| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Deviknyte
Joined: 17 Jun 2009
Posts: 1400
Location: Allen Park, MI
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
NM. TWF the talent is a base maneuver. I always get confused because the Basic maneuver and the Base one have the same name.
_________________
-Devin Redd, Detroit Harvester
"The Elorii shall rise again!"
Current- Vaerdos kyr'Taliis, Ardakene Elorii Chanter of the Rebirth and the Bright People
Retired- Elysian, Ardakene Elorii Hierophant of Belisarda |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hustonj
Joined: 30 Jun 2010
Posts: 1081
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| StatMonkey wrote: | | hustonj wrote: |
Pedro? Spinning Strikes, based on your prior discussions, is not an Advanced Maneuver, and it does not combine with the TWF Talent.
What is missing in order to create clarity is the same kind of note embedded into the text as you added to, say Guarded Charge. You've posted a note VERY SIMILAR to that in the past in a discussion on TWF and how Spinning Strikes was supposed to work, so I'm pretty confident of the intent you have advertised. Adding that kind of a note to the errata/FAQ for Spinning Strikes will address this player's concern, I believe. |
Feel like that must have been another Pedro... my evil twin.
The reason why I've apprehensive about allowing Spinning Strikes to be combined with an other maneuver relates to the damage bonus....
Combining Spinning Strikes and Unbalancing Attack for example.
Its that type of stacking (gaining an off hand attack 1 tick later + Quickness Die in damage with 5' movement for free + Pro Die in damage...becomes the equivalent of three martial techniques being combined) which is the main reason why we designated TWF as a base martial maneuver. |
Well . . .. Spinning Strikes is a BASE Maneuver, according to the book, current errata, and the errata currently under review.
During previous discussions, I pointed out that if TWF and Spinning Strikes were considered a single action, that most of the Technique combinations which could be made wouldn't work as you described (since the second attack would be the same action), but that if it was two actions, then we would be hard-pressed to justify that the second action HAD TO BE TAKEN if the target was gone/moved/whatever.
In response to that discussion, you made the ruling that TWF and Spinning Strikes is a single declaration which must all be "spent" speed-wise, but it is two actions, and combines with other Martial Techniques with the off-hand attack as a distinct and separate action for the purpose of those other Technique benefits.
We are where we are today because of the path you chose in a discussion that, I thought, was held on these forums.
Some of the combinations which this makes possible are just mean, like Spinning Strikes/Unbalancing Attack which makes it quite possible that the target will not have a chance to move between the two attacks, and others are just wonderfully cinematic, like Spinning Strikes/Sweeping Strike, which has the attacker start spinning (to perform the primary weapon attacks in the Sweeping Strike) and "fling" himself 5' as he comes out of the spin for the Spinning Strikes second attack. The second one is just cool.
You want to make Spinning Strikes an Advanced Maneuver, then make it an Advanced Maneuver. You want to leave it so that it can be combined, but not the way your previous ruling has it being combined now, then don't say TWF is two different actions, but label it as one action with multiple parts, and the Spinning Strikes/Unbalancing Attack combination becomes far, far less abusive (and the Sweeping Strike combination still works the same way, actually). It goes from:
[Action 1]
Tick 1 at -2 attack does Weapon -3
[Action 2]
Tick 2 at normal attack does Weapon + Passive Qu + (Pr) +1
[Action 3]
Tick 3 + Weapon Speed (with Recovery 6) you do something else.
to:
[Action 1]
Tick 1 at -2 attack does Weapon - 3
Tick 2 at -2 attack does Weapon +passive Qu +1
[Action 2]
Tick 3+weapon speed (with recovery 6) at +2 attack does Weapon + (PR).
[Action 3]
Tick 3+(2)weapon speed (with Recovery 6 - weapon speed) you do something else
Restoring the pause between the primary and follow-up attacks for Unbalancing Attack. Please, not only pick one as the path ahead, but adjust the text of the errata/FAQ to make the intent clear. The previous last word you had on this subject created the first of these two examples. You taught me that the second one was not the intent.
