Abort to block

[JohnOSpencer]

Would you allow someone to abort to block if they were being attacked at range and had nothing to block with?

Reason this might come up: I've been translating some characters to 6E and many of them have (or now have) several levels with Martial Arts and Martial Block, but do not have Martial Dodge. So, as long as you have one CSL with Martial Arts, the Martial Block would provide as much DCV as a normal dodge.

I'm on the fence. It seems kinda weird to me. Maybe a little too 'meta-gamey'.

[Alibear]

Even though a Block can be many things, indeed you have to move to block properly, but no without something to block with I would not allow a player to 'block' thin air simply to increase his dcv.

[Chris Goodwin]

In 6E you have to buy Deflection to be able to Block ranged attacks. (Edit: I stand corrected.) Whether or not you need to have an object with which to block is an open question, but depends on (deep breath) common sense, dramatic sense, and special effects. I'm not sure off the top of my head whether and how Martial Block interacts with Deflection, though (not in front of my PDFs).

[prestidigitator]

In 6E you have to buy Deflection to be able to Block ranged attacks. Whether or not you need to have an object with which to block is an open question, but depends on (deep breath) common sense, dramatic sense, and special effects. I'm not sure off the top of my head whether and how Martial Block interacts with Deflection, though (not in front of my PDFs).

Not true. In 6E you can Block ranged attacks without the help of any Power. Deflection allows you to Block (ranged) attacks at range. Meaning if some dude attacks your friend who is across the room from you, you could Block that.

[ghost-angel]

See Blocking Ranged Attacks 6E2 p59.

[Chris Goodwin]

D'oh!

As I said, I'm not in front of my PDFs.

[tesuji]

Would you allow someone to abort to block if they were being attacked at range and had nothing to block with?
.

In 6e you can block ranged attacks tho there are a lot of "GM can say no" statements regarding it, so its more a matter of sfx.

However iirc levels and maneuvers with hth attacks dont count for blocking ranged attacks so i dont think, could be wrong, that martial block applies to a block ranged attack.

But for my money i would allow someone to block say a thrown spear but likely not a bullet without something to block with.

On the other hand, a super with super-level defenses vs any "normal weapon" I would almost certainly allow a block, counting it as part of the "real weapon vs supers" limitation - depending on genre.

[tesuji]

In 6E you have to buy Deflection to be able to Block ranged attacks.

Actually no... in 6e you have to buy deflection to block ranged attacks AT RANGE. ^e2 59 allows blocking of ranged attacks by anyone, in more general sense, though has "gm may say no" type uts for sfx issues.

[Hugh Neilson]

But for my money i would allow someone to block say a thrown spear but likely not a bullet without something to block with.

To me, the strength behind this change is the removal of SFX from missile deflection ("You took EB - hurled rock? Why? That's way easier to deflect than a laser beam, and they both cost the same"), yet the most common suggestion I see is to go back to the old SFX differentiation.

In my view, if some attacks are easier, and others harder, to Block, those that are easier than the default (wherever that is set) to Block should be reduced in price, and those more difficult to Block should have a price increase.

If I define my character's Hand Attack as:

- rocky fists
- bullets in his arms that he can fire through his fingers, but they have no range
- a LaserFist

these can all be blocked in exactly the same way. Why should putting Range on these attacks make some more difficult to block than others?

[tesuji]

In my view, if some attacks are easier, and others harder, to Block, those that are easier than the default (wherever that is set) to Block should be reduced in price, and those more difficult to Block should have a price increase.


I would agree but with the saveat that the value for such a limitation/advantage might be -0!

Whether or not "my shuriken can be blocked" is worth less points on a 1d6 rka shuriken as opposed to a 1d6 rka gun is a matter of genre and how frequently it will matter. Once in a blue moon someone blocks my shuriken is not going to earn you a lim worth more than -0. For my frame of reference, if something is worth points I will want it to occur at LEAST as often as the rarest complications - once every five sessions or so, If the thing is still a partial success, more often than that.

If its rarer than that, Its SFX or -0 lim/adv.

So like most things its a choice.

Take a can be blocked lim and guess what, you will be blocked, quite a bit in fact. You insisted on it after all. A block is still a win (or draw) for you since they lose an attack so its not like a wasted shot.

Dont take the lim, guess what? You are rarely blocked, likely only by those for whom blocking is a very strong concept thing.

[Ice9]

It is true though, that blocking a laser barehanded makes as much sense as blocking a lightsaber barehanded - being Ranged doesn't make it any more or less plausible. If anything, maybe the default should be:

-1/4 - Easy to block; anyone can block this, barehanded (rocks, clubs).
+0 - Normal; you need a held object or very tough hands to block this (bullets, swords).
+1/4 - Hard to block; you need something special to block this (lasers, lightsabers).

If you buy a laser without Hard to Block, then you get one of those slow-moving "lasers" seen in space opera that people can deflect with a handy hyperspanner.

[ghost-angel]

I'm placing all decisions on what can and can't be Blocked in my Genre Emulation Box.

After all Bruce Leroy caught a bullet in his teeth.

If it fits the genre, I'll either come up with some purchase or just allow it. If it doesn't fit the genre there isn't a cost structure on the planet that will work.

I like the RAW stance on this: The GM decides how it works in his game, but the Mechanics allow it and here's how.

