RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2

[prestidigitator]

Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2

 

Isn't taking a roll a Zero Phase Action? Thgis would be problematic' date=' 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']

No. Taking a roll isn't even an action. It's just a matter of how often you as a player (or GM) want to pick up the dice, roll, and count. It can have an impact on flow of play. That's all. **Shrug**

[Rkane_1]

Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2

 

To clarify' date=' do you now intend to change the mechanic for rolling Block? You say the attacker rolls against the Blocker's OCV. The standard ...*snip*[/quote']

 

Good catch. My bad. Substitute the word "attacker" in that first sentence with the word "Blocker". That original mechanic was never supposed to change at all for Blocker rolls vs Attacker, then if fails, attacker must roll versus DCV.

 

OK - use a shield for its intended purpose' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Still working on that one.

 

{quote=Hugh Neilson]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.

 

Hmmm...true that. I think Strength does play a role but maybe I should preclude Strength from the Block or reduce its contribution. If you think about it, Strength already does play a role in Defense by providing PD. Perhaps only DC's should contribute.

 

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' date=' but I keep asking you for an Advantage ("Affects Block"), or Limitation ("does not affect Block") and you have yet to suggest one.[/quote']

 

Well, if it was a +1/4 Advantage for "Affects Block" it would make it cost the same as Martial Art Damage Class Level. Perhaps a +1pt per level adder for HA's that add to Block. You may only have up to the level of Blocking DC as you have in the HA.

 

Activation rolls. Hmmm...I can buy defenses that act 11- and get them automatic on my Block' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Yep.

 

More commonly' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Yep.

 

A Damage Shield' date=' only vs targets who strike that one specific hit location, may also be a good deal.[/quote']

 

Like spiked forearm guards. Yep.

 

That further -2 makes this useful only in one on one combat' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Yep...I like that. Thanks.

 

A further thought - why a bonus to Blocker's OCV? If Attacker is off-balance' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

You caught me off guard with that one. That is an interesting idea. Though my thought was that the Blocker's proximity to the Attacker and where he was, was the reason for the OCV bonus. And if the Attacker then had a DCV penalty, then a ranged character shouldn't be more likely to hit him. I think Multiple attacker bonus should take care of this. So You get a juicy OCV bonus and they get multiple attacker bonus.

 

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.

 

Agreed and I think PSL's for Capioerists are the answer.

 

Those elbow pads will have 1 rED' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Might want to put a little more just in case. Ya never know.

 

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.

 

Hmmm...I am constantly re-evaluating charging new and different costs for this, actually. I am thinking of someone's input about just modifying the rules as they stand instead of asking players to buy all new things. Will get back with this.

 

If I plan on Blocking' date=' 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']

 

Yep.

[Rkane_1]

RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 4?

 

RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 4?

 

After some FURTHER *FURTHER* reflection and some very good input from Hugh Neilson, Robyn, Prestidigitator, and others. I have FURTHER *FURTHER* modified my original proposal, second and third proposals and now I offer the revised REVISED *REVISED* version. *smile*. Thanks for your continued efforts to help me test my theories and hone my output.

 

Whats changed is total elimination of the new proposed elements. The variant should work with either Standard Block or Martial Block with no need for characters to buy anything new.

 

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

 

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 Blocker 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 one Damage Class for every 2 he made the Block Roll by 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 does 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 Phase. 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. If the Attacker acts before the Blocker attaks, the bonus is lost.

 

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 added Martial Art DC's subtract from the Damage Class of the attack on a one for one basis.

 

Optional Rule #1: Martial Block Variant

Usually a character gets a +1 Follow-up OCV and a -1 Damage Class for every +2 they made their Block Roll by. For martiql artists who have more control over their movements, this could be controlled in such a manner that they control the outcome of their Block Better such as giving them a -1 DC for every +1 the roll was made by -OR- a +1 Follow-up OCV Bonus or any combination thereof as long as the sequence is chosen before the Block is thrown. Example: A blocker sets it up that for his first three that he makes his roll by, he enjoys a +1 Follow-up Bonus and on the fourth, he gets a -1 to his DC of incoming damage. Even if he finds after the hit that his opponent is going to do way more damage than he first thought, he is still held to that sequence. (+1 Followup OCV, +1 Followup OCV, +1 Followup OCV, -1 DC, repeat) Once the Block is over he may change it with his next block.

