When sfx lie

[megaplayboy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

My apologies if the above two posts are overly snarky in tone. I seem to have felt an irresistable compulsion to shoot down the notion that "chin blocks aren't legitimate because they still hurt", notwithstanding the reality that most blocks also still hurt even when performed correctly/successfully. Again, my apologies for the tone if not the content of the posts.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Actually I've long felt there ought to be some optional rule to reflect what megaplayboy is saying . A blocker still takes some stun or KB even if successful.

[lemming]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Actually I've long felt there ought to be some optional rule to reflect what megaplayboy is saying . A blocker still takes some stun or KB even if successful.

 

I would just say there's a minimum amount of end used. Pain doesn't really equate to stun, but the act of blocking can tire you out eventually, though the higher skilled practitioners seemed to get less tired since they get more block for less movement.

 

And I wouldn't make them pay extra END if they already used some STR based END.

[Sean Waters]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Ah' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

 

Does this not assume that all blocks are equal? They are not. Something like karate, which relies on direct 'strong' blocks definitely hurts because what you're doing in Hero terms is changing the hit location of the attack. Be nice if we included a way to do THAT in the new Martial Arts book: hitting someone in the arm or the leg hurts them less than hitting them in the stomach or head. This is NOT blocking, in the HERO sense: it is interposing. In fact, thinking about it, this is probably best modeled by using 'roll with blow' rather than block, because, if you keep doing it, even if you succeed in your roll every time, eventually you'll be battered black and blue. Just because karate CALLS a particular move a 'block' does not mean that is how we should model it in Hero.

 

However, if you've tried a block in something like shorinji kempo, and you do it right, well, it won't hurt at all. You can keep it up all night, and you'll never take any damage - that is what a HERO block does. YES the reason that it does not do any damage is because, by and large, any contact is so glancing that any damage transmitted will be below your PD threshold - again in Hero terms - and, indeed, many of the blows will not connect at all because you are not JUST interposing, you are re-directing the blow and re-positioning yourself.

 

I think that what people mean by a 'chin block' takes place where you take the full force of the blow on your chin, whilst tensing up so that it does not hurt as much as it normally would. If that is not what is meant then I'll have to look at it again - but if it IS then what you're doing is reducing the damage not ignoring it. That is not a block, at least not a Block as Hero defines the maneouvre. I'd suggest it is a Roll with Punch, or that we need another maneouvre base.

 

Of course, both (Hero) Block and Dodge allow you to avoid all damage if it works as intended (or take it all if it does not), so, arguably, some circular MA 'blocks' could be modeled with Hero Dodge. That is a different point though, and maybe best discussed elsewhere.

[Dr.Device]

Re: When sfx lie

 

There's another thing that makes DCV a bad fit for a character who wants to be "indestructible" that I haven't seen mentioned yet.

 

A lot of people have pointed out where it does too little (AOE, MCV vs DCV attacks, etc.) , and I agree that those are problems.

 

But it also does too much in other areas. Being indestructible shouldn't keep you from being grabbed or entangled. It shouldn't keep someone from tagging you with Darkness or Teleport Usable As Attack. And what happens if you try to martial throw someone with indestructibility bought as DCV?

[megaplayboy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Does this not assume that all blocks are equal? They are not. Something like karate, which relies on direct 'strong' blocks definitely hurts because what you're doing in Hero terms is changing the hit location of the attack. Be nice if we included a way to do THAT in the new Martial Arts book: hitting someone in the arm or the leg hurts them less than hitting them in the stomach or head. This is NOT blocking, in the HERO sense: it is interposing. In fact, thinking about it, this is probably best modeled by using 'roll with blow' rather than block, because, if you keep doing it, even if you succeed in your roll every time, eventually you'll be battered black and blue. Just because karate CALLS a particular move a 'block' does not mean that is how we should model it in Hero.

 

However, if you've tried a block in something like shorinji kempo, and you do it right, well, it won't hurt at all. You can keep it up all night, and you'll never take any damage - that is what a HERO block does. YES the reason that it does not do any damage is because, by and large, any contact is so glancing that any damage transmitted will be below your PD threshold - again in Hero terms - and, indeed, many of the blows will not connect at all because you are not JUST interposing, you are re-directing the blow and re-positioning yourself.

