Rkane_1 Posted June 15, 2006 Report Share Posted June 15, 2006 After some reflection and some very good input from those on the boards here (Thanks especially to nex, Robyn, and Stevezilla) I have modified my original proposal thusly. Thanks for your continued efforts to help me test my theories and hone my output. ------------------------------------------------ Standard Maneuvers Block (revised) Maneuver -------Phs ----Pts -----OCV ------DCV ------Damage/Effect Block ------------½----- 0------- +0---------+0 ------ Damage Class reduction defense This action prevents a hand-to-hand opponent’s attack and sets the blocking character up to deliver the next blow. A character that wishes to Block must declare his intentions before his attacker attempts on Attack roll or must Abort to this action. To attempt a Block, the attacker must roll against his opponent’s OCV, not DCV. If the character successfully Blocks then he directly subtracts the Damage Class of His Strength and added DC's from the damage of the attack. If the amount of subtracted Damage Classes exceeds the number of Damage Classes of the attack, then no damage was done. If the Blocker takes damage but succeeded with the Block Roll, he may choose what hit location takes the damage. He then takes any damage to the that Hit Location minus any protection offered by armor in that location. If Hit locations are not being used, the damage is simply halved minus any defenses before being applied. If the character was blocking with a Weapon or Shield, caclulate if any damage was done to the weapon theough its DEF, half it and record it. If the Block fails, the Blocker has not choice of Hit Location and it is either rolled randomly, or if a Hit Location was targetted, then it struck that spot and damage is rolled normally. If not using Hit Locations, then damage is rolled normally. If the attacker and Blocker both have their next action Phases in the same Segment, the character who Blocked successfully automatically gets to act first, irregardless of relative DEX (the Blockers opponent is delayed until the Blockers’ DEX) providing no Knockback was taken by the Blocker and he was not Stunned or rendered unconscious. Blocks have no effect on Ranged attacks. A well-executed Block can throw an opponent off balance. To simulate this, give a character a +1 OCV bonus for every 2 points the attacking character missed their roll by but only if the Blocker can act before the Attacker does next. If the attacking character made a 13 when a 9 was needed, the Blocker would get a +2 bonus for his or her attack next Segment. This bonus is also reduced by a -2 cumulative for every other Block which must be made by the Blocker in that round. A character who has successfully Blocked can Block additional attacks made against him. Each additional attack made against him is a +2 cumulative per attack, and if the Blocker is actually struck, he may not Block any further attacks. If using the Hit Location penalty a Blocker is at –4 OCV to Block any strike at the lower portion of his body (rolls from 14-18) with his arms or hands. The Blocker is also at a –4 OCV to Block any strike at the higher portion of his body (rolls 3-11) with their legs. Characters with odd fighting styles may counter this by buying +PSLs (Only to counter Block penalties for High/Low strikes with arms/legs (-2)). Martial Block Martial Block is identical to Block above with the exception that some techniques subtract further Damage Classes from the attack being made. If the character is using a Shield or Weapon with resistant PD or the Blocker himself has resistant PD, then the +PD of the maneuver becomes resistant as well. This new Resistant PD adds to the total of resistant PD but only if the object with Resistant PD is being used to Block with. Maneuver Costs Element -------------Description ------------------Maximum Block ---------------+0pts of maneuver ---------Take Once ------------------------------------------------Is based on Block ------------------------------------------------Instead of Strike ------------------------------------------------(Abort is Free) PD+ -----------------+1 pt per -1DC ------------up to -4DC ----------------------+2pts per additional -1DC over -4DC From this, the following Blocks may be made: Maneuver ------Phs ---Pts ----OCV -----DCV -----Damage/Effect Defensive Block -½----- 5----- +1-------+3 -------DC Reduction Glancing Block --½----- 5------ 0------- -1------- DC Reduction - 2DC Martial Block --- ½ ---- 4------ +2------- 0------- DC Reduction - 4DC Optional rule #1: Shields Characters with shields may be opt to use a Block maneuver to use the PD of their shield instead of making an activation roll. This is free of charge and costs no extra points for the character but LARGE shields may have a larger surface and provide more +OCV with Block (only for use with Shield (-1)). If a Shield has a DCV bonus, then that Bonus can add as an OCV bonus but only for the Block Maneuver. Optional Rule #2: Inside Block If a Blocker is in the same hex as an opponent and wishes to Block, they may execute an inside Block which allows a character to Block the limb which is executing the blow and not the actual weapon or fist/foot which is causing the damage. This will allow characters to divide all damage by an ADDITIONAL x1/2 BEFORE subtraction PD and then dividing damage for the Block. This also allows characters to avoid Killing damage from hand to hand melee weapons as the character is Blocking the arm or appendage of the attacker and not the weapon. The character just takes damage from the arm and that is handled as if it were a normal attack of the attacker’s Strength which then goes through the above process as if it were a normal attack against an Inside Block. GM’s may wish to assess a –2 OCV penalty to Inside Blocks as it IS hard to get “inside†on an opponent. A GM may also let a character do an “Inside Block†on a weapon providing the Blocker could conceivably find a spot on the weapon which , if struck, would not somehow hurt them (the haft of an axe, the entire surface of a staff, etc.) but the GM could assess penalties depending upon how outlandish or simple the character makes it sound (“You’re going to grab the sword by the flat edges with your pinkies…um, Bob…-18 OCV…Now…well...oh dear.. No more pinkies Bob.â€) ----------------------------------------------- Okay, what do you think of my monstrosity now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted June 15, 2006 Report Share Posted June 15, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 Maneuver -------Phs ----Pts -----OCV ------DCV ------Damage/Effect Block ------------½----- 0------- +0---------+0 ------ Damage Class reduction defense This action prevents a hand-to-hand opponent’s attack and sets the blocking character up to deliver the next blow. A character that wishes to Block must declare his intentions before his attacker attempts on Attack roll or must Abort to this action. To attempt a Block, the attacker must roll against his opponent’s OCV, not DCV. It seems this is intentional, but you haven't spelled it out. Does your proposal change Block to a one roll system? The present system requires Defender roll against Attacker's OCV to Block. If that roll fails, Attacker must still hit Defender's DCV. Your system seems to change that to one roll by the attacker - if he succeeds, normal hit. If not, Blocked hit. The defender sacrifices any chance of being missed. This is quite punitive if you're a high DCV, low DEF character (ie the typical Martial Artist who uses Block). If the character successfully Blocks then he directly subtracts the Damage Class of His Strength and added DC's from the damage of the attack. If the amount of subtracted Damage Classes exceeds the number of Damage Classes of the attack' date=' then no damage was done. [/quote'] Which added DC’s apply? Clearly, the character using Block isn’t using Martial Block, so not his MA DC’s. It seems reasonable some SFX of Hand Attack would apply (eg. hits harder; hits faster), but wholly unrealistic for others (how does “my fist is aflame†enhance its ability to Block?). What is intended? Will HA’s that add to Block (or that don’t) require an advantage (limitation) to account for this? If the Blocker takes damage but succeeded with the Block Roll' date=' he may choose what hit location takes the damage. He then takes any damage to the that Hit Location minus any protection offered by armor in that location. If Hit locations are not being used, the damage is simply halved minus any defenses before being applied. If the character was blocking with a Weapon or Shield, caclulate if any damage was done to the weapon theough its DEF, half it and record it. [/quote'] Can I block with my legs (to avoid OCV penalties for a low shot) and choose the Arm location (to use my shield’s defenses)? The above implies I can, but that seems unrealistic. In any case, bonus defenses to a single hit location seems like a good purchase if I expect to Block a lot. Couple with a Retaliatory Strike (Damage Shield, only when I block) and season. I’ll just buy the 4 PSL’s to ensure I’m never at a penalty. If the attacker and Blocker both have their next action Phases in the same Segment' date=' the character who Blocked successfully automatically gets to act first, irregardless of relative DEX (the Blockers opponent is delayed until the Blockers’ DEX) providing no Knockback was taken by the Blocker and he was not Stunned or rendered unconscious. [/quote'] I assume the DC reduction applies for knockback as well. A well-executed Block can throw an opponent off balance. To simulate this' date=' give a character a +1 OCV bonus for every 2 points the attacking character missed their roll by but only if the Blocker can act before the Attacker does next. If the attacking character made a 13 when a 9 was needed, the Blocker would get a +2 bonus for his or her attack next Segment. This bonus is also reduced by a -2 cumulative for every other Block which must be made by the Blocker in that round.[/quote'] I think my 4 SPD realistic MA will generally move on 4, 8 and 12 in the hopes of sucking in an opponent. If he Blocks on 8, I can act on 9 and waste his OCV bonus. Martial Block is identical to Block above with the exception that some techniques subtract further Damage Classes from the attack 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. From this, the following Blocks may be made: Maneuver ------Phs ---Pts ----OCV -----DCV -----Damage/Effect Defensive Block -½----- 5----- +1-------+3 -------DC Reduction Glancing Block --½----- 5------ 0------- -1------- DC Reduction - 2DC Martial Block --- ½ ---- 4------ +2------- 0------- DC Reduction - 4DC Should the weapons and shields discussion be under normal Block, or does one need martial arts for this benefit? Why doesn’t Blocking a bare handed strike with a sharp sword cause damage to the attacker? You wanted realism, didn’t you? Why would anyone buy Defensive Block? +3 DCV is pretty much meaningless when Blocking, unless you get targeted by a ranged attack while in HTH. Most “gritty, realistic†games impose penalties on firing into HTH combat, for fear of hitting allies, so it becomes less common. Most constructed Blocks will likely penalize DCV to up the OCV and/or DC reduction. Characters with shields may be opt to use a Block maneuver to use the PD of their shield instead of making an activation roll. This is free of charge and costs no extra points for the character but LARGE shields may have a larger surface and provide more +OCV with Block (only for use with Shield (-1)). If a Shield has a DCV bonus' date=' then that Bonus can add as an OCV bonus but only for the Block Maneuver.