When sfx lie

[Markdoc]

Re: When sfx lie

 

I think one way to come close to the "you punch him in the face to no discernible effect" without misleading the player' date=' and while keeping it consistent, would be to require an OCV vs. OCV roll to get the benefit of the extra DCV levels, then define the effect as a "casual chin block". You then let the PC make a perception roll to pick up on the various cues that indicate that ToughGuy's not actually invulnerable, just really good at anticipating and bracing for the opponents' attack(s).[/quote']

 

No, I wouldn't go for that for the simple reason that it opens the same "did you actually hit him" can of worms (note that I'd be perfectly happy with a regular block). It starts to introduce problems with powers like Surface (or whatever it is) attacks that are not affected by regular defences ("I hit him right? So my NND should take effect!" "No, I know I said you hit him, but you didn't actually hit him, hit him" etc) and logical messes like "If I stiffen my neck, Wolverines claws won't even scratch me, but Jubillee's little 1 hex accurate plasmoids will KO me, no matter how prepared I am - even though they cause a relatively small amount of damage".

 

There might be a defensible reason for such an odd build, but I'm not seeing one so far, apart from "Because I can".

 

cheers, Mark

[megaplayboy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

No, I wouldn't go for that for the simple reason that it opens the same "did you actually hit him" can of worms (note that I'd be perfectly happy with a regular block). It starts to introduce problems with powers like Surface (or whatever it is) attacks that are not affected by regular defences ("I hit him right? So my NND should take effect!" "No, I know I said you hit him, but you didn't actually hit him, hit him" etc) and logical messes like "If I stiffen my neck, Wolverines claws won't even scratch me, but Jubillee's little 1 hex accurate plasmoids will KO me, no matter how prepared I am - even though they cause a relatively small amount of damage".

 

There might be a defensible reason for such an odd build, but I'm not seeing one so far, apart from "Because I can".

 

cheers, Mark

 

But the same character can buy Acting and effectively "fake" taking no damage from a mighty blow. I think you're overthinking this one, frankly. All the stuff you mention can be contextually defined and allowed for when the power is built. If the player notices you rolling dice while asking them their OCV, and then applying the extra DCV while asking them to make a PER roll before you decide how precisely to describe the effect of their attack, even if they blow the PER roll they will realize something is up. Plus it's an "issue" that will come up exactly once in a campaign, because once the players figure out what the mechanic is, they're not puzzled the next time they encounter something like it.

[IKerensky]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Well... my newb 2cts :

 

why are you refering as Invulnerable as a SFx, isn't Invulnerability an effect that have a SFx as its source and is represented by Powers ?

 

Superdude Invulnerability have the SFx : Born from Kripton not Invulnerable, T-1000 have the SFx : Body of liquid metal with memory, Achilles the SFx : Protected by the Gods. And all thoses SFX provide some minor advantage and inconvenient by themselves.

 

So if you raise the DCV of this guys what is his SFx ?

[Utech]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Congrats you're handing free extra advantages to abilities. There's no straw man here or even a credible attempt by you to create one. Your answer seems to be"just change the power to MAKE it fit." It is a poor fit because the mechanic is designed to do something else which has everything with being nimble/

Explain please? I've said from the beginning that invulnerability would have to include a variety of defenses.

[Utech]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Shrug. In that case' date=' you're having a discussion with yourself and nobody else on this thread.[/quote']

Maybe you should re-read the thread. Neither I nor anyone else suggested that increased DCV was all you'd need to be invulnerable.

 

The thread is about whether or not sfx lie. That's what I've been talking about the whole time. Honestly, I've no idea what you're talking about.

 

It's already been mentioned at least twice that damage negation can cause a similar effect.

Yes, it has. What's your point? As you're certainly aware, there's more than one way to skin a cat in HERO. High DCV is one way to model some aspects of invulnerability -- namely that people never get to roll to damage your character if they don't "hit".

 

This sentence makes no sense at all.

You don't agree that "you don't get to roll damage dice" can be represented by the sfx "I'm invulnerable to that attack". That's too bad. It's simply putting sfx on game mechanics. That's HERO.

[Utech]

Re: When sfx lie

 

If Shale (High DCV' date=' sfx 'I tense up at the last minute in anticipation of the blow') throws himself in front of Penelope Pitstop so that the machine guns of the Ant Hill Mob can not perforate her pink perfection, is she actually protected?[/quote']

In this case, damage dice are rolled against Shale.

