Multiple Interrupt actions.... Options

[Fortune]

I'm thinking it's called a 'Finishing Move' because you finish your Action with it. I don't really see getting 7 or 9 separate Finishing Moves in one Action.

[ArkonC]

Yes, Fortune, this is the logical way of ruling it, but nothing in the RAW states it is that way, it just says that if you hit, you can make another attach designed to finish off your opponent, it doesn't say anything about it being the last possible attack, and by RAW, finish move is an attack so it itself qualifies for finish move, so you could, per RAW keep going...
I agree this is silly and not the way it is supposed to work...
But, the defense penalty of -1 per defense roll doesn't limit interrupt actions per se, it limits defense action, which indirectly limits interrupt actions...
Nothing limits how mane interrupt actions you can "borrow"...
That was my point...
However shoddy I tried to make it... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Fortune]

I understood your point. I just don't see the problem with making a ruling that states only one Maneuver of each type is usable per Action Phase. This doesn't even affect Full Defense, as that is an ongoing action, and cannot be declared multiple times in one Phase (although it can be used more than once, it is still the same defensive action).

Also keep in mind that all Maneuvers must be declared before any dice are rolled for the test.

[ArkonC]

I understood your point. I just don't see the problem with making a ruling that states only one Maneuver of each type is usable per Action Phase. This doesn't even affect Full Defense, as that is an ongoing action, and cannot be declared multiple times in one Phase (although it can be used more than once, it is still the same defensive action).

Also keep in mind that all Maneuvers must be declared before any dice are rolled for the test.

You mean you have to say you'll use a finish move before you even hit him the first time?

[Fortune]

MANEUVERS
Maneuvers are specialized movements and combat techniques used by martial artists to enhance their effectiveness. The use of a maneuver must be declared prior to any dice rolls. Unless otherwise noted, maneuvers may be used with other combat options in the same Action Phase. Gamemasters are encouraged to modify these maneuvers as they see fit or to create their own.

[BlackHat]

You could always declare the use of one hundred finishing moves, and find out how many times you hit, later. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[GryMor]

Uhm, as far as I could tell, deep borrowing is the POINT of these maneuvers. The give you some severely restricted 'extra' ips now at the cost of virtual paralysis later (although I guess you could still move, yes?). Sure, if people keep swarming Blind Master, he'll keep dropping them, but after the second or third guy goes down, you don't suppose number 3 or 4 are going to back off, pull a gun and shoot him down? All of the interrupts are limited and with the possible exception of Finishing Move, don't self chain.

Now to see if I can viably work this into the secular Qabbalistic Mystic Adept, Krav Maga master I'm working on as a backup...

[Abbandon]

Fortune thats a great quote but still. Look at my very first post with Bob and him only having 1 IP.

Turn 1:
Bob bitch slaps the troll and declares he will use a finishing move, he hits and makes his second attack (2, ip's) his turn is over.
Troll Bouncer trys to grab Bob by the balls and Bob declares full defense (3 ip's.) Troll's turn is over..
Turn 2:
Bob is full defending still.....(is that even possable? lol)(2 ip's of rest left)
Troll Bouncer attacks..Bob declares riposte?? Blocks Troll's attack and counter attacks (1ip for riposte and 1 for attack = 4 ip's of rest to go)
Turn 3:
Bob is .....resting? (3 ip's to go !!)
Troll attacks and Bob declares riposte... etc etc....

[Fortune]

Riposte
A character with Riposte who successfully parries or blocks a melee combat attack may make an immediate attack on her attacker, even if it is not her Action Phase in the turn. Making a riposte is considered an interrupt action, however, and uses up the character’s next available action.

Parrying and Blocking are specific defensive Actions, totally seperate from Full Defense. A character using Full Defense can not use Riposte.

[ArkonC]

Wouldn't Full Parry count as a parry?

[Blade]

What I like with those infinite interrupt action things is imagining the guy spending the rest of his day unable to do anything because he had to use a lot of interrupt action.

"What's up with Bob? He's been standing there all day!"
"He fought some people there."
"Oh, I see."

[samuelbeckett]

I still say that Riposte can be used during a Full Parry - the combat chapter of the BBB seems to imply that Parry, Block and Dodge are not 'actions' as per the Free, Simple or Complex definitions (the fact that you can do them as many times are you like in a turn supports this). So they are merely combat options as part of Melee Combat, which in turn are enhanced by the Full Defense action. And Arsenal states that manuevers can be used with any other combat options unless specified directly.

Given that the max an extremely optimised character could do with this shtick is go all 'Burly Brawl' on a group of people who are actively trying to beat on him in Melee Combat (remember, this is a purely defensive stunt, if no-one attacks you in melee it is rendered useless), and that the way around that is for one of the enemy to just step back a few feet and fill the melee expert full of your choice of ammo, I don't think it is a game breaker.

Maybe Steven Seagal was a consultant for the devs...this stunt is so out of his movies it is untrue.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Parrying and Blocking are specific defensive Actions, totally seperate from Full Defense. A character using Full Defense can not use Riposte.

Wrong. Melee Defense is not an Action by default. And a Full Parry that succeeds still satifies the Riposte rule.

[Fortune]

The whole point of Full Defense is that the character is spending his entire Action (or the next available one) fully defending himself. I am under the impression that, other than movement, no non-defensive Actions may be taken while utilizing the Full Defense option.

