Nerve Strike Wording Query Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Outline Switch to: Standard Switch to: Linear+

[Umidori]

This power allows an adept to inflict a paralyzing attack, temporarily crippling an opponent, by targeting vital nerve clusters. The adept declares he is using the power and makes a normal unarmed melee attack. Instead of inflicting damage, each net hit reduces his opponent's Agility or Reaction (attacker's choice) by 1. Etc.

So the typical way this is read, and the way it's been read forever as far as I can tell, is that "Instead of inflicting damage" is assumed to be referring back to the use of the power, or the normal unarmed melee attack in the previous sentence. But linguistically speaking, it could also be referring to, and modifying, "each net hit".

In other words, it could be read "Each net hit, instead of inflicting damage, reduces his opponent's Agility or Reaction (attacker's choice) by 1." This makes sense, as net hits on a normal unarmed melee attack normally inflict damage. The implication or the new reading would be that instead of increasing the base damage value of the attack, each net hit instead reduces the opponent's Agility or Reaction.

This new reading changes Nerve Strike from an overpriced, never used, fluff-centric novelty into a legitimate and viable side-grade for unarmed adepts. Being able to inflict the intended paralysis effect, while still being able to deliver one's unmodified base unarmed combat damage, is an interestingm and in my opinion quite balanced, tactical option to possess.

Nowhere in the wording of the power does it ever state that the attack itself deals no damage. This is in direct contrast to numerous other similar rulings, such as Subduing attacks ("This subduing attack causes no damage to the defender"), the operation of the Ares S-III Super Squirt ("The attack itself causes no damage, but..."), the Disarm martial arts maneuver ("This maneuver does no damage to the opponent"), the Herding martial arts maneuver ("On a successful attack, the character deals no damage to her opponent, but..."), et cetera.

Furthermore, comparison to prior edition rules and their wordings shows that Nerve Strike has long been ambiguously worded and structured. In 3E, "Rather than inflicting damage, every 2 net successes reduce the target’s Quickness by 1." And the same structure again in 2E, "Instead of inflicting damage, however, every two net successes on the adept's Unarmed Combat Test reduce the target's Quickness rating by one."

Please spare any "that's absurd, you're just munchkinning / power-gaming / rules lawyering, etc" comments. Looking for legitimate critique on this, particularly looking for people who might have solid insights into the original intention of the author of this power, links to pertinent threads I've been unable to find via searching the forums, links to FAQs or dev commentaries or Q&A sessions, that sort of thing.

Personally I'd like to see if this pans out. Nerve Strike is a cool concept that unfortunately isn't worth using based on its current interpretation, and hasn't been for a long time. I think the implications of the new reading make it much more attractive, while still being reasonable and requiring an appropriate trade off.

~Umi