 

he effectively reduced his DCV to the point where he WAS hit so he does take the damage - which is 'mechanically' right - you might suggest that as he is interposing this somehow prevents him from tensing up properly.

Just so.

 

tell Shale's player that the build does not reflect the construct and he'd better think about doing it some other way.

Say who? The build perfectly reflects the construct. You just explained how. He didn't tense up properly and so takes some damage. No conflict.

[TSandman]

Re: When sfx lie

 

To DCV as indestructibility, I'd like to see an explanation why a 25d6 EB does no damage and a 5d6 AoE can hurt. That allows me to describe the situation in appropriate terms in game, rather than mechanics. If the character seems to shift and twist as attacked to better interpose his armor, that's a cue that a more accurate hit could avoid his armor and hurt the target. Perhaps the millions of tiny scales on his armor move to converge over the point of impact - hmmm...maybe an AoE would overwhelm them, since it would not strike a small point on the opponent's body.

 

This reminds me of Robotech's SDF-1 Trackball controlled Pintpoint Barrier

[TSandman]

Re: When sfx lie

 

My 2 pts...

 

To model Invulnerability, you have to define it first

 

IMHO, Invulnerability is the RESULT of this, not the CAUSE

 

There might be some weird build that can explain using "evasive powers" to simulate invulnerability (SDF-1 Point Barrier resisting absurd amount of damage, but first have to be put at the right place, or any "shield" that are used to absorb the damage instead of yourself) or any other SFX/Power association. Those must be scrutinized individually. Some would work, others not.

 

For "simple" Invulnerability, are you simply impossible to hit? Can you take a direct hit from Big Bertha and not even have your hairdo messed up? Does your reputation as Invulnerable demoralizes completely your opponent, making them not even bothering to aim for you?.

 

Only once you have the *Reason* for your invulnerability, can you then model it with a bit of realism that would stand up and not create those long threads

 

Invulnerably High DCV character are are better not stepping into a tarpit

Invulnerably High PD/ED character have problem getting their flu shots

Invulnerably Multi-Life-Supported character better not need any drugs for mental problems

 

True invulnerability is not that fun to play anyway.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Explain please? I've said from the beginning that invulnerability would have to include a variety of defenses.

 

 

I'm with Markdoc here. You seem to be having a completely different conversation with different points to be made than everyone else. The question was if certain mechanics map poorly too certain sfx. DCV maps poorly to invulnerability. If you do something else to bandage the situation is really not the question. if you think others are missing the point such as Markdoc, I ( never humbly) disagree.

[Utech]

Re: When sfx lie

 

I'm with Markdoc here. You seem to be having a completely different conversation with different points to be made than everyone else. The question was if certain mechanics map poorly too certain sfx. DCV maps poorly to invulnerability. If you do something else to bandage the situation is really not the question. if you think others are missing the point such as Markdoc' date=' I ( never humbly) disagree.[/quote']

I'm not sure why you can't follow. I'll give it one last college try and then give up.

 

Does DCV provide you with perfect invulnerability? No. But no one has ever argued that on this thread. Let's drop that, shall we?

 

Is it OK to describe increased DCV with the sfx "invulnerability"? Of course. DCV maps very well to invulnerability. A failed "to hit" roll means that no damage dice are rolled. You are "invulnerable" to that attack. It doesn't matter how many (or few) dice are in that attack, you simply ignore it. That's invulnerability.

 

Can other things take the sfx "invulnerability"? Of course! High PD and ED, for example. Desolidification. Missile Deflection. All sorts of things map just as well as increased DCV.

 

Do you need to have increased DCV to describe any failed "to hit" roll with the sfx "invulnerability"? No. This is particularly appropriate for Brick characters. Players playing Bricks may be thrilled to have failed "to hit" rolls described as hits that bounce right off.

 

Is the sfx "invulnerability" a lie? No. It's not the whole truth, of course. There is no provision for true invulnerability in the HERO system by default. A poor GM could accidentally mislead his players to take unproductive actions by describing the sfx poorly, but a good GM would never run into that problem.

[Phil]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Is it OK to describe increased DCV with the sfx "invulnerability"? Of course. DCV maps very well to invulnerability.

