There's nothing wrong with that. Just Finishing Move cannot be combined with Riposte. You can still finishing move on your own turn after a successful attack.

Sorta, but then that makes riposte worthless. You attack, succeed and finishing move, borrowing your next action. He attacks you, you block, but can't riposte because you've already borrowed your next action.

You might as well just pick one or the other, cause they both don't work with your ruling.

They both work depending on the scenario.

I close with the opponent attack, then finishing move.
or
Opponent closes with me, I parry and Riposte.

It's options, as I create characters with melee, I'd prefer finishing move more than riposte, because then its all under my control vs under my opponents control.

It's worthless *when combined with Riposte*. It's not worthless *in general*. Personally, I think that it's no big deal that one wouldn't be able to combine Riposte and Finishing Move. Both maneuvers are still useful on their own. And one shouldn't forget that a maneuver's only 2 BP. Considering the cost, I think that it's ok if a couple of those don't turn you into Chuck Norris.

Hmm.. there's one I haven't heard or voiced before. 2 BP for a maneuver that could give a 1 IP person effectively more IP's than a 4 IP person. Can't believe I never thought of that. Thanks Triggerz, something fresh for this! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

(Honestly I can't believe this hasn't been brought up yet)

You misunderstand. I was calling the path stupid not because it's your path. I was calling it that because you agree with me that it's stupid. Let me show my work more clearly:

You think that infinite interrupts is stupid.

The reason it is stupid is that each time someone uses an intercept, their defense penalty resets itself, so it's actually very easy for a master riposter to kill 100 guys in one combat turn.

So you see, the only reason why infinite ripostes is stupid is that you've made the interpretation that defense penalties reset every time you intercept. That interpretation is stupid by your own admission, because without it, infinite ripostes is not stupid. Infinite ripostes is just fine if the person has a -20 after 20 people attack him. By the numbers, the most ripostes anyone could reasonably get before their dice pool becomes 0 is 20. By using this valid interpretation, you totally destroy any problem with ripostes being infinite. Yes they are theoretically infinite, but only if you have an infinite dice pool, which you can't have. Your own interpretation of defense resetting is not a stupid ruling, it just creates a result which you yourself agree is stupid. So instead of creating a new rule, why not fix your initial mistake? Make defense reset only when someone takes a non interrupt action, which is a valid interpretation, and you won't need to nerf interrupts.

Your way works. But two wrongs don't make a right. I think the entire problem stems from your bad interpretation of defense modifiers resetting. The solution is not to make another bad ruling and limit how far ahead you can borrow actions. The solution is to fix the original bad ruling. I don't think your ultimate solution will destroy your game. I don't think it's horrible. It will probably work. But it seems like an arbitrary limit you're placing on martial artists. The only reason you need to make this limit is that your defense resetting ruling makes them way too powerful in the first place. If you fix that, the problem ends right where it began. By refusing to do so, you're doing what people on Dumpshock always do: choosing a ruling that they don't like, insisting that it's the only possible ruling, and then making a fit about how bad the rules are. Instead of doing that, choose an interpretation that leads to a result you don't hate. The system isn't broken, you're just reading it to be that way. It's all on you.

The pleasure's all mine. And long live the Chuck! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Chuck Norris doesn't have to interrupt, you'll just wait for it.

I think I get why I prefer my way of handling this...
You limit the amount of interrupt actions, which limits choice...
I don't limit anything, I just clarify which actions count for defense DP refeshes...
It is also obvious by your examples you haven't used the rules as I use them, our adept has 3 IPs and he thinks long and hard about borrowing too many actions, as overextending yourself is a death sentence...
So while they are, as I have stated and showed before, theoretically unlimited, they are in practice limited and can be very dangerous if overused, that alone balances out...
You also say it makes a 1 IP guy as good as a 4 IP guy, which, again, is just not true, if you get 4 actions in a round, you don't have to agonize over borrowing 3 actions, if you have only 1...

I think this one is invalid from a rules standpoint. The rules are unrealistic. Pointing that out does not make them any less the rules. It might be a reason to house rule, but it's never a justification for claiming that the RAW isn't actually the rules.

