RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

[SteveZilla]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

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

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

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

 

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

[SteveZilla]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Which Block maneuver is Seeker using in this example?

 

Ogre’s OCV is 6' date=' and Seeker’s OCV is 11. Ogre needs a 6+11-11=6 or less.[/quote']

 

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

 

Ogre rolls a 10 so Seeker’s Block was successful' date=' ::snip::[/quote']

 

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

 

...however' date=' Ogre can deadlift an aircraft carrier and Seeker has about 1/128th his Strength (60 STR vs. 25 STR).[/quote']

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Martial Block

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[SteveZilla]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

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

 

Ogre's OCV: 6

Seeker's DCV: 11(?)

 

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

 

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

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

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

 

Ogre's OCV: 6

Seeker's DCV: 11(?)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Robyn]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

Well' date=' if the goal was to make Block less powerful, it would appear to have succeeded...[/quote']

 

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

 

Under this proposed system' date=' Seeker actually takes 8 MORE damage, on average, if he uses a phase to block than if he just uses his DCV.[/quote']

 

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

[prestidigitator]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

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

 

Ogre's OCV: 6

Seeker's DCV: 11(?)

 

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

 

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

I hardly call an 11 DCV, "just standing there."

[prestidigitator]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

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

Except that a parry is just a block with a weapon rather than a shield or body part. It might be a little easier to pull off, but the system mechanics in place for weapons of differing sizes seem to already handle that pretty well. Why create two completely different mechanics for the same thing?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

I believe the goal was to make Block more realistic; less powerful is simply a consequence of that' date=' with the current implementation.[/quote']

 

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

 

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

 

Exactly.

[SteveZilla]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I think this method might be preferable because:

1. It doesn't create new maneuvers that the players have to factor into their characters.

2. It keeps the mechanics of a Block the same while still making it harder for Skill to overcome Strength.

[ghost-angel]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

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

 

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

[Rkane_1]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

An unarmed person can block a sword without cutting themselves - by grabbing/deflecting their arm. Presdigitator has got the right idea there.

With added difficulty, I agree. An inside Block would do the trick.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

? Please explain and use an example

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Rkane_1]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

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

 

I disagree. Please hear me out.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Rkane_1]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Rkane_1]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

Some options upon reflection...

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Rkane_1]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

So how does a character who deflects the blow' date=' rather than simply interposing a limb, acquire that ability under your modified system? [/quote']

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

No damage done.

 

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

 

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

 

Please reconsider with the math just shown to you.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

No damage done.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

*snip*

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Yep....true.

 

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

 

Ya lost me. Please explain.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Overall

 

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

 

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

[Rkane_1]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

For those interested in the revision...

 

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

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

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

 

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

 

What are their STR and DC levels' date=' please? For me to show the math I would need this info.[/quote']

 

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

 

The Blocker has Martial Block which is his 10 PD+6PD for the Maneuver and with 4 DC's' date=' another +12PD. The total is 28 PD....[/quote']

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Rkane_1]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

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

 

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

 

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

[prestidigitator]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I think this method might be preferable because:

1. It doesn't create new maneuvers that the players have to factor into their characters.

2. It keeps the mechanics of a Block the same while still making it harder for Skill to overcome Strength.

I kinda like that one as an optional maneuver penalty. It's simple, and could interact well with the penalty due to differing weapon sizes. I probably wouldn't flip it and give a bonus to a stronger blocker myself though.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

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

 

Does anyone else recall the specifics?

[Utech]

Re: RKane_!'s heretical and Audacious Block variant

 

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