Guidelines Block Range Attack

[Ninja-Bear]

Hello Herophiles,

First if I want to say that I understand and get the gist of the new rule in 6th about allowing by default and GM discretion you can Block Ranged Attacks. What I’m always unsure of is, as a GM, what should set the modifiers and sfx for this and by what Genre too.  So for those who use this now, tell me what Genre and what modifier and what sfx is allowed or isn’t. I’m trying to get a feel for myself. For example. Standard Fantasy could be:

Magic- No Ranged Block possible

Arrows-with Shield No penalty

Unarmed -4 OCV Penalty.

 

So let hear what you got.

 

[Toxxus]

I mostly run Fantasy Hero so here's what I'm currently running with:

If you have a shield you can make a block against a ranged attack with a standard roll.

If you have magical powers of synergistic or antagonistic special effects you can block a ranged attack with your ranged attack (fire to block fire or ice to block fire, etc.).

 

I don't allow for blocking ranged attacks with a weapon unless you buy the Deflection power.

 

If you were going to make it more sophisticated with modifiers I would recommend these:

Range:  The defender gets a bonus to the block roll equal to 1/2 the range modifier between themselves and the attacker.  More range = more time to block.

Shield Size:  -1 for bucklers, standard roll for medium shields, +1 for large shields

AoE:  If the defender is using magic to block another magic attack maybe allow for a bonus if their attack is a cone or other AoE

 

[Surrealone]

21 minutes ago, Toxxus said:

I mostly run Fantasy Hero so here's what I'm currently running with:

If you have a shield you can make a block against a ranged attack with a standard roll.

If you have magical powers of synergistic or antagonistic special effects you can block a ranged attack with your ranged attack (fire to block fire or ice to block fire, etc.).

 

I don't allow for blocking ranged attacks with a weapon unless you buy the Deflection power.

 

If you were going to make it more sophisticated with modifiers I would recommend these:

Range:  The defender gets a bonus to the block roll equal to 1/2 the range modifier between themselves and the attacker.  More range = more time to block.

Shield Size:  -1 for bucklers, standard roll for medium shields, +1 for large shields

AoE:  If the defender is using magic to block another magic attack maybe allow for a bonus if their attack is a cone or other AoE

 

I concur with much of this, but the above seems not to account for the 'hide in shield's shadow to block AoE breath weapon' trope.  Out of curiosity, how would you handle that?

[Toxxus]

2 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

I concur with much of this, but the above seems not to account for the 'hide in shield's shadow to block AoE breath weapon' trope.  Out of curiosity, how would you handle that?

 

I would probably allow a variation of my limited-armor-stacking scheme and do:

• +1 rPD/ +1 rED for Medium Shield - requires abort or held action
• +2 rPD / +2 rED for Large Shield - requires abort or held action

 

If you wanted the move to be more effective you might replace it with a variation like this:

• 25% resistant damage reduction (PD/ED) for Medium Shield with a successful block roll
• 50% resistant damage reduction (PD/ED) for Large Shield with a successful block roll

[Surrealone]

1 minute ago, Toxxus said:

 

I would probably allow a variation of my limited-armor-stacking scheme and do:

• +1 rPD/ +1 rED for Medium Shield - requires abort or held action
• +2 rPD / +2 rED for Large Shield - requires abort or held action

 

If you wanted the move to be more effective you might replace it with a variation like this:

• 25% resistant damage reduction (PD/ED) for Medium Shield with a successful block roll
• 50% resistant damage reduction (PD/ED) for Large Shield with a successful block roll

This is where we'll have to agree to disagree, I think -- as a successful block avoids damage … and the trope I mention entails precisely that -- yet your handling of it requires taking damage rather than avoidance of it.

[Toxxus]

2 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

This is where we'll have to agree to disagree, I think -- as a successful block avoids damage … and the trope I mention entails precisely that -- yet your handling of it requires taking damage rather than avoidance of it.

 

This is true, but I'm trying to balance the effectiveness of the move against Dive for Cover which in action economy terms and combat vulnerability is VERY expensive.

1-  You abort your turn.

2-  It may not work.

3-  You end up prone (1/2 DCV) until your next phase.  If you just aborted that's closer to two phases.

 

They've made it intentionally difficult to avoid AoE damage and that's probably there to prevent Captain DCV from avoiding too many forms of damage.

 

The tank on my Wednesday crew is in full plate armor with a large shield and with hits martial arts and combat skill levels he's usually at 12 DCV.  Standard attacks rarely hit and when they do the damage is heavily mitigated.  He's like the Tick.  Nigh invulnerable.