[archermoo]

It is true though, that blocking a laser barehanded makes as much sense as blocking a lightsaber barehanded - being Ranged doesn't make it any more or less plausible. If anything, maybe the default should be:

-1/4 - Easy to block; anyone can block this, barehanded (rocks, clubs).
+0 - Normal; you need a held object or very tough hands to block this (bullets, swords).
+1/4 - Hard to block; you need something special to block this (lasers, lightsabers).

If you buy a laser without Hard to Block, then you get one of those slow-moving "lasers" seen in space opera that people can deflect with a handy hyperspanner.

Just because something uses the "Block" game element doesn't necessarily mean that it has to have been done by physically interposing something between you and the attack. "Block" is the "I'm actively doing something to stop this specific attack from hitting me" maneuver. "Dodge" is the "I'm passively making myself very difficult to hit" maneuver.

[Ice9]

In which case the sfx would be mostly irrelevant, although I could still see especially fast-moving attacks having extra OCV, only to oppose Block.

In either case, being Ranged or not has little to do with it.

[archermoo]

In which case the sfx would be mostly irrelevant, although I could still see especially fast-moving attacks having extra OCV, only to oppose Block.

In either case, being Ranged or not has little to do with it.

That's kind of the point. SFX should be mostly irrelevant at the system level. That kind of thing should be relevant at the campaign level. :)

[prestidigitator]

Just because something uses the "Block" game element doesn't necessarily mean that it has to have been done by physically interposing something between you and the attack. "Block" is the "I'm actively doing something to stop this specific attack from hitting me" maneuver. "Dodge" is the "I'm passively making myself very difficult to hit" maneuver.

We've been through this argument several times. I don't agree. From past discussions, many others don't either. I'd even go so far as to say the game system doesn't agree with you (still in 6E). Otherwise there wouldn't be phrases under Block like, "Blocks only affect Ranged attacks with the GM’s permission, according to special rules (see below)," and, "the GM must consider common sense, dramatic
sense, and game balance when determining what attacks a character can Block. For example, although a character could Block a Move Through performed against him by another character, he probably can’t Block a Move Through performed by a Vehicle," and, "If appropriate, the GM can assign a penalty (-1 to -3) to Block if one character is using a melee weapon and the other is not (in other words, he’s performing an unarmed Block against an armed opponent, trying to use his bare hands to stop a weapon). This is most common in Heroic campaigns."

Heck, you can even Block for someone else, which would make absolutely no sense if the Block, "had the SFX of a dodge."

[Hugh Neilson]

Heck, you can even Block for someone else, which would make absolutely no sense if the Block, "had the SFX of a dodge."

You've never seen one character shove another out of the way of an incoming attack in the source material? One character prevents another from being struck by an attack. How is this done in Hero, if not using Block?

[prestidigitator]

You've never seen one character shove another out of the way of an incoming attack in the source material? One character prevents another from being struck by an attack. How is this done in Hero, if not using Block?

Probably by Grabbing a willing target and executing a Dive for Cover or something. Or perhaps by Shoving them. In any case, it should activate any Damage Shield your friend has, against you. Does that make sense for a Block against their attacker?

[ghost-angel]

Sigh.... This argument needs to die. Messily if possible. There's two camps:

1) Block must actually be some kind of physical intervention
2) Block is a Mechanical Thing to proactively attempt to avoid being hit, regardless of the actual description used.

We know where everyone sits. If you have any questions if a particular thing belongs in the game you're in well - it's your f-ing game, talk it over with the GM. We're not going to solve anything here going around and around and around on the same topic.

[Peregrine]

We're not going to solve anything here going around and around and around on the same topic.

No matter what the topic. Especially if the topic is "I hate the way [fill in the blank] got changed from 5th to 6th".

[prestidigitator]

We're not going to solve anything here going around and around and around on the same topic.

Probably not, no. I just hate to see people take one viewpoint of an issue which is clearly not agreed upon here (nor by the rule book), and use it as the axiom on which to build an argument as if it were a foregone conclusion.

[Derek Hiemforth]

There's two camps:

1) Block must actually be some kind of physical intervention
2) Block is a Mechanical Thing to proactively attempt to avoid being hit, regardless of the actual description used.And since I'm feeling mischievous tonight, I'll note that one of these two interpretations uses an "It's this way and only this way" approach, while the other uses a "Start with effect, and work back to cause" approach. Deciding which sounds more in keeping with the HERO System's overall approach is left as an exercise for the reader, but it seems painfully obvious to me... ;)

[archermoo]

Probably not, no. I just hate to see people take one viewpoint of an issue which is clearly not agreed upon here (nor by the rule book), and use it as the axiom on which to build an argument as if it were a foregone conclusion.

People were taking the POV that you agree with. I was simply pointing out that there is no reason to assume that is the only POV available.

And I'll point out that I'm not saying that using the Block maneuver to mean that you are physically interposing an object between you and an attack is an incorrect usage. I'm just saying that it isn't the only correct usage. If you don't agree with me, fine. Don't run your games that way. I'm not going to try and force you to use a more "reason from effects" methodology if you don't want to. But I will keep pointing out to other people that there are other ways to do it.

I'm sorry that you don't like me pointing out other options to people. But not sorry enough to stop doing it. Feel free to tell them that you don't like those other options. But please don't tell me that I shouldn't point them out.