[/quote'] Scratch those elbow pads to defend my arms. I’ll buy “Indestructible mini-shield†+25 PD Armor, act 8-, instead. I get to activate the shield automatically if I block, so the level of activation roll has no relevance in such a case. BTW, standard equipment shields do not have activation rolls to access their defenses, so this rule needs fleshing out for “normal equipment†games. If a Blocker is in the same hex as an opponent and wishes to Block' date=' they may execute an inside Block which allows a character to Block the limb which is executing the blow and not the actual weapon or fist/foot which is causing the damage. This will allow characters to divide all damage by an ADDITIONAL x1/2 BEFORE subtraction PD and then dividing damage for the Block. This also allows characters to avoid Killing damage from hand to hand melee weapons as the character is Blocking the arm or appendage of the attacker and not the weapon. The character just takes damage from the arm and that is handled as if it were a normal attack of the attacker’s Strength which then goes through the above process as if it were a normal attack against an Inside Block. GM’s may wish to assess a –2 OCV penalty to Inside Blocks as it IS hard to get “inside†on an opponent. A GM may also let a character do an “Inside Block†on a weapon providing the Blocker could conceivably find a spot on the weapon which , if struck, would not somehow hurt them (the haft of an axe, the entire surface of a staff, etc.) but the GM could assess penalties depending upon how outlandish or simple the character makes it sound (“You’re going to grab the sword by the flat edges with your pinkies…um, Bob…-18 OCV…Now…well...oh dear.. No more pinkies Bob.â€)[/quote'] Who will say anything other than “I step in and grab his wristâ€? Does this also enable the character to avoid unusual attacks (that flaming fist HA, although here the super-hard or super-fast strike HA should not be reduced) or adjustment powers, for example? From a mechanics point of view, I’ve never seen 2 characters in the same hex on a battlemat. They conventionally stand in adjacent hexes. How do we adjudicate standing in the same hex? My HTH characters, especially MA’s or Speedsters, would always stand in the same hex as an opponent, as this will frustrate AE 1 hex attacks. Once again, we need to math it out. Seeker has 25 STR, no Martial Block and OCV/DCV 11. Ogre has 60 STR. Ogre swings at Seeker. Seeker can: (a) Do nothing: Ogre needs 6- to do 27 Stun on average. Expected average Stun: 27 x 9.26% = 2.50. This is the only option where Seeker gets to attack back with his phase. ( Dodge: Ogre needs 3- to hit, so expected average STUN 0.12. © Block: Ogre needs 6- to hit normally, otherwise he hits for 7d6 (24.5 average STUN) – 15 PD = 9.5, halved = 4.75. Expected average STUN is now 6.81. CONCLUSION: Block means spending a phase to increase expected damage by 4.31 (to about 272% of doing nothing), and guaranteeing Ogre a chance to do knockback. Note that, under (a), Seeker can reduce the damage if he uses his phase to roll with the punch, so he can further cut the expected damage. He will generally not need to since Ogre will generally miss. Let’s make a more even example. 2 MA’s have 15 STR, OCV and DCV 5 base, and can either use a Block maneuver or a Martial Strike (+2 OCV, +2 d6). They each have 6 PD, and one Damage Class, so 8d6 total. Gritty and realistic, right? MA #1 attacks. MA #2 can: (a) Do nothing. He’s hit on 13-, and will average 22 STUN if hit. Average Stun 18.44 (and an 83.8% chance of being hit means about that likelihood of being Stunned). ( Martial Dodge. He’s hit on 8- and will average the same Stun. Average STUN 5.70. © Dodge: he’s hit on 10- (50%) so 11 average STUN. (d) Defensive Block: Attacker gets through on 12- to average 22 STUN. Otherwise, attacker hits for 4d6 (8DC minus 3 for STR, 1 for DC), average 14 – 6 = 8 x 1/2 = 4. 12- is 74.07%, so expected STUN is 17.33. (e) Glancing Block: Attacker gets through on 13- to average 22 STUN. Otherwise, attacker hits for 2d6 (8DC minus 3 for STR, 1 for DC, 2 for maneuver), average 7 – 6 = 1 x 1/2 = 0.5. 13- is 83.80%, so expected STUN is 18.5. (f) Martial Block: Attacker gets through on 11- to average 22 STUN. Otherwise, attacker hits for 0d6 (8DC minus 3 for STR, 1 for DC, 4 for maneuver). 11- is 62.5%, so expected STUN is 13.75. CONCLUSIONS: First, Martial Block , the least expensive of the three maneuvers, is superior to the other two choices. Second, even the free Dodge maneuver is superior to any of the Blocks. This makes sense. Martial Block reduces the attacker’s needed roll by 2, and reduces damage. Dodge reduces his roll by 3, and eliminates damage. Third, spend your points on Martial Dodge, not a Block maneuver. Okay' date=' what do you think of my monstrosity now? [/quote'] I think for the next revision, you should do some math for such examples and self-assess your system before you post it. Based on the results of your two proposals to date, I’d just ban Block rather than go through all this hassle to make it useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Mhoram Posted June 15, 2006 Report Share Posted June 15, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 Martial Block is identical to Block above with the exception that some techniques subtract further Damage Classes from the attack being made. From this, the following Blocks may be made: Maneuver ------Phs ---Pts ----OCV -----DCV -----Damage/Effect Defensive Block -½----- 5----- +1-------+3 -------DC Reduction Glancing Block --½----- 5------ 0------- -1------- DC Reduction - 2DC Martial Block --- ½ ---- 4------ +2------- 0------- DC Reduction - 4DC Okay, what do you think of my monstrosity now? And with the DC coming into play, I assume that any "extra DC" that is purchased also affects the block manuever- so a superheroic martial artist that has 4 extra DC subtracts 8DC with a Martial Block, and 4 with a defensive block? Or similar circumstances with an HA defined as martial arts. If so that seems to work a little, if not, then just ban blocks, as Hugh said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rkane_1 Posted June 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 Standard rules apply for if the Block misses the normal vs. DCV rule applies. Written in a hurry, sorry. Only MA DC's add to this, not HA's. Sorry, when the original rules were posted, didn't delineate better. Yes, blocking the legs with a Shield on your arm is possible but you encounter a difficulty. PSL's will work fine. As for waiting til the other throws his Block first then you'll be waiting a while...its a Held Action until an attack is thrown, then it goes into effect. Yep, you guessed it. Written in a hurry. Weapons and Shields get Block with either the WF in a Heroic Game or if points paid for a focus power in Superheroic. Blocking a weapon with a blade might indeed cause problems unless an inside block is used. As for the elbow pads of indestructibility. I suppose I would assess a DCV/OCV penalty or bonus depending on the size of the armored part. Good call. I frankly don't get the “I step in and grab his wrist” comment. Please elucidate. Unusual attacks such as adjustment powers or Flaming Fists require an inside block. And then, only the physical force has to be blocked which is most likely minute. As for the same Hex Rule, you could adjudicate having adjacent Hexes would be fine as long as the -2OCV was enforced, I suppose. The example with Seeker trying to Block Ogre with a standarad Block is right on the money. If he doesn't have a Martial Block, he shouldn't try to Block someone so powerful. Thats the more "real" version of the Block I provided and one of the reasons for the variant. Let’s make a more even example. 2 MA’s have 15 STR, OCV and DCV 5 base, and can either use a Block maneuver or a Martial Strike (+2 OCV, +2 d6). They each have 6 PD, and one Damage Class, so 8d6 total. Gritty and realistic, right? MA #1 attacks. MA #2 can: (a) Do nothing. He’s hit on 13-, and will average 22 STUN if hit. Average Stun 18.44 (and an 83.8% chance of being hit means about that likelihood of being Stunned). ( Martial Dodge. He’s hit on 8- and will average the same Stun. Average STUN 5.70. © Dodge: he’s hit on 10- (50%) so 11 average STUN. (d) Defensive Block: Attacker gets through on 12- to average 22 STUN. Otherwise, attacker hits for 4d6 (8DC minus 3 for STR, 1 for DC), average 14 – 6 = 8 x 1/2 = 4. 12- is 74.07%, so expected STUN is 17.33. Whoa....this doesn't make mathematical sense to me. Defensive Block garners -4DC from the attack so yes the math reduces the attack Power to 4d6 which THEN the PD is applied to and then the halving so ... average 14 - 6= 8 x 1/2 = 4. And this is all fine and good.. But if he succeeds on a 12- which is 74.07%, then the likelyhood of taking damage of 4 Stun is 74.07% so roughly 3 Stun really but lets break it down differently. With this 4 Stun comes a benefit of the OCV Bonus and Acting first. Now, he'd have a roughly 25% chance of missing the Block, thus risking being struck otherwise with a OCV vs DCV check which is roughly an 11 OCV vs. a 14DCV (+3 DCV for Defensive Strike) so 9 or less to strike the Blocker if the Block was unsuccessful. A 9 or less works out to roughly 37.5% of taking normal damage and a 62.5% chance of taking none. So a 37.5% Chance of taking 22 Stun - 6PD = 16 STUN x .375 = 6 STUN. So Net STUN for choosing Block is 9 STUN But the other way to look at it is... Block Succeeds 74.07% = 4 STUN + OCV Bonus + Acting first Block Fails, Attack Fails 16.18% = No Damage Block Fails, Attack Fails 9.71% = 16 STUN (e) Glancing Block: Attacker gets through on 13- to average 22 STUN. Otherwise' date=' attacker hits for 2d6 (8DC minus 3 for STR, 1 for DC, 2 for maneuver), average 7 – 6 = 1 x 1/2 = 0.5. 13- is 83.80%, so expected STUN is 18.5.[/quote'] Glancing Block is +0 OCV so it succeeds only on an 11 or less. Block Succeeds 62.5% = 0 STUN + OCV Bonus + Acting first Block Fails, Attack Fails 8.7%= No Damage Block Fails, Attack Fails 27.8% = 16 STUN So NET STUN is 16 STUN x .12 = 4.44...so 4 STUN ](f) Martial Block: Attacker gets through on 11- to average 22 STUN. Otherwise' date=' attacker hits for 0d6 (8DC minus 3 for STR, 1 for DC, 4 for maneuver). 11- is 62.5%, so expected STUN is 13.75.[/quote'] The Martial Block Presented above has a +2 OCV Bonus so it is 83.8% effective and gains 0 stun. The DCV is matched to OCV if the Block Misses so 11- to hit is 62.5% the character has a 16.2% chance of having a 62.5% chance of being hit. So... Block Succeeds 83.8% = 0 STUN + OCV Bonus + Acting first Block Fails, Attack Fails 6.1%= No Damage Block Fails, Attack Fails 10.1% = 16 STUN So NET STUN is 16 STUN x .101 = 1.16.....so 1 STUN CONCLUSIONS: First' date=' Martial Block , the least expensive of the three maneuvers, is superior to the other two choices.[/quote'] I will agree I am relooking at Glancing Block but Defensive Block does give you a better DCV in a group with multiple opponents where multiple strikes may be coming at you or strikes between the Phases, but if the latter is the case, I would still choose Dodge. Second' date=' even the free Dodge maneuver is superior to any of the Blocks.[/quote'] Disagree...the latter two Blocks yeild a lower amount of stun on average and yeild a bonus to boot and the ability to act first next Phase if the attacker doesn't have an action sooner than yours. This makes sense. Martial Block reduces the attacker’s needed roll by 2' date=' and reduces damage. Dodge reduces his roll by 3, and eliminates damage. Third, spend your points on Martial Dodge, not a Block maneuver.[/quote'] What about after looking at the math now. This yields better than Dodge calculations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rkane_1 Posted June 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 Ack! My apologies. I miswrote something. I was wondering why something didn't look right. Glancing Block and Martial Block need to switch the amount of DC they block. My apologies. Maneuver ------Phs ---Pts ----OCV -----DCV -----Damage/Effect Defensive Block -½----- 5----- +1-------+3 -------DC Reduction Glancing Block --½----- 5------ 0------- -1------- DC Reduction - 4DC Martial Block --- ½ ---- 4------ +2------- 0------- DC Reduction - 2DC The Defensive Block is better for attacks versus multiple opponents as it provides a better base DCV The Glancing Block is best versus very powerful opponents as it reduces damage the most The Martial Block is the run of the mill Martial Block especially adapted for this system. Sorry about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted June 17, 2006 Report Share Posted June 17, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 Standard rules apply for if the Block misses the normal vs. DCV rule applies. Written in a hurry' date=' sorry.