str end in MA

[薔薇語]

ok I'll admit it, this is a stupid question.

 

When using a martial arts manuever do you pay for the end from str that was used to calculate damage? So, (assuming Str 10) if I use a basic strike do I spend 1end or no end becuase it is a MA manuever?

 

I was always doing it as you had to pay the end for str but I am coming to the conclution that, that was the wrong way.

 

Thank you,

La Rose

[ghost-angel]

Re: str end in MA

 

You pay for the STR used, assuming it's the first you've used STR that Phase.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: str end in MA

 

Yes.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: str end in MA

 

to repeat, yes.

 

to clarify, MA maneuvers never cost END but like HA they can't be used without some application of STR whose END cost is figured normally.

[ghost-angel]

Re: str end in MA

 

to repeat, yes.

 

to clarify, MA maneuvers never cost END but like HA they can't be used without some application of STR whose END cost is figured normally.

 

But Combat Maneuvers do cost END. (p383 & 425 clarify this little bit of confusion.)

[Hyper-Man]

Re: str end in MA

 

But Combat Maneuvers do cost END. (p383 & 425 clarify this little bit of confusion.)

 

Good catch!

[SteveZilla]

Re: str end in MA

 

to repeat, yes.

 

to clarify, MA maneuvers never cost END but like HA they can't be used without some application of STR whose END cost is figured normally.

 

But Combat Maneuvers do cost END. (p383 & 425 clarify this little bit of confusion.)

 

So a regular Dodge, which has no STR value listed, costs 1 END to execute. But a Martial Dodge, which also has no STR value listed, doesn't cost any END because it's a martial maneuver.

 

A Haymaker, for example, doesn't list a STR value (only a increase in damage of the attack power), so IIUC costs whatever the attack power used costs, and not anything more.

 

But firing a weapon costs 1 END? Is the trigger pull so stiff that it takes a 5 STR to activate?

[bubba smith]

Re: str end in MA

 

its not a stupid question if you don't know the answer to something

[ghost-angel]

Re: str end in MA

 

So a regular Dodge, which has no STR value listed, costs 1 END to execute. But a Martial Dodge, which also has no STR value listed, doesn't cost any END because it's a martial maneuver.

 

A Haymaker, for example, doesn't list a STR value (only a increase in damage of the attack power), so IIUC costs whatever the attack power used costs, and not anything more.

 

But firing a weapon costs 1 END? Is the trigger pull so stiff that it takes a 5 STR to activate?

 

First - correct

 

Second - Haymaker is a Combat Maneuver, it costs 1END + END Of Power Used

 

Strik is a Combat Maneuver and technically costs 1END to use. It's not a matter of "costing STR to use" - I'll note that in Superheroic it's 1END/10 STR.

 

It's just that the rules state Combat Maneuvers cost 1END to use (p383) and Martial Maneuvers do not cost END to use (p425).

 

It's just how the book is written, I don't know anyone who tracks END cost for Maneuvers.

[SteveZilla]

Re: str end in MA

 

Second - Haymaker is a Combat Maneuver, it costs 1END + END Of Power Used

 

Strik is a Combat Maneuver and technically costs 1END to use. It's not a matter of "costing STR to use" - I'll note that in Superheroic it's 1END/10 STR.

 

It's just that the rules state Combat Maneuvers cost 1END to use (p383) and Martial Maneuvers do not cost END to use (p425).

 

It's just how the book is written, I don't know anyone who tracks END cost for Maneuvers.

 

The book is not worded well on this subject IMO. And I to don't know anyone who tracks END cost for Maneuvers.

 

But I disagree with your conclusions.

 

Using a Combat Maneuver typically costs 1 END (see page 425) and the character also has to pay the END cost for any STR or power used with the Maneuver.

 

(Emphasis mine.) The partiality of "typically" is not overridden by the "also".

 

Some Maneuvers and other Actions don't have a listed STR value. In such cases a character spends 1 END (unless the GM rules otherwise). This includes Combat Maneuvers such as Block, Dodge, or firing a weapon. Martial Maneuvers do not cost END.

 

(Emphasis mine.) "In such cases" means that in other cases this is not the rule (that Maneuvers cost 1 END). These other cases are the reason why it says typically on p383.

 

"... a listed STR value" seems to be an archaic form of referring to maneuvers -- a holdover from the days when Haymaker was listed as doing "1.5 x STR". IMO a modern translation would refer to a listed damage value/adjustment (like the +4 DC from Haymaker).

[ghost-angel]

Re: str end in MA

 

Personally, I think the whole thing should be simplified to:

 

Maneuvers do not cost END to perform.

[SteveZilla]

Re: str end in MA

 

Seconded!

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: str end in MA

 

All in favor?