 

Optional rule #2: 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 #3: 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.

 

I went with this version as someone did point out requesting players buy multiple versions of Block was a little clunky and this means you can use any pre-made characters with the rules above.

 

Thank you for your thoughts and input.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2

 

Hmmm...true that. I think Strength does play a role but maybe I should preclude Strength from the Block or reduce its contribution. If you think about it' date=' Strength already does play a role in Defense by providing PD. Perhaps only DC's should contribute.[/quote']

 

I suppose you could set a base DC reduction for Block, but that will cause this variant's utility to vary widely across various campaign levels. If the base Block reduces DC's by, say, 4, that's huge in a 50+50 point game, but very little in a 350 point Supers game. Make the base DC high enough that Supers have some inventive to Block, and you're back to a Block eliminating all damage in a lower point game.

 

Your proposal above (we cross posted) starts with a base of 0 DC's, which means a low DEF character (like most martial artists and speedsters) will likely wish to forego the Block. Unless they have a huge OCV advantage on the attacker, they're still likely to take significant damage, and be knocked back. Better to Dodge. On the other hand, a well defended Brick may want to consider Block to reduce the damage he takes. With a tiny 3 point investment in 2 PSL's, he can do an Inside Block and halve damage before his already significant PD. This is likely not a great benefit if he's fighting a martial artist due to the OCV spread. However, against another Brick, it will be huge. Especially if he buys some "forearm only" sectional armor.

 

The difference between an Inside Block and a standard block is vastly more significant than the difference between blocking and not blocking, which doesn't seem right from a game balance or realism perspective.

 

Well' date=' if it was a +1/4 Advantage for "Affects Block" it would make it cost the same as Martial Art Damage Class Level. Perhaps a +1pt per level adder for HA's that add to Block. You may only have up to the level of Blocking DC as you have in the HA.[/quote']

 

A 1 point adder is so low that no one is likely to pass up on it. 1 point per d6 is the same as an advantage. Perhaps the default should be that HA DC's do reduce damage when blocking, and FlameFist should get a limitation since hsi doesn't.

 

Like spiked forearm guards. Yep.

 

Getting back to your goal that this system be more realistic, if armoring up your forearms makes a Block markedly more effective, why don't we see more such "armor" used in the source material, or in the real world?

 

You caught me off guard with that one. That is an interesting idea. Though my thought was that the Blocker's proximity to the Attacker and where he was' date=' was the reason for the OCV bonus. And if the Attacker then had a DCV penalty, then a ranged character shouldn't be more likely to hit him. I think Multiple attacker bonus should take care of this. So You get a juicy OCV bonus and they get multiple attacker bonus.[/quote']

 

Multiple attacker implies they all shoot at the same time. Again coming back to that realism objective, if Joe has Blocked Ted, and Ted is now open to a retaliatory strike from Joe, how is he able to perfectly evade Jeff, who has a phase before Ted or Joe move again? It seems tough to imagine Ted is only off balance when Joe attacks him.

 

Agreed and I think PSL's for Capioerists are the answer.

 

Seems to me that swapping your low and high locations is a common result of acrobatic maneuvers. Should Acrobatics figure in to this somehow?

 

Related to this, how will the Block rules be modified if the attacker, or defender, has higher ground? What if the Blocker is prone (if the attacker is prone, he presumably takes a low shot)?

 

Hmmm...I am constantly re-evaluating charging new and different costs for this' date=' actually. I am thinking of someone's input about just modifying the rules as they stand instead of asking players to buy all new things. Will get back with this.[/quote']

 

To me, the approach which least changes the rules is to be preferred. But then, I'm OK with the status quo approach. I do think you need to reassess the issue, however, as almost 20 points in Block maneuvers seems vastly excessive.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2

 

With the new proposal, let's look at a couple of evenly matched martial artists. Let's assume their OCV's and DCV's are equal (doesn't really matter what they are - say 5), they have 15 STR, +1 DC and can do a Martial Strike for 6d6. They each have 8 PD [i'm getting the DC to DEF ratio a bit closer to the norm here].