To me that seems to tie things all together quite well, and alleviates much of the endless loop problems that may crop up with Riposte. If you choose to play things in a different manner though, that's cool.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

I am under the impression that, other than movement, no non-defensive Actions may be taken while utilizing the Full Defense option.

While that may be your impression, the RAW does not state so... and, in fact the Disarm Maneuver depends on taking an 'action' while on Full Defense - even causing Damage when using the Arnis de Mano advantage.

Also note that while RAW does not exclude looping, it is not intended operation.
So the longest combination of Interrupt Actions would be Full Defense - Riposte - Finishing Move. That is, three actions spend.

[samuelbeckett]

While that may be your impression, the RAW does not state so... and, in fact the Disarm Maneuver depends on taking an 'action' while on Full Defense - even causing Damage when using the Arnis de Mano advantage.

Also note that while RAW does not exclude looping, it is not intended operation.
So the longest combination of Interrupt Actions would be Full Defense - Riposte - Finishing Move. That is, three actions spend.

Agreed that Finishing Move is not intended to be looped, and that is certainly how I would rule it.

However, whilst the longest combination of Interrupt Actions would be 3, these are in reponse to a trigger (Melee Attack by an opponent) which could potentially happen several times in a single turn. Admittedly, the likelihood of a scenario where extensive numbers of melee combatants are attacking a single PC is slim, but the potential exists for someone to 'borrow' their next 30 odd actions in a single turn, resulting in them performing crazy dance moves for 1 pass (for the complex action they stole for Full Defense) and then standing warily for another 29 passes (during which time they could continue to interrupt for Full Defense actions if they were attacked). That is between 21 and 90 seconds of 'inaction', which as I said could be represented as exhaustion from the physical effort.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

It still breaks the concept of Combat Turns completly. So my ruling would be that such Interrupt Actions can only be invoked once per Pass available to the characters.

[Fuchs]

It still breaks the concept of Combat Turns completly. So my ruling would be that such Interrupt Actions can only be invoked once per Pass available to the characters.

That makes sense.

[Prime Mover]

I've read and reread involved sections and I can't help but come to the same conclusions. Giving up your next IP is just that your next, not your next 5. Gotta go with Fortunes choice with finishing move, I'd say it's just that a finisher not a free extra actions ability.

[BlackHat]

Except that nowhere does it say that you give up your "next IP" - or even your "next action".
It says that whatever maneuver uses up "your next available action".
That has always been the problem, if they said it used up your next IP there wouldn't be anything to get confused about. Similarly, if they had defined anywhere what "next available" meant.

Instead, I agree that your next IP is normally your next available action - but the moment you use a maneuver that uses it up, it becomes, by definition "unavailable"... so the following IP is the "next available" one.

I still think that that is probably the correct interpretation... but since the rules aren't clear or definite, players will come to the game with different expectations - ESPECIALLY on PBP games like the ones on this board, where every GM potentially reads the rules a little differently. I think Abbandon would do well to take that approach in his game, but I wanted to warn him to discuss it with the player in question ahead of time.

[Slymoon]

I only have the SR4 BBB for reference so I can't discuss the actual wording of finishing moves. However, purely based on a mechanics standpoint, I have to agree with Fortune as well.

I also have run scenarios that did have 50+ melee only opponents vs 2 melee characters. Based on astral quests or the like where the opponents did not have the brains or weapons to do anything but melee until they all were dead.

This was SR3, and combat pool dwindled so the characters actually did have to soak some hits here and there.
Based on some of the previous comments in this thread that would have never been the case. Being able to burn enough IPs to cover 25+ attackers each.


I can't comment on Rotbart and Fuches latest comments though. As I dont have information on Ripsote or Finish moves. Multiple interrupts, even as few as 3 seems a bit much imo.

[samuelbeckett]

It still breaks the concept of Combat Turns completly. So my ruling would be that such Interrupt Actions can only be invoked once per Pass available to the characters.

So in practical terms using your ruling, and assuming an adept with 2 IP, the sequence of events would be:

Adept loses initiative and interrupts to perform a Full Defense (or gains initiative and declares a Full Defense), thus using IP number one.
Adept is attacked, successfully parries, performs Riposte (thus using IP number two) and then can't perform Finishing Move (as that would be IP number 3 and the Adept hasn't got that many)

Does that make sense?

Or are you saying that he can Riposte and use Finishing Move as they are separate interrupt actions, he just can't use them several times per turn? That could still lead to him spending at least 1 turn inactive as he has 'borrowed' IP from his next combat turn.

I'd rather live with the potential of multi combos than penalise low IP characters from using manuevers.

[Fuchs]

I think it's "you can't use the same interrupt action more than once per pass".

[BlackHat]

That interpretation does give me an idea.

I havn't thought about this for more than 30 seconds, but it seems viable:

Use Fuchs idea, and let characters take (interrupt) maneuvers more than once. If someone wanted to make a character from some Capcom fighter game, who could pull off a three or four hit combo (and then had to stare blankly during IP 2 and 3) just ask him to take the maneuver additional times for each successive use of it he would like to be able to get in a round.

[Prime Mover]

There was a question about what was the definition of "next available action". Think it actually defines it by saying the next action in this combat turn or first action in the next which ever would be your following action. It states "next available" due to fact your next action could be in another combat turn.