Visualising Block

[Sean Waters]

There has been lively discussion in the past about the relative sfx of block and dodge. Some people think that the sfx should be interchangeable, so long as they describe the final mechanical result (i.e. the successful blocker or dodger takes no damage), whereas others maintain that a block requires sfx that show that you have intercepted/made contact with an attack, whereas a dodge requires sfx that make it clear that you have avoided the attack without contact.

 

I noticed an intersting sidebar at 6.2.57 today, headed 'Visualizing Block'. I've always been of the opinion that a block and a dodge are different in how they operate, not just mechanically, but 'visually' in game - specifically, whilst a block can involve an element of getting out of the way, it must also contain an element of deflection of the attack, which necessitates contact: a blocked attack would not necessarily hit the place it would have hit if you were not there.

 

I won't quote the sidebar verbatim - it is only short though - but every example it gives seems to suggest that an element of contact is a part of the block maneouvre.

 

Now there is no similar sidebar for dodge, but it does seem to suggest that a block cannot simply be 'getting out of the way'. This seems to be re-inforced in the text at 6.2.59, second column, where it talks of the GM applying penalties for unarmed blocks against certain types of attack, especially ranged attacks. If a block could be 'getting out of the way', whether you had a weapon or not would be irrelevant.

 

So, has this finally put the matter to rest, as far as block is concerned - do you agree that a block involves some sort of interposition and contact - or have I got it wrong?

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Visualising Block

 

This one is easy.

 

If an opponent successfully hits a character with a Damage Shield, but that character blocks, is the damage shield still activated? From what I've been told in the past, the answer is yes. That would have to mean that block requires contact (thus still activating the Damage Shield).

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Visualising Block

 

A look through my 5e non-Revised book gives no indication that the Block maneuver requires contact of any sort. Furthermore, Damage Shield says the attacker takes damage from the Damage Shield on a successful attack; if the Defender blocked it, that attack is by definition not successful, so the Damage Shield won't damage the attacker.

 

It's all special effects; the 'block' or 'dodge' looks like whatever it is you want it to look like as befits the situation. If my 8 STR Mentalist decides to Block a punch from Gargantua at full size, I am definitely not just holding up an open hand and catching the fist to stop it, because said fist is bigger than my character, much less my character's hand. It's getting out of the way, or perhaps using a different power such as telekinesis to stop it, or a quick bit of sleight of mind to make him miss.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Visualising Block

 

A look through my 5e non-Revised book gives no indication that the Block maneuver requires contact of any sort. Furthermore, Damage Shield says the attacker takes damage from the Damage Shield on a successful attack; if the Defender blocked it, that attack is by definition not successful, so the Damage Shield won't damage the attacker.

 

It's all special effects; the 'block' or 'dodge' looks like whatever it is you want it to look like as befits the situation. If my 8 STR Mentalist decides to Block a punch from Gargantua at full size, I am definitely not just holding up an open hand and catching the fist to stop it, because said fist is bigger than my character, much less my character's hand. It's getting out of the way, or perhaps using a different power such as telekinesis to stop it, or a quick bit of sleight of mind to make him miss.

 

While I agree that SFX define the action, the very basis of the action is what is in question here. I tend to think of Block and Dodge in this way: Block (and Missile Deflection) = stopping an attack. Dodge = getting out of the way. Now the SFX define how they accomplish this, but the sfx should not change the very basis of the action. A Martial Artist could block by deflecting his opponents attacks. A Speedster could "block" by vibrating his molecules fast enough that attacks simply slip to the side without damage. A Mentalist could "block" by sending a quick mental impulse to the attacker and cause their muscles to lock up a fraction of a second before impact. A mage could block by erecting a shield of mystic energy at the last moment completely deflecting all damage. A lot of possibilities for imaginative description in there without the need to resort to using the block mechanic for dodge because its more mechanically pleasing.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Visualising Block

 