[/quote'] OK, I'm now assuming the person Blocking should first roll to hit the attacker's OCV. If that succeeds, the Block is in effect. If it fails, the attacker now rolls to hit the defender's DCV. These are the standard rules for whether a Block succeeds. Ack! My apologies. I miswrote something. I was wondering why something didn't look right. Glancing Block and Martial Block need to switch the amount of DC they block. My apologies. Maneuver ------Phs ---Pts ----OCV -----DCV -----Damage/Effect Defensive Block -½----- 5----- +1-------+3 -------DC Reduction Glancing Block --½----- 5------ 0------- -1------- DC Reduction - 4DC Martial Block --- ½ ---- 4------ +2------- 0------- DC Reduction - 2DC The Defensive Block is better for attacks versus multiple opponents as it provides a better base DCV The Glancing Block is best versus very powerful opponents as it reduces damage the most The Martial Block is the run of the mill Martial Block especially adapted for this system. Sorry about that. This post is just for the math. Standard rules apply for if the Block misses the normal vs. DCV rule applies. Written in a hurry' date=' sorry.[/quote'] OK, I'm nmow assuming the person Blocking should first roll to hit the attacker's OCV. If that succeeds, the Block is in effect. If it fails, the attacker now rolls to hit the defender's DCV. These are the standard rules for whether a Block succeeds. Ack! My apologies. I miswrote something. I was wondering why something didn't look right. Glancing Block and Martial Block need to switch the amount of DC they block. My apologies. Maneuver ------Phs ---Pts ----OCV -----DCV -----Damage/Effect Defensive Block -½----- 5----- +1-------+3 -------DC Reduction Glancing Block --½----- 5------ 0------- -1------- DC Reduction - 4DC Martial Block --- ½ ---- 4------ +2------- 0------- DC Reduction - 2DC The Defensive Block is better for attacks versus multiple opponents as it provides a better base DCV The Glancing Block is best versus very powerful opponents as it reduces damage the most The Martial Block is the run of the mill Martial Block especially adapted for this system. Sorry about that. So returning to the examples, with the above in mind (and the major change is the chance you’ll not be hit if your Block fails): SEEKER Vs OGRE: Seeker has 25 STR, no Martial Block and OCV/DCV 11. Ogre has 60 STR. Ogre swings at Seeker. Seeker can: (a) Do nothing: Ogre needs 6- to do 27 Stun on average. Expected average Stun: 27 x 9.26% = 2.50. This is the only option where Seeker gets to attack back with his phase. ( Dodge: Ogre needs 3- to hit, so expected average STUN 0.12. © Block: Seeker needs a 16- to Block (95.37% chance) in which case he’s hit for 7d6 damage (24.5 – 15 = 9.5, halved is 4.75 x 95.37% = 4.53). If he fails (4.63% chance), Ogre needs a 6- to hit (9.26%). If he hits, Seeker takes 27 Stun (42 – 15 = 27 x 4.63% x 9.26% = 0.12 Stun). Average Stun if Seeker blocks is 4.65. CONCLUSION: Block means spending a phase to increase expected damage by 2.15 (not quite double the STUN of doing nothing), and guaranteeing Ogre a chance to do knockback. Seeker would get an OCV bonus and act first if they have the next phase in common. He doesn’t need either benefit. As I see it, this approach makes a normal Block, at least, useless in dealing with an opponent who has good damage in comparison to your raw STR. To the more even example. 2 MA’s have 15 STR, OCV and DCV 5 base, and can either use a Block maneuver or a Martial Strike (+2 OCV, +2 d6). They each have 6 PD, and one Damage Class, so 8d6 total. Gritty and realistic, right? MA #1 attacks. He has OCV 7. MA #2 can: (a) Do nothing. He will keep his DCV 5 and be hit on 13-. This will average 22 STUN if hit. Average Stun 18.44 (and an 83.8% chance of being hit means about that likelihood of being Stunned). ( Martial Dodge raises DCV to 10 vs OCV 7. He’s now hit on 8- and will average the same Stun. Average STUN 5.70. © Dodge: DCV 8 means he’s hit on 10- (50%) so 11 average STUN. NOTE: These are unchanged. Your comments on the to hit rolls appear to ignore the attacker’s +2 OCV from Martial Strike. (d) Defensive Block: Defender has OCV 6 (5 + 1 for maneuver). He needs a 10- to Block (50%). If he succeeds, the attacker’s 8d6 is reduced to 4d6 (3 for STR and 1 for DC), which averages 14, less 6 PD = 8 x ½ = 4 x 50% chance = 2. If he fails, the attacker needs to hit DCV 8, again a 50% chance, in which case he’ll average 22 STUN x 50% chance block failed x 50% chance of hitting= 5.5. Average Damage: 7.5 Stun. (e) Glancing Block: Attack is blocked on 9- (OCV 5 vs OCV 7), so 37.5% chance. If blocked, attacker hits for 0d6 (8DC minus 3 for STR, 1 for DC, 4 for maneuver). If he fails, the attacker needs to hit DCV 4, so 14-, an 90.74% chance, in which case he’ll average 22 STUN x 62.5% chance block failed x 90.74% chance of hitting= 12.48. Average Damage: 12.48 Stun. (f) Martial Block: Attack is blocked on 11- (OCV 7 vs OCV 7), so 62.5% chance. If blocked, attacker hits for 2d6 (8DC minus 3 for STR, 1 for DC, 2 for maneuver). That’s 7 on average, 1 past PD, halved for location x 62.5% chance of Block = .31. If he fails, the attacker needs to hit DCV 5, so 13-, an 83.8% chance, in which case he’ll average 22 STUN x 37.5% chance block failed x 83.8% chance of hitting= 6.91. Average Damage: 7.22 Stun. (g) Ordinary Block: Attack is blocked on 9- (OCV 5 vs OCV 7), so 37.5% chance. If blocked, attacker hits for 5d6 (8DC minus 3 for STR). That’s 17.5 on average, 11.5 past PD, halved for location x 37.5% chance of Block = 2.16. If he fails, the attacker needs to hit DCV 5, so 13-, an 83.8% chance, in which case he’ll average 22 STUN x 37.5% chance block failed x 83.8% chance of hitting= 6.91. Average Damage: 9.07 Stun. CONCLUSIONS: The large DC vs small PD means action to avoid the attack is crucial. Martial dodge is still the superior choice for avoiding damage, however at least some of the MA Block maneuvers are preferable to the ordinary Dodge. Glancing Block is the worst possible choice of any maneuver. The reduced DC’s if successful don’t make up for the reduced DCV when opponents are equals. Defensive and Martial Block work out just about even, although Martial Block is cheaper and has marginally superior results. A normal Block isn’t hugely inferior to the maneuvers the character would spend 4 or 5 points on. Maybe a level in HTH, or an extra DC, would be a better purchase than these maneuvers. They're close enough that, if I were inclined to go this route, I would probably do some playtesting at this point to see how they compare in a broader array of combat situations. However, it disturbs me that Glancing is such a weak sister maneuver, and to a lesser extent that the extra point on Defensive Block doesn't translate into much benefit. Maybe the reduced DC element is overpriced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted June 17, 2006 Report Share Posted June 17, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 Non-Math Only MA DC's add to this' date=' not HA's. Sorry, when the original rules were posted, didn't delineate better. [/quote'] Unfortunately, whichever appproach you take, one of the results is unrealistic. A character whose fist is on fire logically has no enhanced ability to Block. A character whose fist moves much faster than human norm logically has an enhanced ability to block. The best solution may be for the latter to buy some bonuses to Block, but there's no way to add DC reductions, consistent with your Block revisions, unless he has Martial Arts as well. As for waiting til the other throws his Block first then you'll be waiting a while...its a Held Action until an attack is thrown' date=' then it goes into effect. Yep, you guessed it. Written in a hurry. [/quote'] You're not reading my post accurately. I have a 4 SPD. My opponent has a 3 SPD. I'll delay my Phase 3 attack to Phase 4 (but move before my 3 SPD opponent). He now thinks I have the same 3 SPD he has, but a better DEX. He wants to avoid my hit, act first in Ph 8 and get an OCV bonus, so he uses a Block. He Blocks my attack. But I get to hit him in Phase 6, so he doesn't get that bonus OCV. I can always abort when he attacks in 8 - he's not getting the bonus OCV now, since I already moved. Blocking a weapon with a blade might indeed cause problems unless an inside block is used. If Joe Boxer attacks Machete Sam with a punch, and Sam blocks with his machete, should, "realism" dictate the blade could hurt Joe? Your rules account for added difficulty of Joe blocking Sam's machete with his hands, but not the likelihood Sam blocking Joe's bare handed attack could cut Joe. if you want realism, both need to be considered. As for the elbow pads of indestructibility. I suppose I would assess a DCV/OCV penalty or bonus depending on the size of the armored part. Good call. Covering a single hit location is adequate, since as blocker I get to choose which location you hit. An 8- activation reasonably covers at least a single hit location. I don't think this issue is very easy to eliminate in your proposal. I frankly don't get the “I step in and grab his wrist†comment. Please elucidate. You make a great deal of commentary about "catching the sword between my fingers" and similar approaches under which an OCV penalty would be assessed. Why would anyone ever describe an inside block as anything other than stepping in and grabbing the attacker's wrist? There's no reason, other than drama, to have a different means of effecting an inside block. If you're going to apply a mechanical penalty for special effects that provide no mechanical bonus, why would anyone use those special effects? As for the same Hex Rule' date=' you could adjudicate having adjacent Hexes would be fine as long as the -2OCV was enforced, I suppose.[/quote'] I think most MA's will buy a weapon. Why not impose this -2 OCV penalty on others, and avoid it myself, when it's so easy to do. The example with Seeker trying to Block Ogre with a standarad Block is right on the money. If he doesn't have a Martial Block' date=' he shouldn't try to Block someone so powerful. Thats the more "real" version of the Block I provided and one of the reasons for the variant.[/quote'] Actually, I think it works out that a faster character with lower defenses should generally avoid the Block maneuver. IOW, most martial artists and speedsters should avoid Blocking. But, thinking on it, Bricks can block MA's quite effectively, especially with some 2 point OCV levels in Block. Let's spend 10 points on +5 OCV with Block for Ogre. Seeker swings his triple irons to inflict 15d6 damage (probably higher than he really has, but I gave Ogre some XP...) Ogre uses his reserved phase to Block. He has OCV 6 + 5 = 11, so he succeeds on 11- (62.5% chance) and Seeker's attack drops rto 3 DC - no effect. Ogre can now act first in Phase 12. Maybe he should buy 5 more 2 point levels to get a big OCV bonus on Phase 12 and smash that annoying little jackrabbit once and for all. Block levels seem a very effective approach for Bricks to deal with MA's - just hold out long enough to block his last pre-Seg 12 attack. I will agree I am relooking at Glancing Block but Defensive Block does give you a better DCV in a group with multiple opponents where multiple strikes may be coming at you or strikes between the Phases' date=' but if the latter is the case, I would still choose Dodge.[/quote'] The clarification that the attacker still needs to hit makes the bonus DCV at least somewhat useful. the ability to act first next Phase if the attacker doesn't have an action sooner than yours. is uncommon enough that I'll pass. It's probably more useful in a heroic game where Speed will be a lot closer. Most Martial Artists in higher power games are going to act first anyway, and won't need an OCV bonus. hmmm...in that Heroic game, I should just keep blocking - my OCV bonus will make my next Block roll more successful, further enhancing my OCV bonus. Once I build up a big enough bonus, I can swap all my levels into enhanced damage and smash my opponent completely, hitting on 17-... Combat quickly becomes all about Blocking, so no one ever attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rkane_1 Posted June 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 OK' date=' I'm now assuming the person Blocking should first roll to hit the attacker's OCV. If that succeeds, the Block is in effect. If it fails, the attacker now rolls to hit the defender's DCV. These are the standard rules for whether a Block succeeds.