Need help with a Martial Arts Maneuver

[Delthrien]

I'm going for something that is essentially a "damaging block." You see them all the time in the movies. An opponent throws a kick and the defender essentially attacks the limb (with either a punch or kick) instead of merely blocking it.

 

The "joint break" maneuver from UMA comes pretty close but isn't quite it.

 

Does anyone have a suggestion that doesn't involve creating some kind of Damage Shield? It seems that this should be doable without having to resort to a "power." Unfortunately, my brain isn't up to the challenge at the moment.

 

Charlie

[TheEmerged]

When your brain starts to hurt -- go simple Believe it or not, you can do this with a form of Martial Strike!

 

The "blocking it" aspect is the special effect of the +2 DCV. Just hold the phase and interrupt the opponent's attack (I usually require a contested DEX roll when a player wants to do this, but I don't believe that's official).

[Peregrine]

I've put some thought into this as well, and I've concluded that it's a Defensive Strike, the special effect of the +3 DCV being the 'blocking' aspect of the maneuver.

[GamePhil]

Another possibility is to do a Multiple Power Attack, and allow them to do a Block/Strike. Please note this is not by the book, but it makes some sense. Using the most restrictive maneuver, you'd:

 

1. Have to have a saved phase, because you can't Abort to the attack maneuver.

2. Go against the higher of the opponent's OCV or DCV.

3. Probably shouldn't be able to continue Blocking after the first one.

4. Won't be able to go before the opponent that you Blocked, because the Strike won't let you do that.

[Patriot]

Wouldnt the counter strike maneuver be a good choice here?

[Gary]

Have a saved action and a higher dex than your opponent. Buy penalty skill levels to target the arms. Just before he attacks, you attack first.

[NuSoardGraphite]

The above suggestions are all good ones.

 

Provided you have access to The Ultimate Martial Artist, you can custom design that specific maneuver. Just make sure to specify that it affects the limbs and use the "in response to" element (which means the attack goes off in response to your opponents attack) and make sure the DCV modifier of the maneuver is high (+2 is recommended)

 

Wish I had my UMA with me now, I'd design the maneuver for you and give you its cost. Maybe I'll do so tomorrow, if no one beats me to it (I'm at work sans book)

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by NuSoardGraphite

Just make sure to specify that it affects the limbs and use the "in response to" element (which means the attack goes off in response to your opponents attack)

The only Response element that I can find is a restrictive element (worth a wopping -3) that means that you can only use the maneuver in response to a specific maneuver used by your opponent. Probably not what he's looking for.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Originally posted by GamePhil

The only Response element that I can find is a restrictive element (worth a wopping -3) that means that you can only use the maneuver in response to a specific maneuver used by your opponent. Probably not what he's looking for.

 

Actually, that would be exactly what he's looking for. Make the maneuver in response to a punch or kick (but not a grapple or disarm or other offensive attacks) and specifically attack limbs and give the maneuver the disable element, and thats probably exactly what he's looking for.

 

Using a maneuver of this nature with a held phase would produce the desired effect described in his original post.

[Delthrien]

Yup, he's got it sussed...

 

That's the kind of thing I'm looking for. I've got the UMA but I haven't played with the custome maneuvers yet. If you have the time, I'd actually like to see a step-by-step example of how one is built.

 

Many thanks!

 

Charlie

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by NuSoardGraphite

Actually, that would be exactly what he's looking for. Make the maneuver in response to a punch or kick (but not a grapple or disarm or other offensive attacks) and specifically attack limbs and give the maneuver the disable element, and thats probably exactly what he's looking for.

What you just described is illegal. The examples given for the Response element are punches, kicks, and nerve strikes, so just for what you are describing you'd need two separate maneuvers. If you throw in Nerve Strikes, you'd need three, and so on. That's why I didn't think that it suited his needs, to avoid both hassle and point cost.