Heck, that discussion is part of what led me to bringing up my issue with the fact that the book limited Advanced Spells to only having one Attribute die exploding but Advanced Maneuvers had no such limit. The draft errata puts them on the same playing field.
EDIT: Forgot to break out attack bonus/penalties in second timeline
_________________
Valeriano Innocenzo Camillo de Larissa la Galletti
San Antonio, Tx-based Harvester
Jeff Huston
huston.harvester@cox.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deviknyte
Joined: 17 Jun 2009
Posts: 1400
Location: Allen Park, MI
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe the original ruling for it being 2 actions was to keep Wall of Steel at bay, memory serves.
@Pedro: Does Spinning Strikes or any other version of TWF really need a nerfing. In my opinion it is already a subpar tactic, speed gain verse attack penalty wise.
_________________
-Devin Redd, Detroit Harvester
"The Elorii shall rise again!"
Current- Vaerdos kyr'Taliis, Ardakene Elorii Chanter of the Rebirth and the Bright People
Retired- Elysian, Ardakene Elorii Hierophant of Belisarda |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StatMonkey
Moderator
Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 1319
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Deviknyte wrote: | I believe the original ruling for it being 2 actions was to keep Wall of Steel at bay, memory serves.
|
That's exactly the reason why it was done... though Huston brings up a solid reason why we should conciser TWF a signal action.
The issue with Wall of Steel came into being when you would have people give up their smaller weapon attack and attack with their main weapon, gaining all the benefits of Wall of Steel without any penalties.
A more elegant solution may be in tweaking Wall of Steel to mention that is you are using two-weapons you lose both attacks but gain a small additional bonus to Avoidance and then make TWF a signal action.
The issue lies in Maneuvers state that "upon your next successful attack". Thus, stating that TWF is considered a single attack for the purposes of maneuvers, talents, and spells might work.
_________________
Pedro C Barrenechea
Paradigm Concepts, Miami
And all you need to know about Arcanis
New player: "You know, I'm not really sure we *should* win. I'm not sure we made the right choice."
Veteran player: "Welcome to Arcanis!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deviknyte
Joined: 17 Jun 2009
Posts: 1400
Location: Allen Park, MI
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| StatMonkey wrote: | That's exactly the reason why it was done... though Huston brings up a solid reason why we should conciser TWF a signal action.
The issue with Wall of Steel came into being when you would have people give up their smaller weapon attack and attack with their main weapon, gaining all the benefits of Wall of Steel without any penalties. |
Well I remember asking you what would happen if one added a maneuver with weapon and a maneuver with none. And you said that you would gain the effects of both maneuvers and deal weapon damage. How is TWF plus Wall of Steel, where you wouldn't deal any damage with your second attack and still take a penalty to hit with the first, better than Mighty Swing plus Wall of Steel where one deals weapon +5 damage with an avoidance boost?
| StatMonkey wrote: | | A more elegant solution may be in tweaking Wall of Steel to mention that is you are using two-weapons you lose both attacks but gain a small additional bonus to Avoidance and then make TWF a signal action. |
I'm not following. So you want to grant an even higher bonus for having TWF?
| StatMonkey wrote: | | The issue lies in Maneuvers state that "upon your next successful attack". Thus, stating that TWF is considered a single attack for the purposes of maneuvers, talents, and spells might work. |
This is also the case for penalties that last until your next action. And if TWF was considered a single attack wouldn't I get my Unbalancing Attack bonus to booth attacks? I think you want to word that single action.
To be honest I personally don't see the issue with TWF as is. If someone really wanted to Unbalancing Attack and get that bonus immediately it really isn't all that over powered with that -2/-3 penalty to attack mixed in there. It's just not that broken, but it is very cinematic and cool looking for that TWF player. Kio blading a Mighty Swing + Spinning Strikes is better than that, but still at risk with that -2 penalty for speed gain 1. It's like how Raging currently is worth it. The cool TWF combos are the only thing that keeps TWF going for me.
_________________
-Devin Redd, Detroit Harvester
"The Elorii shall rise again!"
