usually must use an object". If your Block SFX is stepping out of the way at the last second, obviously it doesn't require an implement (though it could also be a Dodge), and falls outside the "usual" use of the maneuver.

[director13]

If a guy is shooting an arrow at me from 20 m away, I can either Deflect it at, say, the 10 m mark, or I can Block it when it comes within arm's reach. What's the real difference? Either way, I don't get hit by the arrow. But Deflection I have to pay points for, and Block I don't.

I trust that this will all be spelled out in the book.

In theory, maybe the the first would work against AoE 3m Radius? I don't know, just thinking out loud.

[ayinde]

Maybe the answer for now anyway (when 6e comes out we can better debate the powers/abilities within.) if you wish to use these rules in current games is to marry the power to the maneuver everyman can block thrown objects. Let common sense tell you when that cant be done
power
deflection:For 5 points now you can block arrows. 5 more points you can stop bullets. 5 more points you can now block any ranged attack
power
reflection: 20points reflect thrown objects For 5 points now you can block arrows. 5 more points you can stop bullets. 5 more points you can now block any ranged attack. special extra for 10 points reflect at any target

[GamePhil]

If a guy is shooting an arrow at me from 20 m away, I can either Deflect it at, say, the 10 m mark, or I can Block it when it comes within arm's reach. What's the real difference? Either way, I don't get hit by the arrow. But Deflection I have to pay points for, and Block I don't.


I had assumed you could Block a Ranged Attack for someone else at range, based on the following:

1. You can currently Block for someone standing next to you.
2. No mention of changing (1), so presumably you can now Block for Ranged Attacks for someone standing next to you.
3. This allows you to Block Ranged Attacks at range, so presumably you can now Block for someone else at Range rather than standing next to you.

Edit: Currently, you can't use Block against HTH attacks that are AoE without GM permission, and there hasn't been mention of changing that, but director13 has a good point, that when you do have such permission (thrown grenades and what not), you would be able to deflect them from over there rather than next to you. That might also be beneficial.

[Lord Mhoram]

Nothing in the description that Steve provided disallows "taking it on the chin" as SFX for blocking ranged attacks. He just noted that usually you'd want an object to block ranged attacks, particularly things like laser beams. As others have noted the same could be said for blocking HtH attacks. So your stated way of using it sounds to me perfectly within both the letter and the intent of the rules.

Point taken.

But moving from "disallow for things like cars" to "usually" is a bit of a change in tone and implied use.

And I won't be using the changes to range. I like them the way they are.

[Tech]

(shrugs) I'll wait til I see the book before deciding what or what-not Steve decided to change things to. In the meanwhile, go easy on everyone: no need to get upset when no one has the book in their hands.

[director13]

And I won't be using the changes to range. I like them the way they are.


Autofire attacks going farther than non autofire, or blocks only working against HTH?

[Lord Mhoram]

Autofire attacks going farther than non autofire, or blocks only working against HTH?

I'll be calculating distance on Active points, not base. And I probably won't let blocks work vs Range by default, I'll likely make it a 5 pt power/Martial Manuever or something.

[prestidigitator]

That's a fair gm call for you to make but there is no default penalty for Blocking anything (currently). What's a good idea or bad idea varies from setting to setting, genre to genre as well as character to character. A character might do the cinematic "blade clapping" trick, bat/kick the weapon aside by the flat or any other stunt that would probably cost you a limb in real life or be impossible (I briefly focus my chi and harden my palm to bounce the blade.")

One of the things I like about Hero currently is that, as a universal system, it makes as few assumptions as possible about how each game is going to to work. Assumption being to defined as "coded into the core rules." For me it really depends on how it's phrased. IIRC, there is some additional notation to Block that says in a more realistic game the GM might want to assign penalties Block against weapons, exceedingly powerful attacks, etc. But also Block does not necessarily mean "parry". It can have other special effects. A "Block" might be a type of aggressive feint/dodge combo that unbalances the attacker and lets the defender act before them while they recover.

I disagree completely about a Block being a feint/dodge. I've never held with that loose an interpretation of the maneuver. But in any case I agree with you in general. I never said I wouldn't vary it by genre and type of game myself. My main point was that we already have situations like this to deal with, and there's no reason this extension of the rules for Block can't be dealt with in similar ways. There are suggested penalties and implied repercussions for characters blocking weapons with their bare hands, yet I rarely see people either complaining about the passages of the book dealing with that, or complaining that the rules don't cover it. This nothing extremely new.

[archermoo]

I disagree completely about a Block being a feint/dodge. I've never held with that loose an interpretation of the maneuver.

Each to their own of course. All that is mechanically required for it is "OCV vs OCV roll to stop an attack, and if the attack was HtH and you both have your next Phase on the same Segment you go first if successful". Anything else is SFX. :)

[ajackson]

I'll be calculating distance on Active points, not base. And I probably won't let blocks work vs Range by default, I'll likely make it a 5 pt power/Martial Manuever or something.
Given how often maximum range has mattered in any campaign I was in, I'm not about to get upset about a change. For situations where I'm going 'I have a 60p VPP, how much damage can I do from low orbit' calculating from active points is marginally easier, but not by enough to really matter.

If I was going to do a house rule, it would probably 'a Ranged power has a default range of X meters' and not involve active points at all. I might set X as low as 100 meters; as long as it's larger than my battle map, more range only encourages tactics I find somewhat annoying.

[PhilFleischmann]

For my own personal taste in my games, I would never want to have Block be used to simulate the SFX of a dodge. Nor would I ever want it used for "just take it and bounce it". In my games:

Block means you're doing something to the incoming attack - diflecting it or otherwise rendering it ineffective.
Dodge means you're getting out of the path of the attack, or at least enough of the way out so it doesn't do anything.

This suggests to me that what we need is a third Defensive Combat Maneuver - a "Brace for Impact" maneuver. This would work like other Defensive maneuvers, you can abort to it, and it takes your action. Off the top of my head, I'd define it like this:

Time: 1/2 phase
OCV: -
DCV: -2
Effect: Abort, +X PD (maybe ED too?) (maybe only vs. STUN?)

I don't know what the value of X should be, maybe a flat amount, maybe equal to your REC, or 1/2 your CON, or some similar thing based on your existing characteristics. And it should apply to all attacks that you could perceive at the time you initiated the maneuver. And maybe you can also brace vs. Knockback (chose a direction) at the same time.

And a Martial BFI could be the same, with no DCV penalty, and maybe a higher value of X.

I wish I had thought of this before the 6e threads were closed.

[archermoo]

For my own personal taste in my games, I would never want to have Block be used to simulate the SFX of a dodge. Nor would I ever want it used for "just take it and bounce it".

Fair enough. For me though I'd say that Dodge is appropriate when you are just trying to make yourself generally hard to hit (passive defense), and Block is appropriate whenever you are doing something actively about a particular attack (active defense).

As to your listed maneuver, I'd be more likely to do that as just a Power. Extra PD/ED, counts as an attack action (i.e. ends a Phase), can be aborted to. Or maybe even Damage Reduction.

[prestidigitator]

See, I don't think there's anything "passive" about making yourself hard to hit with a Dodge. We may model it that way in our game system by the defender not making a roll with dice, but there's nothing passive about it at all. That "little" increase in DCV is the defender very actively and attentively trying to get the hell out of the way of an attack (or several).

I think it's very possible to go too far with the idea that anything can have any Special Effects, and the mechanics and the SFX are completely and totally divorced. It starts to go to a bit of a ridiculous "ideological" extreme that can, in my experience, become counter-productive even. Fun to argue about on these boards when you have nothing better to do, I suppose, but silly when sitting down with the dice.

[Hyper-Man]

See, I don't think there's anything "passive" about making yourself hard to hit with a Dodge. We may model it that way in our game system by the defender not making a roll with dice, but there's nothing passive about it at all. That "little" increase in DCV is the defender very actively and attentively trying to get the hell out of the way of an attack (or several).


I disagree.

When a character uses a Phase to Dodge the DCV bonus applies to any and all attacks vs. the character (most notably the unperceived ones).

In other words, Dodge even works vs. attacks the character doesn't know about (even if the bonus is halved).
That's the passive aspect of Dodge that other defensive actions like Block and Dive For Cover do not have.

[archermoo]

See, I don't think there's anything "passive" about making yourself hard to hit with a Dodge. We may model it that way in our game system by the defender not making a roll with dice, but there's nothing passive about it at all. That "little" increase in DCV is the defender very actively and attentively trying to get the hell out of the way of an attack (or several).

I think it's very possible to go too far with the idea that anything can have any Special Effects, and the mechanics and the SFX are completely and totally divorced. It starts to go to a bit of a ridiculous "ideological" extreme that can, in my experience, become counter-productive even. Fun to argue about on these boards when you have nothing better to do, I suppose, but silly when sitting down with the dice.

I was referring to game effects. And I refer to the DCV increase from Dodge as passive because it isn't in response to any particular attack. Rather it is something you "turn on" that then protects you against all incoming attacks (or just all incoming HtH attacks, depending on the version). Which can of course have a number of SFX associated with it. Madly dodging around, blink teleporting, becoming more at one with your attackers and so being able to predict where they will attack so you can simply not be there with a minimum of effort, etc.

Whereas Block is doing something active to specifically avoid this particular attack. Which can again have a number of different SFX associated with it. Using your shield/bracers/sword/whatever to physically block an attack, specifically timing your movements with a particular incoming attack to make sure you aren't there when it lands, pushing off against the non-damaging part of your attacker's weapon as they swing it at you to move out of the way, etc.

And this isn't some rules change made in 6e to go along with other decoupling. I've been playing Block and Dodge this way since I started playing Champions in '81. As have pretty much everyone I've played the game with since then. Limiting the Block maneuver to physically stopping or altering the trajectory of an incoming attack seems pretty, well, limiting to me. But as I said, each to their own.

[archermoo]

I disagree.

When a character uses a Phase to Dodge the DCV bonus applies to any and all attacks vs. the character (most notably the unperceived ones).

In other words, Dodge even works vs. attacks the character doesn't know about (even if the bonus is halved).
That's the passive aspect of Dodge that other defensive actions like Block and Dive For Cover do not have.

And in fact it isn't even necessarily halved against all attacks that he doesn't know about. The book lists some pretty limited circumstances under which someone who is already actively in combat can get the Surprised penalties applied to them. And it takes more than just not knowing about the attack.

So yeah, Dodge gives its full bonus against the guy that you know is behind you swinging at you, even if you don't actually see him swinging the weapon at you. And even if he managed to sneak up behind you so you don't know he is there and so are Surprised, you're still harder to hit than you would be if you weren't Dodging.

[Hugh Neilson]

It seems reasonable that a Teleporter could "Block" by making a short-hop T Port so the attack doesn't connect with him. Random T Ports as an SFX for Dodge seems reasonable - it's harder for any incoming attack to connect. Avoidance of an attack he knows is coming seems more like Block to me.

Given that, "erratic movement to make it difficult for anyone to draw a bead on me" as a Dodge and "watching for incoming attacks and ducking out of the way at the last second" as a Block also seem perfectly reasonable.

If Dodge were called "evasive maneuvers", being the first description, and the description for the Block maneuver included the above, as well as catching his hand with your fist or interposing some convenient object or scenery between you and your attacker so he doesn't connect, were all labelled as "dodge" with the exact same mechanics we currently have for "block", we wouldn't even be debating the subject.

[Trebuchet]

It seems reasonable that a Teleporter could "Block" by making a short-hop T Port so the attack doesn't connect with him. Random T Ports as an SFX for Dodge seems reasonable - it's harder for any incoming attack to connect. Avoidance of an attack he knows is coming seems more like Block to me.

Given that, "erratic movement to make it difficult for anyone to draw a bead on me" as a Dodge and "watching for incoming attacks and ducking out of the way at the last second" as a Block also seem perfectly reasonable.