*sigh* Your rules aren't RAW either, just interpretations of the rules. And basically all you are saying is the rules are unrealistic why should it matter. Thats why we have rules so we have a system of physics that provide realism to our world, otherwise we can sit around throw dice and just tell interesting stories. Your answer is I know the way I read the rules is broken, but why should it matter I like things broken and unrealistic.

(Why do I do this to myself, why can't I just ignore them...)

I'm glad you brought this up, Larme. As the accumulating defense penalty does put an effective cap on the usefulness of infinite interrupts. That piece of it actually regulates itself, which is a good thing. That was the first thing I brought up in another thread (several weeks ago).

I suppose the real issue I have had is the limit on borrowing time. Even though this is abstract, I still have trouble wrapping my mind around the 1IP guy able to borrow as many actions as the 4IP guy, and thus leveling the playing field in reactive combat. I mean, the 1IP guy is borrowing 3 seconds ahead each time he decides to interrupt. That is proving hard for me to grasp in the spirit of RAW. It just makes the most sense, to me, that if RAW caps a combat turn at 3 seconds and 4 IPs (i.e. 4 complex or 8 simple action, plus 4 free actions), that everything else should fall into that same cap.

Otherwise, you have a 1IP guy able to perform, let's say 5 complex actions in a turn (I'll keep it reasonable), which would normally require 15 seconds to complete. A 4IP guy performing 5 complex actions would be completed normally in less than 6 seconds. Doesn't anyone see a major disconnect there?

Half of the attractiveness for riposte comes from combining it with finishing move. As Nightwalker voiced, under your ruling, no one in their right mind would choose riposte, because you're better off with finishing move when you control the terms.

Riposte has more flavor, then Finishing move. Thats about the only thing otherwise they are basically the same thing. Its more stylish to counter and attack then just to hit twice. The problem is riposte requires my opponent to be meleeing as well, which in a game with guns.. Those people are few and far between. If I could riposte a firearm that was close enough, then this would be more fun.

And to deek, I see the disconnect (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Larme, I explicitly said that it was just a house rule I wanted to use. I never claimed the RAW aren't the RAW. I'm just saying: I think it makes sense to limit borrowed actions to one. First, it reduces the amount of weird situations that could happen when someone borrows many actions. Secondly, I think it makes maneuvers useful without making them overpowered. Thirdly, and this is sort of linked to my first point, I think it makes stuff easy to manage. Now that is only the way *I* personally choose to handle it. I explained my reasons and tried to show that it worked pretty well, but if other people prefer to handle interrupts some other way, I'm perfectly fine with that too.

I prefer Finishing Move too, as I like to be proactive in fights. But Riposte and Finishing Move have different applications. For one thing, you can only use Finishing Move on someone you have already attacked successfully. So your two actions have to be against the same opponent. With Riposte, you can first attack normally and take down a first opponent, parry the attack of a second opponent, then borrow an action to take down that second opponent. With Riposte, you use two actions too, but you can potentially take down two opponents instead of one, so it's not like Riposte has no use. As I said, I prefer Finishing Move, but Riposte is nice to have *even when you already have Finishing Move*. More options available, and that's always a good thing.

Triggerz... the only way to borrow many actions is by riposting incoming melee attacks. Finishing move requires you to have already attacked (and thus require you to have an action, or be riposting) and full defense lasts until your next action, so it only allows you to borrow at most 1 action at a time. (Since you can't go on full defense if you're already on full defense).

Riposte is limited by skill and ability to successfully block. Its also limited by how many idiots are willing to run into your meatgrinder.

Sure, but you could attack one, not drop him, borrow and finishing move. Get attacked, borrow for full defense, borrow for riposte, and borrow for finishing move, and drop two stronger opponents (ones that would take 2 attacks to drop (not that uncommon)) by having both of them and synergizing it.

Yes, it is. I still think it's worth the 2 BP if you have them.

[EDIT: Sorry. Browser messed up.]