A look through my 5e non-Revised book gives no indication that the Block maneuver requires contact of any sort. Furthermore' date=' Damage Shield says the attacker takes damage from the Damage Shield on a successful attack; if the Defender blocked it, that attack is by definition not successful, so the Damage Shield won't damage the attacker.[/quote']

Oh, I don't know. If someone were stupid enough to block a sword with his bare arm (certainly possible), I'd rule that's just deciding on what Hit Location takes the damage and apply that damage on a successful Block. And likely I'd apply the same principle to a Damage Shield. You could rule that the unarmed block could succeed at a large penalty by, say, getting close enough and grabbing the weapon hand before the swing is completed. I'd give that a possibility, but it's not going to work against some attacks like a bullet or some Damage Shields. Blocking a Damage Shield with a weapon or shield or something? Doable, but depending on the circumstances and SFX I might have the Focus take the damage. Sometimes a Block just isn't the brightest thing to do, and that's okay. That's life. That's interesting tactics and realism in a game.

 

I think it's dumb to abstract these mechanics TOO far from the "SFX". A recent discussion about Skill use comes to mind. If you jump right out in front of someone but want to make a Stealth roll and not be noticed, what's the reasonable ruling? Personally I'd have to say, "No. You just volunteered to fail your Stealth roll. To get a chance to succeed you actually have to seek out circumstances where you might not be seen or heard." (Or maybe allow an attempt at -10 or worse.) I'd say it's UNREASONABLE to say Hero abstracts SFX from mechanics to the point where we should allow dumb-ass stunts and interpretations like that. So if you want your Stealth skill to represent your ability to just stand there and not be noticed, tough. Draw a reasonable line somewhere. A block is a block. A block is not a dodge. When you dodge you are already going absolutely all out trying to avoid being hit, and the Dodge maneuver represents that in the Hero System the way the system designers have chosen to make that work. A block is an attempt to intercept and deflect an attack. The Block maneuver represents that in the Hero System. Trying to go all abstract and second guess things beyond that may be an interesting exercise for people on the boards who doesn't have anything better to do for the moment, but IMO it's just not necessary or helpful at the gaming table.

[dmjalund]

Re: Visualising Block

 

Blocking a sword with a bare arm ould be interacting with the flat of the blade

[Starcloud]

Re: Visualising Block

 

Or, more likely, stepping in close and blocking the arm that's swinging the sword.

[GAZZA]

Re: Visualising Block

 

For what it's worth, 6e1pp321 specifically uses Block as an example of something that triggers a Damage Shield. So I'm inclined to suggest that it does, indeed, imply contact - if you want a "block" that doesn't trigger Damage Shields, then I think in my campaign I'd have you either buy defences with "only to resist damage incurred while blocking a damage shield" (-2, I think) or more simply to just buy extra DCV with the special effect of "blocking so fast that it doesn't trigger damage shields".

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Visualising Block

 

Oh' date=' I don't know. If someone were stupid enough to block a sword with his bare arm (certainly possible), I'd rule that's just deciding on what Hit Location takes the damage and apply that damage on a successful Block. And likely I'd apply the same principle to a Damage Shield. You could rule that the unarmed block could succeed at a large penalty by, say, getting close enough and grabbing the weapon hand before the swing is completed.[/quote']

 

You certainly could. Seems to me that you are providing a significant advantage to the character who takes his Killing Attack with the Focus limitation, and devaluing the character who spends points on Martial Block and/or levels with Block, and I would suggest your ruling falls outside the rules as written, though. Or you could apply the classic Hero trope that the game mechanic can have many different special effects, such as:

 

Blocking a sword with a bare arm ould be interacting with the flat of the blade

 

Or' date=' more likely, stepping in close and blocking the arm that's swinging the sword.[/quote']

 

Or, in a very cinematic game, clapping your hands together on both sides of the sword to prevent it connecting. Or any other maneuver that fits with actively preventing that sword from inflicting any damage. Lots of choices exist.