If Dodge were called "evasive maneuvers", being the first description, and the description for the Block maneuver included the above, as well as catching his hand with your fist or interposing some convenient object or scenery between you and your attacker so he doesn't connect, were all labelled as "dodge" with the exact same mechanics we currently have for "block", we wouldn't even be debating the subject.I've always viewed Block and Dodge as active or passive maneuvers respectively. IOW, Block means you do something active to intercept or counter the attack whereas Dodge means you just get the heck out of the way. Maybe we should have named Dodge "Evade" and Block "Counter."

[nexus]

Fair enough. For me though I'd say that Dodge is appropriate when you are just trying to make yourself generally hard to hit (passive defense), and Block is appropriate whenever you are doing something actively about a particular attack (active defense).


I did like a suggestion tossed around on the 6th forums to change the names from Block and Dodge to "Active Defense" and Full Defense as more sfx neutral terms.

[The Main Man]

This new rule is reminding me of Leroy Green from The Last Dragon., seeing as how he had a reputation for catching bullets between his teeth, and even karate chops an arrow in half at the beginning (which, by the way, was legitimate and not movie magic).

[Beast]

that just says to me
that he bought missile deflection up to bullet level

the point is that he trained to get that power effect
it should not be a standard maneuver for all heroes





This new rule is reminding me of Leroy Green from The Last Dragon., seeing as how he had a reputation for catching bullets between his teeth, and even karate chops an arrow in half at the beginning (which, by the way, was legitimate and not movie magic).

[The Main Man]

Make no mistake about me, the movie does of course play it off as impressive rather than a common ability.

I'm more just being reminded of it in general witj all this talk of Missile Deflection.

Given the 6e rule, however, I'm sure that such a campaign would place some hefty penalties to perform such feats to which Leroy bought hella lot of C/PSL's.

[Alibear]

Brace for Impact? is that not just another SFX of Roll With the Blow? Sounds like it to me anyway.

[The Main Man]

If you're taliking about the catching of bullets with one's teeth, Rolling With Punch wouldn't simulate this particular instance seeing as Leroy was not harmed by it.

Missile Deflection completely stops the damage, whereas Roll With Punch does not.

[Alibear]

Sorry, I should have quoted.



This suggests to me that what we need is a third Defensive Combat Maneuver - a "Brace for Impact" maneuver. This would work like other Defensive maneuvers, you can abort to it, and it takes your action. Off the top of my head, I'd define it like this:

Time: 1/2 phase
OCV: -
DCV: -2
Effect: Abort, +X PD (maybe ED too?) (maybe only vs. STUN?)

I don't know what the value of X should be, maybe a flat amount, maybe equal to your REC, or 1/2 your CON, or some similar thing based on your existing characteristics. And it should apply to all attacks that you could perceive at the time you initiated the maneuver. And maybe you can also brace vs. Knockback (chose a direction) at the same time.

And a Martial BFI could be the same, with no DCV penalty, and maybe a higher value of X.

I wish I had thought of this before the 6e threads were closed.

Roll with Blow.

[Hugh Neilson]

I've always viewed Block and Dodge as active or passive maneuvers respectively. IOW, Block means you do something active to intercept or counter the attack whereas Dodge means you just get the heck out of the way. Maybe we should have named Dodge "Evade" and Block "Counter."

I like that terminology.

hmmm...better spoiler it - hopefully, Steve won't read it...;)

Well, there's always 7e! :eek:

[archermoo]

I did like a suggestion tossed around on the 6th forums to change the names from Block and Dodge to "Active Defense" and Full Defense as more sfx neutral terms.

I'd be happy with "active defense" and "passive defense", though I also have no problem with Block and Dodge.

[JohnTaber]

Wow...more "awesomeness"...boy I am excited. :D

Thanks for posting these sneak peaks Steve. It is so cool that Hero is willing to throw out stuff like this to their rabid fans. :thumbup:

Nice work Storn!!! :king:

[PhilFleischmann]

It seems reasonable that a Teleporter could "Block" by making a short-hop T Port so the attack doesn't connect with him.
To me, that sounds obviously like a description of a Dodge, not a Block. If you Teleport the incoming missile so it reappears behind you, then I could buy that as a possible SFX of Block.

I don't see any need to rename these maneuvers. AFAIAC Dodge already means "evade" and Block already means "counter."


Brace for Impact? is that not just another SFX of Roll With the Blow? Sounds like it to me anyway.
Yep! Good catch. I forgot about that one. [Emily Litella]Nevermind.[/Emily Litella]

[Hugh Neilson]

To me, that sounds obviously like a description of a Dodge, not a Block. If you Teleport the incoming missile so it reappears behind you, then I could buy that as a possible SFX of Block.

I don't see any need to rename these maneuvers. AFAIAC Dodge already means "evade" and Block already means "counter."

To me, "I wait until the last minute to teleport out of the way of the incoming attack" sounds a lot like "counter", and definitely like "active defense" than "passive defense" (or perhaps "avoidance of specific attacks" rather than "avoidance of attacks in general").


Yep! Good catch. I forgot about that one. [Emily Litella]Nevermind.[/Emily Litella]

But "brace for impact" is the opposite of "rolling with the impact", isn't it? I agree that both approaches are equally valid SFX for applying the mechanic in question, despite one being less consistent with the label of the mechanic - but that's no different from a "block" that involves getting out of the way rather than interposing something between the attack and its target.

[PhilFleischmann]

To me, "I wait until the last minute to teleport out of the way of the incoming attack" sounds a lot like "counter", and definitely like "active defense" than "passive defense" (or perhaps "avoidance of specific attacks" rather than "avoidance of attacks in general").
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. It sounds exactly like a Dodge to me. It doesn't seem at all "active" to me. You're moving yourself out of the path of the attack, rather than actively doing something to the attack.


But "brace for impact" is the opposite of "rolling with the impact", isn't it?
Yes, but the end result is the same - get hit, take less damage that you otherwise would. And there probably is room for expanded options with Roll with the Punch, to make it more like a Brace for Impact when desired.

[Hyper-Man]

"I wait until the last minute to teleport out of the way of the incoming attack"


That sounds like Dive For Cover to me.
:cool:

Anyway, I posted something on this subject quite a while back:


I have seen a lot of threads on Block, Dive For Cover, Dodge and Missle Deflection lately.

A lot of them seem to be about applying rules based on one particular sfx interpretation.

I think this has a lot to do with the names of the manuevers themselves.

Here are my suggestions for alternatives that might mitigate some of the confusion:

Free maneuvers:

Passive Evade - replaces Dodge. I use 'passive' to highlight that it affects all attacks equally well.
Active Evade - replaces Block. I use 'active' to highlight that it targets a specific attack with the intent of getting ahead of an attackers higher DEX (initiative).
1-Shot Evade - replaces Dive-For-Cover. I use '1-Shot' to hightlight how it only affects 1 particular attack* in a phase and actually lowers overall DCV vs all other attacks whether it succeeds or not. Attacks occuring after the Evading character's acting DEX (aborted action or not) will not be negatively affected.

Martial maneuvers:

Martial Passive Evade - replaces Martial Dodge.
Martial Active Evade - replaces Martial Block.
Martial Moving Evade - replaces Flying Dodge which is already an Improved Dive-For-Cover/Martial Dodge combination.

Powered manuervers:

Active Evade/Ranged - replaces Missle Deflection.
Active Evade/Ranged/Reflection - replaces Missle Deflection plus Reflection.

I'll be the first to admit that the martial and powered versions do not roll off the tongue as easy as the originals but they ALL use a consistent language to describe variations on a consistent idea: actions designed to avoid taking damage.



I'm sure this could be updated to include the new aspects of Block, Deflect and Reflect.

[Hugh Neilson]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. It sounds exactly like a Dodge to me. It doesn't seem at all "active" to me. You're moving yourself out of the path of the attack, rather than actively doing something to the attack.

Perhaps "selective" and "general" would be more apt terms. A Dodge provides a fixed bonus to avoid any attacks coming your way. A Block specifically avoids damage from one attack at a time (you can even choose not to Block one incoming attack in a series so you will be better able to Block the next one).

The "teleport out of the way of each attack in sequence" SFX seems, to me, far more consistent with the Block mechanic (separate avoidance, requiring a separate roll, for each attack, becoming successively more difficult as a greater number of incoming attacks appear) than the Dodge mechanic (each and every attack has a more difficult time connecting).

The problem is that it sounds more like a dodge than a block (ie the actual meaning of the words) but more like a Block than a Dodge (ie the mechanics of the maneuvers themselves).


Yes, but the end result is the same - get hit, take less damage that you otherwise would. And there probably is room for expanded options with Roll with the Punch, to make it more like a Brace for Impact when desired.

The end result of a Dodge - less likely that any attack will connect - seems the same whether it is undertaken by erratic movement, slapping attacks out of the air before they connect with your steel-hard hands or deflecting them with your Amazonian Bracelets (or Manazonian Bracers).

The end result of a Block- prevention of an incoming attack from inflicting damage, while setting yourself up for a counterstrike - seems the same whether undertaken by interposing an object to block the attack or avoiding contact with the attack entirely through careful movement. "The Rogue nimbly sidestepped the Barbarian's powerful swing, closing to strike with his dagger before the Barbarian could back up to raise his mighty axe for a second strike" could easily be a Block - the Rogue is using his evasive skills to not only avoid the attack, but also set himself up to move first next phase, despite the Lighting Reflexes of the Barbarian.

And the end result of "rolling with the punch" is getting hit and reducing the damage - whether by the literal rolling with the punch, bracing for impact or any other SFX that carries the same mechanical result.

Insisting that Block interposes and Dodge evades is no more reasonable than insisting Energy Blasts can't be Physical in nature, Force Walls can only be created with Force SFX or Running can't be roller skating.

[bigbywolfe]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. It sounds exactly like a Dodge to me. It doesn't seem at all "active" to me. You're moving yourself out of the path of the attack, rather than actively doing something to the attack.
But what if Teleporting just in time to not get hit by the attack (especially if it is a HtH attack) puts you in close proximity to a startled and off balance target who you now have the chance to strike before they can respond? Isn’t that mechanically a Block? Or should my teleporter have to build an extremely complicated abortable Power to do what we already have a mechanic for? You insist that, to you, Block’s SFX are limited to literally blocking the attack, yet there is more to the mechanic than that, so why shouldn’t there be more to the SFX than that? I guess my point is, if the Mechanic we call “Block” had been named something else in the first place you wouldn’t have an issue with a wider range of SFX. You are stuck on the name, not the actual thing that happens, with is: the PC actively, based on OCV, avoids or deflects damage with an improved chance to retaliate. Each additional attack that comes at the PC must then also be actively avoided/deflected/whatever the SFX is, individually, with a penalty. This is definitely “Active” even if defined as evasion, unlike “Dodge” which is a one time move to minimize the chance to get hit by anyone or anything, period.

[Hyper-Man]

...unlike “Dodge” which is a one time move to minimize the chance to get hit by anyone or anything, period.

Actually, to clarify this a bit more, Dodge is continuous move with bonus DCV effects that last until the beginning of the character's next Phase.
(A Martial Block has Dodge-like effects as well due to the +2 DCV bonus even if the primary Block-attempt fails)

Block and Dive For Cover only affect a specific attack each time they are used.