 

Doing nothing means a 62.5% chance of being struck, and taking an average of 13 (21-8) Stun. 8.125 STUN on average.

 

A standard Block will succeed 62.5% of the time. Damage will depend on how much it succeeds by, but DC's will only be reduced on a 9-. 37.5% of the time. With no reduction, the character will take 6.5 Stun (half of 13). If the Block fails, he;ll take 13 damage 62.5% of the time. Call that 6.5 x 62.5% + 8.125 x 37.5% = 7.11, with a prospect for reduction.

 

A Martial Block will succeed 93.8% of the time, and should take a DC more than the standard Block off. That means 10.5/2 STUN - 5.25 83.8% of the time, and 13 if the block misses (16.2%) and the attack hits (37.5%). 5.19 Stun average, prospect for reduction.

 

A Dodge will reduce the chance of any damage to 25.93%, and 13 * .2593 = 3.37.

 

A Martial Dodge reduces damage to 9.26% of 13 = 1.20

 

Gotta go with the Martial Dodge here. Note that, as DC's rise, the Block will become less and less beneficial, as it's onlytaking off a few DC's, leaving most of them. As defenses rise, however, Block should become more desirable as reducing DC's before defenses becomes a greater % of the damage the attack otherwise would have done.

 

Return to that long-ago example of Ogre (6 OCV) and Seeker (11 DCV). His Block will shave off all of 2 DC's, not even worth trying when it will practically guarantee a 10d6 hit, taking 10 STUN, and probably knockback. Fair enough - you wanted Seeker discouraged from blocking.

 

However, if Ogre is lucky enough to succeed with a Block, all he does is halve the damage after his defenses - again, hardly worth the effort.

 

We're back to it being easier to just ban Block rather than allow it to languish, unutilized, in the Hall of Inefficient Maneuvers.

 

The problem, IMO, is that the present Block maneuver (realistic or not) is balanced against other maneuvers. Since your proposal ultimately serves to weaken the Block maneuver, it falls out of balance. Any OCV bonus is only likely to be achieved if my OCV is already superior to my opponent's OCV. In such a case, I likely already beat his DCV by a fair margin as well, so I don't really need the OCV bonus. Most characters whose OCV is already quite superior generally have the higher DEX, and would have moved first anyway, so there's no real bonus gained for that followup attack.

[Rkane_1]

Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2

 

With the new proposal' date=' let's look at a couple of evenly matched martial artists. Let's assume their OCV's and DCV's are equal (doesn't really matter what they are - say 5), they have 15 STR, +1 DC and can do a Martial Strike for 6d6. They each have 8 PD [i'm getting the DC to DEF ratio a bit closer to the norm here'].

 

Doing nothing means a 62.5% chance of being struck, and taking an average of 13 (21-8) Stun. 8.125 STUN on average.

 

A standard Block will succeed 62.5% of the time. Damage will depend on how much it succeeds by, but DC's will only be reduced on a 9-. 37.5% of the time. With no reduction, the character will take 6.5 Stun (half of 13). If the Block fails, he;ll take 13 damage 62.5% of the time. Call that 6.5 x 62.5% + 8.125 x 37.5% = 7.11, with a prospect for reduction.

 

A Martial Block will succeed 93.8% of the time, and should take a DC more than the standard Block off. That means 10.5/2 STUN - 5.25 83.8% of the time, and 13 if the block misses (16.2%) and the attack hits (37.5%). 5.19 Stun average, prospect for reduction.

 

A Dodge will reduce the chance of any damage to 25.93%, and 13 * .2593 = 3.37.

 

A Martial Dodge reduces damage to 9.26% of 13 = 1.20

 

Gotta go with the Martial Dodge here. Note that, as DC's rise, the Block will become less and less beneficial, as it's onlytaking off a few DC's, leaving most of them. As defenses rise, however, Block should become more desirable as reducing DC's before defenses becomes a greater % of the damage the attack otherwise would have done.

 

Return to that long-ago example of Ogre (6 OCV) and Seeker (11 DCV). His Block will shave off all of 2 DC's, not even worth trying when it will practically guarantee a 10d6 hit, taking 10 STUN, and probably knockback. Fair enough - you wanted Seeker discouraged from blocking.