 

Given the relative effectiveness of Block and Dodge, I'm not inclined to add a lot of restrictions to Block. All that does, in my view, is motivate the characters to use Dodge (which has full effect against all non-AoE attacks, and does not deteriorate as it's used to avoid multiple attacks) instead. Or buy more defenses to soak up, or DCV to avoid, the damage and not sacrifice an action to a defensive maneuver at all.

 

Draw a reasonable line somewhere. A block is a block. A block is not a dodge. When you dodge you are already going absolutely all out trying to avoid being hit' date=' and the Dodge maneuver represents that in the Hero System the way the system designers have chosen to make that work. A block is an attempt to intercept and deflect an attack. The Block maneuver represents that in the Hero System. Trying to go all abstract and second guess things beyond that may be an interesting exercise for people on the boards who doesn't have anything better to do for the moment, but IMO it's just not necessary or helpful at the gaming table.[/quote']

 

When you Dodge, you are taking evasive action to make it more difficult for any attack to strike you. The Dodge gets exactly the same bonus against any attack, with the exception of being halved along with the rest of your DCV against attacks you are unaware of. When you Block, you are focusing on preventing specific attacks from damaging you. You select which attack(s) you wish to prevent, and the more you attempt, the less likely success becomes.

 

One very good suggestion I've seen before on these boards is to take the next step in removing SFX from maneuvers and rename Dodge and Block to have less SFX evocation (passive defense and active defense, for example).

[GAZZA]

Re: Visualising Block

 

Well, while Dodge is certainly "better" than Block in a lot of circumstances, Block gives you, in effect, two chances to stop your attacker. First, you get to try your Block. If that succeeds, great, you're set (and as a bonus you get to go first next time). But if you fail, then the attacker doesn't automatically hit you - he still has to make a successful attack.

 

Assuming equal OCV and DCV, your attacker has a 23% chance to hit you if you Block, and a 26% chance if you Dodge. So against a single attacker, you're actually better off Blocking. If you have the Martial versions (and again, assuming your OCV and DCV is otherwise equal to your attacker), your attacker has a 6% chance of tagging you if you Martial Block, and a 9% chance if you Martial Dodge.

 

Obviously Dodge gets better very quickly with multiple attackers though.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Visualising Block

 

Better off by 3% dealing with single attackers only. Add in a bunch of penalties to Block depending on the type of attack used, and I think Block gets devalued very quickly.

 

And I can buy a level with Dodge for 3 points instead of buying Martial Block - that cuts the odds of being hit to under 5%, in addition to all other advantages of Dodge.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Visualising Block

 

...One very good suggestion I've seen before on these boards is to take the next step in removing SFX from maneuvers and rename Dodge and Block to have less SFX evocation (passive defense and active defense' date=' for example).[/quote']

 

That sounds familiar

[Sean Waters]

Re: Visualising Block

 

In a superheroic game, blocking a sword strike barehanded probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow. In (most) fantasy games, it would, but then I'd probably be enforcing DCV penalties for encumbrance for people in heavy armour, which would mean that a block is a more effective defence than a dodge. To an extent it is all about the level of realism.

 

However, a serious point is this: Lex Luthor Fires his Omega Ray at Superman who knows Lois is standing behind him. If Superman wanted to avoid taking damage from the attack but protect Lois, I'd allow him a block attempt: success and they are both OK, fail and he takes the damage, but a dodge would work differently - success (or high enough DCV that the attack misses because of the dodge) and Superman is OK but Lois gets it.

 

That is how I'd play it, and so I would not allow the 'sfx' of a dodge to be 'bouncing an attack off my chest'. You could argue if Lois was not there the sfx wouldn't really matter - true - but I'm also a sucker for consistency.

 

Block and dodge are free in their basic form. I don't think they need to be of equal utility. There might be situations where your feet are stuck to the ground, massively reducing your DCV, but allowing your OCV to work fine. We don't pay for them, they have no cost, there is no imperative for them to balance - but in some situations, block will definitely be better than dodge, and vice versa.

