4, 5 or 6?

[Hugh Neilson]

So are you equally adamant that Defenses are about soaking up the damage, not avoiding it, so no Combat Luck?

 

pre-4e, I recall a lot of our games had agile characters with limited Damage Reduction to roll with the punch, on the same basic logic as Combat Luck.

 

One can just as easily define Dodge as making yourself a difficult target by moving unpredictably (a passive defense; DCV) versus tracking each attack to evade it specifically (an active defense, Block, using OCV), whether you evade it by knocking it away or by being elsewhere when it arrives.

 

This is Hero - mechanics do not have hard coded SFX.

[Chris Goodwin]

But Han Solo can TRY to block a Lightsaber swing, can’t he? And, since he neither paid points to own a Lightsaber nor paid for WF: Lightsaber, he is at a -3 OCV penalty using it, so he is nowhere near as good at using it as “Luke on the Death Star”, who has basic training, much less “Luke in Jabba’s Palace” who has invested in skill levels with the Lightsaber.

 

But does he really Block? Does he have so many levels that the -10 penalty for the sixth blaster bolt doesn’t even phase him? Or does he get a massive DCV bonus in a Multipower slot, versus ranged attacks only, defined as “Lightsaber Block”? Or maybe several levels of Damage Negation, sufficient to eliminate any damage from a blaster bolt?

 

He can try.  Actually, being Han, he would likely block Luke's saber by shooting it with his blaster.  (Or, more likely, by taking​ a shot at Luke that he would be forced to block with his saber.)  

 

At some point, as a GM, I'm going to draw a line between Powers and inappropriate SFX.  I'm not fond of Combat Luck, either.  

[Chris Goodwin]

Quoting is acting up. Working on it.
 
This is ridiculous. I'm putting my words in bold.
 

Oh look – knights have higher CVs than squires!

 

But a shield is a shield, right? CVs being equal, James Bond should be able to pick up that shield and Block a wizard's blast or a dragon's breath weapon. Right?
 
 

OK, I am trying to stop laughing as I remember the write-ups I have seen of Spider-Man with Missile Deflection defined as “Super-Dodge” and Bricks with Missile Deflection defined as “Bullets Bounce Off”.

In 3rd edition and prior, Missile Deflection wasn't tied to Block, and acts more like a Skill, based on a DEX Roll. (In 3rd edition, Missile Deflection specifies "parry or dodge", and is not tied to OCV.) As of 4th, it was.

 

Yeah. The pitcher has higher OCV, and is using it. But, under pre-6e rules, no one without Missile Deflection can even TRY to deflect that weekend warrior’s softball, nor the major league pitcher’s fastball. In 6e, you can, but one requires a much greater degree of skill (OCV) than the other. The skill is not in being able to attempt, but likelihood of success.

Assuming we're defining the thrown baseball as an attack, yeah. It is not necessarily so, but for the sake of argument... and in 1e, evidently, Missile Deflection was a Skill, and it was specified as requiring an implement of some kind. (Which is what all of my meandering above led to.) And the superhero whose SFX and motif is baseball would certainly have Missile Deflection.

 

And we are back to needing 20 AP to be permitted the chance to deflect a thrown rock. Better, I’ll admit, but not, objectively, superior to “anyone* can try”.

3e, it's 10 points for thrown objects. My 6e version, it's 8, and you can Limit it down further.

The Stormtrooper blaster is just a Blast, I think, and the bow and arrow has no special range-limiting modifiers. But this is beside the point – Missile Deflection cost less for spears and more for lasers, not less for range with limitations and more for range with advantages, so you are no longer discussing the pre 6e RAW.

I was looking for a rationale to make it harder (and therefore more expensive) to deflect a laser than a thrown spear, or an arrow than a blaster bolt, other than "what name the player has written on the sheet".
 

Maybe the thrown object is Rogue hurling a Susan B. Anthony dollar. Is that a lot harder to deflect than a laser? Even if the person trying to deflect it has a mirror?

Then I rule that it no longer counts as a "thrown object" but is effectively a bullet. And would most likely be a 2d6 RKA. But either she's bought that as an attack (maybe as a Brick Trick) or is using Power Skill for that first one.

And some people can throw a haymaker or dodge effectively.