[Beast]

you would need to be gone long enough for the blow to pass through the space you just left
also unless your t-port has invisible effect the target will know that you teleported and still be on guard
Block does not let you move from where you are, dodge implies it
t-porting in place as a dodge I have no qualms with
using your t-port to redirect an attack I can see also

the big thing I see here as wrong is that Block vs ranged attacks should be bought as Missile deflection/reflection
dodge works just fine




But what if Teleporting just in time to not get hit by the attack (especially if it is a HtH attack) puts you in close proximity to a startled and off balance target who you now have the chance to strike before they can respond? Isn’t that mechanically a Block? Or should my teleporter have to build an extremely complicated abortable Power to do what we already have a mechanic for? You insist that, to you, Block’s SFX are limited to literally blocking the attack, yet there is more to the mechanic than that, so why shouldn’t there be more to the SFX than that? I guess my point is, if the Mechanic we call “Block” had been named something else in the first place you wouldn’t have an issue with a wider range of SFX. You are stuck on the name, not the actual thing that happens, with is: the PC actively, based on OCV, avoids or deflects damage with an improved chance to retaliate. Each additional attack that comes at the PC must then also be actively avoided/deflected/whatever the SFX is, individually, with a penalty. This is definitely “Active” even if defined as evasion, unlike “Dodge” which is a one time move to minimize the chance to get hit by anyone or anything, period.

[PhilFleischmann]

Or should my teleporter have to build an extremely complicated abortable Power to do what we already have a mechanic for?
He can do whatever he likes. Block is a standard maneuver that you don't need to pay any points for.


You insist that, to you, Block’s SFX are limited to literally blocking the attack,
I'm not insisting on anything. I'm just giving my opinion.


I guess my point is, if the Mechanic we call “Block” had been named something else in the first place you wouldn’t have an issue with a wider range of SFX. You are stuck on the name, not the actual thing that happens,
Please don't tell me what I would have an issue with or what I'm stuck on. None of the names I've seen proposed make any difference as far as I can tell. Getting yourself out of the way can be called a Dodge, an Evade, a Passive Defense, or whatever you like. It's the same to me. Doing something to the incoming attack can be called a Block, a Deflect, a Counter, or an Active Defense. It's the same to me.

Now if you want to call these maneuvers Frammis and Hufarb, then they can mean anything you like. But I don't play RPGs because I want to simulate fights that include frammises and hufarbs. I want to simulate fights that include dodges and blocks.

[archermoo]

I guess at the end I'm no more tied to "Block" and "Dodge" being tied to specific SFX than I am tied to "Energy Blast" being tied to specific SFX. The label is just what the system calls it so everyone calls the mechanic the same thing. The important part is the mechanical effect. I don't require that someone using an Energy Blast be blasting their foe with energy. Similarly I don't require that someone using the Block maneuver actually redirect an attack or interpose something between them and an attack.

But each to their own.

[bigbywolfe]

you would need to be gone long enough for the blow to pass through the space you just left
Same with Dodge with the SFX of teleport. What’s your point?

also unless your t-port has invisible effect the target will know that you teleported and still be on guard
Block does not let you move from where you are, dodge implies it
Can you show me where in the book it says Dodge lets your character move? Because as far as I know when a PC uses the Dodge maneuver he stays in the exact same place he started, unless using Flying Dodge, the Martial Maneuver, which is something different entirely.

t-porting in place as a dodge I have no qualms with
To reiterate your point “you would need to be gone long enough for the blow to pass through the space you just left.” Not sure what your point was, but I figured it applies just as much to Dodge as it does to Block.

using your t-port to redirect an attack I can see also

the big thing I see here as wrong is that Block vs ranged attacks should be bought as Missile deflection/reflection
dodge works just fine
That has to do with the new rule and blocking at range and has nothing to do with whether or not T-porting is an “appropriate” SFX for the Block Mechanic in general.

[bigbywolfe]

Please don't tell me what I would have an issue with or what I'm stuck on. None of the names I've seen proposed make any difference as far as I can tell. Getting yourself out of the way can be called a Dodge, an Evade, a Passive Defense, or whatever you like. It's the same to me. Doing something to the incoming attack can be called a Block, a Deflect, a Counter, or an Active Defense. It's the same to me.
Here’s the thing, what says that what you are doing is “Getting yourself out of the way”? The way I see the mechanic working what you are actually doing is: “Negating all damage/ill effects/et cetera of an attack.” The idea of “getting out of the way” is linked to the name, not the mechanic. Same with Block.

[ajackson]

An 'abort to other actions' rule might be nice, to be honest. I.e. with a proper contest you could abort to just about any action in response to an attack.

[Doug Limmer]

Block (and Missile Deflection) have bugged me for some time. This thread, and re-watching a certain Bleach episode, have clarified for me what my problem is. I'll start off with a faux-motivational poster:
http://adventure.mailworks.org/block.jpg

Now for what troubles me:

1. I usually don't mind varying special effects, as long as the game effect remains the same. But, it does bug me when someone describes a 'non-contact block' as something only an expert martial artist should be able to do. Because, as the poster above says, anyone can block. Would you allow Joe Normal on the street to describe his block of a sword as 'I block the edge of the blade with my finger'?

2. I particularly don't like the 'chin block', because mechanically it's a block, but visually it looks like invulnerability. This is what I think of as misleading special effects, where the special effects look like a totally different ability. Would you allow Joe Normal to describe his block of Grond's fist as a 'chin block'?

I guess it boils down to wanting special effects to match the person using them. You may all use special effects appropriate to the various characters (e.g., only allow nigh-invulnerable people to 'chin block'), but it doesn't get brought up in the conversations very often.

[ghost-angel]

Mechanics:

Block - a proactive attempt to place yourself in a better position while avoidnig a specific (or specific series of) attack

Dodge - a reactive attempt to avoiding any and all incoming attacks

Dive For Cover - just plain getting the F out of the way.

[bigbywolfe]

Precisely.

[PhilFleischmann]

Here’s the thing, what says that what you are doing is “Getting yourself out of the way”? The way I see the mechanic working what you are actually doing is: “Negating all damage/ill effects/et cetera of an attack.” The idea of “getting out of the way” is linked to the name, not the mechanic. Same with Block.
And you could just as easily describe the SFX of a Dodge as "I swing my arms/sword/object of opportunity around rapidly, knocking away all incoming attacks." When I run a combat, I'm looking for verisimilitude, not manipulation of rules for various maneuvers. I don't want the game to be about different ways to manipulate combat numbers and stats. I want the rules to model the combat maneuvers. If you're going to call a dodge a Block, why bother describing SFX at all? Why not just say, "I stand perfectly still and don't do anything, which I'm going to define as a Block, because I want to roll my OCV vs the attacker's OCV to avoid the damage and go first next phase"?

[prestidigitator]

Mechanics:

Block - a proactive attempt to place yourself in a better position while avoidnig a specific (or specific series of) attack

Dodge - a reactive attempt to avoiding any and all incoming attacks

Dive For Cover - just plain getting the F out of the way.


Block - Intercepting any (sub-)set of incoming attacks.
Dodge - An attempt to avoid any and all incoming attacks. Note: Not "passively" running around in a circle like a chicken with its head cut off.
Dive for Cover - Getting out of an area of impending doom.


So yeah. Even mechanics are subject to interpretation I suppose. I'll never go with Block being just an evasion.

EDIT: Some of the mechanics of these maneuvers even differentiate. For example, the suggestions about length of weapons and not being able to Block vehicles (no such suggestion for Dodge), and the ways Block and Dodge are treated differently when a Sweep or Rapid Fire attack is foiled. So I don't think Block is really designed to be an avoidance.

[ghost-angel]

Not designed to be an avoidance?

Interesting way to interpret "a successful block means the defender takes no damage"

Sound like something is being avoided, as long as we're going to split hairs.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Block - Intercepting any (sub-)set of incoming attacks.
Dodge - An attempt to avoid any and all incoming attacks. Note: Not "passively" running around in a circle like a chicken with its head cut off.
Dive for Cover - Getting out of an area of impending doom.


So yeah. Even mechanics are subject to interpretation I suppose. I'll never go with Block being just an evasion.Groovy. But just because you choose (as a GM) to wed generic game mechanics to specific SFX in some cases, doesn't mean the game system itself should do so.

[Alibear]

If you ever study Martial Arts you'll know you can't block without moving (unless you want a broken arm) ((idd


Footwork, footwork, footwork.

[Hyper-Man]

re: moving while performing a Dodge or Block in HERO

Yes, they both involve movement

No, they do not involve moving from one's current Hex.

[Alibear]

Valid.

[bigbywolfe]

And you could just as easily describe the SFX of a Dodge as "I swing my arms/sword/object of opportunity around rapidly, knocking away all incoming attacks." When I run a combat, I'm looking for verisimilitude, not manipulation of rules for various maneuvers. I don't want the game to be about different ways to manipulate combat numbers and stats. I want the rules to model the combat maneuvers. If you're going to call a dodge a Block, why bother describing SFX at all? Why not just say, "I stand perfectly still and don't do anything, which I'm going to define as a Block, because I want to roll my OCV vs the attacker's OCV to avoid the damage and go first next phase"?
And you just described the so-called “chin block” which I’m pretty sure is actually a suggested use of the Block Maneuver in on of the suppliments.;)

[Edsel]

I have decided to quit commenting on these previews unless/until I see something that I like. Sadly this one has driven me even further toward the idea that I may stick with 5th Edition. I won't be posting in the preview threads again unless I see something I consider an improvement.

[archermoo]

2. I particularly don't like the 'chin block', because mechanically it's a block, but visually it looks like invulnerability. This is what I think of as misleading special effects, where the special effects look like a totally different ability. Would you allow Joe Normal to describe his block of Grond's fist as a 'chin block'?


I've never worried about misleading SFX, as I generally describe both what the character sees and what the mechanics of what happened are. To the character it is obvious when a brick is chin blocking that that is what they are doing. They only might get fooled into thinking the character is invulnerable if the brick paid points to be able to make it look like they are invulnerable.

[Hugh Neilson]

you would need to be gone long enough for the blow to pass through the space you just left
also unless your t-port has invisible effect the target will know that you teleported and still be on guard
Block does not let you move from where you are, dodge implies it

Neither implies "stand stock still". Even getting full or half DCV does not imply standing stock still. All imply some level of moving around within an area 2 meters in diameter. Measure that out - that's a pretty substantial area.


the big thing I see here as wrong is that Block vs ranged attacks should be bought as Missile deflection/reflection
dodge works just fine

I think logically I agree, but mechanically I do not. And cinematic reality must break the tie. Cinematically, we dodge bullets and laser beams. Logically, we can't even see the blasted things coming.

One of the most valid criticisms levied against Missile Deflection is that it is SFX oriented. If I am playing the Human Flame and you are playing The Living Bow (no focus - you generate mystical arrows), why should it be cheaper for someone to deflect your attacks when you paid just as much as I did for them?

Steve sums up the concern - Deflect is typically less effective than Dodge, so why should it cost 20 points?


Block (and Missile Deflection) have bugged me for some time. This thread, and re-watching a certain Bleach episode, have clarified for me what my problem is. I'll start off with a faux-motivational poster:
http://adventure.mailworks.org/block.jpg

Now for what troubles me:

1. I usually don't mind varying special effects, as long as the game effect remains the same. But, it does bug me when someone describes a 'non-contact block' as something only an expert martial artist should be able to do. Because, as the poster above says, anyone can block. Would you allow Joe Normal on the street to describe his block of a sword as 'I block the edge of the blade with my finger'?

2. I particularly don't like the 'chin block', because mechanically it's a block, but visually it looks like invulnerability. This is what I think of as misleading special effects, where the special effects look like a totally different ability. Would you allow Joe Normal to describe his block of Grond's fist as a 'chin block'?

I guess it boils down to wanting special effects to match the person using them. You may all use special effects appropriate to the various characters (e.g., only allow nigh-invulnerable people to 'chin block'), but it doesn't get brought up in the conversations very often.

SFX aren't infinitely variable. I don't let Grond define his punch as "a massive burst of compressed air", because those aren't HIS SFX. Neither would I think it appropriate for a 98 pound weakling to define Block as "I catch the sword with my finger" NOR "I step into his range and grab his wrist and elbow with my hands to prevent his sword hitting me". "I jump back at the last minute, luckily slipping so my head falls below his sword, falling in towards him and, attempting to steady myself, I move before him on our next phase and try a Trip maneuver". In gamespeak, we move on the same phase but Swordsman has higher DEX. He swings, 98 lb W aborts to Block and, if he succeeds, uses his first action in their next phase to Trip Swordsman. "I Block" seems like pretty lousy role playing. 98 lb W's description sounds cinematic and consistent with the MECHANICS, though not the NAMES, of the maneuvers. It also sounds a lot more fun for the game overall.