If I let him further mitigate AoE damage by hiding behind shields...  That steps on the toes of the vulnerable low-armor high-dex types who make up for their fragility with mobility.

 

I'll agree with you that it is a pretty iconic fantasy trope - hiding behind the shield to avoid dragon breath damage - but if its too easy to pull off or too effective you'll put game balance at risk.

 

How would you handle it?

 

 

[RDU Neil]

You are hitting on one of my major peeves about 6th Edition. This "everyone can missile deflect" rule is a classic example of "logical internal extrapolation at the expense of actual good game play."

 

For most of the life of HERO in all its forms, Missile Deflection as a Skill, Power or whatever never raised an eyebrow. Everyone had a base chance to Block a HtH attack, but not everyone had a base chance to block a ranged attack. Somewhat illogical when you state it like that... but NOBODY thought it was a problem.

Why? Because any MEANINGFUL use of missile deflection by a character was truly a skill/ability/power beyond that of a "normal person."  It made sense that it was "special and needed a special ability on the sheet."

 

Example: I played a lot of tennis in my life. For all intents and purposes, most racket sports are "missile deflection sports" to a great extent. A projectile comes at you and you have to maneuver to knock it away... in fact, you have to learn "Missile REFLECTION" to do well, because you aren't just knocking the ball away, you are sending it back at a specific target on the other side of the net. Especially when you are "at the net" and you aren't stroking the ball, but punching it with short, deflective strikes.

 

So... you could argue that "well, anyone can play tennis, so anyone SHOULD be able to missile deflect... right?"   To this I say... no, not at all. For multiple reasons.

 

1. Anyone CAN try to throw up their hand and knock a tennis ball away as it heads for their face at speed. BUT... only someone who practices a LOT and develops techniques, would be able to actually do it at all reliably, and it would be highly difficult. i.e. They'd have points spent on a skill or ability.

 

2. Anyone CAN take a tennis racket at try to knock a tennis ball away as it heads for their face at speed. BUT... only someone who practices a LOT and develops techniques, would be able to actually do it at all reliably, even though the racket might make it easier. i.e. They'd have points spent on a skill or ability.

 

3. And this shows a lack of focus on the axioms of HERO. Rules and mechanics are sometimes based on "This is mechanically, internally consistent" and other times seem to be based on, "This is trying to reflect a part of reality we assume is baseline in the game."  In the case of Missile Deflection (or the lack thereof) they seem to be picking "internally consistent with Block on a mechanical front" vs. "does this reflect reality"... but at the same time, neither of these is what should be the deciding factor. Axiomatic of HERO is simulating/building action adventure characters and game play scenarios... and the only MEANINGFUL missile deflection in that milieu is a special ability. Nobody cares if you can play tennis in action adventure scenarios, what matters is whether you can effectively deflect or reflect an otherwise dangerous projectile/beam attack that demonstrates why you are special and a HERO.

 

4. Hell, sticking with the tennis example... even if I was a top level tennis pro... if I was "at the net" and instead of a tennis ball, my opponent was drilling a golf ball at me... well *&^%!! that! I'd be lucky if I could get my racket in place in time, and if I was at all aware, I'd be hitting the deck (Dodge) and not even trying to deflect. One... it is a lot harder to hit a smaller (just a bit smaller) faster (just a bit faster) projectile. My "Tennis Ball blocking skill!" I paid points for is not at all appropriate for this new, only slightly different scenario. Now... with time, and potentially a lot of brain damage, I might be able to learn a skill of "Deflect Golf Ball with Tennis Racket!" but no human would be very good at that except in extremis, and Missile Reflection, like actually placing the return shot... highly unlikely. We haven't even gotten to thrown rocks or hard hit balls in dangerous, random combat scenarios... let alone arrows or bullets, yet... and we are at the very edge of human ability. And even in those scenarios where a human somehow learned this, it would still be an extreme skill that should be reflected as a significant point expenditure and defined the rules.

 

5. Ultimately, the only MEANINGFUL missile deflections in the game are as above... deflecting ATTACKS (without being damaged) that are too small and fast and coming from range that most people can't see them, or react in time... thus someone who CAN do this is beyond normal... they have a ability/power/talent that should be called out... so put the damn power back in the book.

[Surrealone]

10 minutes ago, Toxxus said:

How would you handle it?