Making the base ability cost 8 points, or setting a -4 standard penalty, is in no way superior to requiring a point expenditure for the base ability, or having no standard penalty. You can buy your Laser with “CE: -4 penalty to Block, Laser only” linked to it, if you want your attack to be especially difficult to block. That’s no less reasonable than requiring points be spent for the ability to deflect a thrown rock.

Hero has Everyman Skills (including Everyman Maneuvers) for things any action character can attempt too.


We could make people pay for Dodge too, or make the base Dodge +1 DCV (free), Expert Dodge +3 DCV (4 points) and Martial Dodge +5 DCV (8 points). The only difference is we accept the current free Dodge because anyone can dodge AND we have always had it, while we debate blocking ranged attacks for free, despite the fact anyone can do it (at least to the same extent that anyone can Dodge a bullet or a laser beam).

We could. In my games, it's an 8 point Skill to Block ranged attacks, and covers not just thrown rocks, but bullets and lasers. At a penalty to be determined by the GM, depending on SFX, common sense, dramatic sense, etc. That's me doing me, though; you do you.

Or you could just Dodge the thing.


asdfasdfasdf

 

*sigh*  Now it's quoting correctly.

[Chris Goodwin]

So are you equally adamant that Defenses are about soaking up the damage, not avoiding it, so no Combat Luck?

 

pre-4e, I recall a lot of our games had agile characters with limited Damage Reduction to roll with the punch, on the same basic logic as Combat Luck.

 

One can just as easily define Dodge as making yourself a difficult target by moving unpredictably (a passive defense; DCV) versus tracking each attack to evade it specifically (an active defense, Block, using OCV), whether you evade it by knocking it away or by being elsewhere when it arrives.

 

This is Hero - mechanics do not have hard coded SFX.

 

I'm happier with the limited Damage Reduction. In 6e, I'd rather you use Damage Negation; there's no SFX implied with that, it's just reducing incoming DCs.  

[Tasha]

You've never tried to teach a total novice baseball, I can tell.  Sometimes they roll a 3.  After a while they learn the skill (pay the points) and can do it.  But that's not all!  In Hero you can deflect an Arrow, which is nearly impossible for a human being even with massive training.  Oh, then there are things like missiles and bullets which is literally impossible for anyone to do at any level of training.  But hey, that's not a skill in 6th edition!  Its just something everyone can do!  If the GM says so -- no rules on what happens if he says "no" and you want special training to do it.

Sure they turn to the page of the right power and spend 20pts for Deflection. bought as a "super skill" damn isn't it wonderful that we have such a complete game that things of nearly everything?

[Ninja-Bear]

You're going to have to explain to me how you reached that conclusion, especially considering how consistently I've stressed the idea of GM assessed penalties.

 

Something else I have consistently argued to be the case with blocking ranged attacks. At this point, I have to wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse.

 

Ummm up thread you made a crack about how people should maybe pay for combat maneuvers? I think it was to Christopher Taylor.

[Ninja-Bear]

What a discussion. All I want is a reasonable way to make 6th ed work close enougg to old missile deflection with out importing the old rules.

 

If we go by buying off penaly level route, is -4 reasonable?

Is it reasonable to put limitations on it and what limitations? I.e. Thrown objects get -2?

 

I just would like a framework that I can use from genre to genre and different games with in the genre.

[Ninja-Bear]

Sure they turn to the page of the right power and spend 20pts for Deflection. bought as a "super skill" damn isn't it wonderful that we have such a complete game that things of nearly everything?

Tasha have you not been following the posts? Netzilla is arguing that within GM permission you don't need to buy deflection hence the arguments.

[Netzilla]

Ummm up thread you made a crack about how people should maybe pay for combat maneuvers? I think it was to Christopher Taylor.

 

I wrote that in response to this:

 

 

This baseball analogy really misses the point.  Nobody in the game other than Randy Johnson is using the baseball as a weapon.  They aren't throwing to harm you, they're throwing to be caught or get it past you.  There's a huge difference between catching a ball someone tosses to you and deflecting a javelin someone tries to impale you with.  

And when you add in the free ability for every character and NPC in the game including infants to bat aside arrows and bullets and stinger missiles, its turned from unlikely to ridiculous.

 

There's just zero equivalence between dodging and blocking ranged objects.  None.

 

 

I was pointing out that using an infant's capabilites as a standard was pointless because, using that as a standard, then all combat manuevers should cost points.  I was not suggesting that this would be a good idea.  It was a criticism of a hyperbolic argument.