Current- Vaerdos kyr'Taliis, Ardakene Elorii Chanter of the Rebirth and the Bright People
Retired- Elysian, Ardakene Elorii Hierophant of Belisarda |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hustonj
Joined: 30 Jun 2010
Posts: 1081
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Deviknyte wrote: | | StatMonkey wrote: | | The issue lies in Maneuvers state that "upon your next successful attack". Thus, stating that TWF is considered a single attack for the purposes of maneuvers, talents, and spells might work. |
This is also the case for penalties that last until your next action. And if TWF was considered a single attack wouldn't I get my Unbalancing Attack bonus to booth attacks? I think you want to word that single action. |
I don't think so . . ..
Remember, TWF (Spinning Strikes or no) is a Combat Maneuver. You may not use a Combat Maneuver while under Recovery. Unbalancing Attack imposes Recovery of 4. If you are going to take the pedantic route and claim that you can take an unrelated action to while away the clock before you take your next attack, I can quote Henry's repeated position that the system was not designed for pedantic interpretation, it was designed for reasonable judge calls.
If you knock me off-balance and then ignore me, I can recover while you are doing whatever else it is that you choose to do.
You'll have a really, really hard time selling me on making this process a standard behavior. Now, if you're willing to drop a Fate Point to clear Recovery, well, then, you're invoking your right to break the rules in the first place . . ..
This rules set was NOT written to be implemented directly in software. That kind of pedantic interpretation assumes that statement is false. This rules set was written to help people cooperatively tell a story. That means abuses have to be agreed abuses . . ..
_________________
Valeriano Innocenzo Camillo de Larissa la Galletti
San Antonio, Tx-based Harvester
Jeff Huston
huston.harvester@cox.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deviknyte
Joined: 17 Jun 2009
Posts: 1400
Location: Allen Park, MI
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good point. One would be hard pressed to use Unbalancing Attack then Spinning Strikes as separate actions. But what about Brittle Bones. Also ranged Unbalancing Attack requires you to do another action in between.
Well aside from the 2 attacks being the same attack for next attack moments, it being ruled as the same action takes care of things like Reckless Swings + Spinning Strikes where one would negate the Avoidance penalty after one tick. Which I assume Pedro doesn't want either.
_________________
-Devin Redd, Detroit Harvester
"The Elorii shall rise again!"
Current- Vaerdos kyr'Taliis, Ardakene Elorii Chanter of the Rebirth and the Bright People
Retired- Elysian, Ardakene Elorii Hierophant of Belisarda
Last edited by Deviknyte on Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:44 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
southernskies
Joined: 12 Jun 2007
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hustonj wrote: | | StatMonkey wrote: |
you do combine it with TWF.. thus becoming an advanced technique...
BUT unlike the stranded way of created a advanced tech, you simply replace the speed of TWF with the speed of Spinning Strikes.
Pb |
Pedro? Spinning Strikes, based on your prior discussions, is not an Advanced Maneuver, and it does not combine with the TWF Talent.
What is missing in order to create clarity is the same kind of note embedded into the text as you added to, say Guarded Charge. <snip> |
Spinning Strikes (ta) needs a complete re-write, as the way it is written currently, it allows 3 attacks in two ticks when you make an advanced manoeuvre with TWF (ta).
_________________
CSE: Astra Tonsoria Ursula val'<Spoilers!> - val Martial Former Tribune of Balantica
LA: Barbara Duran Hiro - Human Pat5/Ftr4/Cent10
LA: Arianne Racine Sylvia - Human Ari1/Wiz16 (cohort) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deviknyte
Joined: 17 Jun 2009
Posts: 1400
Location: Allen Park, MI
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
@southernskies: EDITED I'm going to take back what I just wrote and say that if someone wanted to Spinning Strikes and TWF for an additional off-hand attack at and addition -2/-3 penalty I could go for that. 3 attacks at -4 is subpar.
And to counter someone quoting Pedro above, that was his "Evil Twin," who thought that Spinning Strikes could only be used if combined with TWF(ta), and never alone or with anything else.
_________________
-Devin Redd, Detroit Harvester
"The Elorii shall rise again!"