 

I'd require all shields to be built as a form of Barrier, since that's what shields actually are.  After that, the issue of hiding behind shields to avoid dragon breath, cones of cold, etc. becomes a simple matter of whether the character interposes the Barrier in time (a la a block roll) … and then whether the Barrier provides enough coverage and is strong enough to withstand the incoming damage.  Magical shields should obviously be much tougher than non-magical ones, as should Vibranium shields and the like. If the Barrier breaks, the shield is toast and whatever damage leaks through, the character takes per the usual Barrier rules. I believe this simulates the trope perfectly … while accounting for what happens if an inadequate barrier is used, as well.

Note:
A shield for which a character pays points (a la Captain America's shield) could very well be a multipower where the Barrier capability is merely one of several powers.  (Captain America uses his shield offensively and bounces it, so he's probably got attacks in the MP, too.)

I think you get the idea.
 

[RDU Neil]

24 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

This is where we'll have to agree to disagree, I think -- as a successful block avoids damage … and the trope I mention entails precisely that -- yet your handling of it requires taking damage rather than avoidance of it.

 

I think shields, in my mind... do three things... and the GM and player have to decide which one applies for each attack.

 

A shield can

 a) Deflect a hand to hand attack (stop all damage) thus provide plusses to Block,

b) Give a character the Missile Deflect power against defined attacks (thrown objects, arrow, of a certain mass or less), or

c) Give a character "Cover" in terms of increased DCV... but that cover can be subject to "blow through"

 

For each attack, the best option is chosen (against a sword strock, plusses to Block, vs. an arrow fusillade, Missile Deflect... against an arrow targeted specifically at them by a highly skilled archer, maybe "Cover" is better) ... and against some attacks, the shield is essentially useless (that tactical plasma rifle... COVER... but blow through means your head is gone anyway).

[Surrealone]

1 minute ago, RDU Neil said:

 

I think shields, in my mind... do three things... and the GM and player have to decide which one applies for each attack.

 

A shield can

 a) Deflect a hand to hand attack (stop all damage) thus provide plusses to Block,

b) Give a character the Missile Deflect power against defined attacks (thrown objects, arrow, of a certain mass or less), or

c) Give a character "Cover" in terms of increased DCV... but that cover can be subject to "blow through"

 

For each attack, the best option is chosen (against a sword strock, plusses to Block, vs. an arrow fusillade, Missile Deflect... against an arrow targeted specifically at them by a highly skilled archer, maybe "Cover") ... and against some attacks, the shield is essentially use (that tactical plasma rifle... COVER... but blow through means your head is gone anyway).

 

If shields are built as Barriers, b) and c) of the above are both addressed.  Building them with Block bonuses is something else I agree with, and that's easy and cheap enough to do.

[Hugh Neilson]

21 minutes ago, Toxxus said:

 

This is true, but I'm trying to balance the effectiveness of the move against Dive for Cover which in action economy terms and combat vulnerability is VERY expensive.

1-  You abort your turn.

2-  It may not work.

3-  You end up prone (1/2 DCV) until your next phase.  If you just aborted that's closer to two phases.

 

 

The first two also apply to Block.

 

To the third, you don't get to move (e.g. behind cover) with a Block.  It's not as easy as an unopposed DEX roll.  DFC does not require a Shield.

 

15 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

You are hitting on one of my major peeves about 6th Edition. This "everyone can missile deflect" rule is a classic example of "logical internal extrapolation at the expense of actual good game play."

 

For most of the life of HERO in all its forms, Missile Deflection as a Skill, Power or whatever never raised an eyebrow. Everyone had a base chance to Block a HtH attack, but not everyone had a base chance to block a ranged attack. Somewhat illogical when you state it like that... but NOBODY thought it was a problem.

Why? Because any MEANINGFUL use of missile deflection by a character was truly a skill/ability/power beyond that of a "normal person."  It made sense that it was "special and needed a special ability on the sheet."

 

 

Like the Thing ripping up some pavement and Blocking an incoming Blast?  I don't find the tennis ball analogy very persuasive.  The other player is not trying to hit you with the ball.  And why would being able to play a great game of tennis let you deflect a bullet or a laser beam more effectively?

 

Meanwhile, if Aunt May rolls a 3, she can Block the Hulk's haymaker.  Or his Leaping Tackle move through.  Or Wolverine's claws.  Or the Iron Fist.

 

As Surrealone notes, that 3 isn't overly likely - but Aunt May is far from a PC.

 

Allowing all of those attacks, and so many others, to be Blocked, then crying foul that someone could Block a tennis ball, seems like pretty selective "realism" to me.