 

I think that what people mean by a 'chin block' takes place where you take the full force of the blow on your chin, whilst tensing up so that it does not hurt as much as it normally would. If that is not what is meant then I'll have to look at it again - but if it IS then what you're doing is reducing the damage not ignoring it. That is not a block, at least not a Block as Hero defines the maneouvre. I'd suggest it is a Roll with Punch, or that we need another maneouvre base.

 

Of course, both (Hero) Block and Dodge allow you to avoid all damage if it works as intended (or take it all if it does not), so, arguably, some circular MA 'blocks' could be modeled with Hero Dodge. That is a different point though, and maybe best discussed elsewhere.

 

give me a few months to work out, then I'll be happy to spar with a kempo practitioner and make it hurt. There's literally no way to make a low kick, for example, just glance off the interposing limb, because it's coming in a straight path, full force, towards its target, and it's not going to casually slide off an angled block.

Just because 150 styles call it a block does not mean that is how we should model it in hero--but in point of fact we've been modeling it that way in hero since the inception of the game. Kinda late to switch now.

A chin block involves, generally speaking, two things--angling your head down towards your chest, and tensing up for the blow. I think the tension probably alters the exchange of momentum from the incoming blow--a more rigid surface impact is likely to deflect or reflect back more of the force of the blow, compared to an impact with more "yielding" soft tissue. And angling it down towards your chest limits the range of motion of your head when struck, which is critical to avoiding a concussion-inducing impact. There is also what I'd call a "forehead block"--you lower your forehead(which is mostly hard, thick bone) so that a blow strikes it instead of your more fragile mid-face area.

I don't see a critical need to exactly match effects here--the system has worked just fine rounding off the rough edges for years. Seems a lot more trouble than it's worth. My point is that the distinctions you're trying to make don't work, because lots of other stuff that's been accepted as canon for block are subject to the same criteria--in reality you do take a little bruising, but compared to the landed blow it's "close enough for rock and roll" to just call it "no damage taken". If you want to go that route you're suggesting, the simplest thing is just to apply the damage to the interposing limb and apply hit location modifiers for arm and leg blocks, and to round the stun multiplier for normal attacks down to x1 for head and "vitals"(the abdominal tightening move).

[Sean Waters]

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)' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

No, when I was young, I spent a great deal of time and effort getting fit. I paid for those rock hard abs with XP. Hero does not really 'do' losing abilities, but I've definitely lost that now *pokes beergut*.

 

Now the fact that the real world and Hero are not perfect parallels is completely accepted, but that is no reason to ignore the parallels that do exist. Equally, to reinforce the point I made in the post above, just because the real world calls something a block, and this may well be your point, tha is no reason to assume it actually is a block as Hero defines it.

 

A mosquito bite may not cause you any stun damage even though you can feel it. A slap to the face might not cause any stun damage just because you can feel it, and it hurts, and 20 lashes is unlikely to be life threatening for most people even though it might hurt like hell - and they probably would not even pass out - although actually trying that in HERO would KO and then kill most normal characters. Having said that, 'pain' is a perfectly good sfx for stun damage, if you want it to be.

 

I'm perfectly well aware that we abstract - and need to - in role playing. However, that is no excuse for sloppy thinking. 20 lashes might not make most people pass out - the pain may well keep them conscious - but I doubt most people would be doing much other than moaning and introspecting and probably taking little or no action other than that for a minute or two afterwards - and that is a good enough analogue for 'unconscious' - being unaware of the outside world and taking no action.

 

Mosquito bites do not cause stun because one of them is below the quantum of stun. Get hit by a couple of dozen at one, however, and you'll probably be massively distracted - a good enough analogue for being stunned, so they are clearly capable of having an effect and that effect can perfectly adequately be represented by taking stun damage - and probably lots of other ways too.

 

I'm all for creativity, but I simply don't agree with the argument that a Hero Block can be modeled by 'Invulnerability', but then that is because I don't agree with the way some of the rules are written. I'm slightly disappointed by how 'Block' has developed in 6e. I'd rather have seen it done as something that costs points (so you could then use modifiers on it) and that more accurately reflected the blocking ability of a 'starting normal'. Starting normals can not block bullets barehanded. I think that I'm wrong in my view from the standpoint of the rules, because I simply would not do sfx the way Steve Long does them. So, I technically concede the argument, but remain convinced that there's a better way.