 

However, if Ogre is lucky enough to succeed with a Block, all he does is halve the damage after his defenses - again, hardly worth the effort.

 

We're back to it being easier to just ban Block rather than allow it to languish, unutilized, in the Hall of Inefficient Maneuvers.

 

The problem, IMO, is that the present Block maneuver (realistic or not) is balanced against other maneuvers. Since your proposal ultimately serves to weaken the Block maneuver, it falls out of balance. Any OCV bonus is only likely to be achieved if my OCV is already superior to my opponent's OCV. In such a case, I likely already beat his DCV by a fair margin as well, so I don't really need the OCV bonus. Most characters whose OCV is already quite superior generally have the higher DEX, and would have moved first anyway, so there's no real bonus gained for that followup attack.

 

Fair enough. *shrug*

[Rkane_1]

Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2

 

With the new proposal' date=' let's look at a couple of evenly matched martial artists. Let's assume their OCV's and DCV's are equal (doesn't really matter what they are - say 5), they have 15 STR, +1 DC and can do a Martial Strike for 6d6. They each have 8 PD [i'm getting the DC to DEF ratio a bit closer to the norm here'].

 

Doing nothing means a 62.5% chance of being struck, and taking an average of 13 (21-8) Stun. 8.125 STUN on average.

 

A standard Block will succeed 62.5% of the time. Damage will depend on how much it succeeds by, but DC's will only be reduced on a 9-. 37.5% of the time. With no reduction, the character will take 6.5 Stun (half of 13). If the Block fails, he;ll take 13 damage 62.5% of the time. Call that 6.5 x 62.5% + 8.125 x 37.5% = 7.11, with a prospect for reduction.

 

A Martial Block will succeed 93.8% of the time, and should take a DC more than the standard Block off. That means 10.5/2 STUN - 5.25 83.8% of the time, and 13 if the block misses (16.2%) and the attack hits (37.5%). 5.19 Stun average, prospect for reduction.

 

A Dodge will reduce the chance of any damage to 25.93%, and 13 * .2593 = 3.37.

 

A Martial Dodge reduces damage to 9.26% of 13 = 1.20

 

Gotta go with the Martial Dodge here. Note that, as DC's rise, the Block will become less and less beneficial, as it's onlytaking off a few DC's, leaving most of them. As defenses rise, however, Block should become more desirable as reducing DC's before defenses becomes a greater % of the damage the attack otherwise would have done.

 

Return to that long-ago example of Ogre (6 OCV) and Seeker (11 DCV). His Block will shave off all of 2 DC's, not even worth trying when it will practically guarantee a 10d6 hit, taking 10 STUN, and probably knockback. Fair enough - you wanted Seeker discouraged from blocking.

 

However, if Ogre is lucky enough to succeed with a Block, all he does is halve the damage after his defenses - again, hardly worth the effort.

 

We're back to it being easier to just ban Block rather than allow it to languish, unutilized, in the Hall of Inefficient Maneuvers.

 

What about a proposal of for every 1 the Block is made by, the DC is lessened by 1 instead of for every 2pts the Block is made by. Same thing for the OCV follow-up?

 

The problem' date=' IMO, is that the present Block maneuver (realistic or not) is balanced against other maneuvers. Since your proposal ultimately serves to weaken the Block maneuver, it falls out of balance. Any OCV bonus is only likely to be achieved if my OCV is already superior to my opponent's OCV. In such a case, I likely already beat his DCV by a fair margin as well, so I don't really need the OCV bonus. Most characters whose OCV is already quite superior generally have the higher DEX, and would have moved first anyway, so there's no real bonus gained for that followup attack.[/quote']

 

Hmmm...can you think of any other bonuses that might represent the Blocker getting the "upper hand" after a Strike? Too bad the bonus of striking well (i.e. rolling high over your target number) doesn't figure into damage in this game.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2

 

What about a proposal of for every 1 the Block is made by' date=' the DC is lessened by 1 instead of for every 2pts the Block is made by. Same thing for the OCV follow-up?[/quote']

 

I think as long as I'm sacrificing an action to reduce damage, but guarantee I take a hit, Block is going to be a "weak sister" maneuver. The characters who have a decent shot at pulling off a Block with enough success to significantly reduce damage and get the OCV bonus will be the fast characters, who typically have low defenses and rely on not getting hit. They'll change to Dodge for this purpose. They don't generally need an OCV bonus, nor do they need help to get their next move sooner than their opponent. Characters who don't rely on DCV really need bonus OCV if their opponent is faster than them, which makes the odds of a successul Block poor.