To be honest, we must all just be looking for something to argue about at the moment, because I'm sure we're mostly in the same place! However, I think this quote sums up the issue nicely. I'm doubtful on two things: firstly, whether "invulnerable" really is a good SFX, and secondly, whether it is therefore a good fit.

 

On the first, "invulnerable to XXXX" might be an OK SFX, but even then it's describing the result not the cause. "Roll with blow", "Hardened skin", "Alien metabolism". They're SFX. But using "invulnerable" is like having the SFX of "doesn't take damage". It doesn't give us the WHY that should be inherent in a good SFX. Without the WHY element it's not possible to reason from effect and therefore makes it impossible to evaluate any specific case of invulnerability with DCV.

 

On the second, even if we assume that Invulnerable is a good SFX, we come up against Sean's original quandry - does the SFX lie. I think it's a simple Yes, because everyone can clearly see instances where the Effect doesn't match up to the SFX. However, this assumes that DCV hasn't been bought as part of a suite of powers using the Invulernable descriptor.

 

So, to conclude, and end this argument forever (yeah, whatever!):

1. There are too many instances where DCV alone does not lead to Invulnerability, so "Invulnerable" is a poor match to DCV.

2. DCV can make a character invulnerable to some effects, so a limited "Invulnerable to.... " descriptor could be a good match to DCV.

3. In any case, Invulnerable is a very poor SFX descriptor, because it doesn't describe the special effect of a power, it describes the intended outcome.

 

Now I'm activating my Flame Forcefield with the SFX "All Replying posts are converted into cold hard cash". Hope it works....

[BNakagawa]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Is it OK to describe increased DCV with the sfx "invulnerability"? Of course. DCV maps very well to invulnerability.

 

Not very well, not very well at all, IMO.

 

The hero system models two means to avoid being beat senseless.

 

There is the 'you missed' path.

There is the 'didn't hurt' path.

 

You shouldn't mix them.

 

If there is an entity that has a (deserved) reputation of being able to draw blood on anything he strikes, then the proposed sfx of DCV IPE defined as invulnerability essentially devalues the points that guy invested in DC of ka, penetration, find weakness, etc. If said entity has an established escalatory path of maneuvers, weapons or techniques, the sfx of your defenses should not motivate them to make illogical decisions.

 

If you are going to adopt the sfx of invulnerability, you should me motivating people to use brick-busting techniques, not mook-sweeping techniques.

[Markdoc]

Re: When sfx lie

 

I'm not sure why you can't follow. I'll give it one last college try and then give up.

 

Does DCV provide you with perfect invulnerability? No. But no one has ever argued that on this thread. Let's drop that, shall we?

 

Ummmm. No. The original post - and most of the posts since (certainly all of mine), have been discussing whether the concept "invulnerable" can be well-simulated by the mechanic "high DCV". Or to put it another way whether the SFX "Can shrug off damage from attacks" can be modeled well by the concept that attacks that hit, do no damage because games'-mechanic wise, they actually miss. There hasn't really been a discussion here about "how to model invulnerability". In general, neither Sean, who first posed the question, nor myself, nor indeed most of the posters are particularly discussing "how to model invulnerability" in this thread - it was only given as an example of SFX mapping poorly to powerset. I gave another example - super-running defined as "flight" - in an attempt to make that clear.

 

You really do seem to be having a different discussion to everyone else.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: When sfx lie

 

To be honest, we must all just be looking for something to argue about at the moment, because I'm sure we're mostly in the same place! However, I think this quote sums up the issue nicely. I'm doubtful on two things: firstly, whether "invulnerable" really is a good SFX, and secondly, whether it is therefore a good fit.

 

On the first, "invulnerable to XXXX" might be an OK SFX, but even then it's describing the result not the cause. "Roll with blow", "Hardened skin", "Alien metabolism". They're SFX. But using "invulnerable" is like having the SFX of "doesn't take damage". It doesn't give us the WHY that should be inherent in a good SFX. Without the WHY element it's not possible to reason from effect and therefore makes it impossible to evaluate any specific case of invulnerability with DCV.

 

On the second, even if we assume that Invulnerable is a good SFX, we come up against Sean's original quandry - does the SFX lie. I think it's a simple Yes, because everyone can clearly see instances where the Effect doesn't match up to the SFX. However, this assumes that DCV hasn't been bought as part of a suite of powers using the Invulernable descriptor.