So... With 1 IP, plus 4 BP to buy Finishing Move and Riposte, you could act 5 times in a single Combat Turn? I'm not saying the rules don't allow it. The way I read the rules, there isn't any limit on the number of actions you can borrow. I'm just saying that I think the maneuvers are still cool and useful even if you are limited to 1 borrowed action, and that limiting borrowed actions in that way makes things more reasonable from my perspective. Anyways, your game, your rules. But I'll limit borrowing to a single action in my games.

You said, "First, it reduces the amount of weird situations that could happen when someone borrows many actions. Secondly, I think it makes maneuvers useful without making them overpowered."

My point was that the only way someone can borrow many actions is by using riposte. And that in itself is already limited by 2 different things. (Dice Pool and Idiots Willing). I don't think there is need for further limitation. That is all. The way you said it gave me the impression that you think many actions being borrowed is a common or unbalancing occurrence.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif) SEMANITCS I HATE THEM! But I will indulge in them anyway. An interpretation of the rules is RAW. It's taking the rules as written, and asking "what do these rules mean?" You can't read hardly anything as written without making a judgment call on what it means. Interpretation is nothing more than attempting to understand the RAW. It does not change the RAW.

I don't agree that the purpose of the RAW is to create realism. It is to create a game which functions in a fun and pleasing way. For some people, that means it moves along at a nice pace with a streamlined system and doesn't get tied up in knots about how realistic it is. And I think that's the direction that the SR4 rules generally take. For some people, it's not fun if it's unrealistic, so they can modify the RAW. But realism is neither here nor there when interpreting the RAW. You can't say "this interpretation is realistic, therefore correct." That's non sequitur. Realism is not a rule, it's just a preference. What you're saying is "I like this interpretation more because it's more realistic." But it is logically invalid to say that it's the correct interpretation based on realism alone.

But now I'm confused. You say you like things to be broken and realistic? So riposting against 5 guys without taking any penalty is realistic? Because that's what your interpretation does. Your interpretation isn't broken, because you limit the number of interrupts. But neither is it realistic. To be frank, I think you've made up your mind, and you're stubborn, and you're not going to be swayed by any logical argument to the contrary. You don't really want to find the best solution, you just want to be right. My advice to you is this: being right doesn't matter. Play your way, but don't argue for the sake of argument. "I disagree, thanks for the conversation" is a perfectly honorable way to end a debate. You shouldn't feel forced to defend your views after you've already made up your mind irrevocably.



Well, in that case, you're right! Your way to play is your way. I don't have any say over it, it doesn't effect me, and I don't care (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I just wanted to throw in my 2 yen to say that, in my opinion, realism is the wrong target to shoot for.

Well, in the example you gave above, a guy with one IP would drop the two guys in the first Combat Turn and then pretty much just stand there for the next 4 Combat Turns. The rules allow it, but I just think it's kinda weird and not worth the trouble. Simple is beautiful.

I don't mean to be annoying for the sake of it, but I want to point out that, no, RAW and an interpretation of RAW are *not* the same thing. If A = B and A = C, then B = C. However, if B does not equal C, then it must be that A does not equal B, that A does not equal C, or both.

In all fairness, the 1IP guy won't just stand there. He still has movement and still has a handful of Free Actions at his disposal. The real issue is why the heck can't he open the door down the hall? I mean, he can move around, even run. He can talk. Remove a clip using smartlink, etc. But he can't open a door for the next 12 seconds...

And you are always going to be faced with this oddness once you start borrowing from future combat turns. Even though IPs and other stuff inside a combat turn is abstract, once you move into the next turn, there is the reality of another 3 seconds to transpire. There's no way around that unless you decide to hand wave it.

And again, the easiest way to demonstrate this (sorry for reiterating this example) is by comparing the 1IP guy and the 4IP guy. The 4IP guy, in one combat turn, can attack first and then interrupt 3 times without going outside his combat turn. The 1IP guy, according to the majority interpretation, can do the same, but he is borrowing 9 seconds in the future to get those 3 interrupts. Which means, if that 1IP guy drops the 3 mooks in the first combat turn, i.e. 3 seconds, then we are stuck with a player that can move, talk and use free actions, but is incapable of opening a door or reloading his pistol for 9 seconds...