[Sean Waters]

Re: When sfx lie

 

My apologies if the above two posts are overly snarky in tone. I seem to have felt an irresistable compulsion to shoot down the notion that "chin blocks aren't legitimate because they still hurt"' date=' notwithstanding the reality that most blocks also still hurt even when performed correctly/successfully. Again, my apologies for the tone if not the content of the posts. [/quote']

 

Nobly said, but no apology necessary at all.

[megaplayboy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

FWIW, Sean, I'd argue that "chin blocks" and "gut blocks" are inherently more difficult to master than regular blocks, at least for normals, so a normal who wishes to "chin block" and lacks the appropriate MA style/maneuver should get an OCV penalty akin to someone trying to use a weapon with which they are unfamiliar--i.e, a -3. In a more realistic setting, there might be something to be said for an optional rule that "regular" blocks only reduce damage by half, and perhaps martial blocks reduce it by 3/4 after defenses, instead of automatically nullifying it all.

[Sean Waters]

Re: When sfx lie

 

give me a few months to work out' date=' then I'll be happy to spar with a kempo practitioner and [b']make it hurt.[/b] There's literally no way to make a low kick, for example, just glance off the interposing limb, because it's coming in a straight path, full force, towards its target, and it's not going to casually slide off an angled block.

 

Not if you just stand there, no. That is rather the point I'm trying to make though - if the blow is even partially effective (by which I mean, in game terms, do it enough and you beat your opponent) then it is not really a Block, because Block either lats all of the damage through or none of it. A block, to me, involves diverting enough of the blow so that any actual impact is negligible. You divert the blow by pushing the fist or foot to one side and moving the other way.

 

 

 

Just because 150 styles call it a block does not mean that is how we should model it in hero--but in point of fact we've been modeling it that way in hero since the inception of the game. Kinda late to switch now.

 

Fair point, but just because we've always got it wrong before seems like a poor reason to continue doing it when we realise our mistake.

 

 

A chin block involves' date=' generally speaking, two things--angling your head down towards your chest, and tensing up for the blow. I think the tension probably alters the exchange of momentum from the incoming blow--a more rigid surface impact is likely to deflect or reflect back more of the force of the blow, compared to an impact with more "yielding" soft tissue. And angling it down towards your chest limits the range of motion of your head when struck, which is critical to avoiding a concussion-inducing impact. There is also what I'd call a "forehead block"--you lower your forehead(which is mostly hard, thick bone) so that a blow strikes it instead of your more fragile mid-face area.[/quote']

 

So, what it (the chin block) does is prevents the worst excesses of the hit location table and reduces (but not negates) damage. I'm back to 'not what Block does in Hero'.

 

As for the forehead block, well, that works differently again - that is more like a counterstrike that targets the hand: if it succeeds, damaging the hand, it disrupts the attack.

 

Let me suggest though that, in Hero, the Block maneouvre does not care if you are being hit with a naked hand or one clad in a steel gauntlet. You try a forehead or chin block against a cestus punch and you are going down bleeding. You try a kempo block against a cestus punch and it will do no damage because it isn't going to actually hit you.

 

I don't see a critical need to exactly match effects here--the system has worked just fine rounding off the rough edges for years. Seems a lot more trouble than it's worth. My point is that the distinctions you're trying to make don't work' date=' because lots of other stuff that's been accepted as canon for block are subject to the same criteria--in reality you do take a little bruising, but compared to the landed blow it's "close enough for rock and roll" to just call it "no damage taken". If you want to go that route you're suggesting, the simplest thing is just to apply the damage to the interposing limb and apply hit location modifiers for arm and leg blocks, and to round the stun multiplier for normal attacks down to x1 for head and "vitals"(the abdominal tightening move).[/quote']

 

That is fair enough, and some games are more suited to abstractions than others. Part of the problem comes when people take a concept that sometimes works (like the bruiser of the party doing a chin block against the punch of an 8 stone weakling - even if SOME damage gets through it will be negligible) and applying it always: if 'chin block is a workable sfx, why should my 8 stone weakling not 'chin block' that bruiser when he hits me with a steel mace?'. My point is it will not even always be an appropriate sfx for the bruiser - there will be some attacks that he can legitimately block that just look stupid if he chin blocks: you can block a knife thrust, you can't chin block a knife thrust.