[Surrealone]

9 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Meanwhile, if Aunt May rolls a 3, she can Block the Hulk's haymaker.

Given the rarity of 3's, Aunt May would be smarter to simply move out of the way before the Hulk's haymaker completes … by either half-moving or (if she lacks a Phase) aborting to a Dive for Cover.

 

Just saying.

[RDU Neil]

The Thing isn't missile deflecting, he is creating a barrier out of the environment. In almost every example, the beam is one of those "constant attacks" that has already struck, and he is pulling up the ground to put a barrier in between him and it. In no way does Ben see the energy blast coming and THEN bend over, rip up the road, and somehow get it in front of the beam before it ever reaches him. Ben doesn't have Missile Deflection, he is either "just using the environment" like picking up a bus to hit someone doesn't require special powers on the sheet... more maybe Ben's player does have a "Strength Tricks" power pool that allows for impromptu Barrier use. Either way, this isn't Missile Deflection.

 

6 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The other player is not trying to hit you with the ball. 

 

You've obviously never played competitive doubles.

 

7 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Meanwhile, if Aunt May rolls a 3, she can Block the Hulk's haymaker.

 

This argument makes no sense. By this standard, Aunt May could also roll a 3 and Missile Deflect Cyclop's Eye-beams. Giving every character missile deflection by default only exacerbates this problem. 

[Surrealone]

9 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

Aunt May could also roll a 3 and Missile Deflect Cyclop's Eye-beams. Giving every character missile deflection by default only exacerbates this problem. 

Reminder: Aunt May would need a suitable item to use for this (say a silver serving tray?) … unless she bought Deflection.

I think the entire point of everyone being able to perform a Block against ranged attacks was to simulate the concept of being able to knock arrows away with swords.  The game is, after all, called 'Hero System' … not 'Boring Average Joe/Jane System'. If everyone being able to block ranged attacks isn't your style, as a gentle reminder, the section on blocking ranged attacks found on 6e2 p59 begins as follows (bold/underlining added by me for emphasis): "With the GM’s permission, characters may Block Ranged attacks."

 

Also as another gentle reminder (one that plays to your tennis ball example), per 6e2 p59, "...the penalties for trying to Block a Ranged attack unarmed are more often incurred, and can be more severe (-4 or worse)."  i.e. You, the GM, are supposed to impose penalties appropriate to the size/speed of the ranged attack being blocked, the means of blocking the ranged attack (e.g. unarmed, with shield, with sword, etc.), and the like.  Using your tennis ball example, what, exactly, is the problem with any unarmed person being able to do it?  Sure, it's hard -- reflect that by assigning appropriate penalties -- and if the person succeeds, then s/he overcame the difficulty.  It's as simple as that.  Why all the fuss on your part? Assign the modifiers, and let the dice be thrown!

[Toxxus]

7 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The first two also apply to Block.

 

True, but that last one really hurts.  Being 1/2 DCV for an extended period is a real liability.

 

11 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

If shields are built as Barriers, b) and c) of the above are both addressed.  Building them with Block bonuses is something else I agree with, and that's easy and cheap enough to do.

 

Barriers are an interesting item for Fantasy Hero.  I've forced the players to make a DEX roll to successfully abort to Barrier as a defense.  Otherwise it's just TOO effective.  I've also applied an armor-stacking mechanic to barriers to prevent them from reducing damage to virtually nothing.

 

Example:  Plate Armor Man (8 rPD/ 8 PD) is behind the Barrier( 7 PD, 3 bod) that Earth Mage has thrown up.  The Tectonic Dragon breathes a shower of deadly rock shards (4d6k) at Plate Armor Man.  The roll is (14 BOD / 28 STUN).

Do you...

1-  Remove 10 BOD / 10 STUN as the attack annihilates the barrier and apply 4 BOD / 18 STUN against Plate Armor Man's defenses resulting in 0 BOD / 2 STUN taken?

OR

2-  Remove 10 BOD / 10 STUN as the attack annihilates the barrier and apply 4 BOD / 18 STUN against the stackable portion of Plate Armor Man's defenses (2 rPD) and apply 2 BOD / 16 STUN?

 

 

[Toxxus]

20 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

I think the entire point of everyone being able to perform a Block against ranged attacks was to simulate the concept of being able to knock arrows away with swords. 

 

Also, it's quite historically accurate to be able to block arrows with shields.  It is the historical go-to tool for dealing with ranged attacks.

[RDU Neil]

9 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

"With the GM’s permission, characters may Block Ranged attacks."