[/quote'] Yes...agreed. So returning to the examples, with the above in mind (and the major change is the chance you’ll not be hit if your Block fails): SEEKER Vs OGRE: Seeker has 25 STR, no Martial Block and OCV/DCV 11. Ogre has 60 STR. Ogre swings at Seeker. Seeker can: (a) Do nothing: Ogre needs 6- to do 27 Stun on average. Expected average Stun: 27 x 9.26% = 2.50. This is the only option where Seeker gets to attack back with his phase. ( Dodge: Ogre needs 3- to hit, so expected average STUN 0.12. © Block: Seeker needs a 16- to Block (95.37% chance) in which case he’s hit for 7d6 damage (24.5 – 15 = 9.5, halved is 4.75 x 95.37% = 4.53). If he fails (4.63% chance), Ogre needs a 6- to hit (9.26%). If he hits, Seeker takes 27 Stun (42 – 15 = 27 x 4.63% x 9.26% = 0.12 Stun). Average Stun if Seeker blocks is 4.65. CONCLUSION: Block means spending a phase to increase expected damage by 2.15 (not quite double the STUN of doing nothing), and guaranteeing Ogre a chance to do knockback. Seeker would get an OCV bonus and act first if they have the next phase in common. He doesn’t need either benefit. As I see it, this approach makes a normal Block, at least, useless in dealing with an opponent who has good damage in comparison to your raw STR. This is why it is not a good choice for him to do against an opponent with such superior Strength. If the combatant had less Strength, this would then be a better choice. Ogre has a 10 OCV with a 4 Speed so frankly Seeker would be better off using Martial Dodge as he is very hard to strike then and can strike with his superior Speed of 5 and play keep away the rest of the round. If he does want to Block, he would get his OCV bonus but doesn't need it. For such a combat, Dodge is the superior choice. Agreed...but that is what I was saying SHOULD be the superior choice in a more "realistic" combat. To the more even example. 2 MA’s have 15 STR' date=' OCV and DCV 5 base, and can either use a Block maneuver or a Martial Strike (+2 OCV, +2 d6). They each have 6 PD, and one Damage Class, so 8d6 total. Gritty and realistic, right? MA #1 attacks. He has OCV 7. MA #2 can:[/quote'] Wait....Martial Strike only gives a +2 to DCV, not OCV per FRed pg. 384 (a) Do nothing. He will keep his DCV 5 and be hit on 13-. This will average 22 STUN if hit. Average Stun 18.44 (and an 83.8% chance of being hit means about that likelihood of being Stunned). With the revelation about Martial Strike, this would be: (a) Do nothing. He will keep his DCV 5 and be hit on 11-. This will average 22 STUN if hit - 6 PD so 16 STUN x . Average Stun 10 (and an 62.5% chance of being hit means about that likelihood of being Stunned). Attack Fails 37.5% = No Damage Attack Succeeds 62.5% = 16 STUN ( Martial Dodge raises DCV to 10 vs OCV 7. He’s now hit on 8- and will average the same Stun. Average STUN 5.70. ( Martial Dodge raises DCV to 10 vs OCV 5. He’s now hit on 6- (9.3%) and will average the same 22 Stun if struck - 6 PD which is 16 STUN. Average STUN 1.48 or just 1 STUN. Attack Fails 90.7% = No Damage Attack Succeeds 9.3% = 16 STUN © Dodge: DCV 8 means he’s hit on 10- (50%) so 11 average STUN. © Dodge: DCV 8 means he’s hit on 8- (25.9%) so 5.68 average STUN or just 5 STUN. Attack Fails 74.1% = No Damage Attack Succeeds 25.9% = 16 STUN NOTE: These are unchanged. Your comments on the to hit rolls appear to ignore the attacker’s +2 OCV from Martial Strike. No OCV bonus per FRed on Martial Strike. Also in our equations we are forgetting the 6 PD that the defender gets irregardless if he makes his Block Maneuver or not. (d) Defensive Block: Defender has OCV 6 (5 + 1 for maneuver). He needs a 10- to Block (50%). If he succeeds, the attacker’s 8d6 is reduced to 4d6 (3 for STR and 1 for DC), which averages 14, less 6 PD = 8 x ½ = 4 x 50% chance = 2. If he fails, the attacker needs to hit DCV 8, again a 50% chance, in which case he’ll average 22 STUN x 50% chance block failed x 50% chance of hitting= 5.5. Average Damage: 7.5 Stun. Actually... (d) Defensive Block: Defender has OCV 6 (5 + 1 for maneuver) vs 5 OCV (+0 OCV Bonus). He needs a 12- to Block (74.1%). If he succeeds, the attacker’s 8d6 is reduced to 4d6 (3 for STR and 1 for DC), which averages 14, less 6 PD = 8 x ½ = 4 x 74.1% chance = 2.96 Stun or 2 Stun If he fails, the attacker needs to hit DCV 8 with a 5 OCV, which is on a 8 or less which is 25.9% chance, in which case he’ll average 22 STUN - 6 PD = 16 STUN x 25.9% chance block failed x 25.9% chance of hitting= 1.07 or 1 STUN. Average of 4.03 Stun Block Succeeds 74.1% = 2 STUN + OCV Bonus + Acting first Block Fails, Attack Fails 19.2% = No Damage Block Fails, Attack Fails 6.7% = 16 STUN So, since the chances are a less than even a Martial Dodge of taking damage but there still being a chance to take a small amount of damage. It becomes an even choice than even the Martial Dodge. Slightly more amount of net STUN but with an extra edge for success. (e) Glancing Block: Attack is blocked on 9- (OCV 5 vs OCV 7), so 37.5% chance. If blocked, attacker hits for 0d6 (8DC minus 3 for STR, 1 for DC, 4 for maneuver). If he fails, the attacker needs to hit DCV 4, so 14-, an 90.74% chance, in which case he’ll average 22 STUN x 62.5% chance block failed x 90.74% chance of hitting= 12.48. Average Damage: 12.48 Stun. Math redone with the Martial Strike +0 OCV revelation... (e) Glancing Block: Attack is blocked on 11- (OCV 5 vs OCV 5), so 62.5% chance. If blocked, attacker hits for 0d6 (8DC minus 3 for STR, 1 for DC, 4 for maneuver). If he fails, the attacker needs to hit DCV 4, so 12-, an 74.1% chance, in which case he’ll average 22 STUN - 6 PD = 16 x 37.5% chance block failed x 74.1% chance of hitting= 6.11. Average Damage: 6.11 Stun. Block Succeeds 62.5% = 0 STUN + OCV Bonus + Acting first Block Fails, Attack Fails 9.7% = No Damage Block Fails, Attack Fails 27.8% = 16 STUN Not the best choice when fighting an equal opponent but then if you up the damage of the opponent but lessen the OCV on him, lets see what the Glancing Block does. Opponent is now a STR 25 powerhouse but with OCV 3. (e) Glancing Block: Attack is blocked on 13- (OCV 5 vs OCV 3), so 62.5% chance. If blocked, attacker hits for 2d6 (10DC minus 3 for STR, 1 for DC, 4 for maneuver). Average of 7 Stun - 6PD = 1 STUN x 1/2 =.5 or 0 Stun. If he fails, the attacker needs to hit DCV 4, so 10-, an 50% chance, in which case he’ll average 29 STUN - 6PD = 23 x 37.5% chance block failed x 50% chance of hitting= 4.31 Stun or Just 4 Stun . Average Damage: 4.31 Stun. Block Succeeds 62.5% = 0 STUN + OCV Bonus + Acting first Block Fails, Attack Fails 18.25% = No Damage Block Fails, Attack Fails 18.25% = 23 STUN Less stun than from that of an equal attacker, skill gives extra chance of avoiding damage and gives an OCV edge and Act first edge. (f) Martial Block: Attack is blocked on 11- (OCV 7 vs OCV 7), so 62.5% chance. If blocked, attacker hits for 2d6 (8DC minus 3 for STR, 1 for DC, 2 for maneuver). That’s 7 on average, 1 past PD, halved for location x 62.5% chance of Block = .31. If he fails, the attacker needs to hit DCV 5, so 13-, an 83.8% chance, in which case he’ll average 22 STUN x 37.5% chance block failed x 83.8% chance of hitting= 6.91. Average Damage: 7.22 Stun. Again, math redone with the Martial Strike is +0 OCV revelation... (f) Martial Block: Attack is blocked on 13- (OCV 7 vs OCV 5), so 83.8% chance. If blocked, attacker hits for 2d6 (8DC minus 3 for STR, 1 for DC, 2 for maneuver). That’s 7 on average, 1 past PD, halved for location x 83.8% chance of Block = .41 or 0 STUN. If he fails, the attacker needs to hit DCV 5, so 11-, an 62.5% chance, in which case he’ll average 22 STUN - 6PD = 16 STUN x 16.2% chance block failed x 62.5% chance of hitting= 1.62 Stun or 1 Stun. Average Damage: 2.03 STUN or 2 STUN. Block Succeeds 83.8% = 0 STUN + OCV Bonus + Acting first Block Fails, Attack Fails 6.1% = No Damage Block Fails, Attack Fails 10.1% = 23 STUN This is roughly comparable to the Martial Dodge above but with the added bonus of a Bonus OCV and acting first. (g) Ordinary Block: Attack is blocked on 9- (OCV 5 vs OCV 7), so 37.5% chance. If blocked, attacker hits for 5d6 (8DC minus 3 for STR). That’s 17.5 on average, 11.5 past PD, halved for location x 37.5% chance of Block = 2.16. If he fails, the attacker needs to hit DCV 5, so 13-, an 83.8% chance, in which case he’ll average 22 STUN x 37.5% chance block failed x 83.8% chance of hitting= 6.91. Average Damage: 9.07 Stun. Again redone due to martial Strike info... (g) Ordinary Block: Attack is blocked on 11- (OCV 5 vs OCV 5), so 62.5% chance. If blocked, attacker hits for 5d6 (8DC minus 3 for STR). That’s 17.5 on average, 11.5 past PD, halved for location = 5.75 x 62.5% chance of Block = 3.59. If he fails, the attacker needs to hit DCV 5, so 11-, an 62.5% chance, in which case he’ll average 22 STUN -6 PD = 16 STUN x 37.5% chance block failed x 62.5% chance of hitting= 6.91. Average Damage: 10.81 Stun. CONCLUSIONS: The large DC vs small PD means action to avoid the attack is crucial. Martial dodge is still the superior choice for avoiding damage, however at least some of the MA Block maneuvers are preferable to the ordinary Dodge. Glancing Block is the worst possible choice of any maneuver. Unless you have an opponent with far superior striking power and lesser OCV but yes, versus equal opponent, it is inferior as it places you at a disadvantage with DCV to try and plant yourself to better deal with the more powerful strike.. The reduced DC’s if successful don’t make up for the reduced DCV when opponents are equals. Defensive and Martial Block work out just about even' date=' although Martial Block is cheaper and has marginally superior results.[/quote'] But Defensive Block in a situation where you have multiple opponents or where the opponent may have a strike against you might work better as you are naturally harder to hit with the added DCV. A normal Block isn’t hugely inferior to the maneuvers the character would spend 4 or 5 points on. Maybe a level in HTH' date=' or an extra DC, would be a better purchase than these maneuvers. They're close enough that, if I were inclined to go this route, I would probably do some playtesting at this point to see how they compare in a broader array of combat situations. [/quote'] I like throwing math back and forth with you in this instance. It helps shake the system up and show its flaws. However' date=' it disturbs me that Glancing is such a weak sister maneuver, and to a lesser extent that the extra point on Defensive Block doesn't translate into much benefit. Maybe the reduced DC element is overpriced.[/quote'] That is something to consider. I was also thinking that perhaps the risk of a small amount of injury would be more appealing if the rewards were better, say for an Automatic +2 OCV bonus in addition to the +1 for every 2 the Block is made by OR a +1 OCV per 1 the Block is made by. Your thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rkane_1 Posted June 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 Non-Math Unfortunately, whichever appproach you take, one of the results is unrealistic. A character whose fist is on fire logically has no enhanced ability to Block. A character whose fist moves much faster than human norm logically has an enhanced ability to block. The best solution may be for the latter to buy some bonuses to Block, but there's no way to add DC reductions, consistent with your Block revisions, unless he has Martial Arts as well. The Speedster could also just buy raw DCV which would mean more successful blocks and just Dodge all day. The Speedster could also buy DC with "Speedster Fu". You're not reading my post accurately. I have a 4 SPD. My opponent has a 3 SPD. I'll delay my Phase 3 attack to Phase 4 (but move before my 3 SPD opponent). He now thinks I have the same 3 SPD he has' date=' but a better DEX. He wants to avoid my hit, act first in Ph 8 and get an OCV bonus, so he uses a Block. He Blocks my attack. But I get to hit him in Phase 6, so he doesn't get that bonus OCV. I can always abort when he attacks in 8 - he's not getting the bonus OCV now, since I already moved.