Mechanics:

Block - a proactive attempt to place yourself in a better position while avoidnig a specific (or specific series of) attack

Dodge - a reactive attempt to avoiding any and all incoming attacks

Dive For Cover - just plain getting the F out of the way.

I like these.


And you could just as easily describe the SFX of a Dodge as "I swing my arms/sword/object of opportunity around rapidly, knocking away all incoming attacks."

Seems not unreasonable to me. If I'm flailing around with an iron pipe, are you going to be as likely to run up and punch me in the face? I am less likely to get hit, because you may need to pull back your attack to avoid a smack with that iron pipe.


When I run a combat, I'm looking for verisimilitude, not manipulation of rules for various maneuvers. I don't want the game to be about different ways to manipulate combat numbers and stats. I want the rules to model the combat maneuvers. If you're going to call a dodge a Block, why bother describing SFX at all? Why not just say, "I stand perfectly still and don't do anything, which I'm going to define as a Block, because I want to roll my OCV vs the attacker's OCV to avoid the damage and go first next phase"?

If the sfx are dodge like, and the maneuver result is Block, that is exactly what we should call it.

To throw it back, if some SX preclude the use of some maneuvers, what bonus does the character get when his SX preclude use of a styandard maneuver normally available to everyone?


re: moving while performing a Dodge or Block in HERO

Yes, they both involve movement

No, they do not involve moving from one's current Hex.

BINGO


And you just described the so-called “chin block” which I’m pretty sure is actually a suggested use of the Block Maneuver in on of the suppliments.;)

Yup - official ruling in favour of "maneuvers have SFX not defined by their names" and against "a block always requires interposing something".

[prestidigitator]

Seems not unreasonable to me. If I'm flailing around with an iron pipe, are you going to be as likely to run up and punch me in the face? I am less likely to get hit, because you may need to pull back your attack to avoid a smack with that iron pipe.

Sounds like you are describing it as a Damage Shield or Continuous (probably Selective or Non-Selective) Area of Effect attack to me, not a defensive maneuver (in the usual system-mechanical meaning of "defensive"). Or perhaps even a Presence Attack backed up by the real threat of a Delayed Phase meant to smack anyone who gets close. Keeping an enemy at bay out of fear of getting smacked is great, but calling it a Block in order to roll OCV vs. OCV with that description isn't helping your argument as far as I can tell.



Yup - official ruling in favour of "maneuvers have SFX not defined by their names" and against "a block always requires interposing something".

I think that's again a matter of interpretation. If you called "taking it on the chin" a Dodge, then I'd have to concede the point. As it is, it sounds like interposing a tough or tensed body part. As unrealistic and hopeless as it would be in reality, I'd call it a Block in a cinematic/comic game right along with interposing a limb in a normal martial-arts style block.

[Hyper-Man]

I seem to remember it mentioned by Steve somewhere that counter-intuitive sfx definitions of Block & Dodge are essentially are covered by a rule similar to the point of origin rules for attack powers (EB, RKA, Flash, etc..). Yes a character's RKA can be defined as coming from his eyes (ex: Superman's heat vision) but now that's the only place it can come from (unless the player convinces the gm to allow the character to spend points on the Variable SFX Advantage). Similarly, a character with a Block or Dodge defined as "taking it on the chin" will always appear to be "taking it on the chin" every time they perform that maneuver. I suppose if the character had Martial Arts they could buy multiple versions of Martial Block & Martial Dodge to reflect different sfx appearances of those maneuvers (but I doubt anyone would be willing to pay the extra 5 points to do so).

[ghost-angel]

"I duck under his sword and take a step inside his reach to get a quick hit in on my next action, before he can counter me."

"I duck under his sword and take a step to the side so I don't get hit by his partner on the other side as well."

"I take a diving leap behind the piano."

Block.

Dodge.

Dive For Cover.

respectively. Forcing a specific SFX, or define maneuver, takes half the fun out of combat as far as I'm concerned.

[Derek Hiemforth]

I'm starting to notice something interesting...

IMO (and I thought almost all HERO players' opinions), the separation of SFX and mechanics in the HERO System is one of its key strengths... one of the things that makes it both different from and superior to other systems.

But it's starting to look like some of the changes that some folks are reacting somewhat negatively to in 6E, are changes that are increasing the separation of mechanics and SFX. They're stripping out ways that the mechanics tacitly assumed or enforced specific SFX before. (Or in some cases, making the system less tied to its original superhero genre.) And in doing so, they make the system more flexible, basically by definition.

I would have thought that almost all HERO players would like that, because it's playing right into one of the system's key features. So it's interesting to me that some folks are balking at them. I didn't expect that... I'm not sure I understand why someone would be okay with the idea that a lightning bolt and fire blast are just two possible SFX of Energy Blast, but would strongly object to the idea of "I parry his sword with my sword" and "I step inside the reach of his sword" just being two possible SFX of Block...

[The Main Man]

I'm starting to notice something interesting...

IMO (and I thought almost all HERO players' opinions), the separation of SFX and mechanics in the HERO System is one of its key strengths... one of the things that makes it both different from and superior to other systems.

But it's starting to look like some of the changes that some folks are reacting somewhat negatively to in 6E, are changes that are increasing the separation of mechanics and SFX. They're stripping out ways that the mechanics tacitly assumed or enforced specific SFX before. (Or in some cases, making the system less tied to its original superhero genre.) And in doing so, they make the system more flexible, basically by definition.

I would have thought that almost all HERO players would like that, because it's playing right into one of the system's key features. So it's interesting to me that some folks are balking at them. I didn't expect that... I'm not sure I understand why someone would be okay with the idea that a lightning bolt and fire blast are just two possible SFX of Energy Blast, but would strongly object to the idea of "I parry his sword with my sword" and "I step inside the reach of his sword" just being two possible SFX of Block...

I agree and I think that it's the damnedest thing.

[prestidigitator]

I'm starting to notice something interesting...

IMO (and I thought almost all HERO players' opinions), the separation of SFX and mechanics in the HERO System is one of its key strengths... one of the things that makes it both different from and superior to other systems.

But it's starting to look like some of the changes that some folks are reacting somewhat negatively to in 6E, are changes that are increasing the separation of mechanics and SFX. They're stripping out ways that the mechanics tacitly assumed or enforced specific SFX before. (Or in some cases, making the system less tied to its original superhero genre.) And in doing so, they make the system more flexible, basically by definition.

I would have thought that almost all HERO players would like that, because it's playing right into one of the system's key features. So it's interesting to me that some folks are balking at them. I didn't expect that... I'm not sure I understand why someone would be okay with the idea that a lightning bolt and fire blast are just two possible SFX of Energy Blast, but would strongly object to the idea of "I parry his sword with my sword" and "I step inside the reach of his sword" just being two possible SFX of Block...

If you're talking about me, I personally love the changes being introduced. Read back to my first posts. I was actually defending the new Ranged Block as being similar enough to existing Block mechanics to work well, whether you want to be consistent in allowing people to Block weapons without the aid of objects, or be consistent in requiring people to use objects to Block armed attacks. So whether or not the maneuvers are completely divorced from SFX (and whether you really want to call interception vs. complete avoidance a SFX issue) is besides the point in my case. I do, in fact, love the separation of mechanics and SFX...to a point. And sometimes I disagree with the line people draw separating the two.

[Vondy]

I'm starting to notice something interesting...

IMO (and I thought almost all HERO players' opinions), the separation of SFX and mechanics in the HERO System is one of its key strengths... one of the things that makes it both different from and superior to other systems.

But it's starting to look like some of the changes that some folks are reacting somewhat negatively to in 6E, are changes that are increasing the separation of mechanics and SFX. They're stripping out ways that the mechanics tacitly assumed or enforced specific SFX before. (Or in some cases, making the system less tied to its original superhero genre.) And in doing so, they make the system more flexible, basically by definition.

I would have thought that almost all HERO players would like that, because it's playing right into one of the system's key features. So it's interesting to me that some folks are balking at them. I didn't expect that... I'm not sure I understand why someone would be okay with the idea that a lightning bolt and fire blast are just two possible SFX of Energy Blast, but would strongly object to the idea of "I parry his sword with my sword" and "I step inside the reach of his sword" just being two possible SFX of Block...

I'll put a finer point on my discomfort.

I am strongly in the pro special effects camp. I always have been. I believe the mechanics-effects dichotomy is what makes Hero such a powerful tool. I've also long believed missile deflection should be a menuever similiar to block. My issue here, however, is whether or not this should be universally available for every character in every genre.

As you note, the system is moving away from its native superheroic genre roots. Overall, I think that's a good thing. I prefer heroic, dramtic genres that are often more down to Earth. It should mean less tweaking. But the migration towards a more generic toolkit also means some cool ideas with primarily cinematic value have to be made optional or provided via a buy-in.

I like what Steve is doing here for cinematic action games, or superheroic games, but I don't consider it universally apropos. In some genres it may be inappropriate, or it may only be appropos for characters with specific character concepts or script ratings. Its much easier for a gamemaster to include or tweak an optional system element that to tell players he is removing or restricting a standard element. The latter generates more resistance.

For genres where its universally apropos I don't have an issue with it being an everyman manuever. For genres where only characters with germaine concepts can do it, or where their concepts allow them to do it in a broader array of situations, it becomes a fairness issue. In such situations it may make more sense for it to be a buy in with a defined effect.

And that brings me to my final thought: you mentioned it seems stange that someone who has no issue with lightning bolt or fireblast being SFX for Energy Blast would have a hard time with this. Answer: Energy Blast isn't an "everyman" power. You pay for it based on concept. And in some genres powers are not an available character design element to start with. That makes EB fundamatentally different from the ranged block we are discussing here.

My issue isn't how it works.

That part I dig.

My issue is having it be a default setting rather than an option.

[GamePhil]

But it's starting to look like some of the changes that some folks are reacting somewhat negatively to in 6E, are changes that are increasing the separation of mechanics and SFX.

Depends on where you draw the line. I prefer to pursue an ideal unless it interferes with the game actually being fun. I expect that's the opinion of most. But, where I find that line has not yet been crossed, or even approached, some would argue that it has been stomped all over.


If you're talking about me, I personally love the changes being introduced.

He's not. He's talking about a general trend that isn't even best represented in this thread, and the best examples of which I'm not going to bring up. That's not to say examples aren't here, they're just not as clearcut.


So whether or not the maneuvers are completely divorced from SFX (and whether you really want to call interception vs. complete avoidance a SFX issue)

I am a bit unclear on why it wouldn't be an SFX issue. Each maneuver gives you a set of game mechanics for avoiding damage. You describe how you're doing this as you wish, and assuming the GM accepts your definition, you do it that way. If some GM's are more or less restrictive with it than I would be, that's just the nature of the game. But it's certainly an SFX issue.

[GamePhil]

For genres where its universally apropos I don't have an issue with it being an everyman manuever. For genres where only characters with germaine concepts can do it, or where their concepts allow them to do it in a broader array of situations, it becomes a fairness issue. In such situations it may make more sense for it to be a buy in with a defined effect.


Here again I'm having trouble understanding the problem, even after your clarification. Your ability to Block a Ranged Attack as a Common Maneuver should logically be based entirely on genre. That is, if you're in a Wild Martial Arts campaign, maybe all PC's can Block arrows with their hands at no cost. In a typical Fantasy game, maybe they require shields. In a modern action adventure game, perhaps blocking bullets comes from taking cover. And so on. If some character concepts require going beyond the genre restrictions established by the GM that everyone else has to use for the free maneuver, they have to pay for it. Nothing unfair about that.