[GAZZA]

Re: Visualising Block

 

I'm not saying I wouldn't allow that myself, Sean, but you realise that technically speaking Supes would need Deflection for that - normally, you can't block attacks aimed at those other than yourself. Canonically, he'd probably have to use Dive For Cover to protect Ms Lane. Of course, canonically missed attacks (assuming Lex isn't using an Area Effect Omega Ray) don't hit anything else either, so you're really into a dramatic situation rather than a mechanical one there anyway.

 

Incidentally - I don't have the new Enemies books (I have all my 4th ed ones still,, and I'm not sure whether it's really worth an update - anyone have any advice there?) but there used to be a character in Alien Enemies in 4th edition called "The Champ" that basically had a (poorly constructed, now that I reflect upon it) Missile Deflection ability defined as "bouncing the attack off his chest", more or less. But I guess you're OK with block doing that, just not dodge.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Visualising Block

 

I'm not saying I wouldn't allow that myself' date=' Sean, but you realise that technically speaking Supes would need Deflection for that - normally, you can't block attacks aimed at those other than yourself. Canonically, he'd probably have to use Dive For Cover to protect Ms Lane. Of course, canonically missed attacks (assuming Lex isn't using an Area Effect Omega Ray) don't hit anything else either, so you're really into a dramatic situation rather than a mechanical one there anyway.[/quote']

 

Lex was aiming at Supes, but if he misses the blast has to go somewhere, so Lois is in danger, and Supes doesn't want to even take the chance of her fragrant pink underwear being torn and soiled. Not by Lex, anyway. 6.2.127 deals with optional rules for missed shots. You're quite right that you could deal with it more than one way, but I think the principle is sound.

 

Incidentally - I don't have the new Enemies books (I have all my 4th ed ones still' date=', and I'm not sure whether it's really worth an update - anyone have any advice there?) but there used to be a character in Alien Enemies in 4th edition called "The Champ" that basically had a (poorly constructed, now that I reflect upon it) Missile Deflection ability defined as "bouncing the attack off his chest", more or less. But I guess you're OK with block doing that, just not dodge.[/quote']

 

I don't have the book, Gazza, but I think I would be happy enough for that sfx. Of course it would depend on the overall build - if the guy had no resistant defences, it wouldn't make much sense - my view on sfx is that they have to follow from the mechanics (not the other way around) and that they have to accurately depict what is actually happening. A martial artist type would block by pushing attacks aside, a brick by bouncing them off his hide.

 

Hmm. Lyrics.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Visualising Block

 

I'm not saying I wouldn't allow that myself' date=' Sean, but you realise that technically speaking Supes would need Deflection for that - normally, you can't block attacks aimed at those other than yourself.[/quote']

Actually you can:

BLOCKING FOR SOMEONE ELSE

A character can Block for someone else — a useful tactic when he wants to defend an injured or defenseless person from an attacker. To do this, a character must be within Reach of either the attacker or the target (either naturally, or because he can extend his Reach with a weapon or some other way).

 

An attempt to Block for someone else is made at -2 OCV. If it succeeds, the attack is Blocked. However, the character doesn’t automatically get to go first before the opponent whose attack he Blocked if they both have their next Phase in the same Segment; they act on their respective DEXs in the usual manner.

(Deflection allows you to do this at range--i.e. Block for someone across the room from you who is not within reach.)

