Changing block

[CTaylor]

I've been thinking about how block works and have a few thoughts.

 

First, the house rule part: for years now, we've been using block not as an OCV vs OCV contest (which is absolute) but as an OCV vs DCV hit contest. It works like this:

A attacks B. B attempts to block the attack. A rolls and hits a 7 DCV. In order to block A's attack, B must roll to hit a 7 DCV as well with their block. A's OCV is irrelevant, all that matters is how well he rolled to hit.

 

However, more recently another thought occurred to me. Block is still really absolute: if you block you take no damage. Perhaps block ought to work differently. What if, instead of negating damage, block simply reduced the damage taken, based on the object used to block with? Example:

A attacks B. B has a shield that he uses to block with, so when the block roll succeeds, he gets the shield's defense added to his own, reducing damage taken by that amount.

That's a nice start, it gives you a reason for tougher shields and doesn't just make damage disappear. I'd like to extend the thought a bit. For each 1 you hit by over the required amount to block, you get 1 more rPD/ED in the block. So if in the top example B rolled to hit a 10 DCV, then he'd get 3 more rPD/ED added to the block value of the shield (its defense).

 

Now, what about people using only their hands or arms to block? You don't have to use another item, that just helps. So there needs to be a baseline, a minimum amount that a block gives, or there's no point in having a block maneuver without some sort of implement like a shield. Here I'm not exactly sure what to do.

 

If you make the initial basic block bonus too high, there's no reason to use a shield (other than the OCV bonus). If you make it too low, there's no reason to block without a shield of some sort, and it is possible to do so.

 

I think the answer lies somewhere in strength and normal damage: it is possible to deflect a great deal of non killing damage with your bare hands and your strength factors into this significantly, it seems to me.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Changing block

 

In HERO, the main difference between Block and Dodge is that a successful Block attempt also puts the blocker in front of the attacker in the DEX/initiative order if they share the next Phase.

 

Any changes to Block that don't fully take this into account will just encourage players to use Dodge more often instead.

[Utech]

Re: Changing block

 

I won't be adopting your Block rules since I like the RAW (I think a successful Block should eliminate all damage), but in order to do what you're thinking, I'd suggest having people buy Armor with various Activation/RSR Limitations and call that a Block.

 

Example 1:

Armor Xpd/Yed

+Armor Xpd/Yed Activation Roll 15+

+Armor Xpd/Yed Activation Roll 11+

etc.

 

Example 2:

Armor Xpd/Yed

+Armor Xpd/Yed RSR (uses Attack Roll, no Active Point penalty)

+Armor Xpd/Yed RSR (uses Attack Roll)

+Armor Xpd/Yed RSR (uses Attack Roll penalty to Skill Roll is 1- per 5 points)

 

You might also want to add a Limitation "Only when performing the Block Maneuver"

[CTaylor]

Re: Changing block

 

I agree that the parry effect of block should remain in the maneuver, that wouldn't change.

 

But Utech, there's no point in adding armor to someone who successfully ignored all the damage of a given attack.

[Utech]

Re: Changing block

 

But Utech' date=' there's no point in adding armor to someone who successfully ignored all the damage of a given attack.[/quote']

 

Pardon the misunderstanding.

 

I will not be using your version of Block. I'm fine with Block in the RAW.

 

I made a suggestion for how to implement your version of Block. Your version of Block does not ignore all damage of a given attack.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Changing block

 

...for years now, we've been using block not as an OCV vs OCV contest (which is absolute) but as an OCV vs DCV hit contest. It works like this:

 

A attacks B. B attempts to block the attack. A rolls and hits a 7 DCV. In order to block A's attack, B must roll to hit a 7 DCV as well with their block. A's OCV is irrelevant, all that matters is how well he rolled to hit.

 

FYI that is actually functionally identical to the normal rules, or at least very very close.

 

If the attacker rolls some value RA on the dice and has an OCV of AOCV, then the attacker would hit a DCV of 11+AOCV-RA. If the defender rolls some value RD on the dice and has an OCV of DOCV, then the defender would hit a DCV of 11+DOCV-RD. Now the condition that the defender wins becomes:

 

11+DOCV-RD >= 11+AOCV-RA

11+DOCV-AOCV >= RD+(11-RA)

 

Now RA doesn't depend at all on the traits of the attacker; it is simply the result of a roll of 3d6. (11-RA) averages 0.5. The whole effect of this second roll of the dice is basically to change this:

 

RD <= 11+DOCV-AOCV

 

(the normal Block roll) to this:

 

RD <= 10.5+DOCV-AOCV

 

which gives the defender very slightly worse odds, but doesn't change things a great deal. Probably the bigger difference is that with your method both people always roll, and in the standard system the attacker only rolls if the defender fails (or alternately you ignore the attacker's roll if the defender's succeeds).

[CTaylor]

Re: Changing block

 

FYI that is actually functionally identical to the normal rules, or at least very very close.