[/quote'] Yikes, that is mean but I have seen very comparable things done by fast opponents. They would be far better served by staying away and dodging. You, though, would be better served as the faster opponent using Block as you would get a further bonus to OCV but then you may not need it. It would slightly raise your chances of getting a Critical if the GM used those rules, though. If Joe Boxer attacks Machete Sam with a punch' date=' and Sam blocks with his machete, should, "realism" dictate the blade could hurt Joe? Your rules account for added difficulty of Joe blocking Sam's machete with his hands, but not the likelihood Sam blocking Joe's bare handed attack could cut Joe. if you want realism, both need to be considered.[/quote'] You could easily say like must Block like in the game. What happens in the game when that happens now? Nothing much. The Machette guy blocks and no damage happens to the Attacker. This will need some consideration. Covering a single hit location is adequate' date=' since as blocker I get to choose which location you hit. An 8- activation reasonably covers at least a single hit location. I don't think this issue is very easy to eliminate in your proposal.[/quote'] What about the lower the Activation roll for a piece of armor, the lower the OCV penalty. Suggestion would be -8 Activation is -4 OCV to use with Block and then add +1 per +1 level of activation.....just some brainstorming out loud. You make a great deal of commentary about "catching the sword between my fingers" and similar approaches under which an OCV penalty would be assessed. Why would anyone ever describe an inside block as anything other than stepping in and grabbing the attacker's wrist? There's no reason' date=' other than drama, to have a different means of effecting an inside block. If you're going to apply a mechanical penalty for special effects that provide no mechanical bonus, why would anyone use those special effects?[/quote'] Trying to show off. *smile* Buit yes, I see your point. I think most MA's will buy a weapon. Why not impose this -2 OCV penalty on others' date=' and avoid it myself, when it's so easy to do.[/quote'] But most people who want an edge DO get a weapon. They do more damage and are harder to Block, thus the edge. More "realistic". Now if you are in a chop socky flick, not so ,much. Actually' date=' I think it works out that a faster character with lower defenses should generally avoid the Block maneuver. IOW, most martial artists and speedsters should avoid Blocking. But, thinking on it, Bricks can block MA's quite effectively, especially with some 2 point OCV levels in Block. [/quote'] Yeppers, but if you have a slight edge in speed versus someone with comparable skill, then getting the OCV bonus might be worth it....especially if they have an inferior STR or striking power. Let's spend 10 points on +5 OCV with Block for Ogre. Seeker swings his triple irons to inflict 15d6 damage (probably higher than he really has' date=' but I gave Ogre some XP...) Ogre uses his reserved phase to Block. He has OCV 6 + 5 = 11, so he succeeds on 11- (62.5% chance) and Seeker's attack drops rto 3 DC - no effect. Ogre can now act first in Phase 12. Maybe he should buy 5 more 2 point levels to get a big OCV bonus on Phase 12 and smash that annoying little jackrabbit once and for all. Block levels seem a very effective approach for Bricks to deal with MA's - just hold out long enough to block his last pre-Seg 12 attack.[/quote'] Good point. They already have good defenses as it stands. Hmmm....good thing to conisder in this version. The PD version on the other thread didn't allow Strength into the picture as this version does. Something to consider, yes.... The clarification that the attacker still needs to hit makes the bonus DCV at least somewhat useful. But also useful if the defender is up against mulitple opponents or a faster opponent as well as the DCV helps quite a bit. is uncommon enough that I'll pass. It's probably more useful in a heroic game where Speed will be a lot closer. Most Martial Artists in higher power games are going to act first anyway' date=' and won't need an OCV bonus.[/quote'] Perhaps another mechanic that gives the Blocker an edge much like a Presence attack stuns an opponent out of a half phase of full phase action.....hmmmm....More consideration. hmmm...in that Heroic game' date=' I should just keep blocking - my OCV bonus will make my next Block roll more successful, further enhancing my OCV bonus. Once I build up a big enough bonus, I can swap all my levels into enhanced damage and smash my opponent completely, hitting on 17-... [/quote'] Unless he was waiting around for your to strike to use his Block *chuckle*. Of course that it is only a +1 OCV for everytwo you make it by means there are going to be diminishing returns on that unless you get a series of really BIG rolls. Then it is worth it. Combat quickly becomes all about Blocking' date=' so no one ever attacks.[/quote'] Ever see two fighters circle one another looking for an opening, waiting to block the inco0ming attack...it can take a while before one finally decides to act. But you can't Block a Block, can you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted June 18, 2006 Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 This is why it is not a good choice for him to do against an opponent with such superior Strength. If the combatant had less Strength' date=' this would then be a better choice.[/quote'] He would be just as disadvantaged if his opponent were a 10 STR martial artist with 12 DC, or any other character with 12 DC fighting him in HTH combat. The attacker need not be a Brick. Wait....Martial Strike only gives a +2 to DCV' date=' not OCV per FRed pg. 384 [/quote'] There's the disconnect - although an equal cost Martial maeuver with +2 OCV and +0 DCV would carry the same cost. You should note that I already factored in the 6 PD, however. 8d6 averages 8 x 3.5 = 28 - 6 = 22. I've modified the averages to acocunt for this below. (a) Do nothing. He will keep his DCV 5 and be hit on 11-. This will average 28 STUN if hit - 6 PD so 22 STUN x .625 = Average Stun 13.75 (and a 62.5% chance of being hit means about that likelihood of being Stunned). Attack Fails 37.5% = No Damage Attack Succeeds 62.5% = 22 STUN Per Phase STUN 13.75 ( Martial Dodge raises DCV to 10 vs OCV 5. He’s now hit on 6- (9.3%) and will average the same 28 Stun if struck - 6 PD which is 22 STUN. Average STUN 2.05. Attack Fails 90.7% = No Damage Attack Succeeds 9.3% = 22 STUN Per phase STUN 2.05 © Dodge: DCV 8 means he’s hit on 8- (25.9%) so 5.70 average STUN. Attack Fails 74.1% = No Damage Attack Succeeds 25.9% = 22 STUN Per phase Stun 5.70 (d) Defensive Block: Defender has OCV 6 (5 + 1 for maneuver) vs 5 OCV (+0 OCV Bonus). He needs a 12- to Block (74.1%). If he succeeds, the attacker’s 8d6 is reduced to 4d6 (3 for STR and 1 for DC), which averages 14, less 6 PD = 8 x ½ = 4 x 74.1% chance = 2.96 Stun If he fails, the attacker needs to hit DCV 8 with a 5 OCV, which is on a 8 or less which is 25.9% chance, in which case he’ll average 28 STUN - 6 PD = 22 STUN x 25.9% chance block failed x 25.9% chance of hitting= 1.88. Average of 4.84 Stun Block Succeeds 74.1% = 4 STUN + OCV Bonus + Acting first Block Fails, Attack Fails 19.2% = No Damage Block Fails, Attack Fails 6.7% = 22 STUN Per phase Stun 4.84 So' date=' since the chances are a less than even a Martial Dodge of taking damage but there still being a chance to take a small amount of damage. It becomes an even choice than even the Martial Dodge. Slightly more amount of net STUN but with an extra edge for success.[/quote'] You're slightly less likely to take the full hit, but guaranteed to take some damage. As well, that guaranteed damage comes with a possibility of taking knockback, just as it comes with a potential advantage on your next phase. (e) Glancing Block: Attack is blocked on 11- (OCV 5 vs OCV 5), so 62.5% chance. If blocked, attacker hits for 0d6 (8DC minus 3 for STR, 1 for DC, 4 for maneuver). If he fails, the attacker needs to hit DCV 4, so 12-, a 74.1% chance, in which case he’ll average 28 STUN - 6 PD = 22 x 37.5% chance block failed x 74.1% chance of hitting= 6.11. Average Damage: 6.11 Stun. Block Succeeds 62.5% = 0 STUN + OCV Bonus + Acting first Block Fails, Attack Fails 9.7% = No Damage Block Fails, Attack Fails 27.8% = 22 STUN Not the best choice when fighting an equal opponent but then if you up the damage of the opponent but lessen the OCV on him' date=' lets see what the Glancing Block does. Opponent is now a STR 25 powerhouse but with OCV 3.[/quote'] In my experience, the characters with higher damage tend to be "boss villains", and thus higher OCV as well. A lower OCV character is also a better choice fro Martial Dodge, since he stands a poor chance of hitting, and will rickle some damage through the Block, as well as possible knockback. However, as I said, some of the maneuvers are getting close enough that a playtest to get the maneuvers tested in a wide array of circumstances makes sense. (f) Martial Block: Attack is blocked on 13- (OCV 7 vs OCV 5), so 83.8% chance. If blocked, attacker hits for 2d6 (8DC minus 3 for STR, 1 for DC, 2 for maneuver). That’s 7 on average, 1 past PD, halved for location x 83.8% chance of Block = .41. If he fails, the attacker needs to hit DCV 5, so 11-, an 62.5% chance, in which case he’ll average 28 STUN - 6PD = 22 STUN x 16.2% chance block failed x 62.5% chance of hitting= 2.23 Stun. Average Damage: 2.67. Block Succeeds 83.8% = 0 STUN + OCV Bonus + Acting first Block Fails, Attack Fails 6.1% = 1 damage (unless you're adopting an "always round down" approach, in which case 0) Block Fails, Attack Fails 10.1% = 22 STUN (g) Ordinary Block: Attack is blocked on 11- (OCV 5 vs OCV 5), so 62.5% chance. If blocked, attacker hits for 5d6 (8DC minus 3 for STR). That’s 17.5 on average, 11.5 past PD, halved for location = 5.75 x 62.5% chance of Block = 3.59. If he fails, the attacker needs to hit DCV 5, so 11-, an 62.5% chance, in which case he’ll average 28 STUN -6 PD = 22 STUN x 37.5% chance block failed x 62.5% chance of hitting= 5.16. Average Damage: 8.75 Stun. Summary Do Nothing: average 13.75 STUN Martial Dodge: average 2.05 STUN Dodge: Average 5.70 STUN Def Block: Average 4.84 STUN Glan Block: Average 6.11 STUN Mart Block: Average 2.67 STUN Block: Average 8.75 STUN At least we're getting closer. That Glancing Block will be inferior against most equal opponents. I don't expect it will perform a lot better against boss villains, who will have better OCV and damage. Even if it performs better againts mooks, who needs an edge on mooks? How many characters will sink 14 points into Block maneuvers alone? This seems likely to be the last one selected. I stand by the conclusion that the - DC is not worth as much as an OCV or DCV bonus. I was also thinking that perhaps the risk of a small amount of injury would be more appealing if the rewards were better' date=' say for an Automatic +2 OCV bonus in addition to the +1 for every 2 the Block is made by OR a +1 OCV per 1 the Block is made by.[/quote'] At the other edge of Block not being the best choice for damage avoidance is what it can do. I think we've gone as far as we can without live playtesting. However, I suggest the following character approach would be very effective: (a) Take the Def Block maneuver, and an Offensive Strike ( Buy several levels with MA © Buy Armor, only the arm hit location (d) Consider PSL's against low shot blocks At the start of combat, Block with all levels to OCV. This will maximize the amount you make your roll by. The Armor will minimize the damage you actually take, and should be pretty cheap as it covers only one hit location. Next phase, assess your OCV bonus. If it allows you to shove all your levels in Damage and still be reasonably assured of hitting your target, use your Offensive Strike in that fashion. If not, repeat the Phase 1 approach. Barring exceptionally poor rolls, your OCV should keep rising until you reach a point that you can reallocate your MA levels to damage and lay the target out in one shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted June 18, 2006 Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 The Speedster could also just buy raw DCV which would mean more successful blocks and just Dodge all day. The Speedster could also buy DC with "Speedster Fu". Or he could buy the Hand Attack and ask why your more realistic system doesn't handle it realistically. You could easily say like must Block like in the game. What happens in the game when that happens now? Nothing much. The Machette guy blocks and no damage happens to the Attacker. This will need some consideration. Again, the game uses very cinematic style blocking at present. If you want realism, you should have realistic consequences for being blocked with a weapon. What about the lower the Activation roll for a piece of armor' date=' the lower the OCV penalty. Suggestion would be -8 Activation is -4 OCV to use with Block and then add +1 per +1 level of activation.....just some brainstorming out loud.