 

And that is a major benefit of Block. You can Block for someone else, but you can't Dodge for someone else. The only other real option you'd have for interceding is to do a Dive for Cover to be voluntarily hit by the attack instead of allowing the attacker a to-hit roll against their chosen target. Or, if the GM is willing, stand in front of the target and provide them a Concealment DCV bonus; if you're doing this on purpose and the GM has his head screwed on correctly then the attack should automatically hit you if it misses the intended target by less then or equal to the Concealment bonus you are providing the target.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Visualising Block

 

Oh, I don't know. If someone were stupid enough to block a sword with his bare arm (certainly possible), I'd rule that's just deciding on what Hit Location takes the damage and apply that damage on a successful Block. And likely I'd apply the same principle to a Damage Shield. You could rule that the unarmed block could succeed at a large penalty by, say, getting close enough and grabbing the weapon hand before the swing is completed. I'd give that a possibility, but it's not going to work against some attacks like a bullet or some Damage Shields. Blocking a Damage Shield with a weapon or shield or something? Doable, but depending on the circumstances and SFX I might have the Focus take the damage. Sometimes a Block just isn't the brightest thing to do, and that's okay. That's life. That's interesting tactics and realism in a game.

 

I think it's dumb to abstract these mechanics TOO far from the "SFX". A recent discussion about Skill use comes to mind. If you jump right out in front of someone but want to make a Stealth roll and not be noticed, what's the reasonable ruling? Personally I'd have to say, "No. You just volunteered to fail your Stealth roll. To get a chance to succeed you actually have to seek out circumstances where you might not be seen or heard." (Or maybe allow an attempt at -10 or worse.) I'd say it's UNREASONABLE to say Hero abstracts SFX from mechanics to the point where we should allow dumb-ass stunts and interpretations like that. So if you want your Stealth skill to represent your ability to just stand there and not be noticed, tough. Draw a reasonable line somewhere. A block is a block. A block is not a dodge. When you dodge you are already going absolutely all out trying to avoid being hit, and the Dodge maneuver represents that in the Hero System the way the system designers have chosen to make that work. A block is an attempt to intercept and deflect an attack. The Block maneuver represents that in the Hero System. Trying to go all abstract and second guess things beyond that may be an interesting exercise for people on the boards who doesn't have anything better to do for the moment, but IMO it's just not necessary or helpful at the gaming table.

 

The mechanics of Block is 'make a roll, negate an attack'. Period, stop. The special effects are whatever is decided on as appropriate for the situation. If this is 'intercepts the attack with a body part', 'gets out of the way', 'uses a power defensively', doesn't matter. I would have no problem if a player described his character as batting arrows out of the sky if he were simply missed by luck of the dice without taking a defensive action.

 

If HERO's so flexible, why limit your imagination on this?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Visualising Block

 

If HERO's so flexible' date=' why limit your imagination on this?[/quote']

Fitting the appropriate mechanics to whatever action my imagination comes up with is not inflexible; it's using the system the way it was designed to be used. To get out of the way of something (with whatever wonderful descriptive text you'd like to come up with) is a Dodge or Dive for Cover. Heck, Dodge "negates an attack" that hit by only 3 points if we want to use that lingo. Both maneuvers simply modify the probability of a successful hit. The real difference is that Block uses your OCV. Why? Because you're attacking the attacker's attack, so to speak. It's based on offense, not defense; not getting out of the way.

[Greywind]

Re: Visualising Block

 

Blocking a sword with a bare arm ould be interacting with the flat of the blade

 

Or' date=' more likely, stepping in close and blocking the arm that's swinging the sword.[/quote']

Or you're Clark Kent.

[Utech]

Re: Visualising Block

 

So long as the mechanics advantages and restrictions of the Block maneuver are what you're after, I don't think any sfx should be immediately disqualified. Every GM and every group of players can restrict the game as they see fit, of course, but I think it's just plain silly to insist that Block must include some sort of physical contact. By extension I think it's just as silly to insist that Dodge must not include physical contact of any sort.

 

Examples of perfectly reasonable sfx (so far as I'm concerned) would include:

 

• Sidestep. This is a Block in which the defender moves aggressively toward and then to one side of the attacker. While ensuring that no actual contact occurs by following the line of attack as nearly as possible, this maneuver puts the defender in an excellent position from which to quickly counter-attack. Unfortunately, the closeness of this maneuver is sufficient to trigger most Damage Shields. Note: A GM might want to clarify to all present that the Sidestep is a Block and not a Dodge, but that ought to be obvious when the defender makes an Attack roll against his attacker.
  