 

The rules as written require a block roll against the OCV of the opponent, not how well they hit.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Changing block

 

Well, block seems to be getting a lot of coverage recently. You might like to check out Christopher Mullin's recent 'Superblock' thread.

 

In reality it is perfectly possibly to be partially successful with a block, turning a solid hit into a glancing blow.

 

You could do that this way:

 

Attacker succeeds by 2 points - defender takes full damage

Attacker succeeds by 1 point - defender takes damage as if they had 25% Damage reduction

Attacker succeeds exactly - defender takes damage as if they had 50% Damage reduction

Attacker fails by 1 point - defender takes damage as if they had 75% Damage reduction

Attacker fails by 2 points - defender takes no damage

 

If the defender already has DR, apply the block damage reduction before personal DR. Block 'DR' is considered fully resistant.

 

It might be nice to, with blocks, have both parties roll 3d6 and add the result to their OCV then compare (I do think OCV works better here than DCV).

 

That is identical to the current system, more or less, which assumes that the defender always rolls a 10. This is a little more freestyle, with more varied results and a slight advantage to the defender in numbers to offset the fact that they can take damage even if the blow would normally have missed completely.

[Oruncrest]

Re: Changing block

 

CTaylor, how can I explain to you the ways in which this idea fails? Lets start from the beginning:

 

1)You seem stuck on the idea that one can only Block by putting something in the way. That's not true. Parrying (forcing the attack aside) and Circumvention (getting inside the attack) are just as much blocking as Obstructing (placing something in the way of the attack).

 

This argument comes up every so often, with yours being one of the few to try to light a candle instead of just cursing the darkness. But really, you shouldn't get too hung up on the SFX. A Strike can have different SFX, why can't Block?

 

2) Most characters with 'shielding' foci often buy them as extra DCV (the SFX being that the attack strikes the shield, not the character, Armor or Force Field (often with Limitations), or even Force Wall. Your idea does nothing for them, except maybe force a limitation on them that they can't get points for.

 

3) You yourself point out that your idea makes blocking without an obstruction (shield, bracelets, car...) useless. While you've been puttering with an idea to give them some benefit (effectively adding STR/5 to their PD) it

a) wouldn't work against a character with a 'Taser Punch' (HA vs. ED). I can parry or circumvent a Taser Punch with the RAW Block, but sticking my hand out shouldn't apply here

wouldn't work against an HKA (barehanded, circumvention (and maybe parrying) would work in the RAW, but not here), and

c) should be just as usable by those using an obstruction (they have STR too) as it is by those using their bare hands, thus making the obstruction users even better off.

 

In all, it's an interesting idea, but the RAW gives me more options to work with.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Changing block

 

Whilst I agree that the RAW doesn't require some sort of contact for a block, I think it ought to to separate it from dodge. Some sorts of damage shields, for instance, might be triggered by a touch, and I'd like to be able to model that. Block should cover parrying and obstructing but not, IMO, circumvention

[CTaylor]

Re: Changing block

 

You seem stuck on the idea that one can only Block by putting something in the way.

 

No, only that the present system does not very successfully represent the use of interposing objects for blocking. Perhaps a different maneuver that is easier than block but can only be done with another object, working like this would be more appropriate.

 

Odd how online a discussion of rules can turn into something more like a discussion of one's personal appearance, as if a new idea or disagreement is personally insulting.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Changing block

 

No, only that the present system does not very successfully represent the use of interposing objects for blocking. Perhaps a different maneuver that is easier than block but can only be done with another object, working like this would be more appropriate.

 

Odd how online a discussion of rules can turn into something more like a discussion of one's personal appearance, as if a new idea or disagreement is personally insulting.

 

I think all ugly people are wrong, no matter what their opinion is.

 

 

 

What?

[CTaylor]

Re: Changing block

 

Dang I must be wrong then!

[Oruncrest]

Re: Changing block

 

Whilst I agree that the RAW doesn't require some sort of contact for a block' date=' I think it ought to to separate it from dodge.[/quote']

 

Blocking by circumvention doesn't need to separate itself from Dodge. Dodge separates itself from circumvention Blocking with one simple sentence:

 

A character performing a Dodge can’t attack' date=' but is much harder to hit -[/quote']

 

Dodging is evasion, pure and simple. The totality of your combat acumen is focused on not being hit. I can't Sweep a Dodge and a Strike together to simulate ducking under a right cross while delivering a jab to my opponents kidneys, but i can simulate it by sweeping Block and Strike (and my GM's permission, of course).

 

Some sorts of damage shields' date=' for instance, might be triggered by a touch, and I'd like to be able to model that. Block should cover parrying and obstructing but not, IMO, circumvention[/quote']

 

The kind of block you use should depend on the type of attack you're facing. If I see someone coming at me with a rapier and I have a chair nearby, I could use the chair to 'jam' his rapier as he thrusts. If I see someone coming at me with a broadsword and I have a chair nearby, I could use the chair to parry his slash, then smack him in the face with it. If I see someone coming at me with a lightsaber and I have a chair nearby, I'll leave the chair alone and get ready to duck under his swift strike so I can punch him in the kidneys.

