Netzilla

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.

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.

Indeed, the primary purpose of any RPG is entertainment. Characters that lead uncomplicated lives are boring, IMO. One way I like to look at complications is as a way to indicate to the GM what kind of stories you want your character involved in. Adding a DNPC is saying that you want your character to have the chance to save that DNPC. Adding a Hunted means that you want your character to face that Hunted on a regular(ish) basis. What fun is having a complication if you don't get the chance to overcome it?

Or they just start killing the bad guys. . .

The speed 1 change happened from 4th to 5th.

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.

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).

I wrote that in response to this: 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.

Just to expand on this idea. . . Complications and Limitations are basically a way for players to say, 'I want you to complicate my character's life in these ways.' The frequency toggles and value of these constructs basically inform the GM as to how often and to what degree the character's life will get complicated. Make sure your players understand this concept as well.

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.

Do those same factors no longer apply to Block? How much training do you think is required to block a sword slash, especially when bare handed? The rules have allowed you to do that since 1e, with penalties being an optional rule. Define "slight". A -4, the example minimum penalty suggested by the rules (when the GM allows the block in the first place) is equivalent to attacking someone you can't see.

Because the Hero System is so effective at modeling infants already. . . Also, by the above logic, all combat maneuvers should cost points. Not everyone Dodges equally effectively, not everyone throws punches equally effectively, not everyone grapples equally effectively yet the system still offers free versions of those maneuvers. If you're going to argue that an infant can now block bullets just because 6e added the ability to block ranged attacks (pending GM approval and assessed modifiers), then I'll argue that babies have been able to Dodge them since 1e. Your hyperbolic example cuts both ways.

Is the question, "why should WW and Cap pay points under 6e" or "why was the rule changed for 6e"? In regards to the first, they'd pay points to be able to have a more reliable ability to block ranged attacks. They wouldn't have to worry about GM permission or assessed penalties to block they way someone who hadn't paid points would. As for the second, I recall several reasons being discussed for the change during the pre-6e rules discussion on these forums 1) Dodge already works vs both ranged and HtH for free, so why shouldn't block? 2) Is the ability to catch a thrown baseball really worth more than Acrobatics (5 points to deflect thrown objects under 5e vs 3 points for Acrobatics)? 3) Missile Deflection's cost was tied to the SFX of the attack, which runs counter to the ideal of divorcing SFX and mechanics as much as possible (something that came up on the old boards and mailing lists regularly as I recall). 4) Likewise, it provided a mechanical advantage for simply writing "laser" on your character sheet instead of "thrown spear" even if both powers cost the same, which runs counter to the 'you get what you pay for' ideal. Obviously the current solution isn't ideal, but IMO, it's a move in the right direction. Perhaps we would have been better off with a default list of Block modifiers for dealing with unarmed vs armed and blocking ranged attacks with a toolkitting sidebar for how to adjust those modifiers for different genre considerations. I suspect such a thing would have made Hugh happier. I seem to remember some discussion of an idea of changing Missile Deflection to have the points cost based on the DC of the attack you can deflect but I don't think the idea gained much traction.

But the original Enemies books were written when DEX still granted SPD, OCV and DCV in addition to what it currently gives. One of the key arguments has been that DEX was necessary to be effective in combat under the old rules and currently it's not. Using the old write-ups doesn't say anything about the current state of the rules.

You do realize that I'm not suggesting that "ususally' means "never", correct? It's worded the way it is in case the GM does decide that the SFX you're attempting to use the Deflect power on would normally require an object. 1. Pyro uses his fire power to attack Colossus. Colossus wants to block but the GM states that blocking the attack would require a solid object. Therefore, Colossus uses his casual STR to rip up a chunk of concrete to block the fire. 2. Later Pyro attacks Gene Grey. Because she bought the Deflect power, using her TK as the SFX, she gets to use that instead of requiring a chunk of concrete. 3. Calisto throws a knife at Nightcrawler and he decides to Block (catch) it. Even though he hasn't bought Deflection, he has superhuman reflexes, so the GM allows this without requiring the use of an object but at a -3. The current wording of Deflection covers all three cases. If it said "always" rather than "usually", then case 3 would not be possible. If it said "never" Colossus would not need to rip up a chunk of concrete in case 1.