Current- Vaerdos kyr'Taliis, Ardakene Elorii Chanter of the Rebirth and the Bright People
Retired- Elysian, Ardakene Elorii Hierophant of Belisarda |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hustonj
Joined: 30 Jun 2010
Posts: 1081
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| southernskies wrote: | | hustonj wrote: | | StatMonkey wrote: |
you do combine it with TWF.. thus becoming an advanced technique...
BUT unlike the stranded way of created a advanced tech, you simply replace the speed of TWF with the speed of Spinning Strikes.
Pb |
Pedro? Spinning Strikes, based on your prior discussions, is not an Advanced Maneuver, and it does not combine with the TWF Talent.
What is missing in order to create clarity is the same kind of note embedded into the text as you added to, say Guarded Charge. <snip> |
Spinning Strikes (ta) needs a complete re-write, as the way it is written currently, it allows 3 attacks in two ticks when you make an advanced manoeuvre with TWF (ta). |
False.
The Special notation in the Spinning Strikes write-up is SUPPOSED to indicate that Spinning Strikes is a direct modification of the TWF Talent, much like Guarded Charge's Note entry clearly states that Guarded Charge is used as a replacement for the Basic Charge Maneuver. I agree that it could be clearer, but the intent is there.
Again, as per Henry, the rules system was written with the ASSUMPTION that we would apply some thought to intent and story-telling, not pedantic number-crunching. Spinning Strikes is a specialized modification of the TWF Talent. You can not build an Advanced Maneuver by combining a Maneuver with itself.
_________________
Valeriano Innocenzo Camillo de Larissa la Galletti
San Antonio, Tx-based Harvester
Jeff Huston
huston.harvester@cox.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deviknyte
Joined: 17 Jun 2009
Posts: 1400
Location: Allen Park, MI
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with hustonj on this one. You cannot combine multiple versions of the same Technique.
I guess that could be written somewhere to be more clear.
_________________
-Devin Redd, Detroit Harvester
"The Elorii shall rise again!"
Current- Vaerdos kyr'Taliis, Ardakene Elorii Chanter of the Rebirth and the Bright People
Retired- Elysian, Ardakene Elorii Hierophant of Belisarda |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StatMonkey
Moderator
Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 1319
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Looking at adding this to the current proposed errata...
<edited>
Spinning Strikes
| Quote: | Change Special to the following:
Special: This maneuver improves upon the Two-Weapon Fighting talent. Although this maneuver’s Speed replaces that of Two-Weapon Fighting, it does not negate the penalties to hit incurred by the two-weapon fighting talent.
|
What do you all think? and do you see any pitfalls with this?
_________________
Pedro C Barrenechea
Paradigm Concepts, Miami
And all you need to know about Arcanis
New player: "You know, I'm not really sure we *should* win. I'm not sure we made the right choice."
Veteran player: "Welcome to Arcanis!"
Last edited by StatMonkey on Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:36 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hustonj
Joined: 30 Jun 2010
Posts: 1081
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"talent. And"?
How about "talent. Although"?
Also, "this this"
Other than that, I like it!
_________________
Valeriano Innocenzo Camillo de Larissa la Galletti
San Antonio, Tx-based Harvester
Jeff Huston
huston.harvester@cox.net
Last edited by hustonj on Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:41 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hustonj
Joined: 30 Jun 2010
Posts: 1081
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There may also be a need to note in the FAQ that you can not build an Advanced Maneuver by combining a Base Maneuver with itself, or with another Base Maneuver which improves upon it (as stated in the Maneuver's description).
See above comments about a recursive TWF advanced maneuver, if you need a reminder of why I think this may be important.
_________________
Valeriano Innocenzo Camillo de Larissa la Galletti
San Antonio, Tx-based Harvester
Jeff Huston
huston.harvester@cox.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StatMonkey
Moderator
Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 1319
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll toss it into the errata today...
Also I'll add the combining maneuvers question to the FAQ
I think we are done here....
_________________
Pedro C Barrenechea
Paradigm Concepts, Miami
And all you need to know about Arcanis
New player: "You know, I'm not really sure we *should* win. I'm not sure we made the right choice."
Veteran player: "Welcome to Arcanis!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