I suppose Steve may have contradicted that statement in the Combat rules, but I feel it is unlikely. We'll see.

[nexus]

I'm starting to notice something interesting...

IMO (and I thought almost all HERO players' opinions), the separation of SFX and mechanics in the HERO System is one of its key strengths... one of the things that makes it both different from and superior to other systems.

But it's starting to look like some of the changes that some folks are reacting somewhat negatively to in 6E, are changes that are increasing the separation of mechanics and SFX. They're stripping out ways that the mechanics tacitly assumed or enforced specific SFX before. (Or in some cases, making the system less tied to its original superhero genre.) And in doing so, they make the system more flexible, basically by definition.

I would have thought that almost all HERO players would like that, because it's playing right into one of the system's key features. So it's interesting to me that some folks are balking at them. I didn't expect that... I'm not sure I understand why someone would be okay with the idea that a lightning bolt and fire blast are just two possible SFX of Energy Blast, but would strongly object to the idea of "I parry his sword with my sword" and "I step inside the reach of his sword" just being two possible SFX of Block...

I don't think any one that's been a long timer Hero player is opposed to keeping sfx and mechanics independent but just that we all have different ideas of where we draw the line; where the division "feels" right. I'm in the "the ability to actively defend" against ranged atacks (particularly bullets and other "faster than the eye can see" sfx should be a buy in ability not a universal one (in most campaigns). That's just an opinion though, no more or less valid than those that feel a Block requires and imposition of something yourself and the attack and shouldn't be aggressive evasion or similar oddball sfx ("At the last instant before the attack, Mister Mind launches a desperate Mind Control "nudge" to push the villlain's aim off!" as a Block)

Though with 6th edition's option for getting DCV with Unified Power you could make some interesting builds along these lines similar to Limited Combat skill levels.

[director13]

Golly. I had posted something four pages ago, but it looks to have been eaten. For the most part, smarter people than I have said what I said, so I'll skip it.

What I haven't seen yet is a discussion about whether the ability to buy attacks against non standard defenses (mentioned earlier) could or should imply (yes, I know) the possibility of buying non standard defenses against attacks. DECV (or whatever the new name is) vs. OCV, OCV vs. OCV, DCV (as a Block) vs OCV, etc.

Thoughts (aside from the "all change is bad" crowd")?

[nexus]

Golly. I had posted something four pages ago, but it looks to have been eaten. For the most part, smarter people than I have said what I said, so I'll skip it.

What I haven't seen yet is a discussion about whether the ability to buy attacks against non standard defenses (mentioned earlier) could or should imply (yes, I know) the possibility of buying non standard defenses against attacks. DECV (or whatever the new name is) vs. OCV, OCV vs. OCV, DCV (as a Block) vs OCV, etc.


I do remember some discussion about discussions about changing CVs used earlier in the thread but I don't recall the exact posts.



Thoughts (aside from the "all change is bad" crowd")?

I don't think any one has said or implied they think any changes in Hero System are bad. There have been those that dislike some or most of the changes of the changes they've seen so far and there are those that feel the system needs only minor tweaks or that the problems others see don't bother them. Much of this is subjective, after all.

[Doug Limmer]

I'm not sure I understand why someone would be okay with the idea that a lightning bolt and fire blast are just two possible SFX of Energy Blast, but would strongly object to the idea of "I parry his sword with my sword" and "I step inside the reach of his sword" just being two possible SFX of Block...I'm not against the 6e changes (this peeve of mine has been around for a while), but I'll give my point of view on this.

In my inexpert opinion, "I step inside the reach of his sword" sounds more difficult than "I parry his sword with my sword". To call them both a "block" seems to say they are the same difficulty. Perhaps I'm being too much of a simulationist, or something.

[GamePhil]

In my inexpert opinion, "I step inside the reach of his sword" sounds more difficult than "I parry his sword with my sword". To call them both a "block" seems to say they are the same difficulty.

Sure, though the typical "parry his sword with my sword" that I've seen is both stepping aside and using the sword more to make it so you don't have to move quite as far rather than simply interposing the sword. Interposing alone hurts quite a lot, I'm told. However, stepping inside his reach as a Block would be Blocking a weapon attack unarmed, so in the right kind of game should carry a penalty, optional rules for which are in the game.

[ghost-angel]

I'm not against the 6e changes (this peeve of mine has been around for a while), but I'll give my point of view on this.

In my inexpert opinion, "I step inside the reach of his sword" sounds more difficult than "I parry his sword with my sword". To call them both a "block" seems to say they are the same difficulty. Perhaps I'm being too much of a simulationist, or something.

Because I have no bloody desire to create, look up, use, or deal with, 400 million maneuvers for every possible scenario out there.

If you think there is a difference use Situational Modifiers on top of Maneuver Modifiers. But if the end result is Mechanically the same - why create Same But Different mechanics for all those scenarios?

[Vondy]

Sure, though the typical "parry his sword with my sword" that I've seen is both stepping aside and using the sword more to make it so you don't have to move quite as far rather than simply interposing the sword. Interposing alone hurts quite a lot, I'm told. However, stepping inside his reach as a Block would be Blocking a weapon attack unarmed, so in the right kind of game should carry a penalty, optional rules for which are in the game.


Isn't this covered by purchasing multiple "weapon elements" (TUM)?

[Vondy]

Here again I'm having trouble understanding the problem, even after your clarification. Your ability to Block a Ranged Attack as a Common Maneuver should logically be based entirely on genre. That is, if you're in a Wild Martial Arts campaign, maybe all PC's can Block arrows with their hands at no cost. In a typical Fantasy game, maybe they require shields. In a modern action adventure game, perhaps blocking bullets comes from taking cover. And so on. If some character concepts require going beyond the genre restrictions established by the GM that everyone else has to use for the free maneuver, they have to pay for it. Nothing unfair about that.

I suppose Steve may have contradicted that statement in the Combat rules, but I feel it is unlikely. We'll see.

:shrug:

There is a list of standard manuevers and optional maneuvers. I believe this should be an optional manuever. Deal with it.

[Pattern Ghost]

My issue is having it be a default setting rather than an option.

Looking at 4th and 5th, it seems to me that the defaults lean toward the super heroic or cinematic, rather than the realistic. In this context, it's consistent with the rest of the rules for it to be the default. Adding complexity and layering in "realism" tend to go together under the current system.

I do think that there should be, at least by way of an example, a very clear alternate case for more realistic campaigns.

[PhilFleischmann]

And you just described the so-called “chin block” which I’m pretty sure is actually a suggested use of the Block Maneuver in on of the suppliments.;)
Would you happen to know which suppliment? Not that it matters really, my point is about verisimilitude. The "chin block" maneuver being defined as a Block disrupts my willful suspension of disbelief.


To throw it back, if some SX preclude the use of some maneuvers, what bonus does the character get when his SX preclude use of a styandard maneuver normally available to everyone?
What SFX would that be? If the character literally cannot Dodge (or Block, or whatever) due to his SFX, then I guess that might be worth a Complication or something, but I can't think of any reason why that would be the case. If a character happens to have a fairly low SPD/DEX/DCV/OCV, or whatever, well too bad for him. He saved points by not buying those things up, so he could buy something else. But there's nothing stopping him from dodging, blocking, diving for cover, rolling with the punch, etc.


But it's starting to look like some of the changes that some folks are reacting somewhat negatively to in 6E, are changes that are increasing the separation of mechanics and SFX. They're stripping out ways that the mechanics tacitly assumed or enforced specific SFX before. (Or in some cases, making the system less tied to its original superhero genre.) And in doing so, they make the system more flexible, basically by definition.

I would have thought that almost all HERO players would like that, because it's playing right into one of the system's key features. So it's interesting to me that some folks are balking at them. I didn't expect that... I'm not sure I understand why someone would be okay with the idea that a lightning bolt and fire blast are just two possible SFX of Energy Blast, but would strongly object to the idea of "I parry his sword with my sword" and "I step inside the reach of his sword" just being two possible SFX of Block...
If you're referring to me, I'll say two things:

1) This really doesn't have anything to do with changes between 5e and 6e (which may make it somewhat off-topic for this thread), because you can already make these interpretations in 5e. As I already said, I like these 6e changes, with the possible exception of my concern about the details of how the new Deflect/Reflect will work.

2) Just because SFX are not dictated by game mechanics, doesn't mean there isn't a link between them. The whole point is that you find the game mechanics that best represent the SFX you have in mind. You can't (or at least shouldn't) try to match up just any game mechanic with any SFX. If you want to have a chameleon-like camouflage power which makes you harder to see, you can build that with Invisibility or Images or maybe Shape Shift. It you want to stretch the SFX a bit, you could even use Shrinking or Darkness. But you can't really build it with Energy Blast or Clairsentience or Flight or Duplication or Demolitions or Language Skills. And that's the same way I see maneuvers like the "chin block". The effects of a "chin block" are nothing like the Block maneuver as I see it. There's no pitting your OCV against the OCV of the attack. There's no "avoiding" of the attack. You're pretty much allowing the attack to hit you, and doing something to bounce the damage. The maneuver that most closely matches is Roll with the Blow.

And don't say that avoiding the damage is the same as avoiding the hit - save that arguement for your deendee-playing friends. In HERO, we know better. We acknowledge a difference between DCV and DEF.

[megaplayboy]

Would you happen to know which suppliment? Not that it matters really, my point is about verisimilitude. The "chin block" maneuver being defined as a Block disrupts my willful suspension of disbelief.




Having seen someone perform a chin block IRL, I have no problem with suspension of disbelief for superhumanly tough "brick" characters doing this in a superheroic genre setting, or even with a really tough two-fisted pulp hero doing it. It's all about knowing where and when the punch is going to land, how hard it's likely to be, and bracing for the impact. Chin blocking actually does require timing and placement similar to (if not exactly the same as) using one's hands/arms or legs to block an attack. If you misjudge the placement, timing or intensity of the attack, it will hurt a lot more than if you don't.

[bigbywolfe]

I have a friend who can not only head-butt without hurting himself, but can actually forehead-block a regular punch aimed at his face/head. Not only is it a fairly effective block it can actually hurt the attacker (I actually thought he broke my hand when we were sparring). This is a real person with no martial arts/combat training of any kind. So no, a “chin-block”, in certain genres, does not seem unrealistic to me.

And seriously, Chin-blocking breaks your suspension of disbelief? What genres do you play, cause if it’s Champions you must have some really, really convincing descriptions of super powers for them to not interfere with you suspension of disbelief yet “taking one on the chin” does.

[megaplayboy]

I'd note that blocking usually involves the use of a limb, and that technically the head is considered a "limb" for grab purposes. So it's not that much of a stretch to say you could use your head to block a punch.

[PhilFleischmann]

Having seen someone perform a chin block IRL, I have no problem with suspension of disbelief for superhumanly tough "brick" characters doing this in a superheroic genre setting, or even with a really tough two-fisted pulp hero doing it....


....So no, a “chin-block”, in certain genres, does not seem unrealistic to me.

And seriously, Chin-blocking breaks your suspension of disbelief? ....
Read my post carefully. The "chin block" is not a Block. I have no problem with characters doing it. It just isn't well-modeled, IMO, by the Block maneuver. It's a "brace for impact" - closer to a Roll with the Blow than any other currently available maneuver.

And among Superheroic Bricks, it's probably more appropriately modeled by high defenses, and perhaps additional defenses with some limitations.

In Superman Returns, he takes a bullet to the eye. Is that a block, or is it Super-High Resistant PD?

[megaplayboy]

Read my post carefully. The "chin block" is not a Block. I have no problem with characters doing it. It just isn't well-modeled, IMO, by the Block maneuver. It's a "brace for impact" - closer to a Roll with the Blow than any other currently available maneuver.

And among Superheroic Bricks, it's probably more appropriately modeled by high defenses, and perhaps additional defenses with some limitations.