 

You might also define it using specific maneuvers (Strike instead of punch or kicks), I would think, but then you run into a similar problem: you can't do this against a Haymaker or an Offensive Strike, only against the Strike maneuver, whether it is a punch or a kick or a head butt.

 

While I'm here: I can't find the rule that says that you can attack someone to disrupt his attack. I know I've seen it, but could someone site a page and book, please?

[GamePhil]

Re: Yup, he's got it sussed...

 

Originally posted by Delthrien

That's the kind of thing I'm looking for. I've got the UMA but I haven't played with the custome maneuvers yet.Charlie

No problem.

 

Dragon Scales Turn Hand

Strike Maneuver

DCV: +2 (2 points)

Disable (0 points)

OCV +2 (2 points)

N-Damage: +2d6 (2 points)

Response: Can Only Be Used After Punches (-3)

Final cost: 3 points

This maneuver is defined as hitting the Arm used in the attack, and so takes no location penalties for attacking that limb.

 

Dragon Scales Turn Foot

As above, but Can Only Be Used After Kicks and targeting the legs.

 

And so on.

 

As I mentioned, this method is more expensive and complicated than dropping the Response element and using a generalized Strike. However, there are two advantages:

 

The attack here is more powerful than normal. Without Response, it would be a 6 point Maneuver, which is a point higher than is allowed. In fact, going this route you might consider just going wild and upping the DCV or the Damage by one, bringing it to 5 points (after +2, the costs of those elements goes up to 2 points/+1).

 

The attack targets the specific and appropriate limb at no penalty. If you used a simple Strike, it might very well disrupt the attack (I believe it does so if you do damage to the attacker, but I can't find the rule), but it wouldn't hit the limb specifically. If you're not using Hit Locations or the Disabling rules, however, this is actually not an advantage, but if you are, it's pretty spiffy.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Originally posted by GamePhil

What you just described is illegal.

 

Remember the #1 "rule" in the 5th edition:

 

Its only "illegal" if the GM says it is...

 

But any anycase, I was alluding to the use of a maneuver with the "strike" element (that is a punch or a kick thats supposed to do damage) it wouldn't work against a nerve strike, a throw or a grapple. It shouldn't work against a leg sweep either.

 

In general, some of the more complex maneuvers require just a bit of common sense in their application. I was assuming the original poster wanted to be able to damage an opponents punches or kicks as they were being launched in his characters direction, so I didn't differentiate between the two, considering they are effectively the same thing (Strike maneuver).

[GamePhil]

I apologize to all posters reading this thread for letting out my dark side in the upcoming post. Don't worry, it's pretty mild, merely long-winded

Originally posted by NuSoardGraphite

Remember the #1 "rule" in the 5th edition:

 

Its only "illegal" if the GM says it is...

No. It is "illegal" (or "legal" for that matter) unless the GM changes it. If told what house rules are in effect, I will take them into account. If I make a suggestion that breaks or bends the rules, I will mention this fact. Otherwise, we have no basis for discussion other than the book, and no question can be answered intelligently.

 

Now, as for the rest: From the looks of things, there are two ways to use the Response Element, both of which I mentioned previously.

 

One is to use the general description of the attack, such as punch or kick. So, if you took it against punch, your restricted Maneuver could be used in response to a Haymaker, a Strike, a Martial Strike, or whatever, as long as it could be described as a punch.

 

The other is to use the actual Martial Maneuver (that is, the game mechanic as opposed to the description) as what it is used against: as you say, a Strike Maneuver, or a Nerve Strike, or a Haymaker, and so on. This means that if your maneuver worked against Strikes, that it would work regardless of whether the Strike was described as a punch, a kick, or a head butt. But it wouldn't work against a Haymaker, or a Martial Strike, or an Offensive Strike.

 

But, either of these things will require the purchase of multiple maneuvers using Response, unless he really wants to limit it to Strikes. If all he wants are punches and kicks, then as I already described, it's 6 points for the two maneuvers, so this post has gone on too long, considering how little difference it makes.