 

Aye!

 

Opposed?

 

Ch'rp-ch'rp, ch'rp-ch'rp,

ch'rp-ch'rp, ch'rp-ch'rp,

Ch'rp-ch'rp, ch'rp-ch'rp.*

 

Motion Carried!

 

 

*Sound of crickets chirping.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: str end in MA

 

I guess I'll be the dissenter again.

 

Even if a game was using a house rule that stated that no maneuvers cost END there is at least one free action that would cost END: Dive for Cover. The fact that it costs END (for the movement used) IS one of the main balancing factors when comparing it to other defensive actions.

 

So in a game using the above house rule a character could not DFC forever (unless they had a 0 END movement ability). They could certainly use Martial Dodge for an indefinite period of time (this is fair considering the 4 points spent plus the additional minimum 6 points in other martial maneuvers).

 

I don't see the harm in acknowledging that a non-martial trained combatant would eventually tire from continual use of a normal Dodge. I understand the issue with not actually tracking the END usage in every case but in long story arcs with several combats the LTE results between Martially trained and untrained combatants might become important.

[ghost-angel]

Re: str end in MA

 

I guess I'll be the dissenter again.

 

Even if a game was using a house rule that stated that no maneuvers cost END there is at least one free action that would cost END: Dive for Cover. The fact that it costs END (for the movement used) IS one of the main balancing factors when comparing it to other defensive actions.

 

So in a game using the above house rule a character could not DFC forever (unless they had a 0 END movement ability). They could certainly use Martial Dodge for an indefinite period of time (this is fair considering the 4 points spent plus the additional minimum 6 points in other martial maneuvers).

 

I don't see the harm in acknowledging that a non-martial trained combatant would eventually tire from continual use of a normal Dodge. I understand the issue with not actually tracking the END usage in every case but in long story arcs with several combats the LTE results between Martially trained and untrained combatants might become important.

 

I would say the Elements of Maneuvers cost END (Movement in the case of DFC, STR needed to use the weapon or STR involved in others).

 

Since Dodge is an In Combat action, a normal person using 1 END per Phase as a Speed of 2, uses 2 END per turn, below the Average Recovery of 4 - so at Post-12 they regain the END used Dodging twice.

 

So yes, a normal person CAN Dodge indefinitely, because once you leave Combat you can't use the Dodge Maneuver and LTE won't apply.

[Sean Waters]

Re: str end in MA

 

The problem (to an extent) with maneouvers costing END is that automatons, which specifically are noted as often selling back END to 0, and don't have stun, technically couldn't use them. That seems like an unintentional 'synergy' to me.

 

You also run into the problem that (say) you have 0 END on STR and movement a normal dodge STILL technically costs 1 END, which seems odd, if an all-out punch doesn't.

 

I can see the sense of the rule - dodging can be as tiring as attacking - but I think the implementation needs looking at.

[SteveZilla]

Re: str end in MA

 

The problem (to an extent) with maneouvers costing END is that automatons, which specifically are noted as often selling back END to 0, and don't have stun, technically couldn't use them. That seems like an unintentional 'synergy' to me.

 

You also run into the problem that (say) you have 0 END on STR and movement a normal dodge STILL technically costs 1 END, which seems odd, if an all-out punch doesn't.

 

I can see the sense of the rule - dodging can be as tiring as attacking - but I think the implementation needs looking at.

 

Automatons can buy an END Reserve, and thus could have END for Maneuvers.

[Sean Waters]

Re: str end in MA

 

Automatons can buy an END Reserve' date=' and thus could have END for Maneuvers.[/quote']

 

I'm not saying you can't get round it ( they don't have to, for instance, buy their END to 0), I'm saying it is a bit messy.

 

A simple rule that if your STR and/or appropriate movement is bought to 0 END, defensive maneouvers don't cost END would be more straightforward.

[SteveZilla]

Re: str end in MA

 

True, but then some would argue that there is no "proportionality" to it.

 

I.e., I could buy all of my END-costing abilities with Costs x10 END. But then could still Dodge and Block for only 1 END (And Martial Dodge/Block for 0 END).

[Sean Waters]

Re: str end in MA

 

True, but then some would argue that there is no "proportionality" to it.

 

I.e., I could buy all of my END-costing abilities with Costs x10 END. But then could still Dodge and Block for only 1 END (And Martial Dodge/Block for 0 END).

 

True, but that then reflects the current position. Perhaps it would be better to say that you have to use sufficient strength to move your own mass to dodge, so if a normal human has 10 STR at 0 END then he does not pay any END to dodge. Similarly if his STR is at 10x END, he pays 10 END to dodge (you could require 1" of movement rather than STR be used - a similar effect would be acheived).