 

As an example, assume I need an 8- to hit my opponent. Taking two shots that require 8- to hit carries a 45.14% chance I'll hit at leats once, including a 6.72% chance I'll hit twice. That's an average of .5186 hits for using two phases. I need to roll a 6- to raise the odds of my next shot hitting to 10-, or 50%. There's a 9.26% chance I'll get that 6- to bring me to a 50% chance of the second shot hitting. It's not worth it.

 

About the only time I can see Block being used under this model is by that character who buys lots of limited "one location only" defenses (so he'll take little or no damage from Blocked shots). He'll also spend 3 points on 2 PSL's so it's always an Inside Block. That will likely get him back to "A successful Block does no damage."

 

He'll have a pretty high DEX, as his overall defenses won't be great, so his Blocks should succeed by significant margins. He'll use Block as a means to convert a smaller attack that would almost always hit into a larger attack (eg. Offensive Strike) with the same likelihood, or at the extreme, a consistent Head Shot doing double damage.

 

Hmmm...can you think of any other bonuses that might represent the Blocker getting the "upper hand" after a Strike? Too bad the bonus of striking well (i.e. rolling high over your target number) doesn't figure into damage in this game.

 

You could eliminate damage rolls entirely and use the success of the "to hit" roll to set damage instead. That change would be fundamental, and require a lot of charting and bell curves. Ultimately, I suspect it would mean high OCV/DCV becomes superior to any other character concept. If I can get max damage by hitting with a better roll, why would I buy more damage instead of more OCV? If I can minimize damage taken if my opponent barely hits, why buy defenses instead of DCV?

[Rkane_1]

Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2

 

I think as long as I'm sacrificing an action to reduce damage' date=' but guarantee I take a hit, Block is going to be a "weak sister" maneuver. The characters who have a decent shot at pulling off a Block with enough success to significantly reduce damage and get the OCV bonus will be the fast characters, who typically have low defenses and rely on not getting hit. They'll change to Dodge for this purpose. They don't generally need an OCV bonus, nor do they need help to get their next move sooner than their opponent. Characters who don't rely on DCV really need bonus OCV if their opponent is faster than them, which makes the odds of a successul Block poor. [/quote']

 

But in a sense, this is what they SHOULD opt for. Only if they are confident they can stand up to the blows being dispensed should they believe a Block is "worth it". I think one of the basic ideas of the Block that I have been trying to emulate is how a Block provides a bonus. With the Block Manuevers I have been presenting, the added risk of taking a small amount of damage is there without sufficient reward for taking the Block.

 

The opponent is 1/2 DCV for his next attack and half Hit Location Penalites for the Blocker and -2 DCV for all others until he or she can take any action. They are off balance but only the Blocker is in a position to truly take advantage of it but others may capitilize as well to a smaller degree. Do you think this is too much or too little?

 

Risk should equal reward.

 

As an example' date=' assume I need an 8- to hit my opponent. Taking two shots that require 8- to hit carries a 45.14% chance I'll hit at leats once, including a 6.72% chance I'll hit twice. That's an average of .5186 hits for using two phases. I need to roll a 6- to raise the odds of my next shot hitting to 10-, or 50%. There's a 9.26% chance I'll get that 6- to bring me to a 50% chance of the second shot hitting. It's not worth it.[/quote']

 

Good math, thanks.

 

About the only time I can see Block being used under this model is by that character who buys lots of limited "one location only" defenses (so he'll take little or no damage from Blocked shots). He'll also spend 3 points on 2 PSL's so it's always an Inside Block. That will likely get him back to "A successful Block does no damage."

 

But then he will have spent a lot more points and have a maneuver worth the points spent. This would be great for a Master who has spent the points in order to refine his Block.