[Ninja-Bear]

Yes but Netzilla if I understand your point of contention is that deflection should be free (with some criteria) however I was pointing out that that isn't really Hero main guideline. If you want to be better than "normal" you pay points. That is the rule not the exemption.

[Netzilla]

What a discussion. All I want is a reasonable way to make 6th ed work close enougg to old missile deflection with out importing the old rules.

 

If we go by buying off penaly level route, is -4 reasonable?

Is it reasonable to put limitations on it and what limitations? I.e. Thrown objects get -2?

 

I just would like a framework that I can use from genre to genre and different games with in the genre.

If you like the old Missile Deflection rules, then there's really no reason not to port them forward.  Plenty of people have done exactly that for different aspects of the system (some liked the old Stun Lotto, some liked the old Transfer, etc).

 

However, I spent a few minutes thinking about a "formalized" set of modifiers for Block and came up with the following:

Defender Is...      Attack Is...        Block Mod
--------------------------------------------------                    
Unarmed*            Unarmed*            +0
                    Normal Attack       -1
                    Killing Attack      -2
Any                 x2 blocking weapon  -1 per doubling
                      DC
                    Ranged              x2 (min -4)
--------------------------------------------------                    
* Natural weapons such as claws, horns and fangs should be considered as "armed".

An unarmed normal person (STR 8) blocks a Broadswoard (1d6+1 HKA) would be -2 (Unarmed 
  vs Killing) -1 (4 DC attack vs 1.5 DC defense) = -3 total.

The same person trying to block a Thrown Spear (1d6+1 RKA) would double that for a -6.

Colossus (STR 60) trying to block Cyclops's eye beams (12d6 Blast) would be -1 
  (Unarmed vs Normal) x2 (Ranged) for a total of -2 unless he could find an improvised 
  weapon to block with.

I structured it the way I did mainly because I'm not a fan of tying costs to SFX like the old Missile Deflection did, so this all triggers off mechanics.  It's not been playtested, as I just came up with this after about 5 or 10 minutes thought.  So, use at your own risk, etc, etc.

 

If you really want to keep it tied to SFX, I'd recommend going by the idea posted by Hugh (?) of putting the onus on the attacking power for being harder to block (I believe a linked Change Environment was the construct he suggested for this).  So, setting a minimum of -4 for blocking ranged attacks (as suggested under the Block rules on pg 149), anyone who wanted their power to be harder to block would purchase an appropriate linked CE.

 

Alternatively you could set a higher base modifier for blocking a ranged attacks and allow attacks to add a Limitation for being easier to block.  For example, if you decide that the base penalty for blocking a ranged attack is -8 (to pick an arbitrarily high number), then a thrown spear might be built with "Easy to Block (+4 to defender's Block roll at range; -1/2).

[Netzilla]

Yes but Netzilla if I understand your point of contention is that deflection should be free (with some criteria) however I was pointing out that that isn't really Hero main guideline. If you want to be better than "normal" you pay points. That is the rule not the exemption.

Sure, and if blocking a ranged attack automatically carries a penalty, then there are already a number of ways of paying points to counter that penalty: the 'Deflection, No Range' already mentioned by another poster or purchasing 'OCV, Only to Block Ranged Attacks' that I mentioned earlier.  So, the average person can attempt to block a ranged attack even though they haven't spent any points, but they'll be at a -4 (or whatever the GM feels is appropriate).  Someone like Captain America builds his shield as either 'Deflection, No Range' or '+4 OCV, Only to Block' and then he is better than the average person.  Combined with his higher OCV, he's at least an order of magnitude better.

 

For example, both are attacked by an OCV 6 hydra agent with a gun and we'll say the standard penalty for blocking a ranged attack is -4 for the sake of this example.  Joe Average is OCV 3 -4 to block a ranged attack = -1 vs an OCV 6 attack.  As a result, he needs a 4 or less to succeed (1.85% chance).  Cap has an OCV 8 (probably low for Cap, but whatever) +4 for the shield -4 for blocking a ranged attack = 8.  As a result, he needs a 13- (83.8%) to succeed.  Give the normal guy Cap's shield (and WF: Shield so he can use it), and he'll be at OCV 3 vs OCV 6 and need an 8- (25.93%); not great odds but way better than a 4-.