In Superman Returns, he takes a bullet to the eye. Is that a block, or is it Super-High Resistant PD?

Roll with the Blow reduces damage, it doesn't negate it. Here are the two effects of block:
1) the attack is blocked/damage is negated.
2) the blocker gets initiative over the attacker if their next action is on the same segment.
I submit the following:
Chin blocks negate damage. Everyone that I've seen do it has shown no discernible effect from the chin-blocked punch.
The net effect, in genre, is that the blocker tends to get the initiative over the blockee. There is a certain skill involved in chin-blocking that mirrors blocking with other limbs pretty closely.

IRL, blocked punches and kicks still hurt when you use your arms and legs to block them, so arguing that a chin block doesn't count because the punch may still hurt a bit doesn't really hold much water to me. YMMV.

The Supes example is irrelevant,imo. He's not chin-blocking the bullet.

[PhilFleischmann]

Roll with the Blow reduces damage, it doesn't negate it. ....
IRL, blocked punches and kicks still hurt when you use your arms and legs to block them, so arguing that a chin block doesn't count because the punch may still hurt a bit doesn't really hold much water to me. YMMV.
IOW, the damage is reduced, not negated. Sounds more and more like RwtB.


The Supes example is irrelevant,imo. He's not chin-blocking the bullet.
But is he "eye-blocking" the bullet?

[Peregrine]

The Chin Block is a stated SFX for Block in the Dirty Infighting/Fisticuffs/Cinematic Brawling martial art on pp. 23-24, Ultimate Martial Artist.


"The Block/Chin Block can either be a standard block with the forearm, or it can consist of the character “blocking” the blow by taking it square on the chin and “shrugging off the effects” — “Go ahead, mate, take yer best shot!”"

[Beast]

that is going to depend on if he was just waiting for the shooter to shoot or he is just that tough(timing)
IMO Superman is that tough
but could have done it more as a Presence attack to just show the shooter it how useless it is to oppose Superman


I'd like to see this get back on the subject of

Should block ranged attacks be an everyman skill?

If so to what level thrown,slow missile(arrows,atl atl)fast missile(bullets),beam(speed of light)

IMHO
If allowed at all, only thrown stuff that the blocker could use their casual Str or less to lift can be blocked
example)Grond throws a car at Seeker(who would have to push to just lift a car)
Seeker could not block the car from hitting him with any of his weapons, so he would need to dodge out of the way






But is he "eye-blocking" the bullet?

[Hugh Neilson]

If so to what level thrown,slow missile(arrows,atl atl)fast missile(bullets),beam(speed of light)

IMHO
If allowed at all, only thrown stuff that the blocker could use their casual Str or less to lift can be blocked
example)Grond throws a car at Seeker(who would have to push to just lift a car)
Seeker could not block the car from hitting him with any of his weapons, so he would need to dodge out of the way

This defeats the purpose of the change, which was to remove the SFX differentiation from Missile Deflection/Reflection. Why should anyone have an EB with the SFX "Thrown rock" when having a laser pistol instead makes the cost of deflecting it higher, so less people will be able to deflect it?

[Beast]

then the guy who bought up to laser level over bought vs this character

I think NOBODY should have block vs range unless they buy it

the question is should a martial artist be able to deflect a car thrown at him when he has trouble lifting it up
from what I have seen in the comics and movies is, no he cannot he has to dodge out of the way

some characters by design should not be able to block lasers
so what do you do take a limitation on what you can deflect
you could not take in a ninja hero genre game based in the 1850's as there are no lasers so it would not be a limitation

the cost difference now is only 10 pts from thrown to lasers which for me is so little as to not be worth mentioning




This defeats the purpose of the change, which was to remove the SFX differentiation from Missile Deflection/Reflection. Why should anyone have an EB with the SFX "Thrown rock" when having a laser pistol instead makes the cost of deflecting it higher, so less people will be able to deflect it?

[Hyper-Man]

Here's a common superhero comic situation:
Strong villain picks up car and hurls it at strong hero who then either catches or bats aside the car.

...

Under current 5er rules, modeling the Strong villain does not require purchasing a 'brick-trick' to do this. Occasionally tossing objects of opportunity is allowed.

Modeling the Strong hero's ability to essentially 'block' the thrown car currently requires the purchase of Missile Deflection to do so.

6th edition rules appear to remove this requirement.
This is an improvement imho.

[steamteck]

The Chin Block is a stated SFX for Block in the Dirty Infighting/Fisticuffs/Cinematic Brawling martial art on pp. 23-24, Ultimate Martial Artist.

So under these rules captain America could "chin block" Thanos. Their STR and damage is irrelevant only OCV. Yep no suspension of disbelief here.

Personally, I'd like to see some rules for just getting your arm in the way and taking damage on that instead of your head, body etc. as opposed to the block maneuver which apparently does not include this really needed situation of , you know blocking. also included in 6ED

[megaplayboy]

IOW, the damage is reduced, not negated. Sounds more and more like RwtB.



What part of "blocked punches and kicks still hurt when you use your arms and legs to block them" was unclear? Blocks still negate damage, because although it hurts a little, the actual damage is negligible...just as it is for a chin block.:)

[megaplayboy]

So under these rules captain America could "chin block" Thanos. Their STR and damage is irrelevant only OCV. Yep no suspension of disbelief here.

Personally, I'd like to see some rules for just getting your arm in the way and taking damage on that instead of your head, body etc. as opposed to the block maneuver which apparently does not include this really needed situation of , you know blocking. also included in 6ED

You can't martial throw an opponent that you can't lift with pushing, so I'd say offhand that the relevance of STR difference is up to the GM. I don't think Cap's player would object to being told he can't chin block an 80 STR punch. ;)

[GamePhil]

So under these rules captain America could "chin block" Thanos. Their STR and damage is irrelevant only OCV. Yep no suspension of disbelief here.


So an unreasonable application of a rule that, under reasonable circumstances, would be cinematic and cool ruins suspension of disbelief. Got it.

As for the rest, Block as a maneuver is simply a game mechanic for avoiding damage. If you describe your Block as taking a sword blow on your arm rather than through your chest, I'll happily give you a Surprise Bonus for the maneuver and do damage to your arm, reduced per Hit Location rules. I question the need for a specific rule about it, but have no problem if such a rule is included, I suppose.

[Alibear]

I played a character who was an oarsman on a slave galley.

The overseer went to whip my character. As he was chained to a bench he couldnae really avoid the blow so he 'blocked' with his arm to take half damage. The GM gave me an extra xp. :thumbup:

[Hugh Neilson]

then the guy who bought up to laser level over bought vs this character

I think NOBODY should have block vs range unless they buy it

the question is should a martial artist be able to deflect a car thrown at him when he has trouble lifting it up

from what I have seen in the comics and movies is, no he cannot he has to dodge out of the way

some characters by design should not be able to block lasers
so what do you do take a limitation on what you can deflect
you could not take in a ninja hero genre game based in the 1850's as there are no lasers so it would not be a limitation

the cost difference now is only 10 pts from thrown to lasers which for me is so little as to not be worth mentioning

An alternative interpretation would be that everyone has Ranged Block (which they can use, for example, to catch or deflect a baseball or rock thrown at them - it seems like anyone should have a chance to achieve this), and a player who wants an attack which is more difficult to deflect should purchase an advantage or adder of some form for his attack. In other words, it is the attacker who gains extra functionality, not the defender.

My laser beam should be invisible, where most EB's are not. So I am required to buy IPE - we don't, say, require the defender to buy an enhanced sense to see the laser because its SFX say it is more difficult to perceive. It should be possible to throw my hand grenade over a barrier. I buy Indirect for my attack - I don't get this for free because of SFX. If the SFX of my attack suggest it should be more difficult to deflect, why should I not pay for this added advantage to my attack, rather than getting a benefit for free because it's a logical extrapolation of my power?


So under these rules captain America could "chin block" Thanos. Their STR and damage is irrelevant only OCV. Yep no suspension of disbelief here.

I don't see that as the SFX of Cap's block, and a player with that concept would undoubtedly describe a different SFX for the same maneuver. He would likely use his Shield (which takes hits from amazing powered attacks regularly without Cap being so much as pushed back or having a sore arm), since that is the SFX of his character concept.

If the GM views Thanos' mighty blows as so potent to be unable to be blocked, perhaps Thanos should pay the freight and put Indirect on his attack to make it unable to be blocked - that's in the rules somewhere. He could even buy that as a Naked Advantage, and Limit it to apply only to certain SFX of Blocks, such as "only chin blocks" or "only blocks whose SFX still allow Thanos to make physical contact with the target". With the latter, Thanos is so strong that the force of his blow passes right through Cap's shield to inflict damage on the man on the other side.

How does "normal human" Daredevil Block Grond's punch? There has never been a rule that says "you can't block an attack with more than X DC's more than your STR could do".


Personally, I'd like to see some rules for just getting your arm in the way and taking damage on that instead of your head, body etc. as opposed to the block maneuver which apparently does not include this really needed situation of , you know blocking. also included in 6ED

Hmmm...you have to maneuver to get another part of your body in the way of your attacker. If you succeed, the damage you take is reduced. That sure sounds like "Roll with the punch".


What part of "blocked punches and kicks still hurt when you use your arms and legs to block them" was unclear? Blocks still negate damage, because although it hurts a little, the actual damage is negligible...just as it is for a chin block.:)

In real life, perhaps a block is more like a Roll with the Punch. The Block that avoids all damage is, perhaps, a more cinematic maneuver. But Hero's defaults have always tended more to the cinematic than realistic. Isn't that even in the rules themselves in 5e?

[megaplayboy]

Just for the record, pain <> Stun and/or Body damage. If you wake up in the morning with a sore back, it doesn't mean you're down 1 Stun for the day. Stun damage is damage that tends to move the person towards a state of unconsciousness. Body damage is damage that tends to move the person towards a state of injury and/or death. A sore forearm from blocking a kick does neither. Now, in a realistic campaign, after you've blocked a few punches and kicks with your limbs, there might be some penalties due to soreness. In the extreme case of very powerful blows, there might even be a point or two of body damage due to heavy bruising. But otherwise, the fact that blocking hurts a bit doesn't automatically mean you're rolling with the blow or taking stun damage. YMMV (but it really shouldn't, honestly :p )

[Hugh Neilson]

Just for the record, pain <> Stun and/or Body damage. If you wake up in the morning with a sore back, it doesn't mean you're down 1 Stun for the day. Stun damage is damage that tends to move the person towards a state of unconsciousness. Body damage is damage that tends to move the person towards a state of injury and/or death. A sore forearm from blocking a kick does neither. Now, in a realistic campaign, after you've blocked a few punches and kicks with your limbs, there might be some penalties due to soreness. In the extreme case of very powerful blows, there might even be a point or two of body damage due to heavy bruising. But otherwise, the fact that blocking hurts a bit doesn't automatically mean you're rolling with the blow or taking stun damage. YMMV (but it really shouldn't, honestly :p )

Simplistically, pain is your body's way of telling your brain "stop doing that - it is damaging me". Given that, I suggest a link of pain to STUN (and even BOD) is a reasonable, if simplistic, extrapolation.

[megaplayboy]

Simplistically, pain is your body's way of telling your brain "stop doing that - it is damaging me". Given that, I suggest a link of pain to STUN (and even BOD) is a reasonable, if simplistic, extrapolation.

Well, like I said, you're not down 1 point of stun just because you wake up with a sore back in the morning. Correlation not being causation and all that. ;)

[ghost-angel]

I plan on leaving it in the hands of one the most important and fun aspects of the system - SFX Interaction. Sometimes your SFX work for you and sometimes against you.

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, like I said, you're not down 1 point of stun just because you wake up with a sore back in the morning. Correlation not being causation and all that. ;)

Maybe you are. I doubt any research studies have been undertaken to determine whether someone with a sore back, or other chronic pain, can be more easily rendered unconscious through application of violence.