 

Yes, but the game doesn't provide me with a rule/mechanic when it used to, and that is crap design for a system created to simulate action adventure.

 

10 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

Also as another gentle reminder (one that plays to your tennis ball example), per 6e2 p59, "...the penalties for trying to Block a Ranged attack unarmed are more often incurred, and can be more severe (-4 or worse)."  i.e. You, the GM, are supposed to impose penalties appropriate to the size/speed of the ranged attack being blocked, the means of blocking the ranged attack (e.g. unarmed, with shield, with sword, etc.), and the like.  Using your tennis ball example, what, exactly, is the problem with any unarmed person being able to do it?  Sure, it's hard -- reflect that by assigning appropriate penalties -- and if the person succeeds, then s/he overcame the difficulty.  It's as simple as that.  Why all the fuss on your part? Assign the modifiers, and let the dice be thrown!

 

And again... I'm supposed to do all the work to come up with a massive chart that calculates, speed, size, angle of attack, etc., so that I can use it for every ranged attack? Now that is utter crap, and such a set of calculations should be created and provided with such a system expectation, not expected to be part of a GMs prep. 

 

If they want to go this route then they have to do a lot more of the work... and any chart of size/velocity/angle of attack should be applicable to ALL attacks, not just ranged (a fist at your face is really only different from a bullet at your face in that it is usually slower and more obvious)... I mean... do we now have to calculate the velocity times mass for all attacks in order to resolve them? This is just ridiculous. What if there was a simple chart that broke down the basic categories of likely attack that were progressively more and more difficult to deflect... you know... LIKE THE ONE THAT USED TO BE IN THE GAME!

 

This whole deal is just one of the clearest examples of the mindset that tossed out playability for that of intricate thought problem consistency.

 

The simple fact is that everyone grokked "block as everyman skill" and they also grokked "missile deflect as special ability" without any consternation. It only became an issue with the over-thinking/over-engineering of later editions.

 

(Heck, if you want to over-engineer, I'd much prefer if they took out Block as an everyman ability. Anyone with even a passing partaking of hand-to-hand combat (sport or real) knows that most "blocks" are really just "taking the shot on a less vulnerable location, like the forearm or shoulder, and a real 'block' tends to be punching/kicking away an attack, thus you have to be able to move/hurt that attack for it to work. Make block a graduated skill/ability similar to 4th Ed Missile Deflection. Level 1 - block any barehanded attack of the same relative STR, speed and size or less, Level 2 - block hand attacks up to twice the STR, speed and size, Level 3 - Block up to 5x STR, Level 4 - block all Hth... whatever. That would be way better than current standing. )

[RDU Neil]

29 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

I think the entire point of everyone being able to perform a Block against ranged attacks was to simulate the concept of being able to knock arrows away with swords. 

 

But here again... look at the source material that is axiomatic to HERO. You don't see every grunt on the field knocking arrows out of the air, let alone trying. You never see the shieldless fighters under a hail of arrow waving their swords around trying to swat them aside. The only ones who do it are the big, badass named characters WHO PAID POINTS FOR THE ABILITY because that is what sets them apart. 

 

34 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

Reminder: Aunt May would need a suitable item to use for this (say a silver serving tray?) … unless she bought Deflection.

 

Right... and now we have all these caveats that don't apply elsewhere, because making this seemingly "consistent" change opens up a huge can of worms.

 

The new ruling doesn't match source material, it doesn't match reality and it makes play more complicated and GMing more difficult. 

 

Pure... bad... design.

[Surrealone]

16 minutes ago, Toxxus said:

Barriers are an interesting item for Fantasy Hero.  I've forced the players to make a DEX roll to successfully abort to Barrier as a defense.  Otherwise it's just TOO effective.  I've also applied an armor-stacking mechanic to barriers to prevent them from reducing damage to virtually nothing.

 

Example:  Plate Armor Man (8 rPD/ 8 PD) is behind the Barrier( 7 PD, 3 bod) that Earth Mage has thrown up.  The Tectonic Dragon breathes a shower of deadly rock shards (4d6k) at Plate Armor Man.  The roll is (14 BOD / 28 STUN).

Do you...

1-  Remove 10 BOD / 10 STUN as the attack annihilates the barrier and apply 4 BOD / 18 STUN against Plate Armor Man's defenses resulting in 0 BOD / 2 STUN taken?