 

Another character, say a highly trained Martial Artist, might not have a focus, but instead has +4 OCV, Only to Block Arrows and other slow Ranged Attacks (-2).  He can catch arrows (a common martial arts trope) at no penalty but still has to dodge bullets and lasers.

[Hugh Neilson]

He can try. Actually, being Han, he would likely block Luke's saber by shooting it with his blaster. (Or, more likely, by taking a shot at Luke that he would be forced to block with his saber.)

oo…another can of worms. So Han can Block Luke’s saber swing by distracting him with a blaster shot. Can’t that Blaster be fired at range? Why can he use a Block with no penalty if Luke (or Vader) is adjacent to him, but not if Vader is 2 meters away, about to carve Leia?

 

Should there be a penalty for Blocking at Range? Don’t we already have robust rules for range penalties in general?

 

But a shield is a shield, right? CVs being equal, James Bond should be able to pick up that shield and Block a wizard's blast or a dragon's breath weapon. Right?

In an action movie, I could certainly say “yes”. I could also rule that, since James lacks any WF with a shield, he gets a -3 penalty to Block (but that implies WF: Shield on anyone else carrying one without paying points). I expect Sir Blocksalot will have levels in Shield that will make him way better at this than Bond is, but SB won’t be nearly as good a shot with a pistol.

 

In 3rd edition and prior, Missile Deflection wasn't tied to Block, and acts more like a Skill, based on a DEX Roll. (In 3rd edition, Missile Deflection specifies "parry or dodge", and is not tied to OCV.) As of 4th, it was.

So was either one “objectively right”, and what makes either superior to the 6e model? Based on your comments above, it seems like Missile Deflection changed from Dodging to Blocking between 3e and 4e, yet characters updated from 3e and prior to 4e and subsequent don’t seem to lose or gain MD because of this radical SFX change.

 

Assuming we're defining the thrown baseball as an attack, yeah. It is not necessarily so, but for the sake of argument... and in 1e, evidently, Missile Deflection was a Skill, and it was specified as requiring an implement of some kind. (Which is what all of my meandering above led to.) And the superhero whose SFX and motif is baseball would certainly have Missile Deflection.

Even if his motif is a pitcher who relies on a DH? 

 

3e, it's 10 points for thrown objects. My 6e version, it's 8, and you can Limit it down further.

In 6e it’s 0, and I suppose you could even take a complication to limit it further.

 

 

I was looking for a rationale to make it harder (and therefore more expensive) to deflect a laser than a thrown spear, or an arrow than a blaster bolt, other than "what name the player has written on the sheet".

Should we have such a rationale? Or should the character who has an attack which is more difficult to block pay more points for that added benefit?

 

Then I rule that it no longer counts as a "thrown object" but is effectively a bullet. And would most likely be a 2d6 RKA. But either she's bought that as an attack (maybe as a Brick Trick) or is using Power Skill for that first one.

Sure, she can buy it as an attack. And when a player says “I paid to be able to deflect thrown objects. Her attack is clearly defined as a thrown object.” I am not sure your ruling holds a lot of credibility. What if she throws a bigger object instead? How big must it be before the character gets the benefit of the points he spent to deflect thrown objects (without specifying the size of such objects)?

 

Let’s take another comparison. Pre-6e, I can’t even try to deflect a butter knife my kid, having a tantrum, throws at me. But I can try to Block a punch thrown by the Hulk or Captain America.

 

Post-6e, I can attempt to deflect either. Do you think it more reasonable that the butter knife is easier (6e rules), or more difficult (pre-6e rules), to Block?

 

Why is it objectively rational that EVERONE can Dodge, EVERYONE can Block HTH attacks, but one must make a special expenditure of points (whether 1, or 20, or anything in between) or be unable to use the Block maneuver against anything with range? Thor shold never swing his hammer, nor Cap his shield– even in HTH, it should be thrown at the target so he can’t block it unless he has paid for deflection.

 

I'm happier with the limited Damage Reduction. In 6e, I'd rather you use Damage Negation; there's no SFX implied with that, it's just reducing incoming DCs.

It is we who impute SFX on defenses and damage reduction, not the game mechanics. We can just as easily impute SFX on damage negation.

[Hugh Neilson]

Yes but Netzilla if I understand your point of contention is that deflection should be free (with some criteria) however I was pointing out that that isn't really Hero main guideline. If you want to be better than "normal" you pay points. That is the rule not the exemption.