Or maybe that minor pain is insufficient to cause even 1 STUN damage, just as a minor cut, scrape or bruise does not equate to BOD damage, or even STUN damage.

In the interests of having a playable game, we accept some compromises. One the the quantifiability of both Stun and BOD, which does not exist in real life. Another is a vast reduction in the granularity of damage from both sources. The Hero system rules don't do a good job of simulating a world where some people fall from a plane and survive, while others slip on the sidewalk and break a hip, or even die from head trauma, or a world where some individuals manage to drive for an hour or more to a hospital while losing blood from a severe injury, while others pass out from donating blood, or even from having a blood sample taken.

[Beast]

you could but it would mean having a set percentage die roll
to survive a 30,000 foot fall
1 in a million just roll 7d10each a different color to denote order and you look for ooo,ooo,1
it would also mean how granular did you want to go with everyday life



Maybe you are. I doubt any research studies have been undertaken to determine whether someone with a sore back, or other chronic pain, can be more easily rendered unconscious through application of violence.

Or maybe that minor pain is insufficient to cause even 1 STUN damage, just as a minor cut, scrape or bruise does not equate to BOD damage, or even STUN damage.

In the interests of having a playable game, we accept some compromises. One the the quantifiability of both Stun and BOD, which does not exist in real life. Another is a vast reduction in the granularity of damage from both sources. The Hero system rules don't do a good job of simulating a world where some people fall from a plane and survive, while others slip on the sidewalk and break a hip, or even die from head trauma, or a world where some individuals manage to drive for an hour or more to a hospital while losing blood from a severe injury, while others pass out from donating blood, or even from having a blood sample taken.

[StGrimblefig]

Well, like I said, you're not down 1 point of stun just because you wake up with a sore back in the morning. Correlation not being causation and all that. ;)


Maybe you are. I doubt any research studies have been undertaken to determine whether someone with a sore back, or other chronic pain, can be more easily rendered unconscious through application of violence.
Heh. Thanks, guys. You just gave me a great idea for a "mad scientist" villain. Now I don't feel so foolish for continuing to read all of this pointless bickering.


"Let that man go, villain!"
"Eh, what? I am not a villain, now go away!"
"You are putting that man in a great deal of pain!"
"Listen, fancypants, I am busy doing SCIENCE! Unless you are here to help, I will ask you to kindly vacate the premises. And please use the door, this time."

[director13]

The Hero system rules don't do a good job of simulating a world where some people fall from a plane and survive, while others slip on the sidewalk and break a hip, or even die from head trauma.

"Luck, Unluck, and a GM that doesn't care what his players think" is mighty close, though.

[director13]

"Let that man go, villain!"
"Eh, what? I am not a villain, now go away!"
"You are putting that man in a great deal of pain!"
"Listen, fancypants, I am busy doing SCIENCE! Unless you are here to help, I will ask you to kindly vacate the premises. And please use the door, this time."


"Back off man, I'm a scientist."

[archermoo]

The Hero system rules don't do a good job of simulating a world where some people fall from a plane and survive, while others slip on the sidewalk and break a hip, or even die from head trauma, or a world where some individuals manage to drive for an hour or more to a hospital while losing blood from a severe injury, while others pass out from donating blood, or even from having a blood sample taken.

That's because the Hero system isn't a simulator for reality. It is an RPG.

[bigbywolfe]

That's kind of unfair since the part you quoted was not actually the point he was making.

Maybe you are. I doubt any research studies have been undertaken to determine whether someone with a sore back, or other chronic pain, can be more easily rendered unconscious through application of violence.

Or maybe that minor pain is insufficient to cause even 1 STUN damage, just as a minor cut, scrape or bruise does not equate to BOD damage, or even STUN damage.

In the interests of having a playable game, we accept some compromises. One the the quantifiability of both Stun and BOD, which does not exist in real life. Another is a vast reduction in the granularity of damage from both sources.
Emphasis added by me for what I think is the main point. The part you quoted him on was basically an example of this point, not a suggestion that Hero should model those things.

EDIT: Probably should have quoted this lead in as well...
Simplistically, pain is your body's way of telling your brain "stop doing that - it is damaging me". Given that, I suggest a link of pain to STUN (and even BOD) is a reasonable, if simplistic, extrapolation.

[steamteck]

So an unreasonable application of a rule that, under reasonable circumstances, would be cinematic and cool ruins suspension of disbelief. Got it.
.

Nope you don't have it at all. I think the chin block is a stupid sfx in any event, even with a pair that it would be possible. Its applying the rule in a nonsensical confusing counter intuitive very uncool way. I'd agree with roll with the blow or "gasp" really just making the character that tough and bracing for the blow.

[ghost-angel]

Nope you don't have it at all. I think the chin block is a stupid sfx in any event, even with a pair that it would be possible. Its applying the rule in a nonsensical confusing counter intuitive very uncool way.

Says you.

I personally think it'd be way cool if my Barbarian blocked the Gladiator's fist with his mighty square jaw and caught the poor guy so off guard I got to hit him first next. . .

Or better yet! My shining knight used the Sheer Awesomeness of his chin cleft to deflect an arrow!

[steamteck]

How does "normal human" Daredevil Block Grond's punch? There has never been a rule that says "you can't block an attack with more than X DC's more than your STR could do".

Hmmm...you have to maneuver to get another part of your body in the way of your attacker. If you succeed, the damage you take is reduced. That sure sounds like "Roll with the punch".

In real life, perhaps a block is more like a Roll with the Punch. The Block that avoids all damage is, perhaps, a more cinematic maneuver. But Hero's defaults have always tended more to the cinematic than realistic. Isn't that even in the rules themselves in 5e?


hmmm. Indeed. There may be some house rules coming up on this upon reflection. These issues have bothered me for some time and now I'll see what I can come up with.

[steamteck]

Says you.

I personally think it'd be way cool if my Barbarian blocked the Gladiator's fist with his mighty square jaw and caught the poor guy so off guard I got to hit him first next. . .

!

yeah it would be pretty cool effect but not as a block. As sheer toughness mega cool! yeah I understand you like it I hate it.

[prestidigitator]

Hmm. I can easily see room for a Maneuver that lets you boost/Push your natural PD/ED at the cost of a DCV loss or something; bracing or tensing for impact or whatever. Maybe an optional additional rule for allowing Damage Resistance or Armor to be Pushed along with it (Force Field already can be Pushed normally, since it costs End by default--at least when the GM thinks it is reasonable).

[BobGreenwade]

I do want to say that I like the new method for determining Maximum Range, specifically for the reasons given (it's just much simpler).

[Alibear]

Hmmm...you have to maneuver to get another part of your body in the way of your attacker. If you succeed, the damage you take is reduced. That sure sounds like "Roll with the punch".

In real life, perhaps a block is more like a Roll with the Punch. The Block that avoids all damage is, perhaps, a more cinematic maneuver. But Hero's defaults have always tended more to the cinematic than realistic. Isn't that even in the rules themselves in 5e?

I've been thinking that since I started karate, it's nigh on impossible to block a punch in reality, unless the guy you're fighting is an idiot and telegraphing his punches. You just gotta cover up and hope to negate the damage as best you can. Or better still hit the other guy first.

I treat most of those blokes I learn in karate as arm breaking maneuvers.

[bigbywolfe]

Really? That wasn't my experience at all. Granted I only took it for 2 years.

[Alibear]

Really? That wasn't my experience at all. Granted I only took it for 2 years.


Did you ever get in a fight outwith the dojo? No rules no foreknowledge of what is coming? I worked in a really rough bar in Scotland and often ended up helping out the doorstaff.

Just loads of screaming and fists flying. In my experience there is just no time to react when you're toe to toe with a guy and he's trying to punch your head off. Best to cover up, keep your head down with your chin tucked away, and hope to last longer than the other guy.

[bigbywolfe]

I have indeed blocked a punch to my face twice, though both times the person was drunk and I was not (or not as anyway) and one time they got me with a follow up punch. I’ve also leg blocked more than one kick/knee attempt at my groin, usually to the detriment of my shins, but hey, it beats the alternative. Then again, drunken, preppy college idiots aren’t anything compared to wild NEDs or Soccer Hooligans (or do you say football hooligans?) either.

And for the record, I’m not much of a fighter, or a tough guy at all (my pain tolerance is kinda sad). I have a close friend who has been the target of several (attempted) hate crimes.

[ghost-angel]

I'm trying to figure out why "reality" is even in this discussion...

[bigbywolfe]

Because several people have voiced complaints about Chin-Blocking and/or Non-Contact Blocking, and these have mostly been based on “reality”. Granted, some have no problem with Chin-Blocking, per se, just with using the Block Maneuver to represent it, but I think that is still based on their idea of what a “realistic” or maybe simply a “reasonable” SFX of a “block” is.

[ghost-angel]

Yet... laserbeams from peoples eyes is fine.

Whatever.

[bigbywolfe]

Hey, I'm not making the argument.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Yet... laserbeams from peoples eyes is fine.

Whatever.Ah! But they're paying POINTS for the laser-beams! That makes all the difference in the world! ;)

[Hugh Neilson]

I personally think it'd be way cool if my Barbarian blocked the Gladiator's fist with his mighty square jaw and caught the poor guy so off guard I got to hit him first next. . .


yeah it would be pretty cool effect but not as a block. As sheer toughness mega cool! yeah I understand you like it I hate it.

So Character #1 wants his character to be able to deflect HTH attacks (ignoring the new Range rules) by smacking them aside with his good right hand, while Character #2 wants to Chin Block.

From the above, Character #2 would be required to perform this maneuver using sheer physical toughness. Let's put some numbers to it. He needs to buy some extra Armor, probably with an RSR (OCV vs OCV). Call that -3/4. It requires he use his attack action each phase he wants the extra defenses, so let's call that -1/2. It needs to be more or less a sure thing. Lets assume the Barbarian wants to do this bare handed, and he can expect to be up against HTH attacks of up to 4d6 (a greatsword with full adders), in his loincloth. We'll give him 8 PD, since he's tough.

OK, he needs 24 PD Armor, so that's 36 points. Tack on another +88 PD to reduce mximum STUN to nil (120 - 24 armor - 8 PD). That's 124 AP. Applying the above limitations, that's 55 points. It better be a VERY cool trick - it soaked up over a third of his 150 starting points. And he still needs to buy a huge bonus PRE attack to force the blocked target to hesitate so he acts first next phase.

Character 1 can buy 18 levels (!) with Block for the same price. Or he can buy a lot fewer levels of Block, spend the rest of his points elsewhere and be a much more powerful character. And he can Block a Giant with a 6d6 HKA completely, or a warrior with a Flaming greatsword based on ED, or AP or Penetrating attacks.

They are getting the same mechanical benefits. They should, in my view, pay the same cost to have the same benefits. The easiest way to accomplish this to chalk it up to different special effects for the same mechanical maneuver.


Hmm. I can easily see room for a Maneuver that lets you boost/Push your natural PD/ED at the cost of a DCV loss or something; bracing or tensing for impact or whatever. Maybe an optional additional rule for allowing Damage Resistance or Armor to be Pushed along with it (Force Field already can be Pushed normally, since it costs End by default--at least when the GM thinks it is reasonable).

A Push is very different from a Boost. If my Brick (who always gets hit anyway) can bump up his defenses (maybe significantly) by bracing or tensing for impact or whatever, at the cost of loss of DCV, and maybe some END, expect him to do that a lot.

[Hugh Neilson]

Ah! But they're paying POINTS for the laser-beams! That makes all the difference in the world! ;)

So a Martial Chin Block would be OK, then. Or +1 level with Block - Chin Block.