 

He'll have a pretty high DEX' date=' as his overall defenses won't be great, so his Blocks should succeed by significant margins. He'll use Block as a means to convert a smaller attack that would almost always hit into a larger attack (eg. Offensive Strike) with the same likelihood, or at the extreme, a consistent Head Shot doing double damage.[/quote']

 

Yep.

 

You could eliminate damage rolls entirely and use the success of the "to hit" roll to set damage instead. That change would be fundamental' date=' and require a lot of charting and bell curves. Ultimately, I suspect it would mean high OCV/DCV becomes superior to any other character concept. If I can get max damage by hitting with a better roll, why would I buy more damage instead of more OCV? If I can minimize damage taken if my opponent barely hits, why buy defenses instead of DCV?[/quote']

 

Well, if you ran it thusly, the effects would be interesting...

 

Standard Die roll with OCV versus DCV...

 

For a zero to hit roll, 1 Stun for normal attacks/1 Body for Killing

Made it by...

 

0 = 1 x the damage dice

1 = 1.5 x the damage dice

2 = 2 x the damage dice

3 = 2.5 x the damage dice

4 = 3 x the damage dice

5 = 3.5 x the damage dice

6 = 4 x the damage dice

7 = 4.5 x the damage dice

8 = 5 x the damage dice

9 = 5.5 x the damage dice

10 = 6 x the damage dice

 

For rolls of three's the character can pick up a die and roll once more to subtract the result from the result. If a six is rolled, it is subtracted and the rolled again for further subtraction.

 

You could work the roll conversely for levels of failure for a roll of 18.

 

Yep....I know....where does he come up with these stupid ideas. *sigh* But just thinking out loud.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2

 

But in a sense' date=' this is what they SHOULD opt for. Only if they are confident they can stand up to the blows being dispensed should they believe a Block is "worth it". I think one of the basic ideas of the Block that I have been trying to emulate is how a Block provides a bonus. With the Block Manuevers I have been presenting, the added risk of taking a small amount of damage is there without sufficient reward for taking the Block.[/quote']

 

If the character believes he can take the hit, why Block at all? save your phase for a strike in retaliation. There is no reason for the basic archetypes to use Block. MA's will take too much damage, and already enjoy the benefits of a sufficient OCV they will likely hit, and superior initiative. Bricks can take the hit, but likely won't make the roll by enough for it to matter. They don't generally have high SPD, so better to just suck up the hit (that's why they have high defenses and high STUN) and hit back. Other archetypes combine the two items.

 

The opponent is 1/2 DCV for his next attack and half Hit Location Penalites for the Blocker and -2 DCV for all others until he or she can take any action. They are off balance but only the Blocker is in a position to truly take advantage of it but others may capitilize as well to a smaller degree. Do you think this is too much or too little?

 

To a greater and greater degree, your proposal seems to be moving away from Block as a defensive maneuver to Block as a setup for an offensive maneuver. Perhaps this maneuver would better be called "Feint". It does little to actually block the strike, and far more to set up the opponent.

 

If I have the OCV to make success with a Block likely, I probably have the OCV to hit anyway. If I have the defenses to make taking the hit viable using a Block, I probably have the defenses to forego the Block and keep my action for an offensive maneuver after my opponent takes his shot. Those characters most able to use the Block are the least likely to benefit from it.

 

But then he will have spent a lot more points and have a maneuver worth the points spent. This would be great for a Master who has spent the points in order to refine his Block.

 

And we have moved Block from being a combat maneuver, accessible by numerous characters, to a combat style requiring it be the focal point of the character to make it worthwhile. If that's your intention, you've got it. However, it fails the "realism" test in that it would not be a common defensive choice, like it is in reality.

[Rkane_1]

Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2

 

If the character believes he can take the hit' date=' why Block at all? Save your phase for a strike in retaliation. [/quote']

To reduce the force of the blow. I may not be able to take a shot by a boxer to the chin, but I can deflect it off with my arm and then go for a punch myself. The Block took away most of the bloow and was an action I have to plan and commit to. It reduced the amount of damage and left me in a position to counter strike. I can tqake a PART of that blow and minimize it and then strike myself.

