Substituting maneuvers for each other

[Alcibiades]

Hello all, I was hoping you could help me with a rules question.

 

If I have a Grappling Block (Block, Grab One Limb), can I use it without the Block aspect, which is to say just use it to Grab (while losing the Abort aspect, of course)?

 

If so, would it be OCV vs. DCV as usual with Grab, rather than OCV vs. OCV as with Block?

 

I can't find a rule addressing this in the HSMA.

 

Thanks much!

 

 

[bigdamnhero]

See "Partial Maneuvers" HSMA p242. Tldr: the GM can allow a character to use only part of a maneuver if it fits the logic & sfx of the maneuver, but that should be the exception not the rule.

 

If I were the GM? In this case I would lean towards no. It seems to me like the Grappling Block depends on catching someone's limb while they're swinging at you, so I would say the Block element is a prerequisite to the Grab element. So I'd say you just need to do a standard Grab, tho I might let you get away with using your CSLs with Martial Arts if I was in a good mood. YMMV, etc.

 

If I were to let you use just the Grab element without the Block, I would say should be OCV vs DCV as per Grab.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I agree with the Big Damn Hero.  Most of the time I'd be inclined to say no, because attack maneuvers are designed for specific kinds of moves and combat activity.  A grappling block doesn't simply block the attack, it tangles the target up in such a manner they cannot hit you properly.  So you're necessarily grappling even if all you want is the block.  However it makes sense that if the maneuver's logic and effects allow it, I'd be inclined to.

 

This is why you should have characters define what their maneuvers are and how they look right away at first!

[Alcibiades]

Thanks.

 

Relatedly, can I use Grab (which allows you to Grab two limbs), to Grab one limb? I assume so, but I'm not sure if this affects any rules.

[bigdamnhero]

"A character can always choose to Grab fewer limbs than the maximum allowed by his maneuver." 6e2 p65.

 

Took me a minute to find it, but I was pretty sure it was there somewhere.

[dsatow]

I'd allow it so your mileage will vary with GMs.  Of course, I might impose a -2 OCV -2 DCV for using the maneuver in an ad hoc manner which makes it only marginally better than a normal grab.

[bigdamnhero]

Of course, I might impose a -2 OCV -2 DCV for using the maneuver in an ad hoc manner which makes it only marginally better than a normal grab.

I was actually thinking along these same lines, that if I were to allow it I'd probably wind up assigning a penalty to where you may as well just use normal grab. Tohmayto-tomahto...

[Alcibiades]

While I'm at it, if I have a martial art using a weapon that does Killing Damage, and I buy the Crush maneuver for it, does it do Killing Damage? (In other words, if you Squeeze with a Killing Attack, do you do KA damage or STR damage)?

[Christopher R Taylor]

While I'm at it, if I have a martial art using a weapon that does Killing Damage, and I buy the Crush maneuver for it, does it do Killing Damage? (In other words, if you Squeeze with a Killing Attack, do you do KA damage or STR damage)?

 

 

That's up to logic and the weapon design.  You can't really do crushing damage with a sword, you'd have to cut.  But with a mace, you could use the haft, for example.  GMs just have to rule using common sense.

[bigdamnhero]

Yeah, it depends how you see someone doing a Squeeze/Crush with the weapon at hand. If you're using some kind of chain weapon, maybe. But I don't see how you can do Squeeze/Crush with a sword or similar weapon.

[Alcibiades]

In this case, it's a whip.

[Greywind]

That's up to logic and the weapon design.  You can't really do crushing damage with a sword, you'd have to cut.  But with a mace, you could use the haft, for example.  GMs just have to rule using common sense.

 

Flat of the blade.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Flat of the blade.

 

 

Sure but it doesn't really crush so much as bend

[Amorkca]

Flat of the blade.

I've only used flat of the blade to change from killing damage to normal damage...

[bigdamnhero]

I might allow it with a whip, if it fit the character of the game. Realistically I'm not sure how the whip tightens around the victim. In fact the whip write-up in the Equipment Guide specifies that the Grab cannot do Squeezing damage, which would also preclude Crush as written. But in a sufficiently pulpish game, or if it's some kind of advanced Smart Whip* then I might be willing to overlook that. If I were to allow it, since the regular Grab/Squeeze uses Normal Damage, I would say the Crush also converts the whip to Normal Damage. Again, that's assuming it's a regular whip, not some kind of energy whip or monofiliment or something like that.

 

I don't know how you Grab/Squeeze/Crush someone with the flat of a blade.

 

* Patent Pending

[Christopher R Taylor]

I can easily see squeezing someone with a whip, but its gonna have to be a pretty long one.  Even 10' won't go around a human very many times and give any kind of grip to pull on.

[dsatow]

pg 8 of the HSMartial Arts for 6th ed states the following weapons can be used with Crush

 

Crush: Staves, Weapon Shafts, Chain & Rope Weapons, Three-Section Staff, Shinobi-Zue

[Mister E]

Stretching

[Ninja-Bear]

Magical whip I would allow. How about pommel of sword for crush? Especially where the crush is defined as a joint lock/pressure point? Im thinking of more cinematic/wuxia games.

[Alcibiades]

I can easily see squeezing someone with a whip, but its gonna have to be a pretty long one.  Even 10' won't go around a human very many times and give any kind of grip to pull on.

 

You could Squeeze one limb. Maybe a special maneuver? Like Crush, but weaker, and Follows Grab One Limb?

[Alcibiades]

 

pg 8 of the HSMartial Arts for 6th ed states the following weapons can be used with Crush

 

Crush: Staves, Weapon Shafts, Chain & Rope Weapons, Three-Section Staff, Shinobi-Zue

 

 

Is a whip a rope weapon?

 

EDIT: sorry for double posting

[Cantriped]

Yes, I think a whip should qualify as a "Rope Weapon".

A Garrote doesn't have to go all the way around the neck to choke someone to death with it, since you can use part of your body to brace their neck against the wire... So I would say you can use part of your body to brace the target against almost any "rope" or "weapon shaft" in order to Crush them with it. I would probably even allow sword hafts to be used for Crush if you can appropriately position the target. For example, pinning them to the ground (or against a door, table, or wall) and crushing their larynx with the pommel.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I would probably even allow sword hafts to be used for Crush if you can appropriately position the target. For example, pinning them to the ground (or against a door, table, or wall) and crushing their larynx with the pommel.

 

I don't disagree with that in terms of choke, but crush is compression damage, not asphyxiation.

[Alcibiades]

Hmmm.

 

Severing Squeeze martial maneuver OCV ? DCV ? +2 DC Strike, Disable, Must Follow Grab One LImb

 

The whip (or chain weapon, or whatever) wraps around the limb and then you squeeze with it

[Ninja-Bear]

I don't disagree with that in terms of choke, but crush is compression damage, not asphyxiation.

I have to politely disagree. This being Hero, crush is just a name for a game mechanic. As you know Special Effect can be anything.