 

I happen to think that options for more realistic games would be a real selling point for Hero. In fact 'more options' should be a core value, not just in character creation but throughout the game.

[casualplayer]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Sounds like now that we have the concept of Damage Negation that Block may better be constructed using that as a foundation, maybe with RAR.

[lemming]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Sounds like now that we have the concept of Damage Negation that Block may better be constructed using that as a foundation' date=' maybe with RAR.[/quote']

 

Perhaps since all I know with blocks while I did Kenpo Karate, you didn't want the full force to hit your blocking appendage. I know of at least one broken arm resulting from that mistake.

I also know of damage to the attacking limb. Punching someone's hand as it's incoming, your hand is hard and if you catch them, they haven't tensed for impact yet.

I also got my toe broken by someone dropping their elbow onto my foot after I kicked him in the ribs.

 

Results from blocks seem to be:

• Blocked, no damage
  
• Blocked, some bruising to interposing limb
  
• Blocked, full damage to interposing limb
  
• Blocked, full damage to attacking limb
  

And pretty much the same results from not successful blocks.

 

This isn't counting the various setting up maneuvers etc from either end.

 

It's one of the reasons I don't try to overthink some of this stuff. There isn't one simple solution to the question.

 

I like to think of blocks as a maneuver that is an active defense that lets you avoid damage, and set yourself up for a following attack.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Not if you just stand there' date=' no. That is rather the point I'm trying to make though - if the blow is even partially effective (by which I mean, in game terms, do it enough and you beat your opponent) then it is not really a Block, because Block either lats all of the damage through or none of it. A block, to me, involves diverting enough of the blow so that any actual impact is negligible. You divert the blow by pushing the fist or foot to one side and moving the other way. [/quote']

 

So what is a "pure" Hero Block in reality? Most HTH blocks still absorb impact, commonly on an arm or leg, and can leave the blocker bruised. A Shield Block or Block with a sword can still leave the Blocker's arm shaken or numbed from the impact. "Not what Block does in Hero" seems to describe most Blocks in reality.

[Sean Waters]

Re: When sfx lie

 

So what is a "pure" Hero Block in reality? Most HTH blocks still absorb impact' date=' commonly on an arm or leg, and can leave the blocker bruised. A Shield Block or Block with a sword can still leave the Blocker's arm shaken or numbed from the impact. "Not what Block does in Hero" seems to describe most Blocks in reality.[/quote']

 

A block in Hero terms is something you can use to prevent any damage from an incoming attack. If an incoming attack has caused the defender to suffer a numbed arm, perhaps what they did was, in effect, interpose their arm (possibly additionally armoured by a shield) and so is not accurately modeled by Hero Block - I seriously think that 'Roll with Punch' works well for a lot of what we call 'a block', but maybe Hero needs more than one block:

 

BLOCK 1: Prevents damage by preventing (Traditional Hero block - can be aborted to)

 

BLOCK 2: Reduces damage you take (Hero 'Roll With Punch' - can be aborted to after attack hits)

 

BLOCK 3: NEW! Interposing block: easier to do than BLOCK 1 (perhaps an OCV bonus) but what it does is allow you to interpose a limb, so that is hit rather than more sensitive bits. Can be used with sectional defences (and for this purpose a shield may be considered a sectional defence) - can be aborted to.

 

BLOCK 4: Counterattack! Use a held action to counterattack the incoming attack. EITHER Resolve as normal, applying attack to the incoming limb or weapon, and, if successful and would normally cause KB or KD, incoming attack fails...or could be done with a new maneouvre. Can not be aborted to.

 

That seems to cover all the options Lemming mentioned above. Details ned sorting but it provides a much more structured and tactical approach to defending yourself.

 

One thought - 'Go first next time' is a feature of the Block maneouvre. Perhaps we get rid of that and make the maneouvre +1 OCV but you can decide on (ANY) block to block basis if you want to use the 'Position of next attack' element: if you do your block takes -1 OCV.

 

That would all have to go under 'optional combat rules' but would make combat a MUCH richer experience. It is going to add very little in terms of 'extra rules' or column inches, but gives a lot of cinema-realistic stuff you can use for those climactic battles that should grab more screen time than 2 punches.