[Oruncrest]

Re: Changing block

 

You seem stuck on the idea that one can only Block by putting something in the way.

 

No, only that the present system does not very successfully represent the use of interposing objects for blocking. Perhaps a different maneuver that is easier than block but can only be done with another object, working like this would be more appropriate.

 

If all you want is a mechanic for turning the typical detrius from a fight (manhole covers, cars, your opponents...) into a 'shield' of sorts, might I suggest using the 'Grab and Block' subaction from The Ultimate Martial Artist. Strike the last sentence, and replace 'opponent' with 'object' and you should have yourself a decent damage soaker maneuver.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Changing block

 

Or maybe some CSLs and/or extra defences with Obvious Inaccessible Focus (suitable objects from the environment) and whatever other Limitations seems appropriate for the power (e.g. Activation Roll or Requires a Skill Roll or whatever).

[CTaylor]

Re: Changing block

 

Given that a shield (for example) has basically only one function: get in the way of attacks and protect me, it seems that you ought not buy special powers to get the same effect. I'll take a look at grab and block to see if its closer to what I have in mind, from memory it's not exactly but maybe I can adapt it.

 

In real life when you block an attack, you tend to feel at least some of it (even if you do the martial arts redirect/avoidance block). In hero you ignore all the damage, and attack first.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Changing block

 

In real life when you block an attack' date=' you tend to feel at least some of it (even if you do the martial arts redirect/avoidance block). In hero you ignore all the damage, and attack first.[/quote']

 

Err...you do? I have plenty of martial arts experience. If you try to meet an attack head-on and block against the force of the blow you'll feel some of it (if you can block it at all), but if you block orthogonal to the direction of the attack, or with the attack, or avoid it, then no; no force of impact from the blow.

 

IIRC what people are talking about from UMA is actually block and grab, where you block an attack and then grab the weapon or limb that did the attacking. Completely different from grabbing something else and using it to complete a block. I see no application of that maneuver here whatsoever.

[Oruncrest]

Re: Changing block

 

IIRC what people are talking about from UMA is actually block and grab' date=' where you block an attack and then grab the weapon or limb that did the attacking. Completely different from grabbing something else and using it to complete a block. I see no application of that maneuver here whatsoever.[/quote']

Um, no. I'm talking about Grab & Block from pg. 145 of TUMA:

 

Grab and Block

With this combination, a character Grabs someone - and then, at any time while the Grab is still in effect, Blocks an incoming attack with the Grabbed character’s body. To do this, he performs the Grab normally. If the Grabbed character does not immediately escape, the Grabber can perform a Block with his body. Roll the Block maneuver (or Martial Block maneuver) at a -2 to OCV. If it succeeds, the Grabber has Blocked the attack; the Grabbed character takes the damage of the incoming attack. You can only Block this way once per Phase, unlike ordinary Blocks.

[CTaylor]

Re: Changing block

 

if you block orthogonal to the direction of the attack, or with the attack, or avoid it, then no; no force of impact from the blow.

 

Hm, that doesn't match my experience. Certainly the greatest amount of the force is reduced, but its still there, it's not like you completely ignore all the kinetic energy by redirecting it.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Changing block

 

Um' date=' no. I'm talking about Grab & Block from pg. 145 of TUMA:[/quote']

 

Ah. Okay. My bad. I was thinking of something else. Actually maybe it was even a thread. Reverse the words and it become a whole new concept.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Changing block

 

Hm' date=' that doesn't match my experience. Certainly the greatest amount of the force is reduced, but its still there, it's not like you completely ignore all the kinetic energy by redirecting it.[/quote']

 

Ask a student of Aikido what (s)he thinks about that.

[CTaylor]

Re: Changing block

 

I doubt anyone, with any form of martial arts, can negate the laws of physics.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Changing block

 

I doubt anyone' date=' with any form of martial arts, can negate the laws of physics.[/quote']

 

Too true. So how, by avoiding a blow for example, are you negating the laws of physics? What magical mechanism are you imagining that transfers significant energy and momentum to a target that you never physically contact (avoidance)? How does adding a little momentum in the y direction when redirecting a limb or weapon that is travelling in the x direction seem to you to break the laws of physics? A little friction due to contact does not even come close to the order of magnitude of energy/momentum transfer that would come from direct impact. We can certainly take the conversation into the realm of physics, but I'm not sure that's going to further your argument any.

 

I'm not debating that there are forms of "blocking" that might lessen or spread the force of impact, and might not even be appropriate for the Block maneuver at all. But there are certainly forms of "blocking" for which simple additional DEF doesn't seem appropriate, and that's why I'd never torch or cripple the basic Block maneuver itself (though I might use common and dramatic sense to help decide when it is actually applicable). The argument that you can only lessen the effect of an attack--not negate it entirely--just isn't going to hold up.

[Utech]

Re: Changing block

 

I sometimes describe a successful attack that results in low damage as an attack that was partially blocked -- even if no Block maneuver was used.