[/quote'] The -2 limitation for Act 8- is comparable to the limitation for armor that covers only one hit location. Your system is predicated on the assertion that the major defensive benefit of Block is directing the attack to a specirfic hit location. If I always block with my forearm, how is it realistic to penalize my Block because I wear armor on my forearm? Unless he was waiting around for your to strike to use his Block *chuckle*. Of course that it is only a +1 OCV for everytwo you make it by means there are going to be diminishing returns on that unless you get a series of really BIG rolls. Then it is worth it. Or unless you have a bunch of skill levels. In our "equals" examples, buy 4 levels with Martial Arts. My "just successful" Block roll now becomes a success by 4, so my OCV rises by 2 next phase. The following phase, my Block should succeed by 2 more (I have that OCV bonus), so next phase my Block rises to success by 6. It will take taime, and a bad roll throws the sequence off entirely. But if I'm planning this, bet on me having that armored forearm so I can last the duration. Ultimately, I should build up an OCV bonus big enough to allow use of my Offensive Strike against my target. The accumulated OCV bonuses will be enough to make a sucessful Block by my opponent unlikely, and that 8 DC goes up 2 from Offensive Strike and 2 more from my 4 levels, so 12d6 instead of 8d6. That should take care of my target. Ever see two fighters circle one another looking for an opening' date=' waiting to block the inco0ming attack...it can take a while before one finally decides to act. But you can't Block a Block, can you?[/quote'] Sounds like the point at which realism crosses the line into "boring game". If the first guy to take a shot always loses, we have either guaranteed win for the heroes or a frustrating standoff for everyone, depending on whether the GM applies the same "never strike first" logic as the PC's will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted June 18, 2006 Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 You'd think SOMEONE else would have a comment by now, wouldn't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robyn Posted June 18, 2006 Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 You'd think SOMEONE else would have a comment by now' date=' wouldn't you?[/quote'] I'm playing No One Lives Forever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rkane_1 Posted June 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 Or he could buy the Hand Attack and ask why your more realistic system doesn't handle it realistically. Why not light a candle instead of cursing my darkness. Do you have a way to make it work btter other than just abandoning the proposition and resorting to the old manner of doing it? Again' date=' the game uses very cinematic style blocking at present. If you want realism, you should have realistic consequences for being blocked with a weapon.[/quote'] I agree...I was considering how it would work with my system. Any suggestions? The -2 limitation for Act 8- is comparable to the limitation for armor that covers only one hit location. Your system is predicated on the assertion that the major defensive benefit of Block is directing the attack to a specific hit location. If I always block with my forearm' date=' how is it realistic to penalize my Block because I wear armor on my forearm?[/quote'] To offer game balance so that you cannot do what you just supposed. A -2 penalty for a small bit of armor seems reasonable. A larger shiled would have no penalty and even larger shields would have bonuses. Its logical to me. Or unless you have a bunch of skill levels. In our "equals" examples, buy 4 levels with Martial Arts. My "just successful" Block roll now becomes a success by 4, so my OCV rises by 2 next phase. The following phase, my Block should succeed by 2 more (I have that OCV bonus), so next phase my Block rises to success by 6. It will take taime, and a bad roll throws the sequence off entirely. But if I'm planning this, bet on me having that armored forearm so I can last the duration. Ultimately, I should build up an OCV bonus big enough to allow use of my Offensive Strike against my target. The accumulated OCV bonuses will be enough to make a sucessful Block by my opponent unlikely, and that 8 DC goes up 2 from Offensive Strike and 2 more from my 4 levels, so 12d6 instead of 8d6. That should take care of my target. Yep, but with Offensive strike, your opponent might choose another tactic such as the Dodge or Martial Dodge. I never intended for this Block to be the end all be all of maneuvers, just something more realistic. Sounds like the point at which realism crosses the line into "boring game". If the first guy to take a shot always loses' date=' we have either guaranteed win for the heroes or a frustrating standoff for everyone, depending on whether the GM applies the same "never strike first" logic as the PC's will.[/quote'] Would be interesting to test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rkane_1 Posted June 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 He would be just as disadvantaged if his opponent were a 10 STR martial artist with 12 DC' date=' or any other character with 12 DC fighting him in HTH combat. The attacker need not be a Brick.[/quote'] True that but I meant a weaker opponent as in to say fewer DC's. There's the disconnect - although an equal cost Martial maeuver with +2 OCV and +0 DCV would carry the same cost. You should note that I already factored in the 6 PD' date=' however. 8d6 averages 8 x 3.5 = 28 - 6 = 22. I've modified the averages to acocunt for this below.[/quote'] My bad. I should have done the math to double check it myself on the PD thing. (a) Do nothing. He will keep his DCV 5 and be hit on 11-. This will average 28 STUN if hit - 6 PD so 22 STUN x .625 = Average Stun 13.75 (and a 62.5% chance of being hit means about that likelihood of being Stunned). Attack Fails 37.5% = No Damage Attack Succeeds 62.5% = 22 STUN Per Phase STUN 13.75 ( Martial Dodge raises DCV to 10 vs OCV 5. He’s now hit on 6- (9.3%) and will average the same 28 Stun if struck - 6 PD which is 22 STUN. Average STUN 2.05. Attack Fails 90.7% = No Damage Attack Succeeds 9.3% = 22 STUN Per phase STUN 2.05 © Dodge: DCV 8 means he’s hit on 8- (25.9%) so 5.70 average STUN. Attack Fails 74.1% = No Damage Attack Succeeds 25.9% = 22 STUN Per phase Stun 5.70 (d) Defensive Block: Defender has OCV 6 (5 + 1 for maneuver) vs 5 OCV (+0 OCV Bonus). He needs a 12- to Block (74.1%). If he succeeds, the attacker’s 8d6 is reduced to 4d6 (3 for STR and 1 for DC), which averages 14, less 6 PD = 8 x ½ = 4 x 74.1% chance = 2.96 Stun If he fails, the attacker needs to hit DCV 8 with a 5 OCV, which is on a 8 or less which is 25.9% chance, in which case he’ll average 28 STUN - 6 PD = 22 STUN x 25.9% chance block failed x 25.9% chance of hitting= 1.88. Average of 4.84 Stun Block Succeeds 74.1% = 4 STUN + OCV Bonus + Acting first Block Fails, Attack Fails 19.2% = No Damage Block Fails, Attack Fails 6.7% = 22 STUN Per phase Stun 4.84 You're slightly less likely to take the full hit, but guaranteed to take some damage. As well, that guaranteed damage comes with a possibility of taking knockback, just as it comes with a potential advantage on your next phase. But Knockback is reduced by the DC as well in this situation. If the dice are reduced to only a 2D6 or 4d6 Attack, then the Knockback is reduced and since these are martial maneuvers, 3d6 usually is rolled versus these manuevers. If not martial, then 2d6. This means for Martial Arts maneuvers an average of 10.5 or if a normal hit then 7 average roll is subtracted from an average of 2' or 4' KB on average. Reduced KB is a benefit of shifting the power of the blow in another direction. (e) Glancing Block: Attack is blocked on 11- (OCV 5 vs OCV 5), so 62.5% chance. If blocked, attacker hits for 0d6 (8DC minus 3 for STR, 1 for DC, 4 for maneuver). If he fails, the attacker needs to hit DCV 4, so 12-, a 74.1% chance, in which case he’ll average 28 STUN - 6 PD = 22 x 37.5% chance block failed x 74.1% chance of hitting= 6.11. Average Damage: 6.11 Stun. Block Succeeds 62.5% = 0 STUN + OCV Bonus + Acting first Block Fails, Attack Fails 9.7% = No Damage Block Fails, Attack Fails 27.8% = 22 STUN In my experience, the characters with higher damage tend to be "boss villains", and thus higher OCV as well. A lower OCV character is also a better choice fro Martial Dodge, since he stands a poor chance of hitting, and will rickle some damage through the Block, as well as possible knockback. Reduced KB as mentioned above but I will concede your point on the Glancing Block. I think the increased DC loss isn't worth the greater likelyhood of being hit. However, as I said, some of the maneuvers are getting close enough that a playtest to get the maneuvers tested in a wide array of circumstances makes sense. (f) Martial Block: Attack is blocked on 13- (OCV 7 vs OCV 5), so 83.8% chance. If blocked, attacker hits for 2d6 (8DC minus 3 for STR, 1 for DC, 2 for maneuver). That’s 7 on average, 1 past PD, halved for location x 83.8% chance of Block = .41. If he fails, the attacker needs to hit DCV 5, so 11-, an 62.5% chance, in which case he’ll average 28 STUN - 6PD = 22 STUN x 16.2% chance block failed x 62.5% chance of hitting= 2.23 Stun. Average Damage: 2.67. Block Succeeds 83.8% = 0 STUN + OCV Bonus + Acting first Block Fails, Attack Fails 6.1% = 1 damage (unless you're adopting an "always round down" approach, in which case 0) Block Fails, Attack Fails 10.1% = 22 STUN (g) Ordinary Block: Attack is blocked on 11- (OCV 5 vs OCV 5), so 62.5% chance. If blocked, attacker hits for 5d6 (8DC minus 3 for STR). That’s 17.5 on average, 11.5 past PD, halved for location = 5.75 x 62.5% chance of Block = 3.59. If he fails, the attacker needs to hit DCV 5, so 11-, an 62.5% chance, in which case he’ll average 28 STUN -6 PD = 22 STUN x 37.5% chance block failed x 62.5% chance of hitting= 5.16. Average Damage: 8.75 Stun. Summary Do Nothing: average 13.75 STUN Martial Dodge: average 2.05 STUN Dodge: Average 5.70 STUN Def Block: Average 4.84 STUN Glan Block: Average 6.11 STUN Mart Block: Average 2.67 STUN Block: Average 8.75 STUN At least we're getting closer. That Glancing Block will be inferior against most equal opponents. I don't expect it will perform a lot better against boss villains, who will have better OCV and damage. Even if it performs better against mooks, who needs an edge on mooks? It was more meant to be a maneuver against more powerful opponents but to spend the points on this rather than a dodge is a little silly now that I think of it. Point taken on this. I stand by the conclusion that the - DC is not worth as much as an OCV or DCV bonus. I understand but I respectfully disagree, though I have been thinking about hieghtening the rewards for a Block as I have mentioned on another thread. I look forward to your feedback on it. At the other edge of Block not being the best choice for damage avoidance is what it can do. I think we've gone as far as we can without live playtesting. However, I suggest the following character approach would be very effective: (a) Take the Def Block maneuver, and an Offensive Strike ( Buy several levels with MA © Buy Armor, only the arm hit location (d) Consider PSL's against low shot blocks At the start of combat, Block with all levels to OCV. This will maximize the amount you make your roll by. The Armor will minimize the damage you actually take, and should be pretty cheap as it covers only one hit location. Next phase, assess your OCV bonus. If it allows you to shove all your levels in Damage