[Phil]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Sounds like now that we have the concept of Damage Negation that Block may better be constructed using that as a foundation' date=' maybe with RAR.[/quote']

 

That sounds like a perfect solution. There were always quirky issues with Block vs. high strength attacks, this would be a neat solution. Well, this, or simply increased PD.

[Phil]

Re: When sfx lie

 

BLOCK 1: Prevents damage by preventing (Traditional Hero block - can be aborted to)

Personally I'd lose this entirely.

BLOCK 3: NEW! Interposing block: easier to do than BLOCK 1 (perhaps an OCV bonus) but what it does is allow you to interpose a limb, so that is hit rather than more sensitive bits. Can be used with sectional defences (and for this purpose a shield may be considered a sectional defence) - can be aborted to.

I think it assumes a degree of deflection. Striking the interposing limb is fine in systems using Hit Locations, but for all others maybe requires a link to extra PD or Damage Negation?

One thought - 'Go first next time' is a feature of the Block maneouvre. Perhaps we get rid of that and make the maneouvre +1 OCV but you can decide on (ANY) block to block basis if you want to use the 'Position of next attack' element: if you do your block takes -1 OCV.

Another option might be that each successful block adds X to Dexterity for the purposes of determining initiative. So you might need 2 or 3 consecutive blocks before your Dex is sufficiently enhanced to allow you to go first?

 

Totally off-thread now, of course

[Sean Waters]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Getting off thread is fine - I'm sure the OP won't mind

[megaplayboy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

I like: "normal" block successfully executed = either double your defense against that attack, or halve the damage after defenses OR apply levels of DN = half your STR

"martial" block successfully executed = increase defense by more than double, quarter the damage after defenses OR apply levels of DN = STR + however many extra DCs you bought.

 

If you're going to replace the existing block mechanic, or sub it out in a more "realistic" setting, I think the replacement/sub should still be fairly straightforward and easy to understand.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: When sfx lie

 

If Block were replaced, the new maneuver would need to be comopetitive with Dodge and Dive for Cover. Each uses an attack action and can be aborted to. DFC has the drawback of leaving you prone, and working against only one attack. Block has the reduced drawback of being penalized for more than one attack. Depending on how eagerly one adopts the "block ranged attacks" rule, it also has the drawback of working against fewer attacks. Dodge works against all attacks until your next phase.

 

Also roll w/ punch, I suppose, which has the drawback of workimg against one attack only and letting some damage through, but the advantage that you don't need to decide to use the maneuver until you have been hit, so you may get to keep that phase.

 

If Block becomes a Roll with the Punch that works on less attacks and/or requires you commit before you know if you've been hit, it needs some advantage over roll with the punch to make it worth using.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Getting off thread is fine - I'm sure the OP won't mind

 

I told you the original poster was looking to start a fight.

[tesuji]

Re: When sfx lie

 

dcv as indestructable sfx - not in my game. because of nnd attacks that by sfx should not be stopped by his indestructability

because of entangles - are you too "tough" to be tied up or encased in a ff?

 

also if i spread my eb so it gains bonuses to hit then suddenly its my damage vs your defenses - and weakening my attacks strength should not be a counter to indestructability.

 

buying extra defense as dodging, i can see particularly if it is restricted appropriately say requiring a dex roll or maybe "only when dodging" or linked to dcv levels. its a form of rolling with the punch.

[Sean Waters]

Re: When sfx lie

 

You can buy DCV with a limitation that it only works against attacks that do damage. Still, it is a silly idea: let's not go there.

[dsatow]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Just my $.02 which has probably already been said.

 

From the original argument, I don't like +5 DCV as "Indestructible" not only from what has been said, but also, from a damage shield perspective. Even though you should take damage from the shield, I am indestructible so you don't take damage from it ?!?!

 

From the block argument, I was in a campaign a while back where blocks decreased the amount of damage by the strength plus damage classes of the martial artist (basically 6th ed negation). It works fairly well for a more gritty feel but some players argued that a "x" block wasn't affected by the strength of the attacker (ex: many aikido blocks). It can be said that really that's a defensive block such that you are much harder to hit. The argument just goes around and around. I think it should be just left to the GM as to how they want to do this, much in the same way as the optional bleeding rules are done.