If you want to be better than the standard everyman character sheet, you pay points. If you want to be better at Punching, you buy skill levels – but everyone can punch by default. If you want to be better with a club, you buy levels with clubs. If you want to be better with a sword, you buy WF (Sword), and then levels, because we have defined that everyone is familiar with a Club, but not everyone is familiar with a sword. But even without WF, my character can swing a sword. He’s just not as good at it.

 

Any Hero character, in any edition, can Block a punch thrown by Grond. All 6e did was add the ability to Block ranged attacks to the list of things anyone can attempt.

 

Just like, several editions back, someone decided anyone can try to climb a tree, by creating Everyman skills. If you want to be better at Climbing, you can buy a better skill, but no one is incapable of climbing any more.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I'm willing to compromise, let regular folks try to block thrown objects (at a notable penalty, -2 at least), but the rest is just ridiculous.  Nobody is blocking arrows or bullets unless they have some special ability.

[Ninja-Bear]

Hugh except Netzilla kept harping back that block/ranged is free. I believe you and Netzilla are talking in circles. You agree that points are to paid to be better than normal yet you two keep saying block/range shouldn't cost points.

 

Btw there is an optional rule I think in UMA to change block so If normal blocks Grond, it still hurts.

[Ninja-Bear]

If you want to be better than the standard everyman character sheet, you pay points. If you want to be better at Punching, you buy skill levels – but everyone can punch by default. If you want to be better with a club, you buy levels with clubs. If you want to be better with a sword, you buy WF (Sword), and then levels, because we have defined that everyone is familiar with a Club, but not everyone is familiar with a sword. But even without WF, my character can swing a sword. He’s just not as good at it.

 

Any Hero character, in any edition, can Block a punch thrown by Grond. All 6e did was add the ability to Block ranged attacks to the list of things anyone can attempt.

 

Just like, several editions back, someone decided anyone can try to climb a tree, by creating Everyman skills. If you want to be better at Climbing, you can buy a better skill, but no one is incapable of climbing any more.

The wording states that not everything csn be deflected. GM decides hnce this quagmire. The stuff you mentioned is universal across genres unless stated otherwise, block/range is not per CC.

[Chris Goodwin]

I'm willing to compromise, let regular folks try to block thrown objects (at a notable penalty, -2 at least), but the rest is just ridiculous.  Nobody is blocking arrows or bullets unless they have some special ability.

 

There's actually some discussion about catching arrows in the real world here:

 

Second, almost anyone can catch an arrow. If I held an arrow in my hand and tossed it at you, most of you could easily catch it. But if I shot it at you from a high powered hunting bow at relatively close range, no one (not even I during my prime) could catch one. The question is not if you can catch an arrow or not but, rather, at what distance and speed. The critical issue is its elapsed time (ET) – the amount of time it takes to get from the bow to your hand. The shorter the ET, the harder it is to catch.

The link is to the web page of a guy who catches arrows by hand as a stunt, and has been doing so since the 1960's, which to me strongly suggests "with training and experience".  It also strongly suggests the difference between something thrown to you with intent to be caught, and a projectile launched at you with attempt to harm.  

[Chris Goodwin]

Quoting may be messed up.  I'm not going to try too hard to fix it this time if it is; hopefully the reader can follow along.
 

oo…another can of worms. So Han can Block Luke’s saber swing by distracting him with a blaster shot. Can’t that Blaster be fired at range? Why can he use a Block with no penalty if Luke (or Vader) is adjacent to him, but not if Vader is 2 meters away, about to carve Leia?

Apparently anyone can block any ranged attack? I'm suggesting Han can block a hand-to-hand attack. And... if we're in any edition prior to 6th? Two meters away is in the next hex, ergo Han could block Vader's blade.

Despite many, many opportunities to do so, we never see Han Solo or any non-Jedi block (or Block) ranged attacks (including things like thrown arrows and spears).  We don't see anyone except Force users doing it.  (In fact, in episode IV we see Luke training to do just that.)  We most often see them doing it against blaster bolts with lightsabers, but there is one notable instance where we see one particular badass blocking a blaster shot with his hand.  So if Vader was about to carve Leia, maybe he wouldn't even bother to move his saber if Han shot at him.  
 