 

So, to conclude, and end this argument forever (yeah, whatever!):

1. There are too many instances where DCV alone does not lead to Invulnerability, so "Invulnerable" is a poor match to DCV.

2. DCV can make a character invulnerable to some effects, so a limited "Invulnerable to.... " descriptor could be a good match to DCV.

3. In any case, Invulnerable is a very poor SFX descriptor, because it doesn't describe the special effect of a power, it describes the intended outcome.

 

Now I'm activating my Flame Forcefield with the SFX "All Replying posts are converted into cold hard cash". Hope it works....

 

Well, it doesn't work one me - but otherwise ... yeah. I think you've summed up what I've been trying to say pretty well. I agree with your strict reading of SFX, as well (it's why I've used the phrase "power set" instead), but I understand that it's being used a bit more flexibly here. The Thing for example is "invulnerable" - or "nigh-invulnerable" because he has a really dense, rock-like body (or skin ... I've never been really sure...). So his SFX is really "dense rock-like body" but more loosely, you could say his schtick or SFX is "invulnerable to normal attacks". And really, my point, was that buying up his DCV because "normal attacks never hurt him" (because they never hit him) is actually a pretty poor mapping of mechanics to SFX/concept. I think you'd agree.

 

To make some comparisons .... The Thing gets (for example) hit by a bus (AoE attack) wielded by another Brick. High PD Thing is a bit mussed up. High DCV Thing is a red stain. The Thing gets tagged (for real) by a lucky to hit roll. High PD thing is a bit mussed up (and also takes knockback into a wall, making a hole in it). High DCV Thing - if he survives - requires emergency care from Reed Richards. The Thing gets "hit" by an EB with a normal to hit roll. High PD Thing is a bit mussed up and takes some knockback. High DCV thing ... is completely unaffected. What happened to the EB that "hit" him? Does it just stop in mid-air?* Basically, although the two builds have the same general concept "Hard to hurt" and might otherwise look similar - or even share SFX, they play totally differently.

 

High DCV is a perfectly feasible defence, but as a model for "really hard to hurt" ... well, basically, it sucks.

 

cheers, Mark

 

* If so, who needs missile deflection when high DCV does the same job more cheaply, more effectively and doesn't require an action - at the same time as it provides extra DCV?

[Utech]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Leaving the thread bewildered and saddened.

[Phil]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Leaving the thread bewildered and saddened.

Er, without wanting to fan any flames, what do you mean?

[Markdoc]

Re: When sfx lie

 

I think I've worked out why High DCV as a mechanism for toughness offends me at such a basic level - it's the very binary nature of the result. Either you are completely unaffected by an attack, or you're totally soft and squishy. With DCV, there's no actual toughness if hit. In contrast, mechanisms like DR or PD may never make you 100% certain you can't be hurt - but they will always make you "hard to hurt", apart from exotic attacks.

 

So DCV works fine for an active defence (I liked the IPE/Speedster example) but I stand by my gut feeling - it's terribly poor match for a passive defence like "hard to hurt"

 

cheers, Mark

[jtelson]

Re: When sfx lie

 

We pretty much have two things going on here

 

The first is the example - how well does DCV map to the Effect (regardless of Special Effect) 'Indestructable'? As with any single power, it maps inadequately; as part of a suite of powers designed to achieve the Effect 'Indestructable' (regardless of Special Effect), it can be an effective addition that shouldn't strain any reasonable level of credulity.

 

The second seems to be the questions: Must the underlying builds for Effects (regardless of Special Effect) be Obvious? Is there a GM obligation to reveal 'How it's done'? To which my answer is 'No' and if pressed 'We're not playing Hackmaster'.

 

And I suppose to answer the post's central question 'Do special effects lie?' - Yes, always if you're focused on mechanics; No, never, if you're focused on the game.

[megaplayboy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

I think I've worked out why High DCV as a mechanism for toughness offends me at such a basic level - it's the very binary nature of the result. Either you are completely unaffected by an attack, or you're totally soft and squishy. With DCV, there's no actual toughness if hit. In contrast, mechanisms like DR or PD may never make you 100% certain you can't be hurt - but they will always make you "hard to hurt", apart from exotic attacks.