• Hardly even felt that! This is a Dodge in which the defender seems to put all of his focus and attention into "taking" incoming blows. His focus is so intense that it is clear to any who might look that he's simply incapable of attacking while in this state. Any attacks on the character that fail to make a "hit" result against his increased DCV appear to have been absorbed or ignored. Any attacks on the character that successfully make a "hit" result against his increased DCV appear to have been too intense or unexpected for him to resist and do their full damage. The defender's seeming ability to shrug off most attacks is so profound that Damage Shields fail to activate even though the attacker seems to have struck the defender. Note: A GM would have to clarify to all present that the defender is Dodging and that the mechanics of this particular set of sfx are the same as a failed "hit" result.
  

[Sean Waters]

Re: Visualising Block

 

So long as the mechanics advantages and restrictions of the Block maneuver are what you're after' date=' I don't think [i']any[/i] sfx should be immediately disqualified. Every GM and every group of players can restrict the game as they see fit, of course, but I think it's just plain silly to insist that Block must include some sort of physical contact. By extension I think it's just as silly to insist that Dodge must not include physical contact of any sort.

 

Examples of perfectly reasonable sfx (so far as I'm concerned) would include:

 

 

• Sidestep. This is a Block in which the defender moves aggressively toward and then to one side of the attacker. While ensuring that no actual contact occurs by following the line of attack as nearly as possible, this maneuver puts the defender in an excellent position from which to quickly counter-attack. Unfortunately, the closeness of this maneuver is sufficient to trigger most Damage Shields. Note: A GM might want to clarify to all present that the Sidestep is a Block and not a Dodge, but that ought to be obvious when the defender makes an Attack roll against his attacker.
  
• Hardly even felt that! This is a Dodge in which the defender seems to put all of his focus and attention into "taking" incoming blows. His focus is so intense that it is clear to any who might look that he's simply incapable of attacking while in this state. Any attacks on the character that fail to make a "hit" result against his increased DCV appear to have been absorbed or ignored. Any attacks on the character that successfully make a "hit" result against his increased DCV appear to have been too intense or unexpected for him to resist and do their full damage. The defender's seeming ability to shrug off most attacks is so profound that Damage Shields fail to activate even though the attacker seems to have struck the defender. Note: A GM would have to clarify to all present that the defender is Dodging and that the mechanics of this particular set of sfx are the same as a failed "hit" result.
  

 

My problem here is the bits in italics. I simply don't see why it is not far better to describe what happens in a way that does not require you to lift the hood to look at the engine to know what is going on. It seems like an unnecessary extra step.

 

Crosshair Collie asked, above, "Why limit your imagination?"

 

My view is that 'imagination' is not about being able to say or do anything you like; imagination does not exist as something divorced from 'reality'. It is about finding an interesting and unusual way to describe what is actually happening. Describing an event, even in the most vivid terms, then having to say 'and although it looks like a block, actually it is a dodge' seems to me to be a failure of imagination - an inability to find a way to express in an interesting way what is actually happening without the need for extraneous mechanical clarification.

 

I've done a bit of martial arts and I know that when executing a block it often involves no contact at all (albeit they come close), but I suspect (in Hero terms) what I'm doing is putting some of my CSLs on DCV (or I'm getting a DCV bonus from the block maneouvre), not just OCV, and so when the punch ACTUALLY misses it is because my DCV was higher. My block was unnecesary.

 

I'd describe it as: the attacker swings a punch toward you and you step forward and to the side, positioning your arms to deflect his blow, but it was wide anyway, and you are in the perfect position to counterstrike...

 

Everyone would know from the description that a block was attempted but the attack missed anyway.