OR

2-  Remove 10 BOD / 10 STUN as the attack annihilates the barrier and apply 4 BOD / 18 STUN against the stackable portion of Plate Armor Man's defenses (2 rPD) and apply 2 BOD / 16 STUN?

 

 

I'd do #1 because I think it's cinematically correct/interesting, and then breathe again (or follow the first breath with some other more direct attack against Plate Armor Man) once the barrier was gone -- again, because I think it's cinematically interesting.  Breath weapons are often huge, so I'd expect Plate Armor Man (and anyone else with a good shield) to weather such an attack well … assuming the shield is large enough, strong enough, and the character interposes it in time (Block). While it may seem like the character took too little damage, you, the GM, have cost the character (and potentially more than one character, since it's an AoE attack) an action … and annihilated a Barrier/shield -- setting you up for your next attack on a now-shieldless opponent (or set thereof). I have no problem with 0 BOD and 0 STUN being taken, at all -- if I made the character blow a Phase in order to avoid the damage.  I liken the loss of the shield to being as harsh (if not more so) as Diving for Cover, since a defensive option is now gone for the duration of the adventure … until replaced.

 

 

8 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

 

Yes, but the game doesn't provide me with a rule/mechanic when it used to, and that is crap design for a system created to simulate action adventure.

 

 

And again... I'm supposed to do all the work to come up with a massive chart that calculates, speed, size, angle of attack, etc., so that I can use it for every ranged attack? Now that is utter crap, and such a set of calculations should be created and provided with such a system expectation, not expected to be part of a GMs prep. 

Sure the game provides you with a rule/mechanic - assign some negatives (there's the rule/mechanic) as you see fit.

It sounds to me like you don't want to assign those modifiers -- and, moreover, like you're complaining there's not a chart, thereof.  No such chart is required; you're the GM so you can assign what you feel is appropriate for the circumstance -- sans any charts, calculations, etc.  If you want such charts, you can make them, but they aren't required.  Most GM's tend to do things by the seats of their pants … and many don't want to be encumbered by the very sorts of charts you're pining for, here.  (Rolemaster aka rollmaster, anyone??  Ugh.)

[Surrealone]

16 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

 

But here again... look at the source material that is axiomatic to HERO. You don't see every grunt on the field knocking arrows out of the air, let alone trying. You never see the shieldless fighters under a hail of arrow waving their swords around trying to swat them aside. The only ones who do it are the big, badass named characters WHO PAID POINTS FOR THE ABILITY because that is what sets them apart. 

 

 

Right... and now we have all these caveats that don't apply elsewhere, because making this seemingly "consistent" change opens up a huge can of worms.

 

The new ruling doesn't match source material, it doesn't match reality and it makes play more complicated and GMing more difficult. 

 

Pure... bad... design.

Every grunt on the field of battle with a buckler or a shield has the potential to avoid arrow-fire by blocking with that shield; you see this in Braveheart (the movie). "Pure … bad … design" was the old way of requiring every single one of them to have purchased Missile Deflection just to have a chance of avoiding arrow-fire.  That was horribly unrealistic.  The current approach allows far more realism than the 4e/5er way did.  Sure, it's unlikely Joe Schlep can knock an arrow out of the way with his buckler, but it's POSSIBLE … without him having 20 CP in Missile Deflection … and the new rules account for that.

 

You, the GM, are supposed to be the guy who susses out just how possible/probable or impossible/improbable such things are in your game.  It sounds to me like you don't want to.  If that's the case, then don't … and forbid Blocking ranged attacks … but understand that by doing so, you've imposed something unrealistic, since Joe Schlep should have a chance of doing so; however improbable, it is still physically possible in the real world, after all -- without Joe Schlep having the 4e/5er equivalent of Missile Deflection just to have a shot at it (which was even MORE unrealistic, since he always should have had a shot at it).

[RDU Neil]

4 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

It sounds to me like you don't want to assign those modifiers -- and, moreover, like you're complaining there's not a chart, thereof.  No such chart is required; you're the GM so you can assign what you feel is appropriate for the circumstance -- sans any charts, calculations, etc.  If you want such charts, you can make them, but they aren't required.  Most GM's tend to do things by the seats of their pants … and many don't want to be encumbered by the very sorts of charts you're pining for, here.  (Rolemaster aka rollmaster, anyone??  Ugh.)

