More Blockages

[Sean Waters]

I'm thinking of block a lot at the moment.

 

I've got a couple of issues:

 

1. It is equally effective against all attacks - Joe Normal can block a punch or a laser according to the rules - and unless the GM rules differently, that is fine.

 

2. Block is all or nothing. You succeed, you take no damage. End of.

 

3. Block costs nothing, and, indeed, is not costed.

 

Here's what I'm thinking. 6e gives us a delicious and tasty new mechanic: Damage Negation.

 

Might it not be interesting to get rid of the current, aged mechanic, and replace it with an everyman power:

 

Standard Block: Damage Negation (-2 DCs Physical) (10 Active Points); Requires A Roll (Skill roll; -1/2), Nonresistant (-1/4), Nonpersistent (-1/4), Limited Power Power loses about a fourth of its effectiveness (Works as if you had taken an attack action that can be aborted to, but allows you to attack blocked opponent first if you share your next phase, irrespective of DEX. Subsequent block attempts can be made at -2 per attempt on roll.; -1/4), Perceivable (-1/4) 4 Real points

 

So a standard block would stop 2DCs of normal physical damage and requires a roll (OCV v OCV) etc - it works just like block mechanically except the result.

 

It means a normal human can not block energy or killing attacks and can block a 12d6 Megatron Punch, but still takes 10d6 damage.

 

Being a part of the character template you could buy it back (saving 4 points, if you could justify an inability to block) or re-build it as a more effective block. No 'sfx' basis, it is all mechanical, but it conforms far better to what I feel a block should be, and it becomes a scaling and utility costed power.

 

Thoughts?

[prestidigitator]

Re: More Blockages

 

Hmm. And how are you going to deal with blocking with a shield or weapon? Built-in limited DN for each Focus, or...?

 

It's an interesting concept, but I'm not sure I have that big a problem with Block avoiding damage completely, given how difficult it can be to pull it off and that you have to use up a (Aborted, Delayed, or normal) Phase to do it. If you apply common sense as a GM I think you can easily deal with situations like blocking weapons with bare hands in a way that makes sense for the game/genre being played. Give OCV penalties or make it straight out impossible if the circumstances are such that the block doesn't make sense.

 

I THINK I can see where you are coming from in terms of cost. I'm not worried about the ability to sell it back; I think that can just be folded into Complications that make the maneuver impossible (in addition to whatever other drawbacks there might be such as not being able to wear a wristwatch if you don't have arms) if it really makes sense to do so. But it might at times be nice to be able to do things like apply (Naked) Advantages such as Trigger. I think I'd just consider Block to be an Everyman HTH version of Deflection for that purpose, myself.

 

Oh, and I think you're thinking too hard again, Sean. I smell smoke.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: More Blockages

 

Not bad. if I were to do such a thing. I'd probably make a block negate DCs equal to your average attack.

[Sean Waters]

Re: More Blockages

 

I thought of relating the amount of damage negation to character STR, but then thought it probably wasn't necessary. If you have (say) 5pd and block a 4d6 punch, you take damage but only 2 points on average, not the 9 points you would otherwise have taken. Blocking can still hurt (believe me it can) but you are taking a lot less punishment than you otherwise would. It would take 10 such punches to put someone with 20 stun down, as opposed to 3 if they did not block. I actually like the idea that blocking slows the rate at which you take damage, it doesn't necessarily halt it. you can always buy up your ability to block, increasing the amount or having it apply to killing or energy attacks, or even mental attacks.

 

Another thought is that a 'damage negation' mechanic might be a good way to do 'roll with punch'. As an aside, in this time of 'universal mechanics', why does 'roll with punch' not apply to all attacks? I'd be happier thinking that maybe the character could, reduce damage by moving out of the way of a laser (they got hit, but in a less critical spot) than thinking that a character could block a laser completely.

[Utech]

Re: More Blockages

 

Blocking can still hurt (believe me it can) but you are taking a lot less punishment than you otherwise would.