 

There is no reason for the basic archetypes to use Block. MA's will take too much damage' date=' and already enjoy the benefits of a sufficient OCV they will likely hit, and superior initiative. [/quote']

But against a weaker oppponent with superior Dex, then it becomes something more worthwhile. You can take the delected damage and then counter-puch. Against a more powerful opponent with lower OCV, you may choose to Dodge instead.

 

Bricks can take the hit' date=' but likely won't make the roll by enough for it to matter. They don't generally have high SPD, so better to just suck up the hit (that's why they have high defenses and high STUN) and hit back.[/quote']

Agreed unless they are fighting another Brick, then it helps to know a bit about a Block.

 

Other archetypes combine the two items.

 

To a greater and greater degree, your proposal seems to be moving away from Block as a defensive maneuver to Block as a setup for an offensive maneuver. Perhaps this maneuver would better be called "Feint". It does little to actually block the strike, and far more to set up the opponent.

But is the Block that sets up so many maneuvers in Martial arts FOR a counter strike. Sacrifice the possibility of a little damage for an edge on your opponent. Aggressive/Defensive Fighting. Charging into your opponent to deliver a strike after deflecting his on the way in.

 

If I have the OCV to make success with a Block likely' date=' I probably have the OCV to hit anyway. If I have the defenses to make taking the hit viable using a Block, I probably have the defenses to forego the Block and keep my action for an offensive maneuver after my opponent takes his shot. Those characters most able to use the Block are the least likely to benefit from it.[/quote']

 

Good point but something just doesn't seem right with the Block as it stands.

 

And we have moved Block from being a combat maneuver' date=' accessible by numerous characters, to a combat style requiring it be the focal point of the character to make it worthwhile. If that's your intention, you've got it. However, it fails the "realism" test in that it would not be a common defensive choice, like it is in reality.[/quote']

Well, there are a number of factors in reality that are different in Hero but you make concessions to deal with a system that works mechanically for the sake of the game mechanics. I think it needs to be a small risk of damage for a slight edge in combat. Others disagree and for them, the current system works fine. I am looking for something more, is all.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2

 

But against a weaker oppponent with superior Dex' date=' then it becomes something more worthwhile. You can take the delected damage and then counter-puch. Against a more powerful opponent with lower OCV, you may choose to Dodge instead.[/quote']

 

Against a weaker opponent with superior DEX, my Block is likely to fail anyway, and I have far less need to further reduce the damage.

 

But is the Block that sets up so many maneuvers in Martial arts FOR a counter strike. Sacrifice the possibility of a little damage for an edge on your opponent. Aggressive/Defensive Fighting. Charging into your opponent to deliver a strike after deflecting his on the way in.

 

Such counterstrikes ae commonly designed as maneuvers of their own which must follow a Block. This mechanic already exists.

 

Good point but something just doesn't seem right with the Block as it stands.

**********************************************************

Well, there are a number of factors in reality that are different in Hero but you make concessions to deal with a system that works mechanically for the sake of the game mechanics. I think it needs to be a small risk of damage for a slight edge in combat. Others disagree and for them, the current system works fine. I am looking for something more, is all.

 

I don't see a "small risk of damage". Letting them hit you is more like a guarantee of damage. The only time you won't take damage is if your Block fails and he misses you.

 

At the end of the day, I think your variant introduces more problems than it solves and, ultimately, fails to achieve a significant enhancement to realism.

[Rkane_1]

Re: RKane_1's Heretical and Audacious Block Variant, Part 2

 

Against a weaker opponent with superior DEX' date=' my Block is likely to fail anyway, and I have far less need to further reduce the damage.[/quote']

 

Perhaps a small bonus of +2 OCV for all Blocks then?

 

Such counterstrikes are commonly designed as maneuvers of their own which must follow a Block. This mechanic already exists.

 

Reading more on that as I just got UMA

 

I don't see a "small risk of damage". Letting them hit you is more like a guarantee of damage. The only time you won't take damage is if your Block fails and he misses you.

 

Or if you have superior DC reduction to his DC or take so little damage as it is a suitable sacrifice for the benefits of the maneuver.

 

At the end of the day' date=' I think your variant introduces more problems than it solves and, ultimately, fails to achieve a significant enhancement to realism.[/quote']

 

Its still a work in progress and thank you for your help in challenging the ideas.