 

I'm not pining for 'effing charts, I'm saying that the game should not require a GM to have to consider special modifiers or special ephemera (do you have a silver platter) whenever an "everyman" maneuver is used. I don't want Rolemaster or Aftermath! or any of that. With Block it is just an OCV vs. OCV deal.  Suddenly with Missile Deflect the GM has to adjudicate modifiers based on the attack, the scenario and ephemera in play for what is supposedly an "everyman" maneuver that otherwise had a nice, simple, grokkable rule set in place but was just chucked for... whatever. It is pure bad design to take out something that worked and adjudicated success in a simple way, and replace it with "GM judgment, you make it up" no matter how detailed or seat-of-the-pants that judgment is. 

[RDU Neil]

1 minute ago, Surrealone said:

Every grunt on the field of battle with a buckler or a shield has the potential to avoid arrow-fire by blocking with that shield; you see this in Braveheart (the movie). "Pure … bad … design" was the old way of requiring every single one of them to have purchased Missile Deflection just to have a chance of avoiding arrow-fire.  That was horribly unrealistic.  The current approach allows far more realism than the 4e/5er way did.  Sure, it's unlikely Joe Schlep can knock an arrow out of the way with his buckler, but it's POSSIBLE … without him having 20 CP in Missile Deflection … and the new rules account for that.

 

You, the GM, are supposed to be the guy who susses out just how possible/probable or impossible/improbable such things are in your game.  It sounds to me like you don't want to.  If that's the case, then don't … and forbid Blocking ranged attacks … but understand that by doing so, you've imposed something unrealistic, since Joe Schlep should have a chance of doing so; however improbable, it is still physically possible in the real world, after all -- without Joe Schlep having the 4e/5er equivalent of Missile Deflection just to have a shot at it (which was even MORE unrealistic, since he always should have had a shot at it).

 

I said "shieldless fighters" so read the damn post. Nothing I'm saying has anything to do with the use of shields. I covered that above.

 

You are putting words in my mouth about what I want or not. And the realism argument is the worst. You are suddenly going to say Joe Schmoe has an improbably chance, but should get that chance... when a) the worst odds Joe Schmoe has are 1 in 216 which is unrealistically high... and b) you ignore other "realisms" for the sake of one very improbably realism... i.e. the realism of "even if he did get his hand in the way, it would still likely blow through, or it was too fast, big, heavy to stop, etc."   By assuming one "realism" of "he should have a chance" you've opened up the glaring unrealism of it all, which again defeats the axiomatic action adventure basis here.

It would be much easier to do as I said above, have certain itesm (shields, whatever)... grant Joe Schmoe the base level of Missile Deflection... because that's what a shield was for. If Joe doens't have WF: Shield, he is at -3 to do it. Just like a tennis racket grants Missile Deflection/Reflection, only vs. tennis ball like objects... and requires a Weapon Fam: Tennis Racket or at -3 to attempt. 

hell... there are so many better ways to use already existing mechanics in 4th Ed to exemplify what you want to simulate... the new ruling just made it way more complex and variable and subject to arbitrary decisions.

[Surrealone]

24 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

 

I said "shieldless fighters" so read the damn post. Nothing I'm saying has anything to do with the use of shields. I covered that above.

 

You are putting words in my mouth about what I want or not. And the realism argument is the worst. You are suddenly going to say Joe Schmoe has an improbably chance, but should get that chance... when a) the worst odds Joe Schmoe has are 1 in 216 which is unrealistically high... and b) you ignore other "realisms" for the sake of one very improbably realism... i.e. the realism of "even if he did get his hand in the way, it would still likely blow through, or it was too fast, big, heavy to stop, etc."   By assuming one "realism" of "he should have a chance" you've opened up the glaring unrealism of it all, which again defeats the axiomatic action adventure basis here.

It would be much easier to do as I said above, have certain itesm (shields, whatever)... grant Joe Schmoe the base level of Missile Deflection... because that's what a shield was for. If Joe doens't have WF: Shield, he is at -3 to do it. Just like a tennis racket grants Missile Deflection/Reflection, only vs. tennis ball like objects... and requires a Weapon Fam: Tennis Racket or at -3 to attempt. 

hell... there are so many better ways to use already existing mechanics in 4th Ed to exemplify what you want to simulate... the new ruling just made it way more complex and variable and subject to arbitrary decisions.

I did read the damn post, so stop cursing at me. I used the example I did because it was an obvious one.  A less obvious one would be someone who throws a pebble into the air to block an incoming arrow by deflecting it 'just so'.  Is it possible?  Sure, anyone could do it.  However, it's highly improbable -- without having extensive training at doing just that.  If you care about realism, then this suggests you should give everyone a chance at it, however improbable -- and you should govern that probability as you, the GM, see fit, with the modifiers you assign.