I infer that, in the Star Wars universe at least, blocking ranged attacks is a special ability of the Jedi.  One that they have paid points for.  And we've never, in primary sources at least, seen Han in combat with a lightsaber wielder. (If he has done so in pre- or post-Crisis Disney extended materials I have no idea.  But Blocking a saber by shooting it with his blaster just seems to me like something Han would do.

 

Should there be a penalty for Blocking at Range? Don’t we already have robust rules for range penalties in general?

Yes and yes. Though I'd point at Captain America as the prime example of a character that does anything like that with any regularity.

Interesting thought: Cap's (Missile) Deflection is most commonly bought through his shield as a Focus. Perhaps it ought not to be; if anyone can Block ranged attacks, certain Captain America could block them with something that is not his shield...
 

In an action movie, I could certainly say “yes”. I could also rule that, since James lacks any WF with a shield, he gets a -3 penalty to Block (but that implies WF: Shield on anyone else carrying one without paying points). I expect Sir Blocksalot will have levels in Shield that will make him way better at this than Bond is, but SB won’t be nearly as good a shot with a pistol.

(How about the movie RED, where John Malkovich's character shoots a rocket out of the air with his pistol?)
 

So was either one “objectively right”, and what makes either superior to the 6e model? Based on your comments above, it seems like Missile Deflection changed from Dodging to Blocking between 3e and 4e, yet characters updated from 3e and prior to 4e and subsequent don’t seem to lose or gain MD because of this radical SFX change.

Fair.
 

Even if his motif is a pitcher who relies on a DH? 

I said a baseball player.
 

Should we have such a rationale? Or should the character who has an attack which is more difficult to block pay more points for that added benefit?

That's a perfectly valid use for Change Environment. I was pointing out that there's a bigger difference between a laser and a thrown spear than just scratching out the word "machine gun" and writing in "pizza oven"...
 

Sure, she can buy it as an attack. And when a player says “I paid to be able to deflect thrown objects. Her attack is clearly defined as a thrown object.” I am not sure your ruling holds a lot of credibility. What if she throws a bigger object instead? How big must it be before the character gets the benefit of the points he spent to deflect thrown objects (without specifying the size of such objects)?

If I'm the GM... I'm ruling that it's more like a bullet than a thrown object like a knife or a badger or shuriken or whatever.
 

Let’s take another comparison. Pre-6e, I can’t even try to deflect a butter knife my kid, having a tantrum, throws at me. But I can try to Block a punch thrown by the Hulk or Captain America.

Is that butter knife an attack? Did your kid take Familiarity with thrown knives, or buy some Attack Power through OIF: Focus Of Opportunity? Is he throwing it at you with intent to harm (making an Attack Roll)? Would you honestly have tried to Block it or Dodge it?
 

Post-6e, I can attempt to deflect either. Do you think it more reasonable that the butter knife is easier (6e rules), or more difficult (pre-6e rules), to Block?

I'm not convinced that a butter knife thrown by a small child is an attack.
 

Why is it objectively rational that EVERONE can Dodge, EVERYONE can Block HTH attacks, but one must make a special expenditure of points (whether 1, or 20, or anything in between) or be unable to use the Block maneuver against anything with range? Thor shold never swing his hammer, nor Cap his shield– even in HTH, it should be thrown at the target so he can’t block it unless he has paid for deflection.

http://jimmatherskaratelife.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-to-catch-arrow.html

Because not everyone can Block ranged attacks. To me that's makes it a thing that you have to pay points for if you want to do.

[Christopher R Taylor]

The link is to the web page of a guy who catches arrows by hand as a stunt, and has been doing so since the 1960's, which to me strongly suggests "with training and experience".  It also strongly suggests the difference between something thrown to you with intent to be caught, and a projectile launched at you with attempt to harm.  

 

 

Also, in special conditions, set up ahead of time to be ready, with an archer not shooting directly at him, etc.  They almost without exception half pull on stunts like that as well.  In combat?  Nobody is doing it without extraordinary luck or some supernatural assistance.  As in the "I can balance on a leaf" kind of kung fu setting.

[Netzilla]

Hugh except Netzilla kept harping back that block/ranged is free. I believe you and Netzilla are talking in circles. You agree that points are to paid to be better than normal yet you two keep saying block/range shouldn't cost points.

 

Btw there is an optional rule I think in UMA to change block so If normal blocks Grond, it still hurts.