[Derek Hiemforth]

So a Martial Chin Block would be OK, then. Or +1 level with Block - Chin Block.Or, y'know, we could trust that the campaigns using these rules all have GMs, and that the GMs will realize that a Chin Block might be an appropriate SFX for Block in a 4-color Supers game, but not in a grittily realistic Cops and Crooks game... :winkgrin:

[Hugh Neilson]

Or, y'know, we could trust that the campaigns using these rules all have GMs, and that the GMs will realize that a Chin Block might be an appropriate SFX for Block in a 4-color Supers game, but not in a grittily realistic Cops and Crooks game... :winkgrin:

Which brings us neatly full circle, doesn't it?

[Doug Limmer]

Yet... laserbeams from peoples eyes is fine.If you were using laser beams from people's eyes as the special effect for your Life Support: Diminished Sleep, then yes, I wouldn't be fine with it. :)

[megaplayboy]

Nope you don't have it at all. I think the chin block is a stupid sfx in any event, even with a pair that it would be possible. Its applying the rule in a nonsensical confusing counter intuitive very uncool way. I'd agree with roll with the blow or "gasp" really just making the character that tough and bracing for the blow.

Somebody is trying to punch me in the jaw or in my nose, which I know from experience will hurt like hell. I don't have time to put an arm in the way, or duck completely out of the way. The most efficient thing for me to do in the latter case is drop my chin down to my chest and let them strike the hard part of my head instead, effectively negating most of the damage the punch would have done. In the former case, what boxers actually do is drop their chin down to their chest and turn it slightly into their shoulder--even if the punch somehow connects with their chin, it's not going to snap their head back and hurt them badly the way it would if their chin were out and exposed. Instead, it's going to do negligible damage, because they have effectively negated most of the force/effectiveness of the blow.
This isn't even the cinematic "chin block", it's the real world counterpart--shifting the head to minimize/deflect/block significant damage. It's not moving out of the way of the blow, ala dodge, and it's not quite the same as bracing for impact or rolling with the blow. It's most similar to a block, imo.

"...and that's all I have to say about that." :D

[Netzilla]

Somebody is trying to punch me in the jaw or in my nose, which I know from experience will hurt like hell. I don't have time to put an arm in the way, or duck completely out of the way. The most efficient thing for me to do in the latter case is drop my chin down to my chest and let them strike the hard part of my head instead, effectively negating most of the damage the punch would have done. In the former case, what boxers actually do is drop their chin down to their chest and turn it slightly into their shoulder--even if the punch somehow connects with their chin, it's not going to snap their head back and hurt them badly the way it would if their chin were out and exposed. Instead, it's going to do negligible damage, because they have effectively negated most of the force/effectiveness of the blow.
This isn't even the cinematic "chin block", it's the real world counterpart--shifting the head to minimize/deflect/block significant damage. It's not moving out of the way of the blow, ala dodge, and it's not quite the same as bracing for impact or rolling with the blow. It's most similar to a block, imo.

"...and that's all I have to say about that." :D

Beat me to the Boxing reference. The only additional thing I was going to mention was that boxers spend a lot of time practicing to bob-and-weave, slip the jab and other "not be where the punch lands" moves and yet the boxing style in the UMA doesn't give them Martial Dodge. Makes one wonder why not.

I trust that SL (and AA in the original Ninja Hero) realize how much time boxers spend on this, so I doubt it was an oversite. One of the reasons that boxers practice these moves they way they practice them is because they all set up the counter-punch. Also, these manuevers are much harder to pull of successfully against another boxer that attacks in flurries. So, you have A) damage avoidance, B) set up for the counter-hit and C) a harder time avoiding lots of attacks. Sounds a lot like Block to me (negate the attack, initiative advantage and penalties against mulitple attacks) even though the boxer is actually "dodging" the blows.

[nexus]

Or, y'know, we could trust that the campaigns using these rules all have GMs, and that the GMs will realize that a Chin Block might be an appropriate SFX for Block in a 4-color Supers game, but not in a gritty realistic Cops and Crooks game... :winkgrin:

That's the right answer but the people that are saying they wouldn't use the "chin block" at all are getting allot of "You're doing it wrong" for their opinion. It's an optional sfx limitation on a maneuver similar the suggestion in 6th edition that you need some kind of object or whatever to block certain sfx of ranged attacks. This seems to just be bickering over who's opinion is right.

And I have nothing against the Chin Block, for the record.

[archermoo]

That's the right answer but the people that are saying they wouldn't use the "chin block" at all are getting allot of "You're doing it wrong" for their opinion. It's an optional sfx limitation on a maneuver similar the suggestion in 6th edition that you need some kind of object or whatever to block certain sfx of ranged attacks. This seems to just be bickering over who's opinion is right.

Whereas what I've been seeing is at least some of the people who want Block and Dodge to only be usable with limited SFX telling the rest of us the we're doing it wrong.

The rules don't put those kind of limitations on the maneuvers. I at least have not been telling anyone that if they want to limit what SFX they are willing to allow for Blocks and Dodges that they are doing anything wrong. I've just been pointing out that such limitations aren't part of RAW.

[nexus]

Whereas what I've been seeing is at least some of the people who want Block and Dodge to only be usable with limited SFX telling the rest of us the we're doing it wrong.


What does that have to do with discussion of whether or not a particular poster thinks the chin block sfx is acceptable or not? I wasn't committing on that issue in the post you quoted but specifically about the chin block argument.



The rules don't put those kind of limitations on the maneuvers.


I want to see how strongly worded the text is about ranged deflections and objects before I make any calls on that. The snippet we have seems a bit heavy handed.

But you're right normally the rules don't but GMs can and do. Whatever someone does in their game isn't going to change the book. I'm not going to use the free Ranged Block but that's going to change the text.



I at least have not been telling anyone that if they want to limit what SFX they are willing to allow for Blocks and Dodges that they are doing anything wrong. I've just been pointing out that such limitations aren't part of RAW.

And I didn't name you specifically.

[prestidigitator]

Whereas what I've been seeing is at least some of the people who want Block and Dodge to only be usable with limited SFX telling the rest of us the we're doing it wrong.

The rules don't put those kind of limitations on the maneuvers. I at least have not been telling anyone that if they want to limit what SFX they are willing to allow for Blocks and Dodges that they are doing anything wrong. I've just been pointing out that such limitations aren't part of RAW.

Hey, I haven't been telling people they're doing it wrong either. I happen to believe there is a higher connection between the Maneuvers and the physical behavior in RAW, and I'm happy with that myself. So my opinion is that those who wish to call "taking it on the chin" a Dodge or dodging out of the way a Block are using house rules. But I'm not saying there is anything necessarily wrong with that.

[Netzilla]

That's the right answer but the people that are saying they wouldn't use the "chin block" at all are getting allot of "You're doing it wrong" for their opinion. It's an optional sfx limitation on a maneuver similar the suggestion in 6th edition that you need some kind of object or whatever to block certain sfx of ranged attacks. This seems to just be bickering over who's opinion is right.

And I have nothing against the Chin Block, for the record.

Actually, I think the argument has been less about people playing the game "wrong" and more about how the core rules intend Block and Dodge to work. Since official write-ups include things like "chin block" as SFX for a Block (in UMA and Pulp Hero at least as I recall) its interpretation does seem official to me. I suppose one could argue that it is an 'Optional Rule' in the same way as using rPD & rPD for "Combat Luck" is an 'Optional Rule' (maybe the argument for "chin block" as an Optional Rule is a bit stronger since it's in supplements rather than 5ER itself).

[steamteck]

Whereas what I've been seeing is at least some of the people who want Block and Dodge to only be usable with limited SFX telling the rest of us the we're doing it wrong.

The rules don't put those kind of limitations on the maneuvers. I at least have not been telling anyone that if they want to limit what SFX they are willing to allow for Blocks and Dodges that they are doing anything wrong. I've just been pointing out that such limitations aren't part of RAW.


Gol dangit. I never ever say you guys are doing it wrong if you mean me. I'm saying it makes no sense to me to do it that way, period. You can do whatever you want in your own games but I will not be shy about saying it makes no sense to me.

I'm a purist who thinks the maneuvers are find labeled as they are and should do what they say. Under my game this is how it works.go have fun but you won't convince me to do your way.

[steamteck]

Somebody is trying to punch me in the jaw or in my nose, which I know from experience will hurt like hell. I don't have time to put an arm in the way, or duck completely out of the way. The most efficient thing for me to do in the latter case is drop my chin down to my chest and let them strike the hard part of my head instead, effectively negating most of the damage the punch would have done. In the former case, what boxers actually do is drop their chin down to their chest and turn it slightly into their shoulder--even if the punch somehow connects with their chin, it's not going to snap their head back and hurt them badly the way it would if their chin were out and exposed. Instead, it's going to do negligible damage, because they have effectively negated most of the force/effectiveness of the blow.
This isn't even the cinematic "chin block", it's the real world counterpart--shifting the head to minimize/deflect/block significant damage. It's not moving out of the way of the blow, ala dodge, and it's not quite the same as bracing for impact or rolling with the blow. It's most similar to a block, imo.

"...and that's all I have to say about that." :D


Again sounds like rolling with the blow is closer IMO but whatever works for your group.

[megaplayboy]

Again sounds like rolling with the blow is closer IMO but whatever works for your group.

The problem I have with rolling with the blow is that:
1) RWTB increases the chance of knockback, which runs counter to the sfx.
2) It reduces damage by half, but half damage can still be more substantial than what the real world effect is (or the apparent effect in the fictional/genre counterpart).

[steamteck]

The problem I have with rolling with the blow is that:
1) RWTB increases the chance of knockback, which runs counter to the sfx.
2) It reduces damage by half, but half damage can still be more substantial than what the real world effect is (or the apparent effect in the fictional/genre counterpart).


Yep,I can see the problem with the knockback. But the knockback should be based on the 1/2 damage anyway shouldn't it?

[megaplayboy]

Yep,I can see the problem with the knockback. But the knockback should be based on the 1/2 damage anyway shouldn't it?

Not that I recall. You roll one less die for knockback and subtract from the body of the attack. The half damage works similarly to damage reduction, so it shouldn't have any effect on the total body for purposes of KB calculation.

I suppose you could brace against KB, but that doesn't really blend well with RWTB, either.
Obviously, YMMV, but to me the block mechanic seems to fit best for this.

[Hyper-Man]

Yep,I can see the problem with the knockback. But the knockback should be based on the 1/2 damage anyway shouldn't it?

from 5er page 396:


To Roll With A Punch (or any other type of physical attack, at the GM’s discretion) the character must make an Attack Roll against his attacker’s OCV (like Block); this roll has a -2 OCV penalty. If successful, the character takes only half the STUN and BODY that the attack would have normally done. (Halve the total after defenses have been applied.) The attacker also rolls one less die for Knockback (making it more likely the character takes Knockback).

[ghost-angel]

So much for the separation of Special Effects and Mechanics. Shame.

[archermoo]

Gol dangit. I never ever say you guys are doing it wrong if you mean me. I'm saying it makes no sense to me to do it that way, period. You can do whatever you want in your own games but I will not be shy about saying it makes no sense to me.

I'm a purist who thinks the maneuvers are find labeled as they are and should do what they say. Under my game this is how it works.go have fun but you won't convince me to do your way.

Understood. And I've got no problems with people doing things however they want in their games. To me it makes no less sense to allow something that uses the maneuver Block but doesn't fit the classical definition of blocking something than it does to allow something to use the power Energy Blast that doesn't fit the classical definition of a blast of energy.

So what I've been saying basically breaks down into two categories. First, that I don't see a problem with letting a wide variety of SFX be covered by the maneuvers that are labeled Block and Dodge. I've never seen those labels as being any more restrictive than the names of some of the Powers are. And second that there is a fair amount of support that such a loose interpretation was intended to be available in the rules as written. If people don't want to allow that flexibility that is certainly their choice. But there is nothing in the rules that I am aware of that requires it.

[steamteck]

If people don't want to allow that flexibility that is certainly their choice. But there is nothing in the rules that I am aware of that requires it.

Quite true part of the beauty of the system is its flexible enough to cover both views.