 

You do this, already, when you assign someone negatives to a Computer Programming roll for the difficulty of a hack … or to a Lockpicking roll to represent the difficulty of the lock being picked … or a PER roll regarding the difficulty of perceiving something … presumably to represent the realism of the situation properly.  Why is it that assigning these very same sorts of difficulty modifiers for Blocking a ranged attack is somehow poor design … and somehow the need to do so to properly represent the realism of the situation … is so terrible?

Frankly, I feel the current approach is more consistent with how other aspects of Hero System are handled (see previous examples regarding assignment of difficulty modifiers).  You manage to reliably assign difficulty modifiers for all sorts of other activities in Hero System, but you can't or won't for blocking ranged attacks?!  That's comical to me -- and causes me to view your angle on this one as if you are picking a specific bone with the system just because it's there to pick. 

[RDU Neil]

5 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

Why is it that assigning these very same sorts of difficulty modifiers for Blocking a ranged attack is somehow poor design … and somehow the need to do so to properly represent the realism of the situation … is so terrible?

 

Because "to hit" in HERO is a defined matter of OCV vs. DCV or OCV vs. OCV... not a matter of skill roll modifiers. If I'm supposed to be adding modifiers to the OCV vs. OCV of a Missile Deflect effectively I'm saying "Has X OCV to hit, but X+Y OCV for avoiding block" which has NEVER been how Block is defined. 

 

You never say, "You are going to Block? Ok... roll to hit an 19 OCV?"  And the players are like, "He has a 19 OCV?"   and you reply, "Oh, no, he has an 8 OCV, but I'm giving him +11 vs. being blocked because his fist is really small and fast and hard to see... oh, and do you have gauntlets on, 'cause you can't block unless you have gauntlets on"... 

 

... that would never be the case with Block... but that is exactly how Missile Deflect is being handled now, in an attempt to make it "more consistent"with Block.

 

If one PC is going to have difficulty blocking an opponent, it isn't a matter of situational modifiers... it is because that opponent has a much better OCV. yes... environmental modifiers can occur, but they are minor changes and/or not often called into play. With Missile Deflect the way it is, you are saying that every use of it requires massive environmental modifiers that don't apply elsewhere.

 

Now this raises the question:

"Well, if those modifiers apply to Missile Deflect, what about when the martial artist just blocks Zippy the Shrinking Man who flies really fast and does a lot of move-throughs... he is small and hard to see and moves fast... shouldn't the Block have massive modifiers?"

And now you are in dangerous territory, because you applied "realistic modifiers" that essentially, to be fair, just gave the shrinking and flying guy a bunch of OCV bonuses for free, which is definitely not the intent of the game. 

 

At minimum you've opened the door to the GM being expected to apply environmental and other modifiers to every single "to hit" scenario, some subtle and some massive in their effect on resolution.

 

There is a whole can of worms opened with this.

 

Let's look at it from the POV of a character who is a superhero type who SHOULD be able to Missile Deflect with relative ease. In the past, Ninja-Star only needed to buy the level of Deflect that she felt appropriate... then in those situations, she gets a straight up OCV vs. OCV roll.  Simple.  Under 6th, Ninja-Star has to say, "Hey, GM... what is the max possible minuses you'd give me to deflect arrows, missiles, bullets..." and assuming the GM could provide an answer, she'd have to buy Skill Levels enough to offset the max possible penalties in order to make her character concept work? And she HAS to have a focus of some sort now?

 

Again, by saying it is "realistic" to allow it for everyone, you are by default making what used to be a simple, very common superheroic ability much more difficult and crunchy and arbitrary.

[Christopher]

4 hours ago, Surrealone said:

This is where we'll have to agree to disagree, I think -- as a successful block avoids damage … and the trope I mention entails precisely that -- yet your handling of it requires taking damage rather than avoidance of it.

What is the real difference between not taking (BODY) damage past defenses and a successfull block?

Minor details (like still taking stun) varry. But STUN damage is not that important in heroic games (as compared to superheroic) and can actually enhance the situation.

 

Personally I consider "you did not take Body damage due to increased defenses" the same as "you blocked the fire breath with your shield. The STUN damage taken nearly highlights that it was a close call maneuver and that a proper fire resistance (or not getting hit in the first place) would be better.

 

Of course one way to "Block fire breath with a shield" is to use Dive for Cover. You simply have the cover with you. It is still a dangerous maneuver (putting you into a poor defensive position when followup attacks come). But it is an option at least.