 

As for applying common sense: I am. I believe that the maneuver he described should be allowed to work against all of the things that you describe (in fact, more, since I don't see why it shouldn't work against nerve strikes and leg sweeps). That is why I wouldn't use the Restrictive Element, or, if I did, would buy multiple maneuvers, because common sense dictates I do so to get the desired effect within the rules.

 

Anyway, the Maneuver requested has been described, so if he wants to allow it to work against punches and kicks, great, if he doesn't, that's also done.

[Delthrien]

Okay...

 

... So, arguments regarding "legality" aside, would the maneuvers described above be usable under the same circumstances as a block? My initial thought would be no, which, I suspect, is as it should be.

 

If I'm interpretting this correctly, it looks like this kind of maneuver would be useful (or used) as a Held, ½ Phase action. A sort of "It looks like Goon #2 is going to try to deck me, so I'll use my held half to punch his knuckles" kind of thing.

 

My take on it would be that this kind of maneuver would be useful against a "normal" strike in general, but not vs. Killing strikes, grabs, throws, or other "special" maneuvers. The scene that keeps flashing through my head is from the first "X-men" flick where Logan is in the cage, fighting and he breaks his opponent's hand as the other guy is throwing the punch...

 

BTW, thanks for the in-depth responses, it's helping me get a handle on the stuff in the UMA...

[NuSoardGraphite]

Originally posted by GamePhil

 

No. It is "illegal" (or "legal" for that matter) unless the GM changes it.

 

Well...this is merely a matter of perspective, which is to say its a moot point to argue.

 

If told what house rules are in effect, I will take them into account. If I make a suggestion that breaks or bends the rules, I will mention this fact. Otherwise, we have no basis for discussion other than the book, and no question can be answered intelligently.

 

Oh, I understand this completely, however I personaly have a very liberal attitude toward the rules. I'm a firm advocate of the "if the rules get in the way, throw them out" style of Roleplaying, and my posts oftentimes reflect that. It tends to cause problems with those who stay within the "letter of the law" so to speak.

 

Now, as for the rest: From the looks of things, there are two ways to use the Response Element, both of which I mentioned previously.

 

One is to use the general description of the attack, such as punch or kick. So, if you took it against punch, your restricted Maneuver could be used in response to a Haymaker, a Strike, a Martial Strike, or whatever, as long as it could be described as a punch.

 

No argument there. Thats the way I would handle it, for the most part. I look at exactly how the maneuver is executed and apply accordingly.

 

The other is to use the actual Martial Maneuver (that is, the game mechanic as opposed to the description) as what it is used against: as you say, a Strike Maneuver, or a Nerve Strike, or a Haymaker, and so on. This means that if your maneuver worked against Strikes, that it would work regardless of whether the Strike was described as a punch, a kick, or a head butt. But it wouldn't work against a Haymaker, or a Martial Strike, or an Offensive Strike.

 

Ruleswise, this is the easiest way to go. It is cut-and-dried which is good to avoid arguments during the game. However, this is not the way I would use it.

 

But, either of these things will require the purchase of multiple maneuvers using Response, unless he really wants to limit it to Strikes. If all he wants are punches and kicks, then as I already described, it's 6 points for the two maneuvers, so this post has gone on too long, considering how little difference it makes.

 

Ah, here is where our opinions differ. This particular situation is completely up to the discretion of the individual GM. There is no hard rule in the UMA, other than the extremely vague single reference in the description of the Response restrictive element with which to guide things. Interpretation will vary from individual to individual.

You have come up with the conclusion that this will require 2 seperate maneuvers to be able to affect both a puch type maneuver and a kick type maneuver. I have come up with the conclusion that this is not necessary. From the image I have in my head of such a maneuver ocuring, the same technique should be usable against both a punch or a kick, provided they are launched at the same general area (head to midsection) [image: an attacker is attempting to assault the PC, the PC uses the maneuver and punch/blocks the incoming attack by punching the attackers elbow as its incoming. Applied to a kick, the same technique attacks the opponents knee during an incoming kick]