and still be reasonably assured of hitting your target, use your Offensive Strike in that fashion. If not, repeat the Phase 1 approach. Barring exceptionally poor rolls, your OCV should keep rising until you reach a point that you can reallocate your MA levels to damage and lay the target out in one shot. I have thought about "unlinking the chain" with the OCV bonus and making it for offensive strikes or attacks only and cannot be used for additional Block maneuvers. Also making a penalty for the lower Activation rolls as well. Thank you for helping me think this out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robyn Posted June 18, 2006 Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 Why not light a candle instead of cursing my darkness. Do you have a way to make it work btter other than just abandoning the proposition and resorting to the old manner of doing it? What's wrong with the old system? New is not necessarily better - under the circumstances, since it seems to be worse, why go to the trouble of working out something different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rkane_1 Posted June 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 After some FURTHER reflection and some very good input from Hugh Neilson and others. I have FURTHER modified my original proposal and now I offer the revised REVISED version. *smile*. Thanks for your continued efforts to help me test my theories and hone my output. ------------------------------------------------ Standard Maneuvers Block (revised) Maneuver -------Phs ----Pts -----OCV ------DCV ------Damage/Effect Block ------------½----- 0------- +0---------+0 ------ Damage Class reduction defense This action prevents a hand-to-hand opponent’s attack and sets the blocking character up to deliver the next blow. A character that wishes to Block must declare his intentions before his attacker attempts an Attack roll or must Abort to this action. To attempt a Block, the attacker must roll against his opponent’s OCV, not DCV. If the Blocker fails, the Attacker must STILL roll versus their DCV to hit them. If the character successfully Blocks then he directly subtracts the Damage Class of his or her Strength and added Martial Art DC's from the damage of the attack. If the amount of subtracted Damage Classes exceeds the number of Damage Classes of the attack, then no damage was done. Thus, if a 12d6 Attack has 14d6 DC subtracted from it, no damage was done. If the Blocker takes damage but succeeded with the Block Roll, he may choose what hit location takes the damage thus using any armor he has located on that Hit Location. Armor with an activation roll of 8 or less has a -2 OCV penalty for Blocking and Activation of 9 or less has a -1 OCV penalty for Blocking. He then takes any damage to the that Hit Location minus any protection offered by armor in that location. If Hit locations are not being used, the damage is simply halved minus any defenses before being applied. If the character was blocking with a Weapon or Shield, calculate if any damage was done to the weapon of shield though its DEF, half it and record it to determine if the weapon or shield is damaged or destroyed. If the Block fails, and the attacker succeeds on a subsequent roll versus the targets DCV, the Blocker has not a choice of Hit Location and it is either rolled randomly, or if a Hit Location was targetted, then it struck that spot and damage is rolled normally. If not using Hit Locations, then damage is rolled normally. If the attacker and Blocker both have their next action Phases in the same Segment, the character who Blocked successfully automatically gets to act first, irregardless of relative DEX (the Blockers opponent is delayed until the Blockers’ DEX) providing no Knockback was taken by the Blocker and he was not Stunned or rendered unconscious. Blocks have no effect on Ranged attacks. A well-executed Block can throw an opponent off balance. To simulate this, give a character a +1 OCV bonus for every 2 points the attacking character missed their roll by but only if the Blocker can act before the Attacker does next. If the attacking character made a 13 when a 9 was needed, the Blocker would get a +2 bonus for his or her attack next Segment. This bonus is also reduced by a -2 cumulative for every other Block which must be made by the Blocker in that round. This bonus is only usable for a subsequent attack and cannot be used for another Block. A character may Block after this but it will not enjoy any OCV bonus from their previous Block success. A character who has successfully Blocked can Block additional attacks made against him. Each additional attack made against him is a +2 cumulative per attack, and if the Blocker is actually struck, he may not Block any further attacks. If using the Hit Location penalty a Blocker is at –4 OCV to Block any strike at the lower portion of his body (rolls from 14-18) with his arms or hands. The Blocker is also at a –4 OCV to Block any strike at the higher portion of his body (rolls 3-11) with their legs. Characters with odd fighting styles may counter this by buying +PSLs (Only to counter Block penalties for High/Low strikes with arms/legs (-2)). When Blocking follow a "Like vs. Like" philosophy in that a Normal Physical Attack blocks a Normal Physical Attack but cannot Block a Killing Energy attack unless the character has a defense that can resist the attack. Even one resistant Energy Defense will allow a character to use a Block versus a Killing Energy attack but without that one point, the only thing Blocks accomplishes is allowing the character to choose the Hit Location that the attacker hits or , if Hit Locations are not being used, then the damage is halved. Martial Block Martial Block is identical to Block above with the exception that some techniques subtract further Damage Classes from the attack being made. Maneuver Costs Element -------------Description ------------------Maximum Block ---------------+0pts of maneuver ---------Take Once ------------------------------------------------Is based on Block ------------------------------------------------Instead of Strike ------------------------------------------------(Abort is Free) - DC ----------------+1 pt per -1DC ------------up to -4DC ---------------------+2pts per additional -1DC over -4DC Follow Up Bonus------+1 pt per +2 OCV ---------up to +4 OCV ---------------------+1 pt per additional +1 OCV up to +4 Follow-up OCV -DC directly subtracts from the Damage Classes of an attack Follow-Up OCV Bonus is a bonus on the Attack which immediately follows this Manuver provided the target does not act before him or the one with Bonus is not Stunned or rendered unconscious. From this, the following Blocks may be made: Maneuver ------Phs ---Pts ----OCV -----DCV -----Damage/Effect Defensive Block -½----- 5----- +1 -------+3 -------DC Reduction Glancing Block --½ ---- 5----- +1 ------- 0 ------- DC Reduction - 3DC Setup Block --- ½ ----- 5 ---- +2 ------- 0 ------- DC Reduction; +3 Follow-up OCV Bonus Martial Block --- ½ ---- 4----- +2 ------- 0 ------- DC Reduction - 2DC Optional rule #1: Shields Characters with shields may be opt to use a Block maneuver to use the PD of their shield instead of making an activation roll. If the Activation of the Shield is 8 or less, then there is a -2 OCV penalty. If the Activation of the Shield is 9 or less, then there is a -1 OCV penalty. If the activation is 10 or less or above, then there is no penalty. This is free of charge and costs no extra points for the character but LARGE shields may have a larger surface and provide more +OCV with Block (only for use with Shield (-1)). If a Shield has a DCV bonus, then that Bonus can add as an OCV bonus but only for the Block Maneuver. Optional Rule #2: Inside Block If a Blocker is in the adjacent hex as an opponent and wishes to Block, they may execute an inside Block which allows a character to Block the limb which is executing the blow and not the actual weapon or fist/foot which is causing the damage. This will allow characters to divide all damage by an ADDITIONAL x1/2 BEFORE subtraction PD and then dividing damage for the Block. This also allows characters to avoid Killing damage from hand to hand melee weapons as the character is Blocking the arm or appendage of the attacker and not the weapon. The character just takes damage from the arm and that is handled as if it were a normal attack of the attacker’s Strength which then goes through the above process as if it were a normal attack against an Inside Block. GM’s may wish to assess a –2 OCV penalty to Inside Blocks as it IS hard to get “inside” on an opponent. A GM may also let a character do an “Inside Block” further from a character for longer weapons on a weapon providing the Blocker could conceivably find a spot on the weapon which , if struck, would not somehow hurt them (the haft of an axe, the entire surface of a staff, etc.) but the GM could assess penalties depending upon how outlandish or simple the character makes it sound (“You’re going to grab the sword by the flat edges with your pinkies…um, Bob…-18 OCV…Now…well...oh dear.. No more pinkies Bob.”) Some items for consideration is what about Blocking WITH a weapon against someone striking bare-fisted. The added Element of Follow-Up OCV for strikes immediately follwing a Block (or perhaps another maneuver) is something up for consideration as well. Thank you for your thoughts and input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rkane_1 Posted June 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 What's wrong with the old system? New is not necessarily better - under the circumstances, since it seems to be worse, why go to the trouble of working out something different? To add a new element of gritty realism to the game where someone with normal human strength cannot block a hurricane force punch from the likes of Ogre. Its just a variant is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prestidigitator Posted June 18, 2006 Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 You'd think SOMEONE else would have a comment by now' date=' wouldn't you?[/quote'] Posts are getting awfully long. Past my laziness threshold, to tell you the truth. I see lots of words. And maybe some numbers. Carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rkane_1 Posted June 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 *chuckle* Sorry Prestidigitator. Though I do like your PD with a skill roll on it option. Is that from somewhere or is that a Prestidigitator original? Would there be any other little fighter things possible with a Fighter Skill roll. I like the idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prestidigitator Posted June 18, 2006 Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 *chuckle* Sorry Prestidigitator. Though I do like your PD with a skill roll on it option. Is that from somewhere or is that a Prestidigitator original? Would there be any other little fighter things possible with a Fighter Skill roll. I like the idea. Heh. Can't recall ever having seen it anywhere. Of course there are other nifty little tricks. RSR is grrrreat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rkane_1 Posted June 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 Well, the PD with RSR option would easily mimic the little shrugs and deflecting stances of a lot of martial arts and stil preserve the character's ability to strike that same round. You could also key OCV levels to an RSR for a character who can spot "openings" or "vulnerabilities" in a stance or just the right moment to strike. Extra DCV based on an Acrobatics check (up and over the ones already garnered from a successful Acrobatics Roll) Damage Reduction was mentioned for STUN only with an Ego Roll in UMA as a character who had the ability to focus his mind past the pain. Thats a good one. Keep the good ideas coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prestidigitator Posted June 18, 2006 Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 Yep. The downside is that you have to figure out exactly how many rolls you are willing to make each Phase (and possibly each time you are attacked as well). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rkane_1 Posted June 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 Yep. The downside is that you have to figure out exactly how many rolls you are willing to make each Phase (and possibly each time you are attacked as well). Isn't taking a roll a Zero Phase Action? Thgis would be problematic, though, if someone had say five or six of these type rolls to make EVERY phase. Maybe a cumulative -1 penalty on each subsequent Roll after the first might also curb this as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted June 18, 2006 Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2 After some FURTHER reflection and some very good input from Hugh Neilson and others. I have FURTHER modified my original proposal and now I offer the revised REVISED version. *smile*. Thanks for your continued efforts to help me test my theories and hone my output. ------------------------------------------------ Standard Maneuvers Block (revised) Maneuver -------Phs ----Pts -----OCV ------DCV ------Damage/Effect Block ------------½----- 0------- +0---------+0 ------ Damage Class reduction defense This action prevents a hand-to-hand opponent’s attack and sets the blocking character up to deliver the next blow. A character that wishes to Block must declare his intentions before his attacker attempts an Attack roll or must Abort to this action. To attempt a Block, the attacker must roll against his opponent’s OCV, not DCV. If the Blocker fails, the Attacker must STILL roll versus their DCV to hit them. To clarify, do you now intend to change the mechanic for rolling Block? You say the attacker rolls against the Blocker's OCV. The standard is that the Blocker rolls against the attacker's OCV. This makes a difference. If the Blocker rolls, and OCV's are equal, there is a 62.5% chance Block succeeds (this is the math in the examples above, which you have agreed with). If the attacker rolls to get past the Block, the Block has only a 37.5% chance of success. That's a pretty big swing, so this needs to be clear. If the character successfully Blocks then he directly subtracts the Damage Class of his or her Strength and added Martial Art DC's from the damage of the attack. If the amount of subtracted Damage Classes exceeds the number of Damage Classes of the attack, then no damage was done. Thus, if a 12d6 Attack has 14d6 DC subtracted from it, no damage was done. If the Blocker takes damage but succeeded with the Block Roll, he may choose what hit location takes the damage thus using any armor he has located on that Hit Location. Armor with an activation roll of 8 or less has a -2 OCV penalty for Blocking and Activation of 9 or less has a -1 OCV penalty for Blocking. He then takes any damage to the that Hit Location minus any protection offered by armor in that location. If Hit locations are not being used, the damage is simply halved minus any defenses before being applied. If the character was blocking with a Weapon or Shield, calculate if any damage was done to the weapon of shield though its DEF, half it and record it to determine if the weapon or shield is damaged or destroyed. OK - use a shield for its intended purpose, and it gets broken. Not sure I like that approach,but it certainly moderates the advantages of blocking with a shield or weapon. Still don't have that "If your bare habds are blocked with a sword, you may get injured" realism added. I maintain that this provides another advantage to high STR - their Blocks will soak up any damage the Brick may have taken otherwise, without investing points in martial maneuvers. Meanwhile, he's harder to block than most characters getting DC's from other sources. Another good reason to pick a Brick in your gritty, realistic game. And we still have that issue of some SFX hand attacks logically enhancing the ability to Block. You keep saying I've suggested no solution, but I keep asking you for an Advantage ("Affects Block"), or Limitation ("does not affect Block") and you have yet to suggest one. As I don't think this variant is worth the hassle (and the ripple effects each succesive discussion raises are supporting that belief), I'm not investing a lot of effort into putting band aids on the issues. Activation rolls. Hmmm...I can buy defenses that act 11- and get them automatic on my Block, or I can buy defenses 8- and 2 PSL's for 3 points and the defenses apply when I Block. Looks like PSL's are in if the defenses have Act rolls. More commonly, however, I expect these gritty, realistic games you aim these rules at will use hit locations, so I just take defenses that protect only a specific hit location. I pick the hit location, so I pick the well-defended one. I may need 4 PSL's for your penalty to targetted strikes, but the verbiage above provides no restriction on which hit location I pick, so "by the book", I can kick your Low Blow (no OCV penalty) so it strikes my (armored) forearm location. In any case, a 6 point investment in PSL's to make sure my one heavily armored hit location is always the one I block with may be worthwhile. A Damage Shield, only vs targets who strike that one specific hit location, may also be a good deal. If the Block fails, and the attacker succeeds on a subsequent roll versus the targets DCV, the Blocker has not a choice of Hit Location and it is either rolled randomly, or if a Hit Location was targetted, then it struck that spot and damage is rolled normally. If not using Hit Locations, then damage is rolled normally. If the attacker and Blocker both have their next action Phases in the same Segment, the character who Blocked successfully automatically gets to act first, irregardless of relative DEX (the Blockers opponent is delayed until the Blockers’ DEX) providing no Knockback was taken by the Blocker and he was not Stunned or rendered unconscious. No real change here. Blocks have no effect on Ranged attacks. A well-executed Block can throw an opponent off balance. To simulate this, give a character a +1 OCV bonus for every 2 points the attacking character missed their roll by but only if the Blocker can act before the Attacker does next. If the attacking character made a 13 when a 9 was needed, the Blocker would get a +2 bonus for his or her attack next Segment. This bonus is also reduced by a -2 cumulative for every other Block which must be made by the Blocker in that round. This bonus is only usable for a subsequent attack and cannot be used for another Block. A character may Block after this but it will not enjoy any OCV bonus from their previous Block success. That further -2 makes this useful only in one on one combat, where my "keep blocking until you have an obscene OCV bonus, then hammer him with everything in damage" approach seems most useful. I suppose one could vary your phrasing from "can act" to "does act", and rule that a Block is simulatneous with the attacker, so no bonus to Block. Makes sense - the oppponent should have recovered his footing before striking. A further thought - why a bonus to Blocker's OCV? If Attacker is off-balance, isn't it easier for others to hit him as well? maybe the attacker should suffer a DCV penalty instead. Block now becomes a useful tactic so my allies can strike. If using the Hit Location penalty a Blocker is at –4 OCV to Block any strike at the lower portion of his body (rolls from 14-18) with his arms or hands. The Blocker is also at a –4 OCV to Block any strike at the higher portion of his body (rolls 3-11) with their legs. Characters with odd fighting styles may counter this by buying +PSLs (Only to counter Block penalties for High/Low strikes with arms/legs (-2)). Your low shots are much lower than your high shots are high. Blockers who typically use their legs are at a huge drawback. What if I have acrobatics? Wouldn't that enable me to change the location of my hit locations pretty readily? Capioera (sp) seems an art where this would virtually always apply. When Blocking follow a "Like vs. Like" philosophy in that a Normal Physical Attack blocks a Normal Physical Attack but cannot Block a Killing Energy attack unless the character has a defense that can resist the attack. Even one resistant Energy Defense will allow a character to use a Block versus a Killing Energy attack but without that one point' date=' the only thing Blocks accomplishes is allowing the character to choose the Hit Location that the attacker hits or , if Hit Locations are not being used, then the damage is halved. [/quote'] Those elbow pads will have 1 rED, I guess. Not commonly an issue, since most characters have some rDEF so the first KA doesn't have them reaching for a new character sheet. Martial Block Martial Block is identical to Block above with the exception that some techniques subtract further Damage Classes from the attack being made. Maneuver Costs Element -------------Description ------------------Maximum Block ---------------+0pts of maneuver ---------Take Once ------------------------------------------------Is based on Block ------------------------------------------------Instead of Strike ------------------------------------------------(Abort is Free) - DC ----------------+1 pt per -1DC ------------up to -4DC ---------------------+2pts per additional -1DC over -4DC Follow Up Bonus------+1 pt per +2 OCV ---------up to +4 OCV ---------------------+1 pt per additional +1 OCV up to +4 Follow-up OCV -DC directly subtracts from the Damage Classes of an attack Follow-Up OCV Bonus is a bonus on the Attack which immediately follows this Manuver provided the target does not act before him or the one with Bonus is not Stunned or rendered unconscious. From this, the following Blocks may be made: Maneuver ------Phs ---Pts ----OCV -----DCV -----Damage/Effect Defensive Block -½----- 5----- +1 -------+3 -------DC Reduction Glancing Block --½ ---- 5----- +1 ------- 0 ------- DC Reduction - 3DC Setup Block --- ½ ----- 5 ---- +2 ------- 0 ------- DC Reduction; +3 Follow-up OCV Bonus Martial Block --- ½ ---- 4----- +2 ------- 0 ------- DC Reduction - 2DC I can't imagine spending 19 points on Block maneuvers. I'll probably buy Martial Dodge and some maneuvers that can only follow Dodge instead. Glancing Block will now come out even worse (same point cost, and one less DC reduction). Rather than buy Setup Block, I'd buy a high OCV strike maneuver that "must follow Block". Then I can use a better Block maneuver and still get the bonus. Buying +1 to follow up OCV for 1 point is way too expensive IMO. I only get to use it if my Block succeeds, and then only if I act before my opponent (ie we match phases). And prior analysis suggests 1 point for -1 DC is also overcosted. Optional Rule #2: Inside Block If a Blocker is in the adjacent hex as an opponent and wishes to Block, they may execute an inside Block which allows a character to Block the limb which is executing the blow and not the actual weapon or fist/foot which is causing the damage. This will allow characters to divide all damage by an ADDITIONAL x1/2 BEFORE subtraction PD and then dividing damage for the Block. This also allows characters to avoid Killing damage from hand to hand melee weapons as the character is Blocking the arm or appendage of the attacker and not the weapon. The character just takes damage from the arm and that is handled as if it were a normal attack of the attacker’s Strength which then goes through the above process as if it were a normal attack against an Inside Block. GM’s may wish to assess a –2 OCV penalty to Inside Blocks as it IS hard to get “inside†on an opponent. A GM may also let a character do an “Inside Block†further from a character for longer weapons on a weapon providing the Blocker could conceivably find a spot on the weapon which , if struck, would not somehow hurt them (the haft of an axe, the entire surface of a staff, etc.) but the GM could assess penalties depending upon how outlandish or simple the character makes it sound (“You’re going to grab the sword by the flat edges with your pinkies…um, Bob…-18 OCV…Now…well...oh dear.. No more pinkies Bob.â€) If I plan on Blocking, I'm buying 2 PSL's for Inside Block for 3 points. Now I double the halving, and Block is actually useful again. Of course, now I pay 28 points for a suite of Blocks, 2 PSL's for inside block and 4 PSL for the "wrong" hit locations. Have to see whether it's cheaper to armor up a locations 14-18 in addition to my forearm than to buy those extra 4 PSL's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.