The same could be said of walking and talking.

And whose job is it to note otherwise? Could it be that the rules leave that up to the GM?

Ideally, you'd want to compare characters created by different authors. As many (most?) of the current CU characters were designed by Steve Long, and we already know he highly values going first, it wouldn't be surprising to find that SL-designed characters tend toward higher DEX scores even at a 2-point cost. I'm less aware of the character-building biases of other Hero authors. A better question might be, would costing INT and PRE at 2 points each cause players to buy less of those stats? Unfortunately, that's harder to answer as it's purely hypothetical at this point.

You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into.

"Usual" does not mean "always". The rules clearly state that it's up to the GM. Otherwise, there would be no point in the use of the word "may" in the Block definition. Emphasis added to highlight the difference in wording between "must" and "may". That is a deliberate difference in word choice. If a focus were always required, the rules would continue to use the word "must" or one of its synonyms, not switch to "may". Again, taken in conjunction with the use of the similarly soft requirement of "usually" from the Deflect rules, and the rules clearly put this in the hands of a GM ruling to be based on the SFX involved. As with the rest of this, that's a GM call. If you're the GM, then its up to you. Personally, I wouldn't do it that way because I think it gives too much mechanical weight to the SFX involved, which is the problem I had with the old Missile Deflection rules (and the currently too-open Block rules). With what you have written (and with the old rules), because I write "Laser" for the SFX of my 8d6 Blast, I'm get a distinct mechanical advantage over someone who chooses to write "Batarang" next to their 8d6 Blast. Even though we both paid the same amount of points, I get the greater utility. If you're okay with doing that as a GM, go for it.

Hero is designed to simulate cinematic reality. A side effect of this is Hero's notorious and long-standing issues modeling things at the low end of the scale (just a few of which, Hugh just provided examples of).

The actual relevant wording is "Usual" is an important qualifier. As stated under the rules for Block, GMs are well within their rights to require an object. However, words like "usual" and "may" are what keeps this from being a hard requirement. Hugh's complaint about the wishy-washy wording of this rule is certainly understandable. On the other hand, when people complain about 6e1 & 2 being over 1,000 pages long, I have this thread as an example of why.

Eh, I've opened that can of worms many times on these boards in the past. I have a long history advocating against 'creating characters in a vacuum.'

Sounds to me like they have a reduced chance to hit rather than no chance. Take a normal OCV 3 person vs a high school pitcher who probably has 2 or 3 CSLs with Thrown Baseball and they're already at an 8- or 9-. If the GM opts to exercise their right to apply a penalty for blocking a ranged attack and they're down in the 4-6 or less range. Against a pro player, who'll not only have more levels but decent odds of a higher OCV due to years of athletic development, and Joe Norm will need a 3-.

Since the text for Deflection references page 149, let's also look there: That clearly puts this in GM call territory rather than being a hard requirement. Blocking things at range is not the same as blocking ranged attacks. Blocking things at range means blocking attacks made against a target outside your reach (including HtH attacks). To do it without a -4 or greater penalty. Why, then, does anyone pay points for CSLs with block if anyone can block? Why pay for a Hand Attack if anyone can pick up a stick? Why pay points for running when everyone can run? Why pay for WF:Small Arms when anyone can pull a trigger? Because you want to do these things better/without penalties. Also, are GMs no longer looking over character sheets before the campaign? Are they failing to notice these supposedly superfluous Deflection builds or are they just being dicks and not saying anything? Perhaps the GM actually understands the intent is to be able to blocked ranged attacks at no (or a reduced) penalty and will either allow it or work with the player to come up with better use for their points.