 

So DCV works fine for an active defence (I liked the IPE/Speedster example) but I stand by my gut feeling - it's terribly poor match for a passive defence like "hard to hurt"

 

cheers, Mark

 

This presupposes that, say, one builds a character with 10/10 defenses, and +8 DCV(with limitations) to simulate invulnerability, instead of building a character with 20/20 defenses and +4 DCV(with limitations) to simulate "nigh invulnerability due to 'casual chin blocking'". If it's an NPC villain, they could be as tough as the team brick, and simply have this shtick overlaid over it, to present a dilemma for the team. As I said, the GM can make it reasonably clear there's something the villain is actively doing to shunt off the attacks. The alternative is cracking open the APG and buying 100% DR twice for 240 active points, and applying about -1 or -2 in limitations on it--an almost ludicrously expensive approach to simulating the same effect(the alternative is damage negation equal to campaign DC+6, for both physical and energy, with the same limitations). The villain can't chin block a psychicly targeted rock, an attack which affects their whole body, or an attack that takes them by surprise or comes in quicker than they can respond. And the PCs can figure out what's going on with a straight, unmodified PER roll. Probably the team martial artist can figure it out with an "easy" PER roll. Not all that horrifying or unbalancing in my book, frankly.

 

And for Sean: 2 people on this thread have attested to the efficacy of chin-blocking in the real world. It's a given that, in appropriate genres, it absolutely is effective. Ever notice that boxers are more bothered by faster punches, or punches they don't see coming? If they see it coming, they tense up their body in the area it lands in, and tough out the blow. The damage is fairly inconsequential--in game terms it might equate to fractions of a stun point.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: When sfx lie

 

This presupposes that' date=' say, one builds a character with 10/10 defenses, and +8 DCV(with limitations) to simulate invulnerability, instead of building a character with 20/20 defenses and +4 DCV(with limitations) to simulate "nigh invulnerability due to 'casual chin blocking'". If it's an NPC villain, they could be as tough as the team brick, and simply have this shtick overlaid over it, to present a dilemma for the team. As I said, the GM can make it reasonably clear there's something the villain is actively doing to shunt off the attacks. The alternative is cracking open the APG and buying 100% DR twice for 240 active points, and applying about -1 or -2 in limitations on it--an almost ludicrously expensive approach to simulating the same effect(the alternative is damage negation equal to campaign DC+6, for both physical and energy, with the same limitations). The villain can't chin block a psychicly targeted rock, an attack which affects their whole body, or an attack that takes them by surprise or comes in quicker than they can respond. And the PCs can figure out what's going on with a straight, unmodified PER roll. Probably the team martial artist can figure it out with an "easy" PER roll. Not all that horrifying or unbalancing in my book, frankly.[/quote']

 

This comes down to what, exactly, we're trying to model and how expensive we think it should be. Looking to 100% damage reduction for 240 points, what limitation would you apply for "not if attack targets ECV (how about -1/2), not vs AoE (I'll say another -1/2) and "not if surprised" (no more than -1/2). I think I'm being fairly generous with the limitations, and I get a cost of 96 points. If that is "ludicrously expensive", then either the limitations are undervalued or the 240 base cost is overvalued. Which would you say is the case?

 

Of course, for the same 96 points, I could buy +22 PD, resistant, +22 ED resistant and +6 DCV. Functionally invulnerable? Maybe not, but probably better defended than anyone else on the team.

[Sean Waters]

Re: When sfx lie

 

I love it when a plan comes together

 

I think the boards have been pretty thoroughly trod, but I did want to just comment on a 'chin block', aside as it might be.

 

It isn't a chin block. A block, in Hero, stops all damage getting through: you have no effect from a successful block, including KB. We used to do this thing when we were young and fit - we'd tense our abdominal and take a punch, or a kick. Same thing - tensing up. You felt it and if it happened several times then you're muscles would weaken and you'd feel it more - so it isn't a block and neither is what has been described as a 'chin block'. What that is is probably something like : +5 pd, requires a roll, must be aware of attack. If it works you feel the attack less. We'd often get skittered backwards across the room by a decent kick, but we'd avoid the internal bleeding that we'd get if we'd been caught unawares.

 

Now I might get accused of being far too literal here, but if anyone who has actually pulled off a chin block wants to tell me they didn't feel the blow - rather than simply 'they were better able to withstand the blow' I'd be surprised.