[Utech]

Re: Visualising Block

 

My problem here is the bits in italics. I simply don't see why it is not far better to describe what happens in a way that does not require you to lift the hood to look at the engine to know what is going on. It seems like an unnecessary extra step.

And in my opinion it's an insignificant price to pay. I can say, "A Dodge" by way of explanation in about a second and there are plenty of other builds that benefit from just that sort of quick hood-raising:

AOE attacks that look an awful lot like they're not (might be Rapid Fire, might be Spread, might be Selective AOE, might be Accurate AOE...)

attacks that look an awful lot like they should use one mechanic but they use another (Drain, Dispel, Transfer, Mental Illusion, Blast, RKA, TK...)

defenses that look an awful lot like they should use one mechanic but they use another (Force Field, Armor, an invisible mobile personal Barrier, Summoned mime bodyguard...)

[prestidigitator]

Re: Visualising Block

 

My problem here is the bits in italics. I simply don't see why it is not far better to describe what happens in a way that does not require you to lift the hood to look at the engine to know what is going on. It seems like an unnecessary extra step.

 

Crosshair Collie asked, above, "Why limit your imagination?"

 

My view is that 'imagination' is not about being able to say or do anything you like; imagination does not exist as something divorced from 'reality'. It is about finding an interesting and unusual way to describe what is actually happening. Describing an event, even in the most vivid terms, then having to say 'and although it looks like a block, actually it is a dodge' seems to me to be a failure of imagination - an inability to find a way to express in an interesting way what is actually happening without the need for extraneous mechanical clarification.

Definitely. If we're not going to rule out any SFX for anything, I suppose we could call Dodge a free form of Desolidification that requires a roll, too, and just allow the character to dissolve weapons with his mind. Why not make Block the ability to stare down your opponent so that he doesn't have the balls to attack? What other crazy nonsense should we allow basic maneuvers designed to reflect actual fighting ability to do, that are actually the province of other things in the system?

 

Ironically this question doesn't come up if the GM asks for either basic descriptive actions (player: "I'm avoiding his attack," GM: "Oh, okay, you're Dodging. What is your DCV with the +3 Dodge bonus added?") or "mechanical" actions (player: "I Dodge;" GM: "Oh. Okay. And he misses. You sidestep the attack neatly right at the last instant"). Keep things moving like that at the gaming table without questioning things like whether we should actually be rolling for a Block instead of simply increasing our DCV and the system naturally does what it should without us having to get into this kind of square-into-triangle second guessing business.

 

I'd also say that there's a slight difference between Maneuvers and building powers. Maneuvers are game system elements, whereas Powers are used to create new game system elements. Powers and Power Modifiers are there to (ideally) allow you to build anything; Maneuvers are units of action, not construction, and are designed to (ideally) cover all the different things you can do in combat. They have their SFX mostly built-in, just like most constructed powers (lower-case "p") do (those without Variable Special Effects).

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Visualising Block

 

Sean,

 

I remeber that thread oh vey! Personally, I go with blocks consists of touching, dodges don't. At least in my group, when I allowed a the no contact block, everyone else felt that that was wrong.

[Utech]

Re: Visualising Block

 

Definitely. If we're not going to rule out any SFX for anything' date=' I suppose we could call Dodge a free form of Desolidification that requires a roll, too, and just allow the character to dissolve weapons with his mind. Why not make Block the ability to stare down your opponent so that he doesn't have the balls to attack?[/quote']

Yes. Why not? I mean, jeez, it's almost like players might want to toolkit this system or something. We shouldn't allow that!

What other crazy nonsense should we allow basic maneuvers designed to reflect actual fighting ability to do' date=' that are actually the province of other things in the system?[/quote']

You're kidding, right? You think the basic maneuvers were designed to reflect actual fighting ability? In this system? That they are somehow pure and held separate behind a hard wall of reality so they don't play with the rest of the system? You know, the parts that allow for "legion of loyal poodles" to be the sfx for Blast, Barrier, TK, and probably hundreds of other powers usually defined otherwise?