 

I think there's a disconnect here.  I am contending that having the chance to Block a ranged attack is normal in the Heroic Action and Superheroic genre (and I suspect Hugh agrees).  Having a chance, however, does not guarantee success.  Heck, it doesn't even guarantee good odds (see post 162).

 

What you then pay points for is 1) to eliminate any 'object of opportunity' requirements set by the GM (technically requires the Deflect power) and 2) to increase the chance of succeeding with the Block.  In other words, you're not paying points to do it; you're paying points to actually be good at doing it.

[Chris Goodwin]

I think there's a disconnect here.  I am contending that having the chance to Block a ranged attack is normal in the Heroic Action and Superheroic genre (and I suspect Hugh agrees).  Having a chance, however, does not guarantee success.  Heck, it doesn't even guarantee good odds (see post 162).

 

What you then pay points for is 1) to eliminate any 'object of opportunity' requirements set by the GM (technically requires the Deflect power) and 2) to increase the chance of succeeding with the Block.  In other words, you're not paying points to do it; you're paying points to actually be good at doing it.

 

I'm contending that even in heroic fiction, those who Block ranged attacks have training, experience, often some kind of superhuman power which helps them do it (which may be a Focus, the favor of the gods, ridiculous luck, or plot armor).  And characters who don't have those things, almost never attempt to Block ranged attacks, despite having opportunities to do so.  

 

I assert that the relevant training, experience, powers, etc., are something that the characters who do this would spend points for.  People who do it, know they can do it.  The people who don't know whether they can do it don't even try, most likely because trying and failing gets them shot.

[Netzilla]

Per CC, the penalty for Blocking ranged attacks is -1 to -3 if armed, or -4 or more if not.  Players being players, they'll argue for that -4 when unarmed.  

 

Yes, as an optional rule, the GM can assess a -1 to -3 penalty to block a sword with your bare hands.  The 4e BBB suggested this only be used in Heroic campaigns.  I don't have access to my 3e Champions but I doubt it was much different there.  So, at least as far back as 4e, untrained people have been able to block swords with their bare hands at no penalty in Superheroic games by the RAW.  Also, any player that argues about the minimum penalty for blocking a ranged attack will also likely argue for the minimum penalty to block a HTH weapon while unarmed.

[Chris Goodwin]

Yes, as an optional rule, the GM can assess a -1 to -3 penalty to block a sword with your bare hands.  The 4e BBB suggested this only be used in Heroic campaigns.  I don't have access to my 3e Champions but I doubt it was much different there.  So, at least as far back as 4e, untrained people have been able to block swords with their bare hands at no penalty in Superheroic games by the RAW.  Also, any player that argues about the minimum penalty for blocking a ranged attack will also likely argue for the minimum penalty to block a HTH weapon while unarmed.

 

Fair. 

 

What exactly are you arguing with me about?  I'm telling you how I intend to run my games, and why.  I'm not telling you or anyone else how to run yours.  

 

What's your beef?

[Netzilla]

I'm contending that even in heroic fiction, those who Block ranged attacks have training, experience, often some kind of superhuman power which helps them do it (which may be a Focus, the favor of the gods, ridiculous luck, or plot armor).  And characters who don't have those things, almost never attempt to Block ranged attacks, despite having opportunities to do so.  

 

I assert that the relevant training, experience, powers, etc., are something that the characters who do this would spend points for.  People who do it, know they can do it.  The people who don't know whether they can do it don't even try, most likely because trying and failing gets them shot.

Sure, your call as a GM would be to not allow an unarmed block vs most ranged attacks and I don't think I've ever contended that was outside of a any GM's purview.  My main point in the post you responded to was to explain how my POV isn't as inconsistent as Ninja-Bear seems to think it is. 

 

My main point in this thread is that the 6e rule on Blocking ranged attacks isn't some horrible aberration ripe for player abuse and worthy of a new Great Linked Debate (obviously, I'm failing on that 2nd part).  Yes, it requires GMs to make a ruling based on genre and SFX, but that's kind of the norm for the Hero System.  Hero's always been a game that requires a non-trivial amount of pre-campaign work on the part  of the GM, not just in the realm of mechanically building the game world but in deciding on which of the plethora of optional rules will be in play and clearing up any known rule vagaries.  Yeah, it would be nice if this rule were less vague but it's hardly the first or worst case of this happening in Hero's history.