[torchwolf]

Re: When sfx lie

 

I think I've worked out why High DCV as a mechanism for toughness offends me at such a basic level - it's the very binary nature of the result. Either you are completely unaffected by an attack, or you're totally soft and squishy. With DCV, there's no actual toughness if hit. In contrast, mechanisms like DR or PD may never make you 100% certain you can't be hurt - but they will always make you "hard to hurt", apart from exotic attacks.

 

So DCV works fine for an active defence (I liked the IPE/Speedster example) but I stand by my gut feeling - it's terribly poor match for a passive defence like "hard to hurt"

 

cheers, Mark

 

As Sean mentioned earlier, using DCV for this purpose is mechanically agonizingly similar to the AC of that other system.

 

Which brings me to... Shields!

Those are built with DCV, and are usually almost effectively indestructible unless specifically targeted to damage them as foci. Strangely, we have rules for sectional defenses in the Hero system, but this is represented by resistant defenses protecting a specific location, but shields are built as DCV, when they might instead be built something like this:

 

MP: Shield, Real Armor Limitation

u) Barrier, RAR (or cover 5/10/15 Hit Locations chosen to be protected)

u) +OCV, Block Only (Actively Blocking with Shield)

u) HA (Shield Bash)

 

(exact numbers depending on size Small/Medium/Large and DEF of Shield material used)

 

Note: In 5ER, Barrier should in this case be replaced by (cumbersome) Entangle, Only To Form Barriers, Standard Effect Rule.

 

Someone was bound to bring this up, right?

*Diving For Cover*

[Phil]

Re: When sfx lie

 

This comes down to what' date=' exactly, we're trying to model and how expensive we think it should be. [/quote']Well, exactly - in defining the SFX as "invulnerable" we're failing to define the SFX. Once we've done so, we can look at different builds. But that's kinda not the point

[megaplayboy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

I love it when a plan comes together

 

I think the boards have been pretty thoroughly trod, but I did want to just comment on a 'chin block', aside as it might be.

 

It isn't a chin block. A block, in Hero, stops all damage getting through: you have no effect from a successful block, including KB. We used to do this thing when we were young and fit - we'd tense our abdominal and take a punch, or a kick. Same thing - tensing up. You felt it and if it happened several times then you're muscles would weaken and you'd feel it more - so it isn't a block and neither is what has been described as a 'chin block'. What that is is probably something like : +5 pd, requires a roll, must be aware of attack. If it works you feel the attack less. We'd often get skittered backwards across the room by a decent kick, but we'd avoid the internal bleeding that we'd get if we'd been caught unawares.

 

Now I might get accused of being far too literal here, but if anyone who has actually pulled off a chin block wants to tell me they didn't feel the blow - rather than simply 'they were better able to withstand the blow' I'd be surprised.

 

Ah, I see the rationale you're using here...and you're still wrong. Guess what? When you use your hands, forearms or shins to do an "official martial arts style block", you still feel it, and after a few times of putting your hands, arms and legs in the way, in real life, it hurts more and more and your muscles also begin to weaken. So unless we're tossing out all versions of block which don't simply redirect the blow ala Tai chi/aikido, you're making a distinction without a difference. A chin block is simply using a different part of your body to block/divert/blunt the force of an incoming blow. The damage sustained, compared to that required to stun, injure or render you unconscious is comparatively slight, just as it is when you're blocking a powerful kick with your forearms. As someone who's had to shin block more than a few kicks, I will tell you it doesn't hurt any less than blocking by tensing up at the impact point. The percentage of "official" blocking maneuvers in real life which involve minimal actual effect is almost certainly less than half. Your criteria, if applied more broadly than to "chin blocks", would toss all of them out.

[megaplayboy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Supplemental comment--"we used to do this thing when we were young and fit"--do young and fit people have this universal PD bonus available to them(presumably for no points), akin to a universally common combat maneuver? If anyone can do it, and it significantly reduces the damage from a typical blow provided it's employed successfully, such that you don't really "feel it"(in a real world sense) until you've been hit several times--gosh, that sure sounds like a real-world block to me(since the exact same dynamic applies to most blocks--your forearm isn't actually impervious to pain). And I can "feel" a mosquito bite, too, but that doesn't mean I just took a stun pip of damage just because it hurts a little. Real world effects don't map precisely to game effects, and it's a fool's errand to try to sync things up precisely like that, imo.