Author Topic: Questions about Blocking and defending against attacks  (Read 2165 times)

Offline InFerrumVeritas

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 813
    • View Profile
Questions about Blocking and defending against attacks
« on: April 13, 2011, 01:52:48 AM »
Okay, I'm new to the game.  I've lurked and searched, but I can't quite find an answer.  This is how I'm reading blocks (specifically evocation blocks, not blocks that block an action other than "attack") and defenses work (let's assume physical conflicts for simplicity):

First off, the most basic is a defense roll.  It does not take an action and is done by the target in response to the attack roll.  It uses a skill (Athletics, Weapons, or Fists, as appropriate, with Athletics being able to be used against all physical attacks). 

The Full Defense action gives +2 to defense rolls.

Second would be a Block.  This is an action set up by the character, an thus requires an action to be used.  A Block is used to prevent an action.  Thus, in this case, it would be preventing the attacker from attacking.  However, when a character uses a block, they can't do anything else that turn (other than take supplemental actions, of course).  A Block lasts until it is beaten, or until the beginning of the blocker's next turn.  The advantage of a block is that it is in addition to the defense roll.  Thus, the attack must beat the block and the defense roll.

An Evocation Block works similarly to a block in all ways except that its duration can be extended by allocating shifts to duration.  Also, an evocation Block can be used to grant armor (half the shifts allocated for power).  Armor doesn't go away if the character is hit (but does when the duration expires).

Finally, an Enchanted Item can have defensive effect in it.  The character may expend the item's charge and use the item instead of a defense roll (or as armor, but not both unless two charges are expended).

Is this correct?






Offline citadel97501

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 208
    • View Profile
Re: Questions about Blocking and defending against attacks
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2011, 01:59:46 AM »
That looks dead on to me...

Offline InFerrumVeritas

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 813
    • View Profile
Re: Questions about Blocking and defending against attacks
« Reply #2 on: April 13, 2011, 02:06:17 AM »
That looks dead on to me...

Score.  Reading comprehension for the win.

Offline Blackblade

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 924
    • View Profile
Re: Questions about Blocking and defending against attacks
« Reply #3 on: April 13, 2011, 02:11:05 AM »
From the way I interpreted the text, Blocks and Defense rolls do not stack.  Both can be rolled, but only the higher result counts.  If you are hit with an attack of 6, and are protected by a block of 4 and a defense of 5, then you would take 1 point of stress, assuming armor and weapon values of 0.  This could, of course, be totally wrong.

Offline InFerrumVeritas

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 813
    • View Profile
Re: Questions about Blocking and defending against attacks
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2011, 02:51:24 AM »
From the way I interpreted the text, Blocks and Defense rolls do not stack.  Both can be rolled, but only the higher result counts.  If you are hit with an attack of 6, and are protected by a block of 4 and a defense of 5, then you would take 1 point of stress, assuming armor and weapon values of 0.  This could, of course, be totally wrong.

Yes, I agree with this.  But it means that you effectively get to roll twice (that is, if they beat your block you still get to roll a defense against the attack).  Otherwise, there would be no tactical reason to waste the action on the block.  You don't get to add the number together (or rather, I wasn't saying that you did).

Offline sinker

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
    • View Profile
Re: Questions about Blocking and defending against attacks
« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2011, 02:59:10 AM »
Blackblade has the correct interpretation, though I could see where someone might see it the other way around. From YS210.

Quote
One advantage of a block is that it allows
two players to “stack” rolls to prevent something
from happening.

This is probably what's confusing you, but if you read on...

Quote
If your character is protecting
someone from attacks, that person technically
gets two chances to resist an attack—their own
automatic defense roll and the block strength.
If either one manages to beat the attack, that
person suffers no stress. If neither roll beats the
attack, the higher of the two totals may mitigate
the effects somewhat.

And the example clarifies further especially with the added emphasis.

Quote
Example: Molly Carpenter and Harry
Dresden are running away from some hired
goons who are intent on filling them full of
bullet holes. Harry uses spirit evocation to
throw a kinetic shield around Molly as she’s
running away, declaring it as a block against
attacks. He makes his evocation roll and gets a
block strength of Fantastic (+6).
When Molly is attacked by one of the
goons, she rolls her own Athletics as a defense
and gets a Good (+3) dodge. The goon gets
really lucky and rolls an Epic (+7) gun shot,
but because she can use Harry’s block for
defense, she only takes a three-stress hit (1
shift for beating the block, plus 2 more for the
damage value of the gun).
If Harry hadn’t performed the block, she’d
have taken a six-stress hit instead (4 for beating
the defense roll, plus 2 for the gun). Ouch!

Does that make sense?

Offline InFerrumVeritas

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 813
    • View Profile
Re: Questions about Blocking and defending against attacks
« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2011, 03:09:46 AM »
Blackblade has the correct interpretation, though I could see where someone might see it the other way around. From YS210.

This is probably what's confusing you, but if you read on...

And the example clarifies further especially with the added emphasis.

Does that make sense?

My post was in agreement with blackblade.  That is exactly what I was saying...  So yes, it makes sense to me.