I'd call that a failed block with a low damage roll, myself. A successful block shouldn't hurt.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: More Blockages

 

Keep in mind "Block" and "Dodge" are the names of the maneuver, but do not have to define the actual act performed.

 

You can "block" by dodging or dodge by blocking.

 

Dodge just boosts your DCV, you can describe the SFX as your character blocking the attack, thus raising his DCV.

 

Block requires an attack roll and allows you to use your OCV to defend against an incoming attack - particularly useful if you want to keep your offense high for a follow-up attack or when you are dealing with a DCV penalty.

 

Edit: Naturally, this is my take on Dodge / Block. YMMV.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: More Blockages

 

While I tend to agree with Utech and Kraven Kor on the way blocks work (just my perception), my real reluctance to use such a mechanic is more pragmatic. Namely, if a block is only going to knock off a couple of DC from an attack, I don't think anyone will use it. Maybe your games are different, but in my experience, players don't block very often as is because it is usually more effective to put the other guy down quickly instead. If I made the block even weaker by only negating some of the damage instead of all of it, I don't think it would get used at all, at which point one has no need for the mechanic.

[Sean Waters]

Re: More Blockages

 

While I tend to agree with Utech and Kraven Kor on the way blocks work (just my perception)' date=' my real reluctance to use such a mechanic is more pragmatic. Namely, if a block is only going to knock off a couple of DC from an attack, I don't think anyone will use it. Maybe your games are different, but in my experience, players don't block very often as is because it is usually more effective to put the other guy down quickly instead. If I made the block even weaker by only negating some of the damage instead of all of it, I don't think it would get used at all, at which point one has no need for the mechanic.[/quote']

 

A block for a normal human is going to knock off a couple of DCs. For the sort of damage most normal humans encounter, that is significant. You can (and probably should) buy that base up if you are going to be blocking a lot in a superhero campaign.

 

I work on the rough formula that defences should be about 2xcampaign DC as a guideline, meaning that about 1.5 DC will get through in stun damage.

 

That also means that you don't need to negate all the damage to be able to ignore it - just the bit that is getting through, or (1.5/3.5)xDC: for a 12DC campaign average, a 5DC Damage Negation should stop all but a point or two of stun getting through.

[AirborneRob]

Re: More Blockages

 

Im not 100% on Block in HERO but dont you declare block before the attack roll is made according to the rules?

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: More Blockages

 

Sean,

A quick and dirty rule concerning normal humans vs supers is the same rule for martial throwing. If the max str cannot throw the character then the block doesn't work. If you want to be generous, I would go with perhaps the blocker taking one-half damge. I think an important thing to remember is what Steve Long says about martial damage in 5th rev. Just because the dice say that you can damage certain things like an iron door, you shouldn't allow it, unless of course the genre your playing does encourage it. I visualize it like this, can Batman really block Superman unaided?

[prestidigitator]

Re: More Blockages

 

Hmm. What about making it dependent upon the amount by which the Block succeeds? Say, 2DCs, plus 1DC for each 2 points by which your Block succeeds. Then if you Block a sword with your bare arm, you're going to be in pain unless you succeed by quite a bit (indicating that perhaps you blocked the arm of the attacker rather than the blade). This way Block might still be somewhat effective in superheroic games, where -2 DCs may not be all that big a difference ("30 Stun instead of 37? Should I bother?"). I realize this makes it more difficult to cost it out because it is open-ended, but it might balance a little better. Also, related to my first post, you could simply build a bonus with Block into weapons, and shields get it already (though the bonus for a shield could possibly use some beefing up)....

[GAZZA]

Re: More Blockages

 

I have reservations.

 

Firstly, not all blocks are unarmed. From what I understand of fencing, the main advantage of strength is that you can manoeuvre your blade more quickly - the power behind it isn't really as big a deal. I have a hard time believing that you would define a successful fencing parry as anything less than "deflected the blade so it missed"; to my mind, if you only partly deflected it so you still got stabbed, then in Hero terms I'd say you failed your Block. Of course one can add greater Damage Negation on to weapons to deal with this, but it's not as simple as "bigger damage weapons are better at blocking".

 

Secondly, it calls into question other mechanics. The reasoning here appears to be that Joe Normal trying to block Grond is going to get hurt even if he is successful. We actually already have a mechanic for that if you want it - Damage Shield - but forget that for the moment. Let's consider Dodge in light of this change. Dodge is defined typically as getting out of the way of an attack. But if you can only partially deflect a block, then you most certainly can partially dodge a blow - you didn't quite get out of the way, but you missed the worst of it. More Damage Negation for this? What about considering Speedster Dude, with the power to punch you thousands of times per second. Is it reasonable that Joe Normal could dodge such a person, since by the time he even realises Speedster Dude has moved he's already been punched 500 times? Now of course one could say that Speedster dude should represent this "inability to miss Joe Normal" with a high OCV - which is of course true - but then we return to the fact that if you want to represent things that are dangerous to block, we can use Damage Shield to do so.

 

It comes down to a judgement about whether the average attack is of the "hurt you even if you block" type or not. If you think it is, then I can see why you'd feel that adding Damage Shield to virtually everything was a PITA. But my own intuition suggests the opposite - I'd rather deal with the lightsabers as a special case than the fencing swords, if you take my point. There are already optional rules to represent Joe Normal's difficulty in blocking swords, if you need them (6e2pp58).

[prestidigitator]

Re: More Blockages

 

Also, Damage Shield isn't the only way to do a, "Get hurt even if you Block," or difficult/impossible to Dodge. An AoE attack (Accurate or not) can't generally be Blocked, and can be very difficult to avoid (and impossible to Dodge). That might be a very good way to represent the speedster's attack you mention, in fact. Maybe Grond too, though it seems like a Damage Shield might be more appropriate there.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: More Blockages

 

Sure, you could spend 20 or so points getting your Block up to the point where it isn't pointless. But it will still be worse than Block, and Block is already only selectively better than dodge. You'd be better off buying Martial Dodge and a few levels with it instead.

 

It's not an inherently bad idea, but it accomplishes fundamentally the same thing as "Block is removed, just Dodge or Roll With the Punch instead."

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: More Blockages

 

I have reservations.

 

 

Secondly, it calls into question other mechanics. The reasoning here appears to be that Joe Normal trying to block Grond is going to get hurt even if he is successful. We actually already have a mechanic for that if you want it - Damage Shield - but forget that for the moment. Let's consider Dodge in light of this change. Dodge is defined typically as getting out of the way of an attack. But if you can only partially deflect a block, then you most certainly can partially dodge a blow - you didn't quite get out of the way, but you missed the worst of it. More Damage Negation for this? What about considering Speedster Dude, with the power to punch you thousands of times per second. Is it reasonable that Joe Normal could dodge such a person, since by the time he even realises Speedster Dude has moved he's already been punched 500 times? Now of course one could say that Speedster dude should represent this "inability to miss Joe Normal" with a high OCV - which is of course true - but then we return to the fact that if you want to represent things that are dangerous to block, we can use Damage Shield to do so.

 

represent Joe Normal's difficulty in blocking swords, if you need them (6e2pp58).

 

Yes but Gazza I'm going to point out though that since the original Ninja Hero, they came up with this meta rule about lifting and throwing things because techniocally, a normal could martial throw a 700 ton mecha. All I'm duing its expanding on that precident.

 

P.s. thanks for the 6th ed reference, unfortunately, I don't have it.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: More Blockages

 

I'd say the idea has merit, it might be a good alternate approach for a gritty game. One way to address some of the issues might be to say that a base Block gives 2 DN physical, +1 DN for every point the blocker makes their roll by. Thus more skilled blockers take comparatively less damage on the average.

 

Oh and swords can take damage from successful but not exceptional blocks, it's just the sword (Focus) that takes the damage, not the wielder. I've broken more than one sword midblock in my day.

[Ice9]

Re: More Blockages

 

As several people have pointed out, this would make Block fairly useless, at least in it's classic form.

Forget Superheroic - even for most Heroic characters, a 2 DC non-resistant Block is close to useless as a way to spend an action. So we'll need to boost it up.

 

For 4 points, we could have a 4 DC block ... or Martial Dodge. Martial Dodge is generally going to be the winner there.

But hey, what about when your feet are stuck in place, or something? Dodge won't help you then. So let's consider:

 

Powerful Blocking - 8 DC Block (as above), 16 points.

Always Blocking - 7 DC Damage Negation, Nonpersistent, RAR, Perceivable, 17 points.

 

For a few points more, you could be blocking every attack (including KAs) with no penalties and no actions spent.

The large amount of limitations on Block, as constructed this way, mean that the very important distinction of taking an action barely makes a point difference at all. Once you figure in likely limitations such as Focus, the difference is even less.

[Sean Waters]

Re: More Blockages

 

As several people have pointed out, this would make Block fairly useless, at least in it's classic form.

Forget Superheroic - even for most Heroic characters, a 2 DC non-resistant Block is close to useless as a way to spend an action. So we'll need to boost it up.

 

For 4 points, we could have a 4 DC block ... or Martial Dodge. Martial Dodge is generally going to be the winner there.

But hey, what about when your feet are stuck in place, or something? Dodge won't help you then. So let's consider:

 

Powerful Blocking - 8 DC Block (as above), 16 points.

Always Blocking - 7 DC Damage Negation, Nonpersistent, RAR, Perceivable, 17 points.

 

For a few points more, you could be blocking every attack (including KAs) with no penalties and no actions spent.

The large amount of limitations on Block, as constructed this way, mean that the very important distinction of taking an action barely makes a point difference at all. Once you figure in likely limitations such as Focus, the difference is even less.

 

I agree, but also disagree. I like the idea of building more effective blocks: that is entirely appropriate and, I'd suggest, having a 'base blcok' that can be broken down to a point cost would facilitate that.

 

I disagree that a block as re-imagined is entirely useless - it reduces the amount of damage you take by 2 to 12 stun and 0 to 4 Body. As a proportiion of total damage that may not seem much but I'm assuming that the charcter blocking ALSO has normal defences. Any reduction of damage through defences counts as 100% 'off the top' i.e. it all comes off the damage we would have taken: even 2DC Damage negation can nearly halve the damage you would have taken from a 12d6 attack.

 

The thing is that any defensive manoeuvre is not going to win a fight. You'll use it when desperate or when you outumber the enemy. Taking less damage than you would will mean staying on your feet longer (and, of major importance, often mean avoiding being stunned) - so, again - still uselful in desperation or when you outnumber a foe.

 

Practically speaking, that is what we need 'block' for, and it would seem to work well, even in this 'nerfed*' version.

 

 

 

 

*...nerfed but realistic version: yes a 'perfect' block may avoid any damage at all, but generally what a block does is reduce damage.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: More Blockages

 

The comparison is not "Block vs. not take defensive actions." It is "Block vs. Dodge." Normally, Block is marginally better than dodge under very particular circumstances. Nerfed block is worse than dodge under everything except rare edge cases.

[Ice9]

Re: More Blockages

 

Actually, for me it was "DN that works just like Block" vs "DN that works much better than Block, for 10% more points". I guess this more of a problem with heavily limited powers in general though - when the AP are way out of scale with the RP, you get strange artifacts.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: More Blockages

 

Yes but Gazza I'm going to point out though that since the original Ninja Hero, they came up with this meta rule about lifting and throwing things because techniocally, a normal could martial throw a 700 ton mecha. All I'm duing its expanding on that precident.

 

P.s. thanks for the 6th ed reference, unfortunately, I don't have it.

 

I just wanted to add that when I looked up block under 5th main rules, Steve also gives the general advice that although in general you can block x,y,z (he lists all manuevers that are acceptable), he gives the advice that you (as Gm) can (and should) limit what can be blocked based on dramatic, logic, and game balance. The exaple he gives is that technically you can block a vehicle doing a move through, you probally shouldn't allow it.

 

Also I wanted to point out that even though I suggested not allowing to block, I have considered other methods such as lmaybe allowing